Capital Gains

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The Federal Treasurer, Scott Morrison’s, draft legislation to assist with housing affordability for Australians is a positive move.
The key initiative is to enable investors to obtain a 60% capital gains discount for investment in affordable rental housing. 
This will encourage Managed Investment Trusts (MITs) to invest in affordable housing as a quality investment product with a positive rate of return.
The Treasurer has restricted MITs to only acquiring affordable housing and therefore eliminating investment in general residential property. The Urban Taskforce believes this is a good policy to encourage additional investment in affordable housing.
Affordable housing and housing affordability are complex issues. There are many more initiatives required by various levels of government to make a serious impact on housing affordability. Importantly these initiatives must have to provide sufficient incentives to the private sector development industry to generate enough take-up to make a real impact on the provision of more affordable housing.
The Urban Taskforce has proposed a modification to the NSW State Environmental Planning Policy for Affordable Rental Housing 2009 that could lead to a large supply of affordable housing. 
The current SEPP does not have sufficient incentive for private developers to take up the provision of affordable homes. What is needed is a 20% floor space uplift to provide 20% of a housing project as affordable homes over a 10 year period. 
We estimate that this could add 40,000 affordable rental dwellings over a 10 year period.
Initiatives that provide incentives to invest in, or develop, affordable housing will ensure a long-term, sustainable supply of affordable housing. Mechanisms that deter investment – such as affordable housing levies, taxes, or mandatory targets, only increase the cost of housing production and deter supply. 
The Urban Taskforce is willing to work proactively with all levels of government on mechanisms to encourage supply and investment.
CHRIS JOHNSON is chief executive officer of property development industry group Urban Taskforce and can be contacted <a href="https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=97&amp;Itemid=126#.Vdaart55dFI" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Federal Treasurer’s affordable housing initiatives a positive move: Chris Johnson

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
There is much confusion about the effects of Labor’s tax proposals with respect to investors in rental housing. They propose to grandfather existing arrangements. But investors in the future can only negatively gear newly constructed housing, while the policy recommends the capital gains discount fall from 50% to 25%.
Claims by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull that house prices will collapse appear to be contradicted by his assistant treasurer Kelly O'Dwyer who claims that housing costs will soar. These puzzling assertions arise due to a failure to distinguish between the market in rental housing, where housing is leased, and the market in which investors and owner occupiers buy and sell housing. Critically these two markets are interrelated.
To see why, consider the first round effects of Labor’s proposals when we put the grandfathering arrangements to one side (for the moment). Some existing investors will sell up when leases come up for renewal. There are now more tenants seeking rental housing opportunities than there is supply to meet their demand. Rents will begin to rise.
But the houses which investors quit add to the properties available for sale; there are now more houses available for purchase than there are buyers. House prices will begin to fall.
These market signals trigger a second round of effects. Some tenants will elect to buy rather than rent. After all renting has become more expensive and home ownership has become cheaper. These second round effects help to put a floor under falls in house prices, and help cap rent rises.
By considering the inter-relationships between the two markets we can understand how the government has issued apparently contradictory statements. Rents will rise and so the housing costs of tenants will increase. But there will be falls in house prices (or more likely a slower growth in prices); while existing owners take a hit, first home buyers housing costs are lower and attainment of home ownership becomes more affordable.
The second round effects mean that impacts are likely to be muted. This is made even more likely by a grandfathering proposal that should prevent a stampede by existing investors seeking to relinquish their property investments.
A disappointing aspect of the debate so far has been its neglect of the longer term structural consequences of Labor’s suggested reforms. Our current arrangements encourage high tax bracket investors to take on debt in the “chase” for capital gains. Capital gains are leniently taxed as compared to ordinary sources of income, such as earnings and rents.
Only 50% of capital gains are added to assessable incomes. This is particularly attractive to high tax bracket investors. Moreover, they are taxed on realisation rather than as they accrue. The shrewd investor realises the gains when assessable income from other sources declines; for example, following retirement when the investor’s marginal tax rate commonly falls.
There are not enough high tax bracket investors willing and able to invest in all our private rental housing stock. They tend to cluster in those segments of the market where healthy capital growth is expected, but rental yields are lower. Low tax bracket investors tend to cluster in segments where capital growth is expected to be subdued. Typically these are areas with lower house prices. To ensure adequate returns rental yields have to be higher in these low house price segments.
We therefore get a distorted investment pattern that disadvantages the supply of affordable rental housing.
Labor’s proposals will curb these distortionary effects by reducing the capital gains discount. They will also reduce the tax incentives to leverage investments. Rising indebtedness is a threat to the resilience and stability of our housing market.
Many believe that repayment and investment risks carried by heavily indebted home buyers played a central role in precipitating the global financial crisis. Tax concessions that favour taking on debt exacerbate those risks. If Labor’s proposals succeed in attracting attention to these and other structural problems that plague Australian housing markets, they will have a much wider significance.
 
