Negative gearing

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Real Estate Institute of Australia (REIA) has unleashed the hounds on Labor’s proposed reforms to negative gearing.
The REIA’s campaign, Negative Gearing Affects Everyone, follows the lead of the Property Council, which describes the Australian housing market as a “house of cards”, with the REIA stressing how “fragile” the Australian economy is. You might be tempted to dismiss this as propaganda from people who exaggerate for a living, but evidence is mounting of instability close to the REIA’s home: the off-the-plan apartment sector.
An array of forces are converging to give the multi-unit house of cards a shove. Over the past couple of years apartment development has boomed. The Australian Bureau of Statistics shows building approvals for new flats, units and apartments reached a huge peak last year. It has stepped down in the most recent quarter, but is still very high.
<a href="/images/2016/05/27/image-20160525-25213-knw2ks.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/27/image-20160525-25213-knw2ks.png" alt="">
<h4>ABS, 8731.0 Building approvals, Table 6</h4>
You can see this development in the skylines of our cities, especially in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Canberra – and in the RLB Crane Index. RLB counts a total of almost 650 cranes engaged in construction in our capital cities, and says more than 80% of these are on residential projects.
<a href="/images/2016/05/27/image-20160525-25245-if8dg7.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/27/image-20160525-25245-if8dg7.png" alt="">
<h4>RLB Crane Index, 8th Edition</h4>
This coming supply is reflected in CoreLogic’s projections for new units hitting the market. It estimates that sales for more than 92,000 new units will be settled in the next 12 months, only slightly less than last year’s total number of sales of new and established units. The year after, a further 139,000 new units sales are due to be settled, substantially more than total sales (new and established) last year.
<a href="/images/2016/05/27/image-20160526-17553-1387xjw.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/27/image-20160526-17553-1387xjw.png" alt="">
<h4>Source: CoreLogic</h4>
<h2>Dampeners on demand</h2>
But for all this supply, it appears there may be much less demand than anticipated, particularly from the foreign investors who did so much to stoke the boom. Evidence for this includes:
<ul>
<li>
Over the last six months the Chinese government has tightened controls over currency exchange by its citizens. This has restricted their capacity to buy – and repay loans to buy – property in Australia and elsewhere. This in turn has led to…
</li>
<li>
Credit restrictions by Australian banks. Last month each of the Big Four banks restricted how much they’ll lend to foreign buyers (lower loan-to-valuation ratios), with Westpac withdrawing altogether. This month, Macquarie has pulled its horns in.
</li>
<li>
The Victorian government has doubled the stamp duty payable by foreigners – it’s now 7 percent of the property purchase price. The NSW government is reported to be considering doing something similar; it is also introducing checks for residency and Foreign Investment Review Board approvals as a condition for conveyance of property titles, and the FIRB is now charging $5,000 for applications.
</li>
</ul>
Foreign demand for new dwellings (as gauged by the NAB’s Quarterly Australian Residential Property Survey) was already down over the first quarter of the year, before the credit restrictions cut in. Now the media are reporting that Chinese demand for apartments has “fallen off dramatically”: Meriton says the number of Chinese buyers of its apartments halved in the last month.
As those cranes in the sky indicate, there’s a lot of people out there – foreign and local – who’ve paid deposits and entered into contracts to pay boom-era prices on completion of their units. When they go to the bank to borrow the balance, they may find that, between lower loan-to-valuation ratios and lower valuations, they are caught short. Some might make up the difference by selling another property, but many of those settlements projected by CoreLogic may not settle at all.
The result: deposits forfeited, unsold units dumped on the market – accelerating the bust – and possibly, at least for buyers who are actually in the jurisdiction, the threat of being sued by developers for the loss of the contracted higher price.
<h2>So what might policymakers do?</h2>
Faced with such a calamity, why won’t our politicians do something to shore up demand for all these newly constructed rental properties? Oh wait….
This is precisely what Labor’s proposed negative-gearing reform promises do, by allowing rental losses to be set against non-rental income only where the property is newly built. Under Treasurer Bowen, Australia’s dedicated army of negative gearers would be given new direction and purpose, switching from the established dwelling market into the new-built market deserted by foreign buyers. Furthermore, because no-one after the first purchaser can call a dwelling new (and hence get the same preferential treatment on their gearing), they may be inclined to hang on to their properties even as demand looks weak.
We should still expect such a reform to reduce total investor demand for housing, and hence reduce house prices overall. These are both good things. But it may also help cushion what might otherwise be a drastic and painful collapse in the new-build sector.
Both the REIA and the Coalition government talk about Australia’s “transitioning” economy. They should consider negative-gearing reform as a measure for transitioning out of our presently fragile, property-bubble-led economy.
Chris Martin is research fellow, Housing Policy and Practice, UNSW Australia and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/chris-martin-203935" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Might Labor’s negative-gearing policy yet save the housing market?

