it's because owning a house to LIVE is vastly different from owning a house to INVEST. everyone SHOULD have their own house to live, but to invest? no.
I'm with you, Max! I'm a renter for 15 years. I keep my eyes on the Domain website every week. I'm planning to move to cheaper rent in a very far location from my workplace due to rent keep increasing.The apartments rental price range over $750 a week have been sitting empty for many many months - some for years now. If those belongs to ordinary nurses and cops - moms & dads, how could they afford to let the places sit empty for many many months? Wouldn't they have to pay the mortgage? Unless those belong to hoard corporate investors. They put the very very high rental price that no one can afford to pay, let the places sit empty, and negative gear on that - claiming business loss from no one rent out their place. They have too much control and this is not fair. We do need to abolish NG and tax investors more if they let their places sit empty.
I've criticised Max for not accepting that high immigration is also a contributor to housing demand and his support of the leadership of the CFMEU. However, this and his last YT presentation were brilliant. Thanks for showing the punters the basic but essential facts of the impacts of the neo liberal policies of negative gearing and capital gains tax. Adam Bandt has made similar presentations in the past. I wish he'd continued with them.
220k Australians permanently left Australia in 2023. Housing rents a massive amount of private homes through lend-lease taking up a lot of rentals because they demolished or sold housing but of course most average Australians blame immigration
@@candicem9344 Migration arrivals reached a record of 765,990 and departures reached 217,100 in 2023, ('Migration Rose by 1/3 last year to lift Australia's population by a record 659,00, L.Ittimani & P.Karp, The Guardian, 21 March 2024) Your point is? My point is more consumers adding to the population consume more energy, more carbon, more services, more natural habitat, more infrastructure, more utilities, more water all at the expense of our existing population and environment. I'm all for increasing our humanitarian intake of immigrants at the sacrifice of immigrants who have come from wealthy backgrounds elsewhere. But the numbers need to be lower. Before 1990 our annual net overseas migration numbers were 70, 000. since 2000 it has been 200,000 per year and the projections from here are an annual NOM of 250,000. 1 million every 4 years. It takes 555 mature trees to absorb the carbon that each Australian emits. So we would need to nurture 555,000,000 trees to maturity every 4 years to recycle the carbon every 1 million new Australian consumers produce. I doubt whether we have that many trees over the entire continent now. Can't you see that an ever increasing population is just adding to an irreversible ponzi scheme?.
@@k-sooyaalove206don't take me out of context. It's obvious that's not what I meant. Btw the CFMEU is certainly not a typical union. I don't see other Union leaders employing outlaw motorcycle thugs and organised crime figures. Do you?
@@JamieWalkleyI don't disagree that many in the property and development industries are white collar criminals. Money laundering through property via lawyers, accountants and real estate agents is rife. And these 'professionals' are legally protected from disclosing who their clients are and where this (cash) money originates. Then there are the construction companies themselves. However, is it advisable the Greens align themselves with violent outlaw motorcycle gangs? Organised crime figures that are have siphoned off union members contributions in the form of 6 figure salaries for essentially doing nothing but introducing yet another level of crime? The Greens naturally should represent Unions, but they should also have the common sense to steer clear of the CFMEU.
would you be happier if the landlord was Ticketmaster, like a superannuation fund that own the rental? I can sell all my investment properties and invest in the build to rent index fund
We need a cap on residential property ownership. No more than two properties allowed to be owned. No corporate ownership, no foreign ownership, no trust fund ownership. Remove the 50% discount on Capital Gains Tax and only allow negative gearing on new builds. Ban AirBnB and Stayz etc from whole house/building letting and only allow them to operate as room-to-let apps, as they were originally intended.
Why has our government allowed this to go on for so long??? It’s extremely depressing to live in this country now. A greedy few are benefiting why the rest of us suffer. Max is the only politician speaking any sense atm. I watched a home go from $450K in 2015 to $750K in 2024, why?
Ive only recently started voting greens. Always voted Labor for the last 20 years. The topic that got me rethinking my choices was, Adam talking about Corporate greed and money in politics.. Keep going peoples. We need a 3rd major party.
Yep, I have been saying this for ages, negative gearing has only over inflated the housing market, it basically turned the Australian housing market into a massive bubble. The housing market in Australia needs to cool off by at least 30% to 40% or more.
wont happen the governemnt to greedy why new homes cost alot to build , if you were lookng for a home and new build 4 million and 70s dump 2,5 million what would you buy the new build
It would be superfluous. If it's owner occupiers, (say, a permanent resident or long term visa holder), then it's the same thing Max just talked about. If it's foreign investors, then it's still the same thing Max just talked about. Blaming foreign owners is just another distraction. It's what property investors and the politicians they've bought want you to think about, but it's not the problem causing the housing crisis, and it's not the solution.
@slipperyrancidcheese No, it's not superfluous because stopping foreign investors would reduce the total number of investors that can access the market. We cant stop all investors, but we can prevent foreign investors. Importantly, foreign investors don't get the capital gains tax concession and are unlikely to benefit from negative gearing, so changes to these laws will not reduce the amount of foreign investors. Therefore, additional legislative changes would be necessary to prevent the housing demand created by foreign investors. Additionally, there is evidence that foreign investors purchase Australian properties to launder money. I shouldn't have to say that combating International money laundering requires a global approach that Australia has a moral obligation to take part in. No one here is saying that foreign investors are the sole cause of the housing crisis. There are several factors and 'foreign investors' is just one factor. If we want to address the problem, we can't be afraid to tackle all of the issues.
@@slipperyrancidcheese Neither is negative gearing. Negative-geared properties supply rentals. The tax rebate is the same as a business write-off at the end of the financial year. We should stop that as well, then. Getting rid of incentives for people to buy properties to rent out is the dumbest business idea ever. The government will not give you a house, you have to buy it or rent it.
So Labor knew that NG and CGT discounts need to go in 2019 to avoid the ever growing housing affordibility crises, but in 2024, they are playing hard ball because they care more about votes... Got it!!!
