<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) are the fastest growing sector of the superannuation industry, <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Super-statistics/SMSF/Self-managed-super-funds--A-statistical-overview-2010-11/?page=4#Growth_of_SMSF_sector" target="_blank">spiking</a> by 33% between 2008 and 2012, putting them in the sights of both the super industry and the Australian Taxation Office.
From July the ATO will be able to levy individual <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Super/Self-managed-super-funds/In-detail/News/SMSF-News/SMSF-News---edition-29/?page=2#Be_prepared_for_new_penalty_powers">fines</a> of up to A$10,200 on fund trustees who breach superannuation law, a step up from the previous environment where breaches could only result in making a fund “non-compliant”, or a referral to a court for penalties.
But many superannuation industry representatives want more regulation of self-managed super funds, with calls to the current financial system inquiry ranging from <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.financialstandard.com.au/news/view/39283887" target="_blank">regulating the funds as a financial product</a>, to <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.financialstandard.com.au/news/view/39104282">forcing</a> fund trustees to use a financial planner when the fund borrows money to invest in property.
The current benefits of SMSFs
SMSFs are perceived as giving tax advantages to their members, but they are taxed at the same (concessional) rates as other superannuation funds, and must comply with similar regulatory requirements: the main technical differences are in the administration of the fund, and the control that the member/trustees of an SMSF have in devising an investment strategy. The tax advantages that members of SMSFs do obtain are largely through the characteristics of the structure and the profile of SMSF members.
However there are some regulations that apply specifically to SMSFs; and others that in practice are more relevant to SMSFs than other types of superannuation funds.
A SMSF is a superannuation fund that has fewer than five members, and these members are also the <a href="https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sia1993473/s17a" target="_blank">trustees</a> of the fund. This gives the member/trustees the flexibility to devise and control an investment strategy that meets the needs of its members, as required.
One of the key reasons that many members of SMSFs give for choosing an SMSF as an investment vehicle is the level of control it gives them over their investments. However this places a high level of obligation on the trustees, and also exposes the members of the SMSF to risk which the trustees must manage.
SMSFs are not eligible for financial assistance where the fund has suffered loss due to fraud or theft, and do not have access to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal to resolve disputes.
Funds must already pass the sole purpose test
All superannuation funds are required to meet the sole purpose test, which requires that the purpose of a superannuation fund must be to provide benefits to members in retirement and, in the event of their death, their dependants.
The regulatory framework for all superannuation funds is designed to support this core purpose, but SMSFs are particularly impacted: for example the law prohibits a fund from intentionally acquiring an asset from a related party, or loans or other financial assistance to the members of a fund.
But there is room for bias…
There are long-standing exclusions from the non arms-length rules that allow a SMSF to pay market value to purchase business real property from or lease it to a related party. This allows a person establishing a SMSF to transfer business premises to their superannuation fund and lease the property back from the superannuation fund, a strategy frequently used by business owners to provide an income stream to the fund.
One of the issues around SMSFs is ensuring that the trustee/members properly recognise the separation of superannuation assets from assets that are personally owned and controlled, and the regulations are designed to preserve that separation of assets. For example, from 2011 investments by SMSFs in certain collectibles, including artwork, wine, antiques or memorabilia were subject to regulations regarding these investments that regulate the use of certain collectible assets by members so that they cannot be used by or stored in a member’s residence.
The other exclusion that has gained much coverage during the recent property boom is the rule which overrides the prohibition on borrowing. In principle the trustees of a superannuation fund are not permitted to place members’ retirement funds at risk, thus the power to borrow is restricted. This restriction was eased in 2010 to allow borrowing by any regulated superannuation fund where the borrowing is linked to a specific asset. The provision is particularly relevant to SMSFs due to the structures used to comply with the requirements and the relative scale of the funds held by SMSFs.
This is where the flexibility and investment strategies of SMSFs become relevant. If the members have a bias toward investing in real property, then they may devise an investment strategy incorporating borrowings; whereas other investments with lower capital requirements, such as property trusts, could be funded without borrowing.