<html><body><div class="row">
GUEST OBSERVER
Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has announced plans to change negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount if Labor wins the next federal election.
Under costings released from the Parliamentary Budget Office, Labor’s proposed changes could save the budget $32.1 billion over 10 years once they come into force.
Key measures include:
<ul>
<li>Negative gearing to be restricted to "newly constructed homes"</li>
<li>Capital gains tax discount reduced from 50% to 25%</li>
<li>Both measures would come into force from July 2017</li>
<li>All existing investments under the scheme would be fully "grandfathered" and protected against the changes</li>
</ul>
With pressure on the current government to reduce the growing Budget deficit, and Treasurer Scott Morrison's refusal to rule out any changes in policy across the board, negative gearing would seem to be the one area squarely in the sights of both the government and the opposition, especially when you look at the statistics…
<ul>
<li>There are currently 1.2 million people who have negatively geared property, and most of these people are middle class Australians.</li>
<li>Australian Tax Office statistics show negatively geared property investors claim over $13 billion in losses each year, and the average loss per negatively geared investor is over $11,000</li>
<li>The average loss per negatively geared property doubles for people earning more than $180,000, to over $24,000.</li>
</ul>
Should our governments look beyond the numbers? Is it a false economy just to think that by tinkering with negative gearing it will solve the budgetary problem?
5 Reasons Why the Government Shouldn't Change Negative Gearing
1. Growing Population
With Australia's population set to grow significantly over the coming decades, our governments should be asking "How will we house these people?"
The government does not have the capacity, nor the finance, to provide public housing for the growing population so this is left to the private sector.
Negative gearing allows more Australians to invest in property, as the tax benefits assist with the cash flow to invest and hold onto that property. If negative gearing is changed and CGT concessions are reduced, it will mean less investors, less demand and less houses, and it will place further pressure on the government to fund and provide housing.
2. Financial Pressures of the Ageing Population
There are currently 1.2 million middle class Australians investing in property to generate a capital gain and increase their asset base for retirement, to subsequently ensure that they can maintain a standard of living in their retirement without having to solely rely on the aged pension.
If the government creates a blockage into entry for property investment by chipping away at the tax benefits or reduce capital gain concessions, property investment becomes less attractive. In the long term, this will see more Australians relying on government pensions, meaning less self-funded retirees and therefore further pressure will be placed on future budgets.
The government needs to take a long term view and look beyond today. A change to negative gearing and capital gain concessions will only make matters worse in the future.
3. A Drop in Property Prices
Will a change in negative gearing and capital gain concessions disincentivise investors and, if so, what impact will this have on property prices?
In the short term, we may see a dip in property prices due to lower demand and increased supply – which will impact on the economy across the board. State governments will miss out on a large chunk of revenue (via loss of stamp duties), which could mean less funding to spend on things such as education, hospitals and infrastructure at a state level. The federal government will then have to fork out more to state governments to compensate.
4. Knock On Effect to the Economy
Will the changes deter people from investing in property?
Due to the loss of the tax benefits, people will not be able to fund the cash flow of an investment property, meaning they simply won’t buy investment properties. This will cause a knock on effect similar to what we have seen in the mining industry after the boom.
It could also mean a rise in unemployment in the building sector and associated industries such as white goods, electrical and service related industries like real estate and everything that goes with it. As previously mentioned, state governments will be impacted with less revenue from stamp duties to spend on state infrastructures – which would also mean less jobs.
5. Short Term Thinking
For all of the reasons above, I can understand why the government might look at the numbers in front of them and think changing the rules around negative gearing and capital gain concessions is a win for budgetary reasons, but it is simply a case of short term thinking. The government really needs to take a deep breath, sit back and carefully consider what impact this will have on the economy long term.
Any changes made may increase revenue today, but they – or should I say we – could end up paying for this 10, 20 or 30 years down the track. To put it bluntly, a short term gain for long term pain is not good business.
With 1.2 million middle class Australian property investors impacted, changing the rules are negative gearing and capital gains concessions would be highly unpopular – and it could be a game changer for either political party.
David Naylor is co-founder &amp; non-executive director, Chan and Naylor National Accounting Group and can be contacted <a href="https://www.chan-naylor.com.au/" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div></body></html>