I remember in Brisbane in the 80s, my rent was 40% of my income. I became under weight, malnourished and hospitalised because I couldn’t afford a lot of food and there were no food banks. Negative gearing was phased out and my rent became 25% of my wage and I could afford to buy a bomb car and my health increased. Not everything is about making people richer, it’s about quality of life for all
"Abolishing negative gearing, stop home owner and builder grant, reforming capital gains tax, and banning foreign buyers from purchasing residential property while encouraging them to invest in commercial property could help balance the housing market. Providing tax incentives for first-home buyers on their mortgage interest payments for the first ten years (similar to the U.S. housing policy) would promote home ownership, reduce demand for rental properties, and lessen the burden on taxpayers in the form of rental assistance. Additionally, 80% of newly released land should be allocated to first-home buyers
We inherited a property 11 years ago. In a pretty good suburb. We offered for our children who were mid 20s to live in and pay some rent. House was too old for them. So we sold and bought a fairley new house about 40k from the city and near us. They had the opportunity to save with low rent but didn't. Once girlfriends move became an absolute disaster. This was to become our super as a women I had next to none. There will always be rentals. My parents rented until I was 17 never once did I hear them begrudge a landlord. Why should we be punished for owning 1 property which in the long term saves the government paying us the pension. Nor do we qualify with this assest. Not even a health care card.We now have to kick them out as we are near retiring and dont have enough super. A lot of young do not like the responsibility of looking after properties pay rates insurance pay upkeep etc. So we had a crystal ball knowing there was going to be housing problems. How about pointing out the cost of building and crap building with no control over quality. The houses that are trashed by tenants. We rented for 5yrs and looked after the place like it was our own. Its called respect. Hold the government and real estate accountable for allowing this to happen at the same time a house should standards for tenants to live and they in return should look after the house. I can tell you in my street the rentals are disgusting. Grass over 1 mtr high . Rubbish piling up. Multiple cars parked in front yards But have been sold recently and now look maintained beautiful. My parents were poor migrants but had a lot of respect for other peoples property. So thank you Greens for nothing.
Yep I totally agree, it's all way too generous.. Tax concessions to property investors as well as immigration explosion are why we have this crisis.. Both should be significantly curtailed IMO
See article and Corelogic data:- Housing is Australia's multi billion dollar moneymaker (29/9/2024, ABC news online). The charts in there don't lie. Average capital gain $250k plus....it's a median rate. Can only speak from WA, but the prices have doubled, so what was $400k is now selling for $750k+ and that's just since 2020.....2 years $350k. Or your salary each year and pocketing the rent in superannuation and getting it out again tax free....
Could we also look at the demand side? If we were to significantly reduce the insane levels of immigration that would have an immediate impact on both rents and property prices.
have you look at european countries with STRICT immigration policies? guess what? their housing prices are still skyrocketing. sure, uncontrolled immigration is a problem, but to call it "the biggest cause" is plain wrong.
Great Max, I fully Support you, Support Greens and Save Future Generation. The So called money making investor boofheads, if you have money invest in Business, R&D, Startups so that you can create employment. Housing is Risk less investment becuae of these CGT taxes, thats why so called investor bogans are investing in property market.
Just listened to 3aw . A landlord wants to move back into his primary resident. He now lives in his car. Thanks to Vcat this has made peoples lives nightmares. Why dont you talk about this. No rent being paid. How about you give these people support.
Let’s add immigration to the graph, and you will see that the surge in house prices correlates to the increase in immigration. It’s a simple supply vs demand problem. Simple Keynesian economics. Add to that all the red tape and green tape in getting houses built and you will understand how demand has outstripped supply.
Hey Max, I was a Greens voter in the last election. I am considering if I should vote the Greens again in the next election. One thing I am in doubt is if the Greens is advocating for rent freeze, at the same time Green MPs and senators who are landlords also increase rent for their tenants. How can these MPs and senators represent the Greens' value? I start to think that a lot of Greens (not you) are just hipocrites. Can you do anything about it to help me decide my vote?
Do you have a source of rents going down when they abolished negative gearing? A quick Google search says that rents went up 24% which is why they reversed the policy.
They need to do a "stage 3 tax cuts" like thing on negative gearing by making everyone have the ability to negatively gear their first property regardless of it being investor or primary residence/home (so USA style in that they do this for the home you live in, but with that Aussie extra.... sigh) and bring in a Housing Assistance addition to rent assistance that allows you to get it for interest you are paying on said first house (can only get one or the other of course, so doesn't matter if they were inadvertently rent vesting) at the same rates per dollar, which alone is long overdue. The negative gearing part could be grandfathered in for both taking it away from investors and giving it to home owners in some form if needed to make it possible cost wise but enough benefit to make everyone feel like they get something from it to give that popular effect to bypass the media pushback. Capital gains tax on the other hand would be harder to argue as it is the same discount for other assets (although a house shouldn't be an asset, but you know how it goes). Failing all the above, allow access to super for a 20 percent deposit on a NEW house only and they can access it again and again if they directly pay back all the original amount they took previously and that previous house has been sold (this will create a supply surge solving the issue a different way).
The CG was introduced in 1985, there was no housing crisis in 1990, 1995,2000,2005...........2020 only now its an issue. can you hold a chart to correlate to when the greens party was formed in 1995 and how many developments they stopped??
I mean, interesting choice to use a Nurse as an example when discussing tax effective income as they are one of the few professions that get salary packaging. $9,010 tax free which can include mortgage repayments. Certainly not a 50% reduction in CGT tax but it's around 10% - which is better than my 0%. Further to this, if a nurse was to purchase an investment property - they would be entitled to not only the 50% reduction in CGT but also salary packaging.
The problem with the greens proposal is they want rent caps and NG gone..however they aren't advocating about capped or decreasing...council rates, body corp, insurance, maintenance, reduced govt regulations when it comes to rentals. ALL these things contribute to the price of rent, not just the mortgage payment and this is one thing greens voters never seem to understand. Green MPs know this though....because most of them has multi investment properties also and live in mansions but like most socialists, 'do what I say, not as I do"
The problem is in practical terms is that most houses are owned by normal people, like mum & dads, who might be a nurse and thought investing in a house would be a good thing! Thanks to negative gearing, the rent can be lower...take it away and all mum & dad investors will sell. Who is than buying to homes to rent out? Governments? Greens want to make gov. Owe everything so no private small businesses allowed. This is called 'Totalitarian society' which do not work, unless people do not mind losing all their Freedom, become Slaves. This is what the Elite is planning for us - read the book '1984' and the Greens are all for it, Destruction of a democracy society 😢 when no one is allowed to prosper, these societies do not work in the long run. Why is our Bible speaking about the End Times you think, it's all in the Holy Book. 🙏🙏🙏
Society needs to adjust to a more community based obligation towards business and housing. Housing should not be allowed to treated as a business in these housing crisis times. Just as price gouging from the Energy, Banking, Supermarket and Property sectors etc shouldn't be tolerated.
@@vincentcacciola7161 Gee Vince, their property portfolio is growing exponentially according to you. What is Michaela Cash going to do about property investors, negative gearing and capital gains tax? We are listening but we know you're too gutless to provide any answer.
@@pmcamacho6447 watch what they do not what they say simple dope Nick McKim has six investment properties and Faruqi has six investment properties and land up at the central coast she is developing in a koala habitat choke on it dope arsonists turning up as fireman
Yeah, and they still want to put through things that will affect their investments, doesn't that sound like a good way for them to think? They're willing to take the loss regardless, unlike Labor or LNP landlords
so what? if they're willing to push it through, that means they're willing to sacrifice themselves for the common good. that means they're altruistic, which is great, we've lost altruism in our society, and we need to bring it back NOW.
Max, please consider that one can only sell and investment property once, then its gone. The investor gets taxed on the capital gain in the financial year in which they sell, even though it might have taken them decades to see that gain. Hence it is typical for CGT to be incurred at the top tax rate of 45% plus Medicare levy. Would it not be fairer to reduce the tax liability by an allowance for the cumulative inflation since the property was purchased. i.e. go back to the way CGT used to work between 1985 and 2000.