However the biggest tax advantage that SMSF members obtain flows from the profile of the SMSF investor. Members of SMSFs typically have <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Super-statistics/SMSF/Self-managed-super-funds--A-statistical-overview-2010-11/?page=39#Table_11__SMSF_member_age__balances_and_taxable_income__contrasting_with_non_SMSF_member_taxable_income" target="_blank">higher income levels</a> than members of other superannuation funds across all age groups, and their account balances are correspondingly higher. Further, the nature of the fund makes it attractive to investors who take an active interest in their superannuation strategies, despite the risks.
In the meantime the rapid growth in the sector, combined with the level of control that trustees have over the assets of the fund, raises the risk that trustees will make poor decisions: either through not being sufficiently informed in respect of an investment or through pushing the boundaries of the SMSF structure.
There seems to be something inconsistent in a system that mandates savings but then allows those savings to be put at risk through insufficient regulation. It is time for the sector to be examined more closely.
HELEN HODGSON is senior lecturer at the School of Tax and Business Law at the <a href="https://www.unsw.edu.au/" target="_blank">University of New South Wales</a>.
Helen is a member of SPAA.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

hhodgson-WTYf8w7F7q

Taxing times for self-managed super funds

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Achieving tax reform is often a long process as the government of the day looks for consensus before presenting proposals to the Parliament. The process that the current government is following seems to be even longer and more tortuous than most.
It doesn’t help matters when the Treasurer appears to have dismissed a number of suggestions put forward by Treasury just two weeks after the release of the discussion paper.
In his <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F135b167f-578d-4414-a5b0-b2a35bc1cc32%2F0238;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F135b167f-578d-4414-a5b0-b2a35bc1cc32%2F0000%22" target="_blank">2013-14 Budget Reply</a> speech incoming prime minister Tony Abbott promised to “consult with the community to produce a comprehensive white paper on tax reform. We’ll finish the job that the Henry review started and this (Labor) government squibbed.”
One would have thought that the <a href="https://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/Content/Content.aspx?doc=html/home.htm" target="_blank">2010 Henry Tax Review</a> - which sought to look forward to the next 40 years - was a comprehensive review of the tax system.
Instead, in the current process Treasury officials have gone back to basics. The long-promised white paper is still to come - the <a href="https://bettertax.gov.au/publications/discussion-paper/" target="_blank">Re:think</a> discussion paper released on 30 March is yet another consultation paper, which sets out a range of questions, but no concrete proposals.
However comments made by Hockey in an interview in the Australian Financial Review this week appears to pre-empt some of the more controversial suggestions in this discussion paper, with AFR columnist Laura Tingle writing that the treasurer “poured cold water” on any significant alteration of dividend imputation, the indexing of income tax thresholds to tackle bracket creep and on changes to the capital gains regime.
Google and ‘Netflix’ taxes
The emerging <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Corporate_Tax_Avoidance/Public_Hearings">evidence</a> from last week’s Senate Hearings in the Inquiry into Corporate Tax Avoidance shows the need for reform of international taxation. Although the Re:think discussion paper does raise the problem, there are no suggestions or specific questions in relation to the issues around international tax avoidance - in fact the thrust of the paper is to seek ways to encourage foreign investment.
Re:think asks the question: "Q 34. How can tax avoidance practices such as transfer pricing be addressed without imposing an excessive regulatory burden and discouraging investment?"
The treasurer has proposed a “Google tax”, modelled on the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">UK’s diverted profits tax</a>, which was intended to counteract “contrived arrangements that exploit the permanent establishment rules”. However there are serious <a href="https://theconversation.com/experts-caution-australia-on-unilateral-google-tax-39794">concerns</a> as to whether a unilateral approach to the problem will be effective.
The discussion paper raises questions about the GST exemption for imported goods, particularly those ordered on-line. The so-called “Netflix tax” singles out multimedia downloads and is designed to address the situation where video streaming services based in Australia are required to collect GST on videos downloaded here, whereas services based overseas are not required to pay GST as the value is below the import threshold of $1,000. In the virtual world, this is a clear anomaly. The principle behind this move is worthy; but people are already working out how to circumvent the new tax.