Property 101: Five reasons why the government shouldn't change negative gearing

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Property Council of Australia, a lobby group representing the biggest real estate developers, has shaped election debate about negative gearing and some taxes. 
We see their spokespeople quoted in the papers and their ads on TV, but beyond that we know very little about how Australia’s lobby groups get what they want. This series shines a light on the strategies, political alignment and policy platforms of eight lobby groups that can influence this election.
Housing affordability and tax reform have shaped up to be two of the defining issues this election. The Property Council of Australia – which describes itself as “the Voice of Leadership” – has helped frame the debate on behalf of its 2200 company members.
The council began as the Building Owners and Managers’ Association of Australia (BOMA) in 1969, and was renamed the Property Council of Australia in 1996, with advocacy a core focus. The Residential Development Council and International and Capital Markets division were formed in 2001 and the Retirement Living Council in 2015.
With a board of directors drawn from Australia’s largest residential and commercial developers, the Property Council’s considerable annual revenue (A$27.3 million in 2015) is drawn primarily from membership fees and services.
<img src="/images/2016/06/17/image-20160616-19904-eyhn6q.png" alt="">
<div class="content" data-raw="">
The financial stakes are high when it comes to lobbying for regulatory settings which favour property development and investment. The Property Council’s healthy budget for advocacy and communication ($6.4 million and $1 million in 2015 alone) has generated a voluminous amount of reports, advertising campaigns and government submissions on taxation and planning reform. Another $7.2 million for “networking” ensures that this information is disseminated where it counts.
These deep coffers have funded the Council’s high profile television campaign to preserve negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts in response to mooted changes early this year. Likening the housing market to a fragile house of cards on the brink of collapse, the ad (released on 22 February) carried a menacing warning, “don’t play with property.”
The government has got the message. The Treasurer, Scott Morrison, who served as National Policy and Research Manager for the Council between 1989-1995 ruled out changes to negative gearing in the lead up to the 2016 Budget. Despite speaking out against negative gearing prior to becoming Prime Minister, Malcom Turnbull also changed his tune recently, rejecting  “reckless” changes to existing arrangements and suggesting that aspiring home buyers hit up their parents for help.
While the campaign to retain negative gearing is the Property Council’s most visible, behind the scenes the council has been busy meeting with government and writing submissions. In 2015 alone, the NSW division wrote 55 submissions and attended an extraordinary 230 government meetings. Its 2016 election brochure presents a number of “solutions” to “grow the economy through property”. Here are some highlights.
<h2>Negative gearing and the CGT</h2>
The council wants to retain negative gearing (which allow interest rates and other expenses associated with housing investment to be offset against total income) and capital gains tax discounts on investment properties. This is despite substantial evidence that these bonuses stimulate demand for housing, pushing up prices and leaving first home buyers unable to compete. But by framing housing affordability problems as a symptom of supply side pressures rather than demand side incentives, the council shifts the affordability debate to planning reform.
<h2>Housing and planning reform</h2>
Current incentives for property investment (such as negative gearing) don’t target new housing supply - only a small proportion of investor loans finance new dwellings. So the Council argues that Commonwealth payments to the states for “micro economic reform” should incentivise planning system changes needed to “turbocharge housing supply pipelines and deliver innovative affordable housing solutions.”
This is a tired argument which ignores the years of planning reform already undertaken by the states and territories, while levels of new housing production are currently at their highest in decades. This supply has done little to dampen price inflation in a market awash with domestic and foreign investors.
While the Property Council always bangs on about bottlenecks in housing supply (which it argues are caused by planning system constraints), such arguments miss the obvious issue that prices are a result of an interaction of supply and demand. What the combination of negative gearing and capital gains tax do is to drive demand so hard in boom times that even with sharp increases in supply, prices keep on rising, especially in today’s low interest environment.
The chart below shows this problem with respect to Sydney. It shows dwelling completions falling slowly when prices flatlined after the 1996-2004 boom, but rising in line with price inflation from mid 2011 on.
<a href="/images/2016/06/17/image-20160616-19949-lktfvl.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/06/17/image-20160616-19949-lktfvl.jpg" alt="">
</div>
<div class="content" data-raw="">
Prices: Department of Family and Community Services, Rent and Sales Report. Source: Completions. NSW Department of Planning, CC BY-SA
The Council’s election platform does call for institutional investment in affordable and social housing, and this is one idea worth taking up.
<h2>Cities and Infrastructure</h2>
The Property Council support long term infrastructure planning and delivery, coordinated by Infrastructure Australia. Who doesn’t?
But the problem is how to assign the costs and benefits. Land value rises due to investments in public infrastructure – such as a new rail line or road – are typically pocketed by landowners and developers.
Commonwealth and state governments are now canvassing value capture arrangements which would use some of this uplift to offset costs of provision. The council oppose this model, instead suggesting Tax Increment Financing (TIF), which leverages increases to commercial rates in defined districts.
While popular in some parts of the US, it has not been proven effective for larger schemes. It would be difficult to implement in Australia because our recurrent property charges are much lower than the US.
The Property Council also wants existing development contributions towards basic facilities like open space, local roads, and footpaths to be wound back, along with stamp duties on property transactions.
The idea of removing stamp duty has some merit (at least for domestic purchasers), since taxes on property transactions can discourage mobility, deterring retirees from moving to a smaller home, for example. But experts think stamp duty should be replaced by land taxes, to encourage more efficient use of land.
This would also provide a mechanism for capturing back values arising from public infrastructure investment. Not surprisingly, the Property Council thinks otherwise, calling instead for a higher GST.
While the Property Council complains about unfair tax burdens on its members, they seem content to spend a lot of money on their advocacy and networking activities. Described by economists as “premium seeking expenditure”, lobbying for more generous regulatory and financial settings clearly promises a high return for the property sector.
But it’s important to remember that despite their size, the Property Council only represents a portion of the development, construction, and real estate industry - they don’t really cover many smaller suburban developers or house builders.
The question is whether the “Voice of Leadership” will dominate the agenda or whether wider perspectives on housing and cities will be heard.
<div class="profile-body wrapper">
<div class="grid-eleven">
<div class="profile-occupation grid-eight grid-prepend-three"> </div>
<div class="profile-occupation grid-eight grid-prepend-three">Nicole Gurran is professor - urban and regional planning, University of Sydney and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicole-gurran-759" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
</div>
</div>
Peter Phibbs is chair of urban planning and policy, University of Sydney and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-phibbs-27130" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>
</body></html>