@@jockey12022011 Not so fast. Provided the asset has been held for 12 months or more, the maximum rate of tax paid on capital gains by individuals is half the top tax rate. i.e. 22.5% (plus Medicare levy). That's less than the 30% big companies pay (small companies pay a few points less). Companies do not get CGT discount. Our tax system incentivises taxpayers to convert personal exertion or investment income to "long term" capital gains. To minimise CGT, hold the asset via an LRBA inside superannuation and don't sell until pension phase, when CGT rate is zero.
To make it more palpable in the interim, why not introduce a diminishing return on ownership over 1 investment property. I only just purchased my first home at 32, so majority of the incentives probably won't apply to me anyway. There's absolutely no reason people need more than 1 investment property, with some having 10+ or even 50+ properties, which is insane. Finally, yes, landlords do not at all contribute to supply by having rentals. The property itself is the supply.
1. You just admited in the video that negative gearing means the investor is spending more on holding the property than making in rental income, making a loss on the investment. You just admitted they are undercharging rent at a lower price than would let the investor break even let alone make any profit for themselves. Does that not seem like the renter's lifestyle is being subsidied while the investor is bleeding out losing money and only getting a portion of that back as a reduction in taxes paid due to negative gearing? How is that unfair again? 2. Negative gearing does not mean property investors are being helped to pay off mortgages. No more so than any other business in australia where expenses incurred in running a business are deductible against income from the business. 3. Yes, negative gearing does help investors with cashflows with interest being deductible whereas owner occupiers can't deduct the interest. But you know what? investors also are stung with a 0.25% extra mortgage rate above owner occupier rates. Investors also have to pay capital gains tax even with the 50% discount, they are still going to have to pay it whereas owner occupiers pay no capital gains tax at all. Why do you only call out about investors paying lower tax rate on the sale of the property vs nurse income and not do the same for owner occupiers who pay no tax at all? Investors also have to pay massive land tax each year which owner occupiers dont. Why do you not call out these facts? Perhaps because the full truth doesn't support your narrative about investors being the big baddies instead of realising there are different tax benefits and costs for investors and owner occupiers, but both get something. Stop trying to pit australians against each other when the real culprit is a shortage of housing with more houses being built the only actual solution. 4. Not taxing someone or taxing them less is not money going from the federal government to that person. It's not a handout. There's no welfare check being sent out. It's simply allowing people to keep more of what they have EARNED working or taken a risk to EARN via capital gains. This is the problem with the left. You view everybody incomes and property as the government's to confiscate with the mentality that to the degree the government doesn't confiscate 100% of incomes and profits you see it as the government giving money to the people who actually worked and took a risk to EARN their money. Is a man not entitled to the sweat off his brow? No says the Greens leader's mentality. It belongs to the poor. It belongs to everyone. 5. The tax concessions go overwhelmingly to the top income earners and wealthy people. So what? That's not news to anyone. Why don't you make the graph have more perspective by putting on what marginal tax rate they are on and how many hundred thousand in tax they pay in gross terms before getting a tax benefit from reducing it? You also fail to account for the fact an ordinary income person who sold their property would shoot up to the highest income band in the year they sell a investment property which might have 20 years of slow capital growth gains being crystalised in 1 year. Why don't you look at the next year or the year before to see if they are in that highest income bracket year after year? More likely they slip back to the middle of the pack. Again you wouldn't show this as it doesnt' support your narrative. 6. If you get rid of negative gearing you are just robbing peter to pay paul. It can change the mix of who owns existing homes, but over time the market will adjust to the incentives and disincentives introduced. In other coutnries house prices are high too even without negative gearing. So there is no emperical evidence it would magically solve anything. 7. You are not building 1 extra house from all this and that's the only real solution to the housing crisis. If it's gone, have you thought through the 2nd and 3rd order effects of disintivising investment in new housing and increasing demand for owner occupied housing instead as people who like to invest in property redirect their savings to buy a better located more expensive house and bank the capital gains tax free without the hassle, cost and risks of investment property ownership?
1. Investors charge what the market will bear. What youre suggesting is they own a house that could be rented for $700 a week but theyre taking a loss and renting it for $600 a week out of the goodness of their heart? Otherwise if every investor aimed to be positively geared and advertised their property above market capacity, they'd stay empty, frustrating the investor until he sold. Potentially at a loss, but from a housing affordability standpoint this is a good outcome.
@@jackbutler3697 You make a fair point. But I would say that high competition and lower costs and interest rates allowed landlords to rent to have some capacity to bear a loss on the rental which they had to pass onto renters to keep their places rented. But remember that renters too pay what capacity they have to pay. Given rental prices have gone up 30% and the vacancy rate is still now, it indicates that renters had a latent capacity to pay before which they are now utilising. It's well known that household sizes shrunk since COVID as renters demanded more space and coudl get it because landlords were desperate to get a renter in with very high vacancy rates during COVID. Renters took advantage by moving to a better location or bigger place or moved out of mum and dad's home. All of that will gradually wind back as the higher price tag forces renters to adjust their lifestyle choices according to what they can afford. It is entirely fair a 30% increase in rents occurs when the cost of the alternative buy a home up 25% and the cost to build a home up 40% since covid. if landlord mortgage interest costs go up 300% along with other bills and maintanance going up due to high inflation, why shouldn't renters be passed on the increased cost of providing shelter? Any business that doesn't pass on increased costs goes bankrupt. You wouldn't begrudge your school teacher asking for a payrise to cover increased cost of living. Nor if the local bakery increases bread prices because their inputs have gone up. Why some people like the greens think that landlords should be forced to run private charities subsidising renters lifestyles is beyond me.
@@vincentcacciola7161 15 investment properties. wow...imagine the ungodly amounts of stamp duty they paid on purchase and the tens of thousands they have to pay on land tax whether property prices go up or not. With low starting yeilds I worked out that on a typical $1.2m sydney house you basically need $50k PA capital gain just to cover the all in yearly cost and be on par with sticking the money in a term deposit.
@@TheMightyAbs Most investment properties are owned by boomers who paid these properties off 10 years ago. Nothing but clear profit through the tripling of rent (plus) since they purchased the property. You're argument is BS. Do you represent the Real Estate Council of Australia? Scott Morrison did. I'd trust a dingo with a baby before I'd trust him.
Capital gains taxes were reduced around the end of the 1980's or beginning of the 1990's. The introduction of capital gains taxes had led to a critical shortage of land lords. From defective memory it was the Labor Party not the Liberals that made the change. I was well aware of the critical situation with rentals at the time and counted myself fortunate to have recently bought my own place. I have never been masochistic enough to want to be a land lord. I will leave that to braver souls. When the Green inner city voters cannot find a place to live due to a land lord shortage and insufficient earnings to be able to buy, their lives will be troubled. You guys are to young to remember the last time. Building more social homes for working class families would be more helpful. Permitting the tenants to buy them, when able would also be helpful. The family that I grew up in rented and later bought a house from the government. Pets were ok. The tenancy was secure. My parents eventually bought the house and lived there for more than 60 years until they died.
