Property, Real Estate Groups Slam Negative Gearing ‘Myths’ 3

Wednesday, July 15th, 2015
liked this article
FavoriteLoadingsave article

Real estate and property groups in Australia have slammed what they say are ‘myths’ surrounding negative gearing and discounts on capital gains tax with regard to residential investment, saying that in fact the ability to both gain leverage through negative gearing and access the 50 per cent CGT discount is helping to boost the supply of new homes and keep house prices lower than would otherwise be the case.

Releasing an analysis surrounding the effects of negative gearing and the CGT discount on the residential property market conducted by ACIL Allen Consulting, the Real Estate Institute of Australia and the Property Council of Australia said both negative gearing and CGT help to boost housing supply, make home ownership more feasible and deliver lower rents than what would be the case were either measure not in place.

“The reality is that if negative gearing was abolished there would less investment and rents would go up,” Property Council chief executive officer Ken Morrison said.

According to the report, intense scrutiny on house prices has fuelled a number of what it says are misconceptions surrounding both negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount – a 50 per cent discount on the overall taxable value of gains which are made when assets are sold at a value which exceeds what is considered to be their ‘cost base’ under taxation law.

Such fallacies, it says, revolve around ideas about negative gearing being a special concession for property, about both negative gearing and CGT concessions being tax breaks which disproportionately benefit the wealthy and about use of negative gearing and the CGT discount enabling wealthy investors to price ordinary Australians out of the housing market whilst obtaining tax benefits.

Rather, the report said that:

  • Negative gearing represents a legitimate deduction of expenses in the course of earning income from investments across any asset class until the investment generates a positive income stream in the future.
  • Property is not the only asset class that attracts the CGT concession, which was introduced in 2000 as a replacement to a system of indexation of the cost base of assets for capital gains purposes. Indeed, almost 60 per cent of capital gains are from assets other than property (e.g.: shares, bonds etc.)
  • Two-thirds of investors who benefited from negative gearing in 2012/13 had a taxable income of $80,000 or lower.
  • Far from making housing less affordable, negative gearing contributes to the provision of new housing, with investor money counting for a third of all loans made to finance the construction of new dwellings.

The report also says removing negative gearing would reduce the volume of stock available for rental property and thus place upward pressure on rents.

Around Australia, the most recent surge in house prices is driving growing levels of debate about the taxation benefits which can be obtained through investment in residential property.

In April, the Australian Council of Social Service called for restrictions on deductions available through negatively geared properties as well as on the CGT discount, claiming these were costing the Budget $7 billion a year and fuelling a house price boom.

According to ACOSS, less than one-tenth of all negatively geared housing investments go toward the construction of new housing. The other 90-plus per cent, it says, merely serve to further inflate existing house prices.

But Real Estate Institute of Australia chief executive officer Amanda Lynch said the latest report indicated that those who primarily benefit from negative gearing policies are ‘mum and dad investors.’

“This isn’t some tax lurk for the wealthy, rather an incentive for people on low to average incomes,” Lynch said. “And it has benefits for the broader economy.”

FavoriteLoadingsave article


 characters available
*Please refer to our comment policy before submitting
  1. David Kuhnert

    Yes, let`s get rid of those pesty mums & dads investors , fancy , taking the food out of the big end of town investors mouths . And get rid of small business they are all negatively geared while the government are at it , then we can be Job fodder for the big end of town . WELL PIGS AR ….. WE WILL . Regards David Kuhnert

  2. S Bowering

    Codswallop. A self serving propaganda report that has no basis in truth.
    Prosper Australia and Phil Soos has definitively and exactingly proven that none of the statements in the report hold to be true.
    Negative gearing and CGT serve the rich(is legitimate but not ethical). Do not create a greater supply of houses and does not keep rents low. It instead encourages speculative investment and ever increasing bidding war for houses (existing stock). How would removing NG reduce rental stock? would all the investors just stop renting out their properties?

    The bubble will burst and then NG will no longer suck $12Billion from the tax payers. Q1 2016; it will no longer be an issue. Bubble Bubble Bubble. Sell now before it's too late!

  3. David Chandler

    Record low interest rates and investor driven heat in the property market have fuelled out of control construction costs in residential property over the last 5 years. While high rise multi-unit dwellings have tipped the balance with their detached housing counterparts, out of control construction costs are making this stock more challenging for both renters and buyers. These costs set the upwards trajectory for all property. No matter who is being benefited negative gearing is subsidising a construction industry who expects that their out of control costs can be passed on to residential customers. Its not sustainable. Some of the smarter developers who saw the peak coming in earlier cycles are now just flogging off high density sites with Development Consents knowing that they will have difficulty building them for a profit. The challenge for banks who have loaned into developments based on pre-sales had better brace for the retracing of valuations as some current developments come up for settlement in the next year or 2. Perth provides a good example of what happens when off-the plan purchasers cannot stump with more equity when prior valuations do not support the loan terms.