How the Property Council is shaping debate around negative gearing

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
A memo on the subject of housing taxation from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) is stirring up debate on proposed changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax in the election campaign.
The memo, dated December 9 2014, does counter the government’s claim that changes to negative gearing will have an adverse effect on housing prices, although this was never its intended purpose.
The memo was in response to the report from the Financial System Inquiry two weeks earlier. The inquiry noted that reducing capital gains tax concessions would “lead to a more efficient allocation of funding in the economy,” that “the tax treatment of investor housing…tends to encourage leveraged and speculative investment,” and that “housing is a potential source of systemic risk for the financial system and the economy”.
The RBA is usually reluctant to comment on areas of government policy outside its remit and hasn’t expressed any views on whether changes are needed to the long-standing tax treatment of housing investment. However, in response to a Productivity Commission inquiry 12 years ago, the RBA pointed out that:
“…taxation arrangements in Australia are more favourable to investors in residential property than are the arrangements in other countries.”
It also went on to note that a higher share of Australian taxpayers are attracted to property investment to lighten their tax burden and reducing investor demand would allow for more demand from first home buyers, without adding to the overall pressure on demand and prices. The RBA submission suggested this could also lead to a more stable housing market.
At that time, housing investors accounted for just over 45 percent of all lending by Australian financial institutions. In 1999 this was less than 32 percent, when the Howard government amended the tax treatment of capital gains in a way that made it more generous to investors (in property and other assets).
After falling back to around 36 percent in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the share of property loans taken out by investors rebounded to more than 50% in the first half of 2015. The Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) has since required banks to tighten their lending standards for property investment loans, now the share of new housing loans going to investors has fallen back to about 45 percent.
The key point to note here is that the changes enforced by APRA to banks’ lending criteria have also had the effect of dampening investor demand, as Labor’s current policy also intends, without any obvious adverse effects on property prices.
The government’s strict enforcement of foreign investment regulations, designed to prevent foreigners from purchasing established properties (other than in limited circumstances), and the cutting of grants to first-time buyers of established properties while boosting grants to first-time buyers of new dwellings at a state level, have both failed to dampen investor demand for property.
In other words, governments are trying with these policies to reduce demand for the purchase of established dwellings (90% of borrowing by Australian property investors is for the purchase of established dwellings) while encouraging the demand, and therefore building of, new properties. This is exactly what the Opposition’s proposed changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount seek to do.
Labor is trying to make it less attractive for investors to buy an established property after 1 July 2017. As a result, the prices of established dwellings should go up at a slower rate than it would otherwise – and from the standpoint of would-be home-buyers, this is a good thing.
However, the Opposition proposes to “grandfather” existing negatively-geared investors from these changes. This means anyone who has a negatively geared property investment as of 30 June 2017 will still be able to offset the excess of their interest costs over their net rental income against their other taxable income. So there is no reason to expect that investors will seek to sell their investments en masse and that prices of existing properties will fall any more than they have done as a result of the other government measures.
And this is precisely what the memo from the RBA notes:
“only if changes were not grandfathered” would there be a risk of “large scale sale of negatively geared properties.”
The RBA note also raises the possibility that changes to negative gearing could prompt a “potential increase in rents” – a point which the Coalition has been as quick to seize upon. Presumably this concern reflects an assumption that if changes were to be made to existing negative gearing arrangements, those changes would apply to new properties as well as established ones (since the Financial System Inquiry whose recommendations prompted this staff memo didn’t make any distinction between the two).
The Opposition’s policy is to keep existing negative gearing arrangements for investors in new dwellings. There is a risk that it could end up inflating builders’ profit margins, rather than boosting the supply of new housing.
However, to the extent that it does the latter, there is less reason to expect rents to rise. This is because under the Opposition’s policy more would-be home-buyers could fulfil their aspirations. It would reduce the competition they face from investors who negatively gear and this would decrease the demand for rental housing.
The Reserve Bank hasn’t explicitly supported Labor’s negative gearing policy. But it does appear to have rebutted one of the government’s principal arguments against it.
Saul Eslake is vice-chancellor’s Fellow, University of Tasmania and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/saul-eslake-665" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

What the RBA memo really says about negative gearing: Saul Eslake

<html><body>
Aussie John Symond has warned of a potential recession if Labor's plan to limit negative gearing to freshly constructed dwellings goes ahead, calling it "frightening" in an appearance on Seven's Sunrise program on Sunday. 
"Who knows? I don't know whether prices will drop 10 percent, 20 percent or more," he said.
The property tycoon and founder of Aussie Home Loans predicted a slide in home prices under Labor.
"It is frightening and it will frighten others . . . and it creates this stampede. And that's my concern that there could be a glut of properties come on the market, force the prices down, and then all of a sudden it could be Armageddon with the housing industry that's propped up the Australian economy the last four years."
Symond joins another industry leader, Stockland boss who expressed a similiar recession fear last week. 
Mark Steinert, chief executive of Australia's largest residential property developer, Stockland, believes Labor's housing policy has "the potential to destabilise the entire economy" – to the extent of "risking a recession".
"At the end of the day, house prices are unlikely to adjust so much that it would really change that affordability equation anyway," Steinert told the Australian Financial Review.
"And if they do, believe me it won't be a recession. It will be a depression."
Steinert told columnist Jennifer Hewitt property is such a major force driving Australian growth and activity, that even a small change in the market and in sentiment flows through the entire economy. 
"Housing represents $6.5 trillion of the Australian people's wealth," he told The Australian Financial Review. 
"It is so big and so many people are involved that even when that order of magnitude of change is obviously small compared to the stock market…its affects people.
"It becomes the new dinner party conversation.
"People feel poorer. 
"They buy less in the shops and people employ less and people are less willing to borrow money to start a business and suddenly that goes on.
"That is how markets work.
"The only way you deal with affordability in my view is first and foremost about supply…in a structural way.
"You cannot deal with affordability in a manageable way by de-stabilising the largest asset in the country."
Symond's fears were dismissed by Labor's shadow parliamentary treasury secretary and western Sydney MP, Ed Husic, who called them "outrageous", according to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald.
"It's a shame that Malcolm Turnbull and John Symond have teamed up to look after their interests, having done very well for themselves, when there are so many people in my part of Sydney for example, who are trying to buy a first home but cannot," he said.
Turnbull called Symond an authority on the property market at a recent forum in Sydney, the report in the Sydney Morning Herald said.
"As you've heard today from the Real Estate Institute, from John Symond - from Aussie John - that is going to have the impact of putting up rents and reducing the amount of rental property," he said.
A campaign against Labor's change by many of the country's most prominent real estate firms and Coalition supporters uses a website to warn of "disastrous consequences" if negative gearing is crimped.
"Our industry participants pride themselves on being apolitical, but this time, the issue is far too important not to speak out," it states.
Labor has announced it will limit negative gearing to new housing from 1 July 2017 as part of it tax overhaul.
Labor says negative gearing and the capital gains discount have not achieved their aim to boost housing supply and instead will cost the budget over $10 billion this year, more than what the government spends on higher education or child care. It also claims it mostly benefits the top income earners.
 