Generally, however, broader GST reform will not be proposed unless there is consensus across political parties and the states.
There also seems to be <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/03/31/shorten-open-to-top-end-super-changes" target="_blank">consensus</a> that the taxation of superannuation does need to be reformed. Even the <a href="https://www.smsfassociation.com/library/submissions/budget-submission-2015.aspx?categoryid=1375#.VSxokfBUrF">superannuation industry</a> <a href="https://www.superannuation.asn.au/media-release-1-april-2015">acknowledges</a> that the concessions are skewed to high income earners, and following the repeal of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/abbott-is-not-playing-fair-removing-super-contribution-will-hurt-working-poor-14604" target="_blank">Low Income Superannuation Contribution</a> (effective from 2017) low income earners effectively pay a higher rate of tax on superannuation than on their take-home pay.
Capital gains tax
But there are other issues raised in the discussion paper, particularly in relation to the taxation of investment income, that the treasurer has discounted before stakeholders have even drafted their submissions. "Q 19. To what extent is the rationale for the CGT discount, and the size of the discount, still appropriate?"
The 50% Capital Gains tax discount evolved from the indexation of capital gains that applied when CGT was first introduced.
It is hard to argue that a 50% discount can be justified in the current economic climate, with annual inflation running at less than 3%. Yet this week the Treasurer commented that changing the discount could restrict the flow of capital into start-ups. Although start-up companies are an important area of economic growth, it is only one investment sector.
Dividend imputation
The Discussion paper also asked: "20. To what extent does the dividend imputation system impact savings decisions?"
Dividend imputation, like superannuation and negative gearing, has popular support among the “mum and dad” investors in Australia. But there has been a global move away from dividend imputation systems, leaving Australia and NZ as the two remaining regimes.
The Henry Review <a href="https://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/FinalReport.aspx?doc=html/publications/Papers/Final_Report_Part_2/chapter_b2-4.htm" target="_blank">recommended</a> that: "Dividend imputation should be retained in the short to medium term, but for the longer term, consideration should be given to alternatives as part of a further consideration of company income tax arrangements."
It has increased investment in Australian companies, whether individually or through superannuation, but it is increasingly anachronistic in the modern economy. However the Treasurer wants submissions to address “how it can be improved” rather than “get rid of it”.
"21. Do the CGT and negative gearing influence savings and investment decisions, and if so,how?"
Again, the paper highlights the interaction between <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-negative-gearing-is-bad-policy-21882" target="_blank">negative gearing</a> and capital gains tax and suggests a quarantining mechanism to reduce the immediate tax benefit from negative gearing. However, although the Treasurer seemed <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4207069.htm" target="_blank">open to discussions</a> when the paper was released two weeks ago, he told the AFR this week: "We’ve got to be very careful about constantly adjusting the policy. There is a temptation to constantly adjust policy for the volatility of the times. Now, we are in a world where that is incredibly liquid, where yields are incredibly low. That is creating perverse incentives."
But there are ways to construct reform that would not have an adverse impact on other investments.
Bracket creep
Although the <a href="https://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2015/2015-Intergenerational-Report" target="_blank">intergenerational report</a> and the discussion paper highlighted that the main source of revenue growth would come from bracket creep, Hockey has flagged that he does not agree with indexation of thresholds. There is some evidence to support this, as the previous experience of indexation of tax thresholds in the early 1980s contributed to inflation as wage demands increased.
However it is also clear that the government does not intend to see an increase in the personal tax rate; and has already said that the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/general/new-legislation/in-detail/direct-taxes/income-tax-for-individuals/temporary-budget-repair-levy/">Budget Repair Levy</a> imposed last year on incomes over $180,000 will not be extended beyond the legislated three years. Therefore the formula of the last 30 years, allowing the Government to adjust thresholds periodically, seems set to continue.
