Perhaps the biggest misconception is that negative gearing is a tax that benefits the wealthy, when in fact the vast majority of investors are mum and dad types who are using property to help secure their futures.
Arguments against negative gearing also routinely fail to factor in that negative gearing is a legitimate deduction of expenses earnt on investments.
Last month, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute reignited the negative gearing debate by releasing a report that proposed restricting negative gearing depending on investor income levels. The report suggests this could save the Federal Government $1.7 billion.
The reform model proposes;
There are a number of issues we see with this proposal. For starters, the report fails to consider the impact this kind of change would have on the rental market. History shows that when changes are made to negative gearing, tenants suffer as rents inevitably rise as supply shrinks.
REIWA maintains its position that removing negative gearing, or only applying it to certain criteria (such as weighting it depending on investor income levels) is risky. The WA property market is just starting to show signs of a recovery, and any meddling with negative gearing poses a genuine threat to the recent improvements we’ve observed.
Negative gearing has far reaching benefits, such as promoting investment in rental properties and increasing the supply of new housing, which is essential to accommodating a growing population. The private rental market also provides the majority of rental accommodation for the public, helping to keep housing affordable and less government dependent.
In 2016, REIWA carried out a survey on negative gearing with 61 per cent of respondents stating they would have a different view on property investment if negative gearing was restricted. Any policy reform that targets affluent/wealthy investors would simply disincentivise them from investing in property and subsequently encourage investment in other unaffected asset classes.
Taxes need to be structured in a way that are efficient, effective and of course, equitable. Applying reform to just one component of a broader system will only add further complexity to the tax system and put greater pressure on housing supply.
For more information about REIWA’s position on negative gearing, visit the Advocacy page.
Author: REIWA President Hayden Groves