Gavin Wood is professor of housing, RMIT University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gavin-wood-113723" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Will Australian house prices collapse if negative gearing changes?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
After Labor announced proposed changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull told parliament that the policy would administer two contradictory shocks, massive shocks, to the residential housing market. 
They are proposing to remove from the market for established dwellings one-third of demand. All investors would be gone. When I say all investors, I mean all investors.
That assertion was questioned by some listeners at the time, including The Guardian’s Katharine Murphy.
Does the prime minister’s claim stack up?
<h2>Not all property investors negatively gear</h2>
Data is not directly available on what proportion of home purchases are made by investors. Data on new home lending from The Australian Bureau of Statistics' Lending Finance figures indicates that between one-third and half of new lending is to investors. And ABS census data shows that just under a third of existing properties are owned by investors.
But not all of them negatively gear. Some do not borrow, and others do not borrow enough to be negatively geared: that is, their rental income is greater than the expenses and loan interest. The tax stats show us that about two-thirds of all housing investors are negatively geared. This suggests that around 20% of housing buyers are negatively geared investors.
<h2>Investor demand for housing will reduce – but not disappear</h2>
Labor’s proposed changes will reduce the after-tax returns on property investment.
Although negative gearing has attracted more attention, Labor’s proposed changes to capital gains tax will have a bigger impact on returns. Reducing the discount from 50% to 25% will increase the effective tax rates on capital gains, bringing the tax rates closer to those that apply to other sources of investment income such as rental income and bank interest.
Labor’s proposed changes to negative gearing will also have an impact. Under the policy, investors who make rental losses – because their rental income is less than their costs, including loan interest costs – will no longer be able to write-off those losses against wage and salary income. But for people investing in new housing there will be no change: they will still able to write-off losses against all forms of individual income.
For most investors in existing properties, the changes to negative gearing mainly affect the timing, not the amount, of tax deductions. Losses can still be deducted against investment income, including subsequent capital gains. But negative gearing may lose some of its psychological appeal. While there is no hard research for Australia, some investment advisors have warned against placing too much emphasis on tax breaks (particularly tax breaks on wages) and not enough on the financial returns to the investment.
Together these policies will reduce investor demand for housing. Indeed, one of Labor’s stated aims of the policy is to make it easier for first home buyers to get into the market.
Some investors will switch to other investment opportunities that offer higher post-tax returns. Others might choose to spend more and invest less. But some will also continue to invest in the housing market, and either borrow less, or simply accept a lower return on investment.
The extent to which investors will vacate the property market will ultimately depend on how much post-tax returns fall, and how sensitive is investor demand for property to changes in returns (what economists would call the “elasticity of demand”).
Our estimates suggest that the changes in effective tax rates from Labor’s policy are relatively modest.
Consider an investor in the top tax bracket, paying 45 cents in the dollar on their marginal income and earning a 6% nominal return on their property (half from rental income, half from capital gain). Let’s say the investor buys a property and then sells it after seven years.
Effective tax rates calculate how much tax is paid on the profit made by the taxpayer. If the investor buys the property outright, the effective tax rate will increase from 33% to 35% under Labor’s policy. If the same investor borrows 40% of the house value then effective tax rates increase from 19% to 22%. And for a negatively geared investor borrowing 80% of the property value, the effective tax rate changes from 5% to 9%.
<a href="/images/2016/03/9/image-20160307-30467-5ajcud.JPG" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/9/image-20160307-30467-5ajcud.JPG" alt="">
 
And any changes in post-tax returns under Labor’s policies may be swamped by annual fluctuations in property prices. As the Commonwealth Bank of Australia Chief Executive Ian Narev recently noted:
I can tell you having a $400 billion home loan book – your assumptions on unemployment and what’s happening in global interest rates will dwarf whatever assumptions you’ve got on the modelling about the impact of negative gearing by a factor of… I can’t tell you the number but it’s a big number.
<h2>A massive shock?</h2>
Under Labor’s policy, other passive investments that generate capital gains, such as shares, will also be subject to a more stringent tax treatment. Other investments that will be relatively more attractive after the change – for example, superannuation and bank deposits – have a very different profile of risk, return and liquidity.
No-one can ever perfectly predict investor behaviour. Ultimately, there are a whole host of factors that people take into account when investing in property, including rental returns (particularly for the one third of positively geared investors), risk perception, familiarity with the asset class and ability to obtain bank finance. In our opinion, modest changes in tax treatment are unlikely to change the decision-making calculus for the majority of investors.
Indeed, looking at other countries with less generous tax treatment for investment properties – US, Canada, Germany and France, for example – there is still plenty of investor activity in housing.
Given the evidence we have seen, it is overreach for the prime minister to say that Labor’s policy will drive away all investors away.
Danielle Wood is fellow, Australian Perspectives, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/danielle-wood-147710" target="_blank">here</a>.
John Daley is chief executive officer, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-daley-1870" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Negative gearing changes won't mean all investors depart market

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Interest rates have 'probably' bottomed and the next move by the RBA will be a hike but around the second half of 2018, according to AMP Capital's Shane Oliver.
In his latest research note he said the uncomfortably hot Sydney and Melbourne property markets, RBA expectations that GDP growth will return to around 3 percent and underlying inflation has bottomed argue against a rate cut.
"Against this, high unemployment and underemployment, the too high $A,  fragile economic growth and downside risks to underlying inflation all argue against a hike," he said.
"Meanwhile, bank rate hikes, regulatory moves to tighten lending standards and hopefully action in the May budget on the capital gains tax discount  should help deal with financial stability risks around house prices and household debt giving the RBA flexibility to set rates in the best interest of the wider economy and not just the Sydney and Melbourne property markets.
"The drip feed of cooling measures and negative news flow bank rate hikes, tightening measures by APRA and ASIC, talk of increased bank capital requirements which will only result in more out of cycle rate hikes and the frenzy of authorities and commentators warning about the risks of property markets.
"For investors who think that the 10-15 percent pa average home price gains of the last four or five years are a guide to the future its worth having a look at Perth home prices which are where they were ten years ago.
"Ten years of zero capital growth in Sydney and Melbourne would mean a housing return of just the net rental yield which is 2 percent or less."
 
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

Uncomfortably hot Sydney and Melbourne property markets argue against rate cut: Shane Oliver

Open letter to Bill Shorten - don’t touch negative gearing or the capital gains tax: Gavin McPherson

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/77006/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Current market mechanisms need to be reformed to give better price signals to developers, and to direct subsidies to achieve the goal of affordable housing.
Ideally, the reforms would be comprehensive, including road congestion charges, capital gains taxes and negative gearing, tax-advantaged investment, and other measures. But such comprehensive reforms are unlikely. 
Furthermore, general solutions that apply throughout Australia may be unnecessary for problems concentrated in major cities. It is strategic to focus on more incremental, local responses that target problem areas.
A targeted solution
The suggested package of practical measures would be based on a special rate applying to new residential developments in selected urban centres. This strategic intervention is justified by being a form of benefit capture– one that would send more efficient price signals to the market. 
Also, this rate would improve the capability to deliver affordable housing with appropriate infrastructure.
This approach also creates an asset from the flow of future income from the special rate. This reliable income flow will help attract long-term investment by the private sector at relatively low interest rates (government guarantees or tax-advantaged provisions could also help attract investment).
The special rate is levied on the land area of a centre. The total income from the rate is enough to service debt used to fund infrastructure provision, as well as to compensate government for the removal of stamp duty and contributions paid by developers. 
Removing these costs will reduce up-front dwelling prices, and make the market more efficient.
How would a special rate work?
The standard rate per dwelling is set according to a target number of dwellings for the centre. A dwelling target and special rate are then allocated to each site based on its area. 
The allocated rate for a site is apportioned to individual properties at subdivision. A buyer of a dwelling would purchase property with a known obligation to pay the special rate.
If a development has fewer dwellings than its site target, then the average special rate per dwelling will be correspondingly higher. A denser development would have a lower rate per dwelling. This creates an incentive to supply more affordable dwellings at higher density.
Measures to promote transit-oriented development would be complementary. So too with inclusionary zonings that give priority to housing associations or long-term rental investors. 
This proposal could be extended by giving the agency responsible for setting the rate and providing infrastructure the authority to acquire and rezone land, and sell it to developers. This would reduce land costs and risks with gaining approvals. 
Furthermore, land could be sold for long-term rental housing at reduced prices but with additional special rates.
What’s wrong with current approaches?
Currently, no strategic pricing mechanism applies to infrastructure servicing new development. There are either no charges on development or capped ones with providing water, sewerage, drains, public domain and other infrastructure. This means developers do not have to take into account the costs of providing such infrastructure when considering their proposals.
The lack of pricing discipline does not encourage efficiency. This means subsidies, with unpriced resources used, increase with inefficiency. High-cost infrastructure developments get greater subsidies than low-cost ones, and the lower the density, the greater the subsidy per dwelling. This promotes less dense and more dispersed development. 
In essence, current pricing mechanisms are at odds with the policy goals of affordable housing and denser and better-structured urban development. This feeds, in turn, into problems like congestion management, productivity, and economic growth.
Under current arrangements, the wider public bears the cost of subsidies. The criticism here is not against subsidies, but against policies that are not efficient in achieving social objectives. Reforms are needed if markets are to be more efficient at producing affordable housing and improving wider urban outcomes.
Current policies on economic growth and affordable housing presume coherence between them. But this presumption may not be realistic. 
Economic and population growth are accompanied by increased demand for housing. The prevailing policy response is for more-of-the-same, prioritising land rezoning. This would work if it led to reduced demand for the lower-priced portion of the housing stock. This portion of the market desirably should increase with increasing prices.
This is not happening and cannot be expected to happen without some major adverse economic event. Complementary market reforms are essential to achieve economic growth with affordable housing.
The risks of blunt policy instruments
There is also a paradox: even if more-of-the-same policy worked, would it be desirable? Policy based on decreased demand for significant portions of the market may be undesirable as well as unrealistic. 
Price decreases would reduce owners’ equity. They would also reduce the value of mortgages held by lenders, such as banks. In turn, this would reduce the value of lenders’ assets and thus reduce wider lending, affecting the wider economy. 
Policies to reduce oversupply by reducing lending are sensible. However, they create a situation where prices are allowed to increase while significant decreases are prevented. 
Interest rate adjustments are a crude instrument for managing housing markets. Interest rate increases may curtail oversupply in some parts of the market but would exacerbate under-supply in the lower-priced market. 
Furthermore, government concern about perceived housing bubbles may distort interest rate policy to the detriment of the wider economy. Adopting more precise instruments would be strategic.
The proposed measures are complementary to current policies as they promote pricing reforms to make the market more efficient and more effective in producing affordable housing. They are better targeted than wider taxation and interest rate policies, and would make wider economic policy less dependent on housing issues.
Martin Payne is casual lecturer in Planning, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/martin-payne-323295" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Send the market a price signal where affordable housing is most needed

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVERS
The Labor party took everyone by surprise over the weekend when it announced it would limit negative gearing to new housing and reduce the capital gains tax discount to 25%.
Proving negative gearing is no longer politically untouchable, the government has hinted its own policy may go some way in the same direction. But even then, some of the myths and half-truths peddled by vested interests have returned to haunt the debate.
Listening to the housing industry you would think that property tax concessions single-handedly drive new housing supply, keep a lid on rents and provide an opportunity for middle and low income earners to build wealth. In reality, these costly tax breaks increase speculation activity in the housing market, reduce affordability for first home buyers and primarily benefit high income earners. So why have some of these myths proved so enduring?
<h2>Myth 1: Changes will hurt mum and dad property barons</h2>
Like many myths, this one relies on some degree of truth – there are many middle income earners who negatively gear – but the emphasis on this group as the primary beneficiaries of property tax concessions relies on a statistical sleight-of-hand.
The government this week pointed out that most people that negatively gear property earn less than A$100,000. This is perhaps less surprising when you consider that so do almost 90% of the population: $100,000 a year puts you well in upper income territory. And the proportion of taxpayers negatively gearing is much higher for those earning over $100,000 than below this amount.
 
<img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/111620/width668/image-20160216-6548-1kdin4.JPG" alt="">
 
But compounding this myth is way its proponents use taxable income to show the distribution of tax benefits. People who negatively gear have lower taxable incomes because they are negatively gearing. This explains the high proportion of people with no taxable income owning loss making property investments – their declared losses are so large they have reduced their taxable incomes to zero. When we adjust to look at people’s incomes before rental losses are taken out we see that the vast bulk of the tax concession goes to those at the top. The top 10% of income earners receive almost 50% of the tax benefit from negative gearing.
 
<img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/111618/width668/image-20160216-22587-7yfscr.JPG" alt="">
 
Capital gains are even more skewed towards the wealthy. The top 10% of income earners receive almost 70% of the capital gains.
But what about all the property investing nurses and teachers we hear so much about? Well, there are some teachers and nurses that negatively gear – around 12% and 9% of them respectively. But they are much less likely to use these tax breaks than anaesthetists (29%), surgeons (27%) and finance managers (23%). And the average tax breaks received by those in the high income professions are also much larger, with the average anaesthetist reducing their tax bill by ten times more than the average teacher.
<h2>Myth 2: Negative gearing promotes new housing supply</h2>
The property industry argues that tax incentives for investment housing encourage more homes to be built. If so, it is a very inefficient way to do it. More than 93% of property lending is for existing housing.
Because negative gearing increases the price of homes it may encourage a little more building. But the big restraint on new building is not a lack of profitability in housing, but the availability of land and the planning permissions required to increase density in inner and middle suburbs. Tax concessions in this supply constrained environment mainly just bid up prices for the limited new supply.
In any case, most policy proposals carve out new supply. The Labor policy continues to allow full tax write offs for rental losses on new housing. So if anything the proposed policy change would encourage new supply.
<h2>Myth 3: Negative gearing keeps rent prices lower</h2>
But the most enduring myth around negative gearing concerns its role in controlling rents.
To understand the origin of this myth, we need to explore some history as well as economics.
The property industry claims that rents rose when the Hawke government restricted negative gearing in 1985. But this is a Sydney-centric version of the past. Rents did rise rapidly in Perth and rose somewhat in Sydney. Yet inflation-adjusted rents were stable in Melbourne and actually fell in Adelaide and Brisbane. In Sydney and Perth population growth and insufficient residential construction – due to high borrowing rates and competition from the stock market for funds – not the policy change, led to the rent rises.
 
<img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/111619/width668/image-20160216-22593-18cs5nz.JPG" alt="">
 
The industry also claims that if negative gearing is restricted, landlords will try to pass on some fraction of their higher tax costs by pushing up rents. But will they succeed?
Rents are ultimately determined by the balance between demand and supply for rental housing. In property markets – as in other markets – returns determine asset prices, not the other way around. Rents don’t increase just to ensure that buyers of assets get their money back.
Many other landlords with investment properties that are profitable won’t be paying higher taxes. Tenants will try to beat rent rises by threatening to move. So competition in rental markets will limit material rent rises.
Some investors may sell their properties if tax concessions are less generous. This might reduce house prices, but it will not increase rents. Every time an investor sells a property, a current renter buys it, so there is one less rental property and one less renter, and no change to the balance between supply and demand of rental properties. Indeed, one of the benefits of changes to negative gearing is that it makes housing more accessible for first home buyers.
The Labor party was brave to propose changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions. But until changes like these are made, the property industry will continue to try to muddy the debate with myths and half-truths, and most ordinary Australians will be the losers.
Danielle Wood is fellow, Australian Perspectives, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/danielle-wood-147710" target="_blank">here</a>.
John Daley is chief executive officer, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-daley-1870" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation
</body></html>

Three myths on negative gearing the Australian housing industry wants voters to believe

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Entering the property market is a tough gig for first home buyers, especially when faced with competition from buyers who hold larger buying budgets, some of which has been accrued from property equity earned as a result of recent strong capital gains.  
While home value rises have been moderate over recent years outside of Sydney and Melbourne, it provides little comfort