So where is the money coming from to reduce the deficit in the current budget? The suggested Bank Deposit Tax is <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-02/big-banks-warn-federal-government-against-tax-deposits/6366562">opposed </a> by the banks, who will engage in a campaign like that of the miners in relation to the Minerals Rent Resources Tax. Most of the suggestions from Treasury have been excluded by the Treasurer. The Senate has shown that it will not support further reductions in benefits and services that impact on the least well off. Most government agencies will tell you that they have been squeezed dry.
It is time for an action plan in which all of the options are on the table.
Helen Hodgson is associate professor, Curtin Law School. Curtin Business School at Curtin University.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. 
</body></html>

The Tax white paper - only good for fish and chips now? Helen Hodgson

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Home ownership is an important protection against poverty in retirement, and it has been suggested superannuation should be accessible to fund a deposit to help people enter the property market.
Proponents of such a scheme point to the Canadian and New Zealand models, which allow withdrawals to purchase property. These comparisons need to be made carefully.
The Canadian retirement income model does not require mandatory superannuation, and HSBC reports that currently about half of Canadians do not contribute to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan. In the case of New Zealand, the NZ Kiwisaver is a relatively new retirement savings plan, and the default rate of contributions is 3% compared to 9.5% in Australia.
There are two reasons why withdrawing superannuation for a home deposit can be counterproductive.
Firstly, the property market is unregulated and the current housing boom is a direct result of competition for a scarce resource. If first home buyers are allowed to withdraw from superannuation funds, the effect would be to increase competition, thus driving prices up further. This was the effect of the first home stamp duty subsidies that were available over the last decade.
Secondly, accessing superannuation balances would negate the effect of compounding returns over the years to retirement. The average balance of an Australian aged 30 to 34 years in 2011-12 was A$27,772. The Canadian model allows a person and their partner to each withdraw C$25,000 from their superannuation, repaying it over 15 years. If adopted here, this would effectively wipe out the superannuation balance of each of them and would still be less than 10% of the median house price in the major Australian cities. Repayments would need to be in addition to mandatory contributions, and after mandatory contributions, HECS repayments and mortgage repayment, this could result in financial distress for borrowers.
Capital growth could give some protection from lower superannuation balances, but in the context of the family home, the gain would not be realised until the owner(s) downsized, as the usual pattern of home ownership is to sell and repurchase in the same market.
Despite widespread discussion about the proposal, government representatives have said they have “no plans” to change the rules on accessing super.
Lack of reform
The superannuation system is linked to both taxation and the pension system, but since 2007 it has been effectively quarantined from reform.
Contributions and investment earnings in a complying, taxed, superannuation fund are taxed at 15%. Withdrawals are also taxed at reduced rates, and since 2007 have been tax exempt for persons over the age of 60.
Conceptually superannuation is a form of long-term savings that displaces other forms of savings and, according to the ABS is the major financial investment held by most Australians. Our superannuation system is mandatory for employees, so employees earning more than A$450 per month have no choice as to whether they will save through superannuation.
The legal requirement is placed on the employer, but the economic reality is that superannuation is imposed on employees: it is reflected in the take-home pay of employees, notwithstanding the 1987 trade-off between award wages and superannuation.
In the case of a high income earner, the 15% tax rate on superannuation encourages savings into superannuation. However, low income earners who pay income tax rates less than 15% find that most of their savings are locked up in superannuation without any tax concessions. This affects their ability to save for a deposit on a house, or to have funds available in an emergency.
Superannuation and tax incentives
The Henry Review considered the problem of investment bias, although the government excluded tax exempt payments to persons over 60 from the terms of reference. It identified a clear incentive for a high income earner to put money into superannuation, displacing other investment, and a disincentive for low income earners.
Contribution caps limit the amount that can be contributed in superannuation that can subsequently be withdrawn tax free. However they are much higher than the SGC rate giving room for a high income earner to divert savings into superannuation: at the current mandated SGC level of 9.5%, a person would have to earn over A$300,000 pa to breach the non-concessional cap. A member can also contribute up to A$180,000 pa of non-concessional (tax paid) contributions. The tax benefit is that income earned by the superannuation fund on that investment is also taxed at 15% instead of the member’s marginal tax rate. In a self managed superannuation fund the member can then direct the investment strategy personally while taking advantage of the tax shelter.
Since 2013 contributions by very high income earners have been taxed at 30%, but the threshold of A$300,000 (including superannuation) ensures this only applies to a minority of taxpayers.
Balancing super and the pension
The balance between superannuation and the Age Pension is critical to funding retirement income. The mandatory superannuation system was proposed as a means of supplementing, not replacing the pension, and the 2015 Intergenerational Report predicts that by 2055 spending on the Age Pension will be at similar levels to now, but higher numbers of pensioners will be receiving a part pension. In 2011-2012 the average superannuation balance at retirement was A$197,000 for males and A$105,000 for women. Although it is increasing most retirees will at some stage need some support from the Age Pension.
Retirees can game the system by taking substantial tax exempt lump sums remaining eligible for higher rates of pension. When a superannuation fund goes into pension phase, the member is required to withdraw a minimum amount, based on the age of the retiree, but there is no cap. The Murray Report echoed the Henry Review when it again recommended the development of more comprehensive income based retirement products.
While superannuation balances generally are low, lump sum withdrawals can be ascribed to paying down debt and transition to retirement costs, and there is a growing concern that people approaching retirement take on additional debt in the expectation that they will be able to pay it off when they receive their superannuation.
The tax exempt status of superannuation pensions is a more pressing concern. When the member retires and a superannuation fund goes into pension phase both the income of the fund and the amount paid to the recipient are exempt from income tax. In the 2014 year this cost the budget bottom line A$16.3b in foregone revenue and was the 3rd highest tax expenditure. It is difficult to see how this tax expenditure can be maintained indefinitely.
Where to from here?
The fiscal risk inherent in the superannuation system is clear, as highlighted in the Intergenerational Report and the Murray Report.
The options for reform include equalising tax rates across the accumulation and pension phase of superannuation; imposing tax on superannuation accounts with a high balance; taxing contributions by applying a rebate to the member’s marginal rate of tax; lifetime caps on non-concessional contributions to superannuation funds;and making a regular income stream more attractive than lump sums.
The political issue is that governments are not willing to propose reforms that will impact on the current generation of retirees, and continue to quarantine the retirement system from serious review. Until we can openly talk about the lack of sustainability in the retirement income system, we will continue to impose a fiscal burden on future generations.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/38165/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Helen Hodgson is associate professor at Curtin Law School, Curtin Business School at Curtin University.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

We need to talk about super, not just first home buyers: Helen Hodgson

<html><body>
In an ideal (and economically efficient) world, tax policy would not influence the investment or consumption choices taxpayers make. In reality, this neutrality is rarely achieved.
External factors influence choices, which then fail to conform to rational economic models; or the tax system may be deliberately used to intervene in the market to counteract inefficiencies.
In Australia owner occupiers compete with investors for housing property; and there is also competition within these groups. A small increase in the number of superannuation funds and foreign investors purchasing property can have a significant impact on demand; while first home owners are finding it increasingly difficult to enter the market. Each of these groups is impacted differently by the tax system.
Owner occupiers in front
Owner occupiers are the <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/publications/reports/post/renovating-housing-policy/" target="_blank">major beneficiaries</a> of tax concessions on housing.
The latest <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2013/TES-2012" target="_blank">tax expenditure statement</a> costed the capital gains tax (CGT) exemptions on owner-occupied housing at A$30 billion, on a par with concessional taxation of superannuation at A$30.25 billion.
The Henry Review <a href="https://www.taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=html/pubs_reports.htm" target="_blank">acknowledged</a> that these tax expenditures can be justified as both contribute to people’s living standards in retirement.
However the CGT main residence exemption distorts the market as owner occupiers invest more in their residence, diverting capital from other more productive investments in the expectation of tax free capital gains.
