this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
48 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

3582 readers
60 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
48
Why Super for Housing is a Bad Idea - Purplepingers (youtu.be)
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

NOTE: Video sponsored by the ACTU

Key points

  • It would make house prices increase by more than the maximum amount people could withdraw
  • It would cost the government $1 trillion in the long run
  • It would leave people with $200k less in retirement savings
  • It would significantly affect the returns on all superannuation as funds would need to keep more cash reserves uninvested so it is available for withdrawal
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Having multiple is fine, just remove negative gearing and investment incentives along with actually enforced building standards

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (4 children)

People will just go back to what they did before negative gearing: Make businesses and move their properties into that. "Oh, your business made a loss paying more interest than it brought in as rent, I guess you can write that off as a loss and not pay tax on your income".

The result is the same, but it's more work for the ATO.
My old boss still had his holiday home under the business, because it's how he did it before Negative Gearing was a thing.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

Make it so that interest on money borrowed against residential real estate can't be declared as a business loss then. That'll also make speculating housing investment funds a bad idea

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

If that were the case we wouldn't have aeen a sharp uptick in investment at the same time NG was introduced.

You're always gonna have people finding ways around things, the point is to make it hard enough your average schmoe bails on the attempt

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Same thing would probably happen with property limits then

[–] macrocephalic 1 points 5 months ago

You can't do that with a business though - and that's why negative gearing on investments is so strange. If you have a day job, and a side business, you can't claim losses in the side business against your main employment income. But if you have a day job and own an investment property then you can claim the "losses" on the property against your income (and then get a 50% tax reduction on the capital gains when you sell it).