Cancelling negative gearing will not do much to change the elite hegemony, limiting the number of houses individual and corporate can own will. Cancelling it will only leave the power in the hands of those that have power while stopping new entrants to rise up. That's what the greens want, to limit new entrants so they can preserve old ones. Capital gain is a tax. A nurse pays nominal 25-30% tax on her income. A developer pays 50%. Maxi doesn't understand numbers much. Greens, once again, just seek to stay in the Australian elite, only willing to promote whoever agrees with them, instead of letting new competitors in.
@@beniluv3250 typical Neoliberal nonsense. The competition argument is no longer valid. It had its place in the 1990's but the pendulum has swung and the grosely wealthy and unethical are now a burden to the rest of society. The white collar tax charity of negative gearing and capital gains tax for the top 10% of wealthy Australians needs to end. Howard, Costello and all the governments that followed have undermined the future of of youth. Sadly, you know this. You're ideology is a viscous, immortal scar.
That because you, youe excel spread sheet and google thought you were way smarter than your parents and derived that renting is way better than owning a property. hmmmm same time as the beginning of greens party
They literally support the policies as well... That's the point... Even if it effects them, The Greens are still voting for the good of the majority, not their own back pockets... I've never understood exactly what the point of bringing this up even is... Doesn't that go to show they personally have something to lose are and STILL pushing these policies? Isn't that a good thing? As opposed to most of the major parties members who have their hands in the till and hence don't want to fix the problem they are personally benefiting from.
Misinformation. Max C-S keeps referring to it as a tax hand-out and refers to money “going” to property investors. Fact is, no money is transferred from the Australian government TO the property investors. All that happens is they are taxed less. Imagine that! People keeping more of the money they earned!
Misinformation. Capital gains tax discount. If a buy a house for $400k in 2000 and sell it for $500k in 2024 have I made $100k profit? No, of course not - because of inflation. In fact I have probably broken even. And yet, I will pay capital gains tax on $50k of the alleged profit.
@@Surfdays.australia So what you're saying is you don't understand the difference between a wage and a capital gain? If you buy a car in 2020 for $20k, spend $5k doing it up, and sell it for $30k in 2024, have you made $10k profit?
70% of that numbers are international students, they're poor young people just like young australians, how could you blame them for the housing crisis?
Capital gains tax applies to anything held longer then 12 months.. stocks included.. and if you run a business you claim the loss so we dont have to pay tax on positively geared property ? If you want a kid to run your economy vote greens 😂
Answer me this genius, if the scams don't make money why do they bleat like stuck pigs when you threaten to remove them? Like the guy said, there are a myriad of idiots ready to defend their scams with nonsense arguments, you're just one.
@@TheLolz1988you know why it's a scam. It's white collar welfare. It's a charity for the wealthiest 10% of our population. It's morally repugnant when people are forced to live in tents on public lands. So much egalitarian Australia.
What makes Australias NG policy rather unique is you can claim losses against different income sources. If neg gearing was limited to the one asset class it wouldn't be an issue. The reason it is an issue is that high income professionals like doctors use their losses from one income, to offset their tax liabilities in another, bringing their taxable incomes down from $2-300,000, to $100,000 saving them a motza in tax, and their payday comes when they cash in on their capital gain at 50% of their ordinary tax rate.
@@jackbutler3697 so can someone not pay profit on a positively geared property if we dont treat it as a business? Like i said primary school kids do a better job
@@k-sooyaalove206 who, a 14 year old drop out that was classed as unemployable??? take it from me, if you are a deadbeat you will NOT rise to the top!!!
We can all do comparisons. The first $18,200 of the money you earn is tax free. That is a total of $182B of income that is untaxed! If we got rid of the tax-free component that would be worth $28.8B in tax the government is missing out on. Or to use Max C-S’s (incorrect) terminology, that’s $28.8B the government is just giving away to people who earn a wage!
I own a house yet 100% support this. Everyone deserves a house to live in
it's because owning a house to LIVE is vastly different from owning a house to INVEST. everyone SHOULD have their own house to live, but to invest? no.
Thanks
thank you for your empathy - a renter
I'm with you, Max! I'm a renter for 15 years. I keep my eyes on the Domain website every week. I'm planning to move to cheaper rent in a very far location from my workplace due to rent keep increasing.The apartments rental price range over $750 a week have been sitting empty for many many months - some for years now. If those belongs to ordinary nurses and cops - moms & dads, how could they afford to let the places sit empty for many many months? Wouldn't they have to pay the mortgage? Unless those belong to hoard corporate investors. They put the very very high rental price that no one can afford to pay, let the places sit empty, and negative gear on that - claiming business loss from no one rent out their place. They have too much control and this is not fair. We do need to abolish NG and tax investors more if they let their places sit empty.
I've criticised Max for not accepting that high immigration is also a contributor to housing demand and his support of the leadership of the CFMEU. However, this and his last YT presentation were brilliant. Thanks for showing the punters the basic but essential facts of the impacts of the neo liberal policies of negative gearing and capital gains tax. Adam Bandt has made similar presentations in the past. I wish he'd continued with them.
so according to you supporting UNIONS is what caused this housing crisis?? what a joke.
220k Australians permanently left Australia in 2023.
Housing rents a massive amount of private homes through lend-lease taking up a lot of rentals because they demolished or sold housing but of course most average Australians blame immigration
@@candicem9344 Migration arrivals reached a record of 765,990 and departures reached 217,100 in 2023, ('Migration Rose by 1/3 last year to lift Australia's population by a record 659,00, L.Ittimani & P.Karp, The Guardian, 21 March 2024)
Your point is? My point is more consumers adding to the population consume more energy, more carbon, more services, more natural habitat, more infrastructure, more utilities, more water all at the expense of our existing population and environment. I'm all for increasing our humanitarian intake of immigrants at the sacrifice of immigrants who have come from wealthy backgrounds elsewhere. But the numbers need to be lower. Before 1990 our annual net overseas migration numbers were 70, 000. since 2000 it has been 200,000 per year and the projections from here are an annual NOM of 250,000. 1 million every 4 years. It takes 555 mature trees to absorb the carbon that each Australian emits. So we would need to nurture 555,000,000 trees to maturity every 4 years to recycle the carbon every 1 million new Australian consumers produce. I doubt whether we have that many trees over the entire continent now. Can't you see that an ever increasing population is just adding to an irreversible ponzi scheme?.
@@k-sooyaalove206don't take me out of context. It's obvious that's not what I meant. Btw the CFMEU is certainly not a typical union. I don't see other Union leaders employing outlaw motorcycle thugs and organised crime figures. Do you?
@@JamieWalkleyI don't disagree that many in the property and development industries are white collar criminals. Money laundering through property via lawyers, accountants and real estate agents is rife. And these 'professionals' are legally protected from disclosing who their clients are and where this (cash) money originates. Then there are the construction companies themselves. However, is it advisable the Greens align themselves with violent outlaw motorcycle gangs? Organised crime figures that are have siphoned off union members contributions in the form of 6 figure salaries for essentially doing nothing but introducing yet another level of crime? The Greens naturally should represent Unions, but they should also have the common sense to steer clear of the CFMEU.
Landlords provide housing like scalpers provide concert tickets
C O R R E C T
would you be happier if the landlord was Ticketmaster, like a superannuation fund that own the rental? I can sell all my investment properties and invest in the build to rent index fund
We need a cap on residential property ownership. No more than two properties allowed to be owned. No corporate ownership, no foreign ownership, no trust fund ownership. Remove the 50% discount on Capital Gains Tax and only allow negative gearing on new builds. Ban AirBnB and Stayz etc from whole house/building letting and only allow them to operate as room-to-let apps, as they were originally intended.
Yes
THIS! ❤
What?? green won't agreed to that, they want superannuation funds to own the rental housing
We also need someone with balls to make those changes
Thank you for the wonderful explanation!
did you need colored post it notes to understand how to calculate 50%?
Why has our government allowed this to go on for so long??? It’s extremely depressing to live in this country now. A greedy few are benefiting why the rest of us suffer. Max is the only politician speaking any sense atm. I watched a home go from $450K in 2015 to $750K in 2024, why?
Well explained, Max.
Ive only recently started voting greens. Always voted Labor for the last 20 years. The topic that got me rethinking my choices was, Adam talking about Corporate greed and money in politics.. Keep going peoples. We need a 3rd major party.
❤
Yep, I have been saying this for ages, negative gearing has only over inflated the housing market, it basically turned the Australian housing market into a massive bubble. The housing market in Australia needs to cool off by at least 30% to 40% or more.
wont happen the governemnt to greedy why new homes cost alot to build , if you were lookng for a home and new build 4 million and 70s dump 2,5 million what would you buy the new build
Fully agree and support your work.
This is the main reason for the housing crisis.
1 in 4 rentals in the 80s was government housing
How about banning foreign ownership of residential property, as well?
It would be superfluous. If it's owner occupiers, (say, a permanent resident or long term visa holder), then it's the same thing Max just talked about. If it's foreign investors, then it's still the same thing Max just talked about.
Blaming foreign owners is just another distraction. It's what property investors and the politicians they've bought want you to think about, but it's not the problem causing the housing crisis, and it's not the solution.
@@slipperyrancidcheeseThat's why I said as well as, not instead of.
@slipperyrancidcheese No, it's not superfluous because stopping foreign investors would reduce the total number of investors that can access the market. We cant stop all investors, but we can prevent foreign investors. Importantly, foreign investors don't get the capital gains tax concession and are unlikely to benefit from negative gearing, so changes to these laws will not reduce the amount of foreign investors. Therefore, additional legislative changes would be necessary to prevent the housing demand created by foreign investors. Additionally, there is evidence that foreign investors purchase Australian properties to launder money. I shouldn't have to say that combating International money laundering requires a global approach that Australia has a moral obligation to take part in. No one here is saying that foreign investors are the sole cause of the housing crisis. There are several factors and 'foreign investors' is just one factor. If we want to address the problem, we can't be afraid to tackle all of the issues.
Agreed. We need to address all the factors.
@@slipperyrancidcheese Neither is negative gearing. Negative-geared properties supply rentals. The tax rebate is the same as a business write-off at the end of the financial year. We should stop that as well, then. Getting rid of incentives for people to buy properties to rent out is the dumbest business idea ever. The government will not give you a house, you have to buy it or rent it.
So Labor knew that NG and CGT discounts need to go in 2019 to avoid the ever growing housing affordibility crises, but in 2024, they are playing hard ball because they care more about votes... Got it!!!
Don't forget, same as the libs, too
Love your work!
Well said brilliantly put Max ❤❤❤
Australia, the country where rich property investors pay less tax than the poor middle class. It's absolutely disgusting! (Even the IMF agrees)
I remember in Brisbane in the 80s, my rent was 40% of my income. I became under weight, malnourished and hospitalised because I couldn’t afford a lot of food and there were no food banks. Negative gearing was phased out and my rent became 25% of my wage and I could afford to buy a bomb car and my health increased. Not everything is about making people richer, it’s about quality of life for all
"Abolishing negative gearing, stop home owner and builder grant, reforming capital gains tax, and banning foreign buyers from purchasing residential property while encouraging them to invest in commercial property could help balance the housing market. Providing tax incentives for first-home buyers on their mortgage interest payments for the first ten years (similar to the U.S. housing policy) would promote home ownership, reduce demand for rental properties, and lessen the burden on taxpayers in the form of rental assistance. Additionally, 80% of newly released land should be allocated to first-home buyers
Very hard for a genie to be put back in a bottle. Yes and good on the Greens for calling the old Parties out for having their hand in the till....
Max, would the greens support negative gearing and CGT discount for brand new builds to encourage new supply ? Or are you totally against this ?
Thank you Max.
Build your own home like we used to
We inherited a property 11 years ago. In a pretty good suburb. We offered for our children who were mid 20s to live in and pay some rent. House was too old for them. So we sold and bought a fairley new house about 40k from the city and near us. They had the opportunity to save with low rent but didn't. Once girlfriends move became an absolute disaster. This was to become our super as a women I had next to none. There will always be rentals. My parents rented until I was 17 never once did I hear them begrudge a landlord. Why should we be punished for owning 1 property which in the long term saves the government paying us the pension. Nor do we qualify with this assest. Not even a health care card.We now have to kick them out as we are near retiring and dont have enough super. A lot of young do not like the responsibility of looking after properties pay rates insurance pay upkeep etc. So we had a crystal ball knowing there was going to be housing problems. How about pointing out the cost of building and crap building with no control over quality. The houses that are trashed by tenants. We rented for 5yrs and looked after the place like it was our own. Its called respect. Hold the government and real estate accountable for allowing this to happen at the same time a house should standards for tenants to live and they in return should look after the house. I can tell you in my street the rentals are disgusting. Grass over 1 mtr high . Rubbish piling up. Multiple cars parked in front yards But have been sold recently and now look maintained beautiful. My parents were poor migrants but had a lot of respect for other peoples property. So thank you Greens for nothing.
Yep I totally agree, it's all way too generous.. Tax concessions to property investors as well as immigration explosion are why we have this crisis.. Both should be significantly curtailed IMO
See article and Corelogic data:-
Housing is Australia's multi billion dollar moneymaker (29/9/2024, ABC news online). The charts in there don't lie. Average capital gain $250k plus....it's a median rate. Can only speak from WA, but the prices have doubled, so what was $400k is now selling for $750k+ and that's just since 2020.....2 years $350k. Or your salary each year and pocketing the rent in superannuation and getting it out again tax free....