Investors also benefit from the CGT discount, but negative gearing has a more immediate benefit. Negative gearing is the product of two of the basic design principles of our tax system.
Muddying the waters
Firstly, expenses are deducted from income in calculating the income or loss from an activity, and secondly we apply a global system under which income from all sources is aggregated to determine a taxpayer’s income for a year. Therefore, in the absence of any specific restrictions, losses from one activity can be applied to reduce the tax payable on income from other sources.
The <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Tax-statistics/Taxation-statistics-2010-11/?page=8#Individuals__tax" target="_blank">tax statistics for the 2010-11 year</a> show that 2.5 million rental property schedules were lodged by individuals, showing nearly A$30 billion of rental income received during the year.
The deductions claimed against this income amounted to A$37.8 billion, of which A$22 billion was interest on loans. A further A$1.8 billion was claimed as capital works deductions, which allows a write down for the capital cost of a building used to earn rental income.
There is no particular bias in the tax system to make negative gearing more beneficial for real estate than other investments: the drivers for that decision come from outside the tax system.
For example, lenders may be prepared to lend a higher proportion of the purchase price on real estate when compared to other forms of investment, thus the purchase can be more highly leveraged and the eventual capital gain will represent a higher return on funds invested. However this does presume the investor has the cash flow, often from other sources, to service the loan.
The role of CGT
Negative gearing would be less attractive if the capital gain on the sale of an investment was taxed in full.
Negative gearing is a negative cash flow, but it produces an annual tax benefit that would be clawed back if the capital was taxed when the property is sold. But CGT is generally only paid on half of the capital gain as a discount is applied when calculating how much is included in taxable income. Therefore there is an asymmetry as the full amount of any mortgage interest is allowed as a deduction when incurred, but only half of the capital gain is included as income.
The Henry Review recommended (Recommendation 14) that a 40% discount should be applied across all forms of non-business investment income, including capital gains, with a corresponding reduction in the amount of interest that could be claimed each year. This would reduce both the bias to investments that produce capital gains over income, and the incentive to leverage off negative gearing deductions.
First home owners and renters miss out
The group of prospective purchasers that is most affected by housing prices is notably absent from the discussion of tax incentives.
First home owners don’t have access to tax deductibility to subsidise interest payments, and without a windfall on the sale of another property they may have difficulty accumulating a deposit.
The effect of first home owner subsidies, however, is mixed: although it boosts the deposit the subsidy can itself be inflationary as vendor price expectations rise to take account of the subsidy.
The remaining group, renters, also face increased rents as the owners of rental properties seek a return on the capital they have invested in the property.
It has been argued that any changes to negative gearing would result in increased rents, based on rental increases between 1986 and 1988 when the Hawke government quarantined negative gearing deductions. But this is largely discredited as the <a href="https://www.asb.unsw.edu.au/research/publications/ejournaloftaxresearch/Documents/paper4_v3n1.pdf" target="_blank">evidence</a> shows there were other issues that increased demand in the Perth and Sydney markets over this time.
These current policies all affect demand, resulting in increased housing prices as investors and cashed up owner occupiers bid up the cost of housing.
What is needed is a set of policies that would stimulate the supply of housing, for example the <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/housing-support/programs-services/national-rental-affordability-scheme" target="_blank">National Rental Affordability Scheme</a> which provides tax incentives on new housing development.
Ultimately tax reform in relation to housing will require the government to make some hard decisions.
The two issues that need to be reformed are the main residence CGT exemption and removing the ability to offset investment losses against other income. Such reform will not be successful without public support, and neither the Labor nor the new Coalition governments have been prepared to act on these proposals.
Helen Hodgson is senior lecturer, School of Tax and Business Law at the University of New South Wales.
Helen was a Member of the Legislative Assembly in WA from 1997 to 2001. She has no current affiliation with any political party.
This article was originally published at <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-negative-gearing-is-bad-policy-21882" target="_blank">original article</a>.
 
 
<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/21882/count.gif" width="1">
</body></html>

Helen Hodgson

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News