Please fill out the details below to receive information on Blue Wealth Events
"*" indicates required fields
The debate surrounding negative gearing is an enduring one, often dominated by hyperbole that borders on fear mongering. More recently, the debate has turned to the possibility of abolishing (at least to some degree) the tax incentive.
In a nutshell, negative gearing occurs when you borrow to invest in an income producing asset and the cost of borrowing exceeds the returns (income) from that asset. The amount by which costs exceed income can be used as a deduction on your taxable income.
Sounds simple enough, right, so why all the debate?
In 1985 the Hawke/Keating government quarantined negative gearing interest expenses (on new transactions), so interest could only be claimed against rental income, not other income. Any excess could be carried forward and used in subsequent years. What followed was a significant increase in rents to a peak in June 1987. The argument is that the existing rules were an effective rental subsidy that pushed rental growth down below the rate of inflation (negative gearing incentivised investor activity increases the supply of residential accommodation, subsequently dampening rental growth). Research has consistently shown that there is a heavy concentration of investor-owned dwellings in the inner- and middle-ring suburbs of our largest capital cities ; remove a portion of the rental stock in these locations and some increases in rents would be certain.
Here are a few reasons why negative gearing is likely to remain intact: