Present arguments anchored in facts: Terry Ryder

Back in my distant and naive past, I regarded Time Magazine as a quality publication. It had the aura of authority and integrity in the presentation of global news. Until one day it published an article on a subject I knew well. I was appalled at the inaccuracies and the sensationalism.

It was the worst kind of tabloid journalism in a publication with pretensions to quality. I could never again see the magazine in the same light, because I began to wonder about the authenticity of its information on other subjects.

I’ve just had a similar experience with GetUp. I’ve admired the achievements of the GetUp movement as an expression of people power and I’ve supported many of its campaigns, particularly those related to environment. My support of some of these campaigns was based on the assumption that the arguments they presented were anchored in facts.

That all changed this week when GetUp launched a campaign against negative gearing. I received the GetUp email letter asking for my support and could scarcely believe what I was reading. It was a dishonest and emotive rant littered with falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims.

Sadly, it was based on the kind of misinformation that is rife in real estate media. The people who wrote it are either unethical or incompetent - probably a mix of both.

Everything the organisers of this movement tell me on any subject henceforth will be tainted by the suspicion the information has been distorted or fabricated.

Because that is certainly the case with the “information” presented on negative gearing.

The people who wrote the GetUp statement smelled the blood of Joe Hockey following his alleged gaffe about housing affordability. I say “alleged” because there is nothing in Hockey’s statements (that the key to affording a home is a good job that pays well and enhances your chances of getting a loan) that justifies the media hysteria that followed. Further proof that a rational debate on any subject is beyond the scope of Australian media.

The GetUp statement began with the claim that there are “millions of frustrated first home buyers priced out of a skyrocketing housing market”.

This is plain wrong and easy to disprove. Australia has 8.6 million households, of which 6 million are home-owners and much of the rest (according to the research) are renters by choice. The research shows that 25% of all current residential sales are to first-time buyers, which means around 120,000 households bought their first property in the past 12 months. The two affordability indexes published quarterly indicate affordability overall is strong and, if you remove Sydney from the equation, the best it’s been in 12 years.

It’s impossible on those numbers to substantiate the claim that there are “millions of frustrated first-home buyers” across Australia.

The claim about “a skyrocketing housing market” is patently absurd, given that only one of the eight capital cities has a boom market. Of 16 major markets (eight cities, each with a house market and a unit market), based on the latest annual price data, six are going backwards (prices decreasing), seven have price growth below 3.5% and only one has double-digit growth. One big growth market out of 16 does not, by any definition, constitute a skyrocketing property market.

This suggests the campaign is based on two false premises: that we have a skyrocketing market and that there are millions trying to buy who can’t.

And the GetUp argument goes downhill from there.

It takes a further leap of imagination in claiming that negative gearing is “one of the root causes” of the alleged affordability problem. This, like all the sweeping statements in the GetUp letter, is not supported by any factual evidence.

An 18-month federal parliamentary inquiry was unable to produce any evidence that negative gearing had any bearing on the cost of housing for first-home buyers. The final report said they suspected it might, but couldn’t provide any definitive evidence that it did. After 18 months of inquiry, which included four time extensions.

Then there’s this statement: “Negative gearing forces everyday Aussie home buyers to compete with investors armed with generous tax breaks looking to buy their second or third property. It reduces home ownership and locks many out of the housing market, increasing the gap between the haves and have-nots.”

The claim that investors are commonly buying second or third investment properties is contradicted by ATO data showing that three-quarters of investors own only one property. The statement also assumes that all property investors are negatively-geared, whereas the ATO evidence shows that 640,000 Australians own investment property but don’t claim negative-gearing deductions. I’m one of them.

It further claims: “A massive $4.2B in negative gearing tax breaks per year go to the top 10% of income earners.” That is another lie. There are many different figures bandied about in terms of how much is claimed in negative gearing benefits - the Green have quoted two different figures this week, $2.9 billion and $4.2 billion, but to suggest it all goes to the biggest income earners is, once again, clearly false. The ATO data shows that most Australians who own an investment property earn less than $100,000.

The GetUp statement also lies when it claims: “There's consensus among housing experts and economists that negative gearing is one policy area driving unaffordable housing in Australia.” No such consensus exists, nor anything remotely like it. In my reading of media, those who see a link between negative gearing and housing affordability are very much in the minority, albeit a very noisy one populated by people from the lunatic fringe, like dodgy forecaster Saul Eslake.

Beyond the inaccuracies and sweeping political statements, the GetUp campaign is based on the notion that eliminating negative gearing will somehow make housing cheaper. The process by which that would occur is not explained - possibly because it makes no sense.

There is also the furphy that increasing housing supply will somehow, again miraculously, bring down the cost of housing. There’s evidence that a massive oversupply will cause prices to fall but how we convince large numbers of developers and builders to be willing to lose money to create such a scenario is not explained. There’s no evidence that an orderly increase in supply, which is what we’ve had in Australia for three years now, will lower prices.

There’s also this statement: “The thing about bubbles is that they eventually burst. If we don't take some heat out of the property market now, we could see a crash that would devastate homeowners and investors alike – with dire implications for the Australian economy.” 

Well, actually, no. Media has been writing about alleged bubbles in our property markets – constantly - for the past 15 years but there has been no property crash - which suggests those bubble claims were false. What we have seen throughout history is that boom markets eventually stop growing and prices level out. But we have never seen a crash, not in the history of this nation.

Finally we have this statement: “It’s high time we saw Government leadership to make housing more affordable for all Australians.” But eliminating negative gearing simply won’t achieve it. The tax benefits of a small number of people are not the problem, if indeed there is one.

GetUp has been an interesting experiment in ordinary people using modern media resources to lobby for worthy causes. But they’ve crossed the line with this dishonest and misguided anti-investor campaign and I wonder how many people, like me, will withdraw their support.

TERRY RYDER is the founder of hotspotting.com.au. You can email him or follow him on Twitter. 

Terry is presenting a free webinar with Property Observer editor at large Jonathan Chancellor on Tuesday June 16 at 12.30pm titled on why research is the key to successful property investing in 2015. Sign up here.