News location:

Monday, December 23, 2024 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

No negative gearing reform on cards for election: PM

Anthony Albanese repeatedly said there are “no plans” to touch the negative gearing tax concession. (Bianca De Marchi/AAP PHOTOS)

By Andrew Brown and Dominic Giannini in Canberra

Changes to negative gearing won’t be taken to the next election, the prime minister insists, despite suggestions the government was examining altering the tax concession.

While Treasury was reportedly carrying out modelling of the policy change, Anthony Albanese said any tinkering with the measure would likely harm housing supply.

“What we’re doing is planning for our Homes for Australia policy. That’s the policy that we have, and that’s what my government has focused on,” he told ABC TV on Thursday.

“If you didn’t have investment in housing, you wouldn’t have private rentals, you would have less supply and less construction is the concern which is there.”

Negative gearing allows for investors to claim a loss on a property they own in order to reduce their overall tax bill.

Labor took a policy to the 2019 election that would have limited negative gearing to existing properties.

Mr Albanese said Treasury looking at the impact of changes to negative gearing was not out of the ordinary.

“Treasury don’t need to be directed, they’re not school children with teachers up the front of the class telling them what to do,” he said.

“There’s nothing unusual about that. There’s nothing special about it, and I frankly can’t see why it’s an issue at all.”

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton lambasted the suggestion negative gearing could be altered.

“The prime minister keeps changing his story about whether the government is adopting the Greens policy to abolish negative gearing or to cap it,” he told reporters in Perth.

“We will take a very strong stance against any changes to negative gearing, because it will disrupt the housing market, it will drive up rents, and it’s not in our nation’s best interest.”

Mr Dutton said the coalition would not be making any changes to negative or capital gains taxes going into the next election.

Former Liberal treasurer Joe Hockey also used an appearance at the National Press Club to weigh in on the speculation.

He said any changes to negative gearing could go on to affect the rental market.

“If you’re going to tinker with negative gearing, don’t look first at the housing stock, look at the impact on rents, because landlords who are struggling to pay the interest on a loan against a property will increase the rents,” he said.

“We’re running short on workers. We’ve got big inflation in building. You’ve got massive red tape, green tape, why would you build in Australia? So you’ve got to have the tax system help you along that way.”

The Greens had urged the government to alter negative gearing in exchange for getting Labor’s housing measures through parliament, where they have been stalled in the Senate.

The housing plan would allow for first home buyers to have a lower deposit to purchase a property.

Negative gearing drives rental prices up by favouring wealthy landlords, which also increases the cost of housing and locks first homebuyers out of the market, Greens housing spokesman Max Chandler-Mather said.

Who can be trusted?

In a world of spin and confusion, there’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Australian Associated Press

Australian Associated Press

Share this

2 Responses to No negative gearing reform on cards for election: PM

cbrapsycho says: 26 September 2024 at 9:54 am

Really? A storm in a teacup, but the coalition is capitalising on it. Usually smart people and organisations do research before deciding on their plans, not the other way around. It also makes sense to consider all alternatives, both to be aware of options and also to be able to respond to suggestions and arguments for different approaches.

It would be really stupid to put a plan of any kind in place before doing the research on a wide range of options and the evidence for each, although this is clearly Dutton’s approach.

Reply
David says: 26 September 2024 at 10:42 am

Angus Taylor is missing a fundamental point. Everybody doesn’t need a share portfolio but they need somewhere to live. Someone else buying all the shares doesn’t affect me because I’m not wasting any money. But if they buy all the property and I need to rent from them then I am throwing money away every month that I have nothing to show for when I retire. That is the issue.

Investors should not be allowed to leave average Australians with nothing when they retire because investors wanted to make money out of them.

We should rephrase how we are approaching this along the lines of “there are people in our community who think it is fine to make money out of people’s basic needs and leave those people with nothing to show at the end of their working lives. This is being achieved via property investment. It is particularly effective at the moment because not only does current housing cost too much but new houses also cost too much, irrespective of how long it takes to build them. Priority needs to be given to getting the existing housing stock owned by owner occupiers over investors”.

Making money out of people’s basic needs have to be stopped and the government needs to work out how to do this. Stopping negative gearing only works so far as it doesn’t affect investors who don’t rely on it. Same with changing CGT, why would you sell your investment property if you’re making money out of rent and getting access to tax payer funds through rental assistance?

Solve the problem directly. Directly tax people owning investment properties at a rate where they cannot compete with potential owner occupiers. Don’t hand first home buyers incentives, this just makes things more expensive. Tax those feeding of peoples basic needs.

We don’t need people to invest in property at the moment, there are more than enough people wanting somewhere to live to drive housing. If your argument is we need property investors to drive housing supply then you are admitting that housing costs too much and using property investor money is just making the situation worse. It is a disgusting inhumane approach.

Mum and Dad investors can invest in other things that don’t drive struggling families through hell.

We are in a housing crisis and there is absolute no excuse for forcing an average income earner to rent from a property investor when they want to be buying a house instead.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews