07 5440 5794
SCHEDULE A CALL
wetalkmoney
  • Home
  • Approach
  • Services
  • About
  • News & Insights
  • Contact
  • Home
  • Approach
  • Services
  • About
  • News & Insights
  • Contact

2/11/2018

6 Comments

Community benefits of negative gearing

 
If we acted logically, would we ever eat food that’s not good for us? No. Would we ever skip our exercise?  No. Would we drink and drive? No. None of these are logical, but it still doesn't stop us.  

​Emotion gets involved.
As for the current debate attacking incentives to invest, well that is not logical either. Emotion has gotten involved.  Take negative gearing for example.  It's hardly a loophole for the wealthy, about three quarters of those who benefit earn less than $80,000 per annum. Also, we seem so consumed by our sense of current entitlement, we have forgotten the long-term benefits to government revenue by providing an incentive to invest.

Consider this scenario.

Bill and Mary are 50 years old. They earn $80,000 a year each and have just paid off their house. They know there’s unlikely to be much of a pension during their retirement.  They think sharemarket investing is gambling.  They don’t trust super because the rules always change.  That leaves property.

They bite the bullet and borrow $450,000 at 5%, secured by a mortgage over their existing home, to buy a property for $450,000. Repayments of $3560 a month will have the property paid off in 15 years when they want to retire. In Year One, the net income from the property will be $18,000, and the interest for the first year on their loan will be $22,500. Hence they are negatively geared to the tune of $4,500 and should qualify for a tax refund of around $1,250 each when depreciation allowances are taken into account. The total cost to the taxpayer is just $2,500 – hardly the stuff of grand tax schemes.

Now fast forward to Year Five, when their net rents are likely to have increased to $21,000, while their loan is down to $339,000. Their interest deduction for the year is just $16,950. They are now positively geared – no more tax refunds, they now get tax bills.

By the time Bill and Mary get to 65, the debt should be paid off and the property could be worth $670,000, assuming capital growth of 4% per annum. It would be producing rents of $24,000 per annum assuming annual increases of 3%.

End result:
  • Tax paid from the last 10 years of ownership will far outweigh the tax refunds from the first 5 years.
  • If they sell the property, half of the net capital growth of the property has to be declared as income. 
  • The property will reduce the amount of pension Bill and Mary will receive. With their super, they’d probably not qualify at all (the age pension for a couple is a bit over $30,000 per annum).
So, for the initial cost of about $10,000 of refunds, the benefits to the Australian taxpayer are many, many times that in additional tax and reduced pensions.

There are other sides to the argument, like inflated house prices.  I’d love to hear people’s point of view.
Disclaimer
This article and opinion is based on generally available information and is not intended to provide you with specific financial advice or take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. You should consider obtaining financial, tax or accounting advice on whether this information is suitable for your circumstances. To the extent permitted by law, no liability is accepted for any loss or damage as a result of any reliance on this information. See full Terms and Conditions here.

6 Comments
BT
1/8/2015 10:57:00 am

Hi Tony, great post. Is that example real? i thought that we were just giving people money to make them richer, didn't realise other side about pensions and tax and stuff back to the taxpayer. can someone fill me on other reasons its about the other side of the story?

Reply
Tony
4/8/2015 06:43:29 am

Yes, the numbers are real, give or take a dollar or 2. When you are making projections, you can choose assumptions that will validate whatever you believe. Any reasonable analysis though shows that the long-term benefits of negative gearing to government cashflows far outweigh its short-term cost.

Reply
Tony
4/8/2015 07:01:48 am

Sorry BT, missed the end of your question. A major point against negative gearing is that because there is a tax incentive to buy property, the sheer number of investors in the market push the price of property up. This makes it hard for first-home owners then to break in to the market.

AD via LI
25/2/2016 01:44:52 pm

Hi Tony, in my view, I don't believe removing negative gearing would have that much of an effect on house prices given that approximately 65-70% of all property purchases are owner occupied. The main drivers are supply and demand and interest rates.

Reply
Michael
2/11/2018 02:34:02 pm

Tony, I wonder how many people will invest in property anyway. If 9 out of 10 invest anyway, there is a big short-term gain with little change to long-term revenue

Reply
Tony (Author)
2/11/2018 04:57:06 pm

Excellent point Michael. There is no doubt that tax is a big motivator. I mean, who doesn’t want to reduce their tax? My guess is that it would stop a lot of people moving in to property investment, especially when you can invest in shares and be able to negatively gear (but that’s only a guess). I think a better solution is to limit the amount of deductions to say one property or a fixed amount.. This enables investors to get a leg up but doesn’t allow others to abuse the system. I’d love to hear other people’s thoughts on this.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Get Our Updates

    Author

    FPA Awards - Tony Sandercock CFP - Certified Financial Planner of the Year 2016
    Picture
    The Huffington Post
    The Sydney Morning Herald
    The Age
    Picture
    Money and Life Magazine
    Brisbane Times
    PS News
    Starts at 60
    Seniors Newspaper

    Categories

    All
    Advice
    Behaviours
    Cashflow
    Debt
    Fun
    Insurance
    Investment
    Motivation & Opportunity
    Planning
    Retirement
    Saving
    Strategy
    Tax
    Wills And Estates


    RSS Feed

wetalkmoney logo
Contact Us
Get Updates

wetalkmoney © 2020 - Terms and Conditions  - General Advice Warning - Financial Services Guide - Privacy​

Anthony Sandercock (AR 287974) and TTLB Investments Pty Ltd T/A wetalkmoney (CAR 467267) are authorised representatives of
Boston Reed Pty Ltd AFSL 225738 ABN 89 091 004 885