{mijopolls 142} 
</body></html>

John Symond says Labor's negative gearing 'frightening', fears recession

<html><body>
In their submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, the Australia Institute state not only is current tax treatment putting upward pressure on house prices but are also encouraging speculative behaviour and increasing the chances of property bubbles and financial instability. 
"Negative gearing has been a part of the Australian tax system from early last century. In the context of residential housing investment it allows property investors to write off any losses against their taxable income from other sources. This effectively means that the tax payer is paying for some of the loss. 
"The CGT discount was introduced in 1999 and means that for assets held for more than a year only 50% of the capital gain is taxed. This decreased the amount of CGT paid, and means capital gains become increasingly important to property investment."
The effect of the GCT discount can be seen in the Net rental income table 1995-2013.
<a href="/images/2015/08/26/Screen%20Shot%202015-08-26%20at%202.26.13%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2015/08/26/Screen%20Shot%202015-08-26%20at%202.26.13%20PM.png" alt="">
"After the introduction of the CGT discount net rental income collapsed. Investors were willing to take on significantly larger losses at a time when they could keep a larger slice of the capital gain. 
"In a normal investment market if the return on the asset was going down because the price of the asset was rising then this would be a signal to investors that it could be overvalued and would decrease the interest in investing. 
"But an interest in capital gain means that a rising price is a signal to enter the market because future capital gain is likely. Such a situation makes speculative bubbles more likely. 
"While middle and lower income households are being increasingly shut out of home ownership, most of the benefits of negative gearing and the CGT discount flow to high income households. 
"Modelling done by NATSEM for the Australia Institute shows that 55 per cent of the benefits of negative gearing and the CGT discount flow to high income households, while 50% of families only get 13% of the benefit. Figure 3 shows the income distribution of the negative gearing and CGT discount benefits. 
<a href="/images/2015/08/26/Screen%20Shot%202015-08-26%20at%202.28.03%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2015/08/26/Screen%20Shot%202015-08-26%20at%202.28.03%20PM.png" alt="">
The Australia Institute does not believe that changes made to negative gearing would decrease investment and increase house prices. AI claims that there is already little investment into property with just six per cent of investment finance going to new housing.
"The other 94% is spent on existing stock. If the objective of negative gearing is to encourage new housing then this could be achieved by restricting negative gearing to apply only to new housing. 
"The Australia Institute proposes that negative gearing is restricted to new housing stock and only for a period of 10 years.
"The CGT discount replaced a system where capital gains were discounted by the inflation rate. The argument for the CGT discount is that it is a simpler method for calculating and taxing the real capital gain. 
"The broader question that should be considered is why we tax real capital gains but level all other taxes on the nominal gain. For example, interest earned on money is taxed at the nominal interest rate rather than the real interest rate. 
"Given that all other taxes are levelled on the nominal gain and not the real gain there is little justification that capital gains should be taxed differently. The Australia Institute proposes that the CGT discount should be abolished. 
"These changes will have a number of effects. It will decrease demand for housing and hence put downward pressure on house prices as potential investors pick other investment opportunities. 
"It creates a bigger incentive for new housing. It reduces the speculation in the residential housing market, making property bubbles and financial instability less likely. Finally it will raise $7.4 billion a year in revenue at a time when the government is trying to decrease the budget deficit."
 
The Australia Institute report outlined the case for abolishing the capital gains tax discount – not capital gains tax as previously headlined.
</body></html>

Abolish capital gains tax discount: Australia Institute

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
We have to move the housing conversation beyond a game of political football about negative-gearing winners and losers. Australia needs a bipartisan, long-term, housing policy. Why? Because we have a slow-burn, deepening crisis that is affecting Australians who are already highly vulnerable and disadvantaged. They include:
<ul>
<li>
206,000 households on the waiting lists for social housing;
</li>
<li>
46 percent of those with greatest needs wait two years or more; and
</li>
<li>
105,000 were designated homeless in the 2011 Census.
</li>
</ul>
The UN Rapporteur on Human Rights, following a visit in 2007, concluded that Australia was failing to deliver the fundamental human right of adequate housing because of the lack of any co-ordinated national strategy. Nothing has changed since 2007.
<h2>A failure to join the dots of housing policy</h2>
Our cities will stop working if we do not do something. A decent long-term housing policy is not just about the million or so Australians who are in housing need, marginal housing or homeless. In reality, housing demand and supply for all tenures is intricately connected.
Failed first-time buyers rent privately, increasing demand and rent levels. This pushes lower-income families towards social housing waiting lists and, at the end of the queue, those on marginal incomes are more likely to experience homelessness. Investors push out would-be home buyers by leveraging generous tax breaks that are not available to renters who are saving up to buy.
Rental affordability is worsening, including for key workers in our cities. First-time buyers are having difficulty entering an overheated market. We face the prospect of a permanent “generation rent”.
Changes in the value of new lending, 2008-2016
<a href="/images/2016/06/15/image-20160608-15024-1pesejn.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/06/15/image-20160608-15024-1pesejn.jpg" alt="">
<h4>
Changes in the value of new lending to investors, first-home buyers and subsequent buyers from December 2008 to March 2016. CoreLogic, ABS
</h4>
More than 40 percent of people in private rental pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing – and this is after taking into account Commonwealth Rent Assistance. The 30 percent threshold is generally recognised as the level at which financial stress is experienced.
While states and territories have a wealth of experience and a clear role in delivery, the fact is the Commonwealth government must take a leadership role in co-ordinating national housing policy and connected programs across the four sectors of our housing system: home ownership; affordable private rental; social housing; and specific housing for Aboriginal, disability and homelessness needs.
It can be done; it has been done before. In 1945, Australia also faced a housing crisis. Despite skills and materials shortages and the financial difficulties of the post-war economy, the Commonwealth built 670,000 homes in ten years.
Decent housing underpins jobs, growth and productivity. Well-located, affordable housing is critical for preventative health, to provide a stable home environment for education and self-confidence, and for a productive workforce.
We need a national program of home building to meet the shortfall in all forms of housing. While this will not in itself resolve all problems, it is critical to a successful housing policy.
<h2>How much will it cost and where’s the money?</h2>
This is the subject of a new research report, Towards a National Housing Strategy, by Compass Housing working with a group of peak bodies, housing academics and community housing providers.
To get the long-term benefits of decent housing, we must recognise that providing this has an up-front cost and we are in a tight fiscal environment. The Ache for Home Report estimates a A$10 billion housing bond could meet the needs of the 100,000 currently homeless people. Across all tenures, Australia could build 500,000 homes in ten years for an annual investment of $12.5 billion.
Even if the Commonwealth government took full responsibility for funding a national building program of such scale, the annual investment would equate to less than one-fifth of the current annual cost of capital gains (CGT) exemption on the main residence. The bonus of investment on such a scale could be the boost to the wider economy in which each $1 spent on construction created a $1.30 gain.
A national housing strategy would need to do two key things to raise the cash needed:
<ul>
<li>
rebalance current tax settings to redirect money to where it is most needed; and
</li>
<li>
revise fiscal settings to attract more private capital into housing.
</li>
</ul>
Innovative financial models have been developed internationally that can bring private finance to the table. The development of an arm’s length, government-funded financial intermediary to provide loan guarantees within a housing bond approach is one model with merit. It is used in the UK, the US and Europe.
Rebalancing subsidy arrangements across housing sectors means ring-fencing current housing support and redirecting it across the housing system. Reforms of capital gains tax exemptions and discounts, as well as negative-gearing concessions, are contentious, but are levers to improve housing supply.
CGT exemptions for the main residence cost taxpayers $54 billion in 2014-15. Nearly 90 percent of the benefit went to the top 50 percent of earners. And the costs are increasing. The CGT discount of 50 percent on capital gains, including investment properties, will cost $121 billion by 2018-19.
Negative gearing amounts to an average saving of $2,900 per year for the 1.2 million who claim. However, its impact on the budget means it costs the remaining Australians $310 per year each in tax that they would not otherwise need to pay.
Across these subsidies alone, a modest redirection would provide for a significant start-up fund for affordable housing, to be leveraged with private investment funds.
A national bipartisan approach would allow an independent review of all subsidies and recommend rebalancing options. It could also ease financial stress in the private rental sector by examining the current caps and levels of Commonwealth Rent Assistance to improve prospects for the many families where renting is a lifetime housing solution.
Without a national, integrated approach to housing, Australia will by default continue the mistakes associated with seeing the four sectors of the housing continuum as discrete and conditioned by different factors.
Ralph Horne is deputy pro vice chancellor, Research &amp; Innovation; Director of UNGC Cities Programme; Professor, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ralph-horne-160543" target="_blank">here</a>.
David Adamson is emeritus professor: Social and Community Policy, The University of South Wales and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-adamson-259956" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Our cities will stop working without a decent national housing policy