Could we also look at the demand side? If we were to significantly reduce the insane levels of immigration that would have an immediate impact on both rents and property prices.
have you look at european countries with STRICT immigration policies? guess what? their housing prices are still skyrocketing. sure, uncontrolled immigration is a problem, but to call it "the biggest cause" is plain wrong.
Great Max, I fully Support you, Support Greens and Save Future Generation.
The So called money making investor boofheads, if you have money invest in Business, R&D, Startups so that you can create employment.
Housing is Risk less investment becuae of these CGT taxes, thats why so called investor bogans are investing in property market.
Just listened to 3aw . A landlord wants to move back into his primary resident. He now lives in his car. Thanks to Vcat this has made peoples lives nightmares. Why dont you talk about this. No rent being paid. How about you give these people support.
All True! been here 30 years NOT such the Luck country it used to be.
What are the comparative impacts when negative gearing is limited to a single property for investors?
No1: RENAME Negative Gearing to what it is. INVESTOR TAX EVASION SUBSIDY
Let’s add immigration to the graph, and you will see that the surge in house prices correlates to the increase in immigration. It’s a simple supply vs demand problem. Simple Keynesian economics. Add to that all the red tape and green tape in getting houses built and you will understand how demand has outstripped supply.
Max Chandler-Mather is the best thing to ever happen to the Greens party. He is the only politician with coconuts 🥥🥥
Lay off the pipe 😂😂😂😂
Investors are buying houses and getting occupant to pay the mortgage
Hey Max, I was a Greens voter in the last election. I am considering if I should vote the Greens again in the next election. One thing I am in doubt is if the Greens is advocating for rent freeze, at the same time Green MPs and senators who are landlords also increase rent for their tenants. How can these MPs and senators represent the Greens' value? I start to think that a lot of Greens (not you) are just hipocrites. Can you do anything about it to help me decide my vote?
Keep fighting until you achieve this goal. Fill support
Would the greens get rid of the capital gains discount on other assets such as stocks?
Do you have a source of rents going down when they abolished negative gearing? A quick Google search says that rents went up 24% which is why they reversed the policy.
Rents continue to rise with negative gearing.
They need to do a "stage 3 tax cuts" like thing on negative gearing by making everyone have the ability to negatively gear their first property regardless of it being investor or primary residence/home (so USA style in that they do this for the home you live in, but with that Aussie extra.... sigh) and bring in a Housing Assistance addition to rent assistance that allows you to get it for interest you are paying on said first house (can only get one or the other of course, so doesn't matter if they were inadvertently rent vesting) at the same rates per dollar, which alone is long overdue. The negative gearing part could be grandfathered in for both taking it away from investors and giving it to home owners in some form if needed to make it possible cost wise but enough benefit to make everyone feel like they get something from it to give that popular effect to bypass the media pushback. Capital gains tax on the other hand would be harder to argue as it is the same discount for other assets (although a house shouldn't be an asset, but you know how it goes). Failing all the above, allow access to super for a 20 percent deposit on a NEW house only and they can access it again and again if they directly pay back all the original amount they took previously and that previous house has been sold (this will create a supply surge solving the issue a different way).
Hey, is Rex Patrick just gunna give my vote to a major party. I'm going green anyhow
@@confuzsays7196 don't be dising Rex Patrick. He has more integrity than the members of the senate put together
Go Green 🤙🏻
Its got nothing to do with record high immigration right champ
The CG was introduced in 1985, there was no housing crisis in 1990, 1995,2000,2005...........2020 only now its an issue. can you hold a chart to correlate to when the greens party was formed in 1995 and how many developments they stopped??
@@sometingwongwai9679 there has been a housing crisis since 2010. You just earn enough so you haven't felt it
I mean, interesting choice to use a Nurse as an example when discussing tax effective income as they are one of the few professions that get salary packaging. $9,010 tax free which can include mortgage repayments. Certainly not a 50% reduction in CGT tax but it's around 10% - which is better than my 0%.
Further to this, if a nurse was to purchase an investment property - they would be entitled to not only the 50% reduction in CGT but also salary packaging.
Sure once you reintroduce CPI indexation on gains.
The problem with the greens proposal is they want rent caps and NG gone..however they aren't advocating about capped or decreasing...council rates, body corp, insurance, maintenance, reduced govt regulations when it comes to rentals. ALL these things contribute to the price of rent, not just the mortgage payment and this is one thing greens voters never seem to understand. Green MPs know this though....because most of them has multi investment properties also and live in mansions but like most socialists, 'do what I say, not as I do"
Pre 1985 there was no CGT regime on any capital assets. Why didn't house prices go berserk then?
I love negative gearing
Good on you but a lot of people don't love negative gearing
He forgot to mentioned that if you had your investment property +10 years ago, it will be positively geared and paying taxes on the earnings.
@@sometingwongwai9679 but making record earnings since the rents have doubled in that time. Don't be disingenuous.
The problem is in practical terms is that most houses are owned by normal people, like mum & dads, who might be a nurse and thought investing in a house would be a good thing! Thanks to negative gearing, the rent can be lower...take it away and all mum & dad investors will sell. Who is than buying to homes to rent out? Governments? Greens want to make gov. Owe everything so no private small businesses allowed. This is called 'Totalitarian society' which do not work, unless people do not mind losing all their Freedom, become Slaves.
This is what the Elite is planning for us - read the book '1984' and the Greens are all for it, Destruction of a democracy society 😢 when no one is allowed to prosper, these societies do not work in the long run. Why is our Bible speaking about the End Times you think, it's all in the Holy Book. 🙏🙏🙏
Housing policy in this country is an abomination.
Claiming costs of business like every other business
How many houses have greens supplied
Social housing is 100% negative geared over it entire life.
Society needs to adjust to a more community based obligation towards business and housing. Housing should not be allowed to treated as a business in these housing crisis times. Just as price gouging from the Energy, Banking, Supermarket and Property sectors etc shouldn't be tolerated.
Don't think greens supply anything Nick McKim and Faruqi have fifteen property's between them look at what they do this is hilarious
@@pmcamacho6447 if you want to give me a free house I will take it.
@@vincentcacciola7161 Gee Vince, their property portfolio is growing exponentially according to you. What is Michaela Cash going to do about property investors, negative gearing and capital gains tax? We are listening but we know you're too gutless to provide any answer.
@@pmcamacho6447 watch what they do not what they say simple dope Nick McKim has six investment properties and Faruqi has six investment properties and land up at the central coast she is developing in a koala habitat choke on it dope arsonists turning up as fireman
Many if not most federal greens members have one or several rental properties each.
6 to 10 homes
Yeah, and they still want to put through things that will affect their investments, doesn't that sound like a good way for them to think?
They're willing to take the loss regardless, unlike Labor or LNP landlords
so what? if they're willing to push it through, that means they're willing to sacrifice themselves for the common good. that means they're altruistic, which is great, we've lost altruism in our society, and we need to bring it back NOW.
@aprilosborne4809 as always this won't be retrospective so it will only affect new property owners not the existing ones.