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
In the current housing tax debate a number of studies have come out arguing that while prices will fall (by varying amounts) rents will not be affected. That rents will be unaffected is surprising and (in my view) wrong.
Outside of the heat of an election, the Henry Tax Review’s comprehensive review of the tax system argued for lower taxes on savings, a proposition that most economists would regard as unexceptional. (There is now a (small) school of thought arguing for higher taxes on savings but this author for one does not subscribe to that.)
Specifically, the Henry Review recommended the marginal tax rates on interest and rental income should be 40 percent lower; for example, the 35 percent and 45 percent income tax rates on labour income would be lowered to 21 percent and 27 percent. For property investors these rates would also apply to capital gains and net losses, thereby reducing the value of negative gearing.
For ‘ungeared’ investors (those who do not take on debt), the effective tax rate would be lower while for highly geared investors the effective tax rate would be higher, leading to less incentive to leverage (making the Reserve Bank of Australia happy). Overall, the effective tax rate for the “average” investor would be higher.
Now the Henry Review acknowledged that its proposed changes would, by lifting the user cost of capital of investors, lift rents. It therefore explicitly said that its proposed changes would need to be accompanied by measures to both lower the cost of housing by removing supply constraints, and to lift levels of rental assistance for households in the private rental market. In short, it did not see the increases in rents as immaterial.
If the increase in user cost of capital (on investors who are ‘geared’ by borrowing money to invest) with the Labor proposal is higher (roughly double), on what basis could rents not rise? It is not evident to me.
The key component of the user cost of capital, and the one which varies the most over time, is interest rates. When interest rates rise or fall, we expect prices to fall, or rise. But interest rates also change rents, since rent = user cost × value of house.
And what we also see is that a rise in interest rates causes the rent-price ratio (that is, the ratio of home prices to annual rent, also referred to as the rental yield) to rise, while a drop in interest rates will see it fall.
To illustrate, consider Melbourne for the period 1991-2014 when interest rates have fallen significantly and the rent-price ratio has followed suit. This has seen prices increase significantly (4.9 percent pa in real terms), and faster than the rise in costs (3.2 percent). In inner areas where there is a significant location premium (over living at the urban fringe), the rise in prices has been fastest (5.8 percent) as the value of that location premium has been bid up.
That is, most of the change in the rent-price ratio has come from rising prices. On the other hand, in the outer areas, where there is no location premium and the value of a house is the structure plus the cost of land, prices (3.4 percent pa) have moved in line with costs (3.2 percent pa) but rents have risen much more slowly (1.4 percent). That is, rents explain the decline in rent-price ratios.
So, while the assumption of most commentators is that price movements do the work in changing rent-price ratios, and that is so over the short term, over a longer time span, rents do some of the adjustment.
Changes in interest rates are uncontroversial. But the same principles apply to changes in tax if they change the cost of capital, which is why the Henry Review expected rents to rise.
In the case of the Labor’s negative gearing changes, the waters are muddied for some by its proposed exemption on new housing. A couple of points here. Firstly, ABS figures are quoted to suggest that investors’ purchases are 93% established housing, and only 7% new housing. This significantly understates the role of investors.
The NAB residential property survey has domestic investor purchases of new housing at about 20-30% - that is, domestic investors are already a significant component of the new market (adding to supply!).
Secondly, Henry also expected a change in the mix of landlords to consolidate from one with a large number of small landlords, to one with a smaller number of large landlords. More marginal investors – middle income/low wealth investors – will be the first to vacate the field as their entry point is typically cheaper, old stock not premium new stock.
High income/low wealth investors will have the option of new dwellings. High income/high wealth individuals will benefit from the higher rents and lower prices on established dwellings.
That is, the ownership of the dwelling stock (and tax benefit!) will shift to the top end of income earners. But it is not clear that the special treatment of new housing will add materially, if at all, to supply of new dwellings.
In short, the law of unintended consequences will apply. Logic says that rents will rise, and with the 30 percent renting in the private market skewed to low income earners, that means housing affordability will have declined for these people.
Nigel Stapledon is Andrew Roberts fellow and director Real Estate Research and Teaching Centre for Applied Economic Research, UNSW Australia and an author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nigel-stapledon-269708" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Why rents will rise under Labor’s negative gearing proposal

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/76213/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
John Daley and Danielle Wood, The Grattan Institute
The latest data from the ATO is consistent with what we’ve seen in the past. It shows that people with high-income occupations – doctors, lawyers, and others – are more likely to use negative gearing than the nurses and teachers on whom Treasurer Scott Morrison focuses when he tries to justify retaining negative gearing. It also shows that negative gearing is typically worth four to five times more for doctors and lawyers than nurses and teachers.
The tax data shows that with falling interest rates, fewer landlords are negatively geared, and the average loss is also falling. Overall the investor property market seems to be concentrating a little, with slightly fewer landlords but more investment properties per landlord. Negative gearing has lots of problems. It costs the budget a lot of money, distorts investment decisions, increases house prices, and reduces home ownership, while doing little to increase supply.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/04/image-20170413-25882-17d8qsm.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/04/image-20170413-25882-17d8qsm.png" alt="">
The government claims it should nevertheless be retained because it’s primarily an investment strategy for “mums and dads”. But the detailed tax data from previous years shows that about two-thirds of the benefit goes to the one-fifth of taxpayers with the highest income before the negative gearing deduction.
We will have to wait until later this month for the release of more detailed data to check that this is still true.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/04/image-20170413-25888-a7fcjy.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/04/image-20170413-25888-a7fcjy.png" alt="">
Professor Fabrizio Carmignani, Griffith Business School
This data delivers a simple, probably not unexpected, but still concerning message: inequality in Australia is increasing.
We can see this in terms of the growing gap between the richest and the poorest suburbs, as well as an increase in dispersion across all suburbs.
For example, the data published yesterday indicates that average taxable income in the ten poorest postcodes was only 11% of the average taxable income in the ten richest postcodes. A decade ago, in 2004-05, income in the ten poorest postcodes was 21% of income in the richest postcodes.
In fact, while the average income at the top of the distribution has grown by 30% in a decade, average income at the bottom has actually declined by 33%. If we look at the overall dispersion of incomes by postcode, we can see that this has gone up by approximately 25% in ten years.
Whichever way we look at it, the conclusion is that there is more income inequality today than ten years ago.
The other interesting aspect to the data is that the richest postcodes today are more or less the same as ten years ago. Indeed, seven of the top ten postcodes in 2014-15 were already in the top ten in 2004-05. But this same trend is not observed at the bottom: none of the ten poorest postcodes today were in bottom ten in 2004-05.
And there is some bad news for Queensland in particular: the proportion of the state’s postcodes in the bottom ten has increased considerably, from three out of ten in 2004-05 to seven out of ten in the latest data. This data might be indicative of a growing poverty problem in this state.
Associate Professor Helen Hodgson, Curtin Law School
The ATO’s data clearly shows that the self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) sector is not only continuing to grow, but is used primarily by people with the ability to make higher contributions; either high income earners or those late in their careers.
Members of self-managed superannuation funds made significantly higher contributions and have higher balances than members of Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) regulated funds.
The data shows that on an individual basis, the median contribution to a SMSF was A$20,000. Meanwhile, members of APRA funds made median contributions of A$4,507.
Similarly, the super balances of members of SMSFs are significantly higher than APRA funds. SMSF members have median balances of A$289,483, compared to just A$32,734 for those in APRA regulated funds. The data also shows that a small proportion of people have very high balances, which is reflected in the difference between the median and mean balances in the statistics.
Two of the forthcoming changes to superannuation will limit contributions and impose a cap on balances, which should impact higher earners. Most people who made contributions in excess of A$25,000 are over 45 and earned more than A$180,000.
But the changes to the superannuation system will not take effect until July 2017, so it is too soon to know how that will impact superannuation funds. However the division between the self-managed and APRA regulated funds is clear.
This article was written by <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/team#jenni-henderson" target="_blank">Jenni Henderson</a>, The Conversation and and <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/team#josh-nicholas" target="_blank">Josh Nicholas</a>, The Conversation.
<div class="content" data-raw=""> </div>
</body></html>

ATO data shows inequality is in everything from super to the property market

<html><body>
The federal government has signalled that plans to cap the negative gearing tax benefit as part of its tax reform policy are unlikely to proceed.
When asked last night by 2GB's Money News host Ross Greenwood about negative gearing, treasurer Scott Morrison responded by saying: "You have always got to tailor your policies to the environment you're in."
"Right now we have a very special set of circumstances," he said.
"If we are going to make changes in tax then it has to be made up for by changes in the tax system elsewhere."
"The scope for that has been reduced over time and the final decisions will ultimately be in the budget."
He said that the Labor Party have put forward a policy on negative gearing which they haven't thought through.
"The PM made it clear last September he was putting that issue (negative gearing) generically back on the table to be considered.
"It had been removed before.
"He asked for it to be looked at so there's been a process of looking at that.
"But no one should draw a conclusion from that, that necessarily means the government would make changes to the negative gearing.
"They were saying the same thing about GST.
"People were asserting we were going to do something differently on that.
"We looked at it (GST) carefully, we made a considered decision and I think we made the right decision.
"You don't rush to failure on this stuff.
"We have to be careful and be patient that we get these calls right," the treasurer said which appears to clear the way for an easy assault on Labor's tax plans in the run-up to the federal election.
Senior sources have confirmed to The Australian Financial Review that while the proposal to cap negative gearing deductions at $20,000 a year had been looked at, it has been decided "we're not going to touch it".
For the policy to have raised the estimated $1 billion it was worth annually, it would have had to apply to existing investors with multiple properties. A source said it was "in our DNA not to apply tax increases retrospectively".
Treasurer Scott Morrison has previously flagged the option of a cap, describing it as targeting the "excesses" of negative gearing. He and his colleagues have stopped using that description in recent days in a strong hint that there will now be no change.
The AFR noted on Wednesday, Mr Morrison, when pressed, used the term "enthusiasms".
The decision to not proceed with changes to negative gearing leaves the government with just superannuation tax concession and tax deduction trade-offs to help fund plans to deliver a small personal income tax.
Labor says its policy – to halve the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for investors to 25 per cent, and to limit all new negative gearing to new homes only from July 1, 2017 – will raise $32 billion over 10 years and generate an extra 25,000 construction jobs annually because of the demand for new housing.
But the government is expected on Thursday to seize on a report by property and building industry advisory group, BIS Shrapnel, which claims the opposite.
It claims Labor's negative gearing plans will increase rents by an average of 10 per cent, or $2600 a year, depress new home construction by 4 per cent and shrink gross domestic product by $19 billion a year.
BIS Shrapnel claims the plans will also lead to 175,000 fewer jobs over 10 years, shrink government tax revenues by $1.65 billion a year and put 70,000 households into rental stress.
But the Grattan Institute chief executive John Daley slammed the report as untrustworthy and implausible.
He said the findings were the product of skewed and grossly exaggerated assumptions and the report could not be trusted because BIS Shrapnel will not say who commissioned it.
You can listen to <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/160231" target="_blank">Scott Morrison's chat with Ross Greenwood here</a>.
</body></html>

Negative gearing

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Negative gearing

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News