@@aprilosborne4809 you lived under communism the poltical class own all investment properties in cuba
💚💚💚💚💚💚💚💚 x
Max, please consider that one can only sell and investment property once, then its gone. The investor gets taxed on the capital gain in the financial year in which they sell, even though it might have taken them decades to see that gain. Hence it is typical for CGT to be incurred at the top tax rate of 45% plus Medicare levy. Would it not be fairer to reduce the tax liability by an allowance for the cumulative inflation since the property was purchased. i.e. go back to the way CGT used to work between 1985 and 2000.
If CGT concession gets scrapped wouldn't you just register the house under a trust or business? Then you'd only be paying 30% tax
As in, if housing is going to be treated like a business, it should be taxed like a business
@@jockey12022011 Not so fast. Provided the asset has been held for 12 months or more, the maximum rate of tax paid on capital gains by individuals is half the top tax rate. i.e. 22.5% (plus Medicare levy). That's less than the 30% big companies pay (small companies pay a few points less). Companies do not get CGT discount. Our tax system incentivises taxpayers to convert personal exertion or investment income to "long term" capital gains. To minimise CGT, hold the asset via an LRBA inside superannuation and don't sell until pension phase, when CGT rate is zero.
👍
GC was introduced in 1985 population 15M - 2023 population 26M. geez wonder why figures has gone up. Maybe orange post it note for that one???
To make it more palpable in the interim, why not introduce a diminishing return on ownership over 1 investment property.
I only just purchased my first home at 32, so majority of the incentives probably won't apply to me anyway.
There's absolutely no reason people need more than 1 investment property, with some having 10+ or even 50+ properties, which is insane.
Finally, yes, landlords do not at all contribute to supply by having rentals. The property itself is the supply.
@@prophets999 well said
1. You just admited in the video that negative gearing means the investor is spending more on holding the property than making in rental income, making a loss on the investment. You just admitted they are undercharging rent at a lower price than would let the investor break even let alone make any profit for themselves. Does that not seem like the renter's lifestyle is being subsidied while the investor is bleeding out losing money and only getting a portion of that back as a reduction in taxes paid due to negative gearing? How is that unfair again?
2. Negative gearing does not mean property investors are being helped to pay off mortgages. No more so than any other business in australia where expenses incurred in running a business are deductible against income from the business.
3. Yes, negative gearing does help investors with cashflows with interest being deductible whereas owner occupiers can't deduct the interest. But you know what? investors also are stung with a 0.25% extra mortgage rate above owner occupier rates. Investors also have to pay capital gains tax even with the 50% discount, they are still going to have to pay it whereas owner occupiers pay no capital gains tax at all. Why do you only call out about investors paying lower tax rate on the sale of the property vs nurse income and not do the same for owner occupiers who pay no tax at all? Investors also have to pay massive land tax each year which owner occupiers dont. Why do you not call out these facts? Perhaps because the full truth doesn't support your narrative about investors being the big baddies instead of realising there are different tax benefits and costs for investors and owner occupiers, but both get something. Stop trying to pit australians against each other when the real culprit is a shortage of housing with more houses being built the only actual solution.
4. Not taxing someone or taxing them less is not money going from the federal government to that person. It's not a handout. There's no welfare check being sent out. It's simply allowing people to keep more of what they have EARNED working or taken a risk to EARN via capital gains. This is the problem with the left. You view everybody incomes and property as the government's to confiscate with the mentality that to the degree the government doesn't confiscate 100% of incomes and profits you see it as the government giving money to the people who actually worked and took a risk to EARN their money. Is a man not entitled to the sweat off his brow? No says the Greens leader's mentality. It belongs to the poor. It belongs to everyone.
5. The tax concessions go overwhelmingly to the top income earners and wealthy people. So what? That's not news to anyone. Why don't you make the graph have more perspective by putting on what marginal tax rate they are on and how many hundred thousand in tax they pay in gross terms before getting a tax benefit from reducing it? You also fail to account for the fact an ordinary income person who sold their property would shoot up to the highest income band in the year they sell a investment property which might have 20 years of slow capital growth gains being crystalised in 1 year. Why don't you look at the next year or the year before to see if they are in that highest income bracket year after year? More likely they slip back to the middle of the pack. Again you wouldn't show this as it doesnt' support your narrative.
6. If you get rid of negative gearing you are just robbing peter to pay paul. It can change the mix of who owns existing homes, but over time the market will adjust to the incentives and disincentives introduced. In other coutnries house prices are high too even without negative gearing. So there is no emperical evidence it would magically solve anything.
7. You are not building 1 extra house from all this and that's the only real solution to the housing crisis. If it's gone, have you thought through the 2nd and 3rd order effects of disintivising investment in new housing and increasing demand for owner occupied housing instead as people who like to invest in property redirect their savings to buy a better located more expensive house and bank the capital gains tax free without the hassle, cost and risks of investment property ownership?
1. Investors charge what the market will bear. What youre suggesting is they own a house that could be rented for $700 a week but theyre taking a loss and renting it for $600 a week out of the goodness of their heart?
Otherwise if every investor aimed to be positively geared and advertised their property above market capacity, they'd stay empty, frustrating the investor until he sold. Potentially at a loss, but from a housing affordability standpoint this is a good outcome.
Come on look at what these 🤡 do Nick McKim and Faruqi have fifteen investment properties between them hilarious
@@jackbutler3697 You make a fair point. But I would say that high competition and lower costs and interest rates allowed landlords to rent to have some capacity to bear a loss on the rental which they had to pass onto renters to keep their places rented.
But remember that renters too pay what capacity they have to pay. Given rental prices have gone up 30% and the vacancy rate is still now, it indicates that renters had a latent capacity to pay before which they are now utilising. It's well known that household sizes shrunk since COVID as renters demanded more space and coudl get it because landlords were desperate to get a renter in with very high vacancy rates during COVID.
Renters took advantage by moving to a better location or bigger place or moved out of mum and dad's home. All of that will gradually wind back as the higher price tag forces renters to adjust their lifestyle choices according to what they can afford.
It is entirely fair a 30% increase in rents occurs when the cost of the alternative buy a home up 25% and the cost to build a home up 40% since covid. if landlord mortgage interest costs go up 300% along with other bills and maintanance going up due to high inflation, why shouldn't renters be passed on the increased cost of providing shelter? Any business that doesn't pass on increased costs goes bankrupt. You wouldn't begrudge your school teacher asking for a payrise to cover increased cost of living. Nor if the local bakery increases bread prices because their inputs have gone up. Why some people like the greens think that landlords should be forced to run private charities subsidising renters lifestyles is beyond me.
@@vincentcacciola7161 15 investment properties. wow...imagine the ungodly amounts of stamp duty they paid on purchase and the tens of thousands they have to pay on land tax whether property prices go up or not. With low starting yeilds I worked out that on a typical $1.2m sydney house you basically need $50k PA capital gain just to cover the all in yearly cost and be on par with sticking the money in a term deposit.
@@TheMightyAbs Most investment properties are owned by boomers who paid these properties off 10 years ago. Nothing but clear profit through the tripling of rent (plus) since they purchased the property. You're argument is BS. Do you represent the Real Estate Council of Australia? Scott Morrison did. I'd trust a dingo with a baby before I'd trust him.
Capital gains taxes were reduced around the end of the 1980's or beginning of the 1990's. The introduction of capital gains taxes had led to a critical shortage of land lords. From defective memory it was the Labor Party not the Liberals that made the change. I was well aware of the critical situation with rentals at the time and counted myself fortunate to have recently bought my own place. I have never been masochistic enough to want to be a land lord. I will leave that to braver souls. When the Green inner city voters cannot find a place to live due to a land lord shortage and insufficient earnings to be able to buy, their lives will be troubled. You guys are to young to remember the last time. Building more social homes for working class families would be more helpful. Permitting the tenants to buy them, when able would also be helpful. The family that I grew up in rented and later bought a house from the government. Pets were ok. The tenancy was secure. My parents eventually bought the house and lived there for more than 60 years until they died.
Cancelling negative gearing will not do much to change the elite hegemony, limiting the number of houses individual and corporate can own will.
Cancelling it will only leave the power in the hands of those that have power while stopping new entrants to rise up.
That's what the greens want, to limit new entrants so they can preserve old ones.
Capital gain is a tax. A nurse pays nominal 25-30% tax on her income. A developer pays 50%. Maxi doesn't understand numbers much.
Greens, once again, just seek to stay in the Australian elite, only willing to promote whoever agrees with them, instead of letting new competitors in.
@@beniluv3250 typical Neoliberal nonsense. The competition argument is no longer valid. It had its place in the 1990's but the pendulum has swung and the grosely wealthy and unethical are now a burden to the rest of society. The white collar tax charity of negative gearing and capital gains tax for the top 10% of wealthy Australians needs to end. Howard, Costello and all the governments that followed have undermined the future of of youth. Sadly, you know this. You're ideology is a viscous, immortal scar.
That because you, youe excel spread sheet and google thought you were way smarter than your parents and derived that renting is way better than owning a property. hmmmm same time as the beginning of greens party
Oh please Nick McKim and Faruqi will not be happy with you between them they own fifteen property's hilarious
They literally support the policies as well... That's the point... Even if it effects them, The Greens are still voting for the good of the majority, not their own back pockets... I've never understood exactly what the point of bringing this up even is... Doesn't that go to show they personally have something to lose are and STILL pushing these policies? Isn't that a good thing? As opposed to most of the major parties members who have their hands in the till and hence don't want to fix the problem they are personally benefiting from.
@@TheTruePhoenixAU it wont effect them because in cuba poltical class own every property
Misinformation. Max C-S keeps referring to it as a tax hand-out and refers to money “going” to property investors. Fact is, no money is transferred from the Australian government TO the property investors. All that happens is they are taxed less. Imagine that! People keeping more of the money they earned!
Misinformation. Capital gains tax discount.
If a buy a house for $400k in 2000 and sell it for $500k in 2024 have I made $100k profit? No, of course not - because of inflation. In fact I have probably broken even. And yet, I will pay capital gains tax on $50k of the alleged profit.
So what your saying is anyone who makes 100k - work , business or house flipping shouldn’t pay tax because of inflation
@@Surfdays.australia So what you're saying is you don't understand the difference between a wage and a capital gain?
If you buy a car in 2020 for $20k, spend $5k doing it up, and sell it for $30k in 2024, have you made $10k profit?
Max C-S doesn’t seem to understand the difference between an income and a capital gain from the sale of an asset.
Let's talk about the 800K of people migrating into Australia each year, this is over stimulating the housing crisis, investing in property is BS
I agree with you. I get very frustrated that the Greens have their heads in the sand about out of control immigration.
70% of that numbers are international students, they're poor young people just like young australians, how could you blame them for the housing crisis?
@@k-sooyaalove206 still 100% of the problem though,aren't they? are you a DH or just challenged?
Capital gains tax applies to anything held longer then 12 months.. stocks included.. and if you run a business you claim the loss so we dont have to pay tax on positively geared property ? If you want a kid to run your economy vote greens 😂
Answer me this genius, if the scams don't make money why do they bleat like stuck pigs when you threaten to remove them? Like the guy said, there are a myriad of idiots ready to defend their scams with nonsense arguments, you're just one.
@@kussemeinkont thanks for acknowledging the genius part.. secoundly i dont understand a word you said
@@TheLolz1988you know why it's a scam. It's white collar welfare. It's a charity for the wealthiest 10% of our population. It's morally repugnant when people are forced to live in tents on public lands. So much egalitarian Australia.
What makes Australias NG policy rather unique is you can claim losses against different income sources. If neg gearing was limited to the one asset class it wouldn't be an issue. The reason it is an issue is that high income professionals like doctors use their losses from one income, to offset their tax liabilities in another, bringing their taxable incomes down from $2-300,000, to $100,000 saving them a motza in tax, and their payday comes when they cash in on their capital gain at 50% of their ordinary tax rate.
@@jackbutler3697 so can someone not pay profit on a positively geared property if we dont treat it as a business? Like i said primary school kids do a better job
looks like every comment on this thread is from an underachiever with no real idea on how to better their lives!
said the privileged.
@@k-sooyaalove206 who, a 14 year old drop out that was classed as unemployable??? take it from me, if you are a deadbeat you will NOT rise to the top!!!
@@ronralston3592 if you vote left you wont own a home either
Spoken by someone who obviously thrives on the idea that its OK to get wealthy on the backs of others - especially those who can least afford it.
@@annecrestani9218 Yep, happy to make money
😂😂😂 green's economics because i always ask the gardener how to do mathematics
We can all do comparisons. The first $18,200 of the money you earn is tax free. That is a total of $182B of income that is untaxed! If we got rid of the tax-free component that would be worth $28.8B in tax the government is missing out on. Or to use Max C-S’s (incorrect) terminology, that’s $28.8B the government is just giving away to people who earn a wage!
more than 125 taxes in australia the green will add more taxes making it harder to own a home
50% taxes & regulations on new build
in Manhattan usa a studio sold $150000aud
2016 bmw m3 in new zealand $35000 that leaves you more savings to buy a home in Australia a 2016 m3 $20000 more lol , in usa about $20000usd now
green want 50% luxury car tax & 25% import duty how that help you save for home if you paying more taxes for your life style to live
good then, no middle class needs luxury car anyway, we only need small but comfy cars. infact, i think we should tax luxury cars at 100%.
Greens want more taxes on everything.
@@davidcarter4247 the communist the evil
home ownership shrunk since late 80S ! big government with higher taxes sucks not capitalism why you dont own a home
2021 bmw m3 competion $1000000aud in nz middle class affordable ! if you paid far less taxes in australia you would be better off an own a home
I bought investment property in usa $500000 close to new york cbd it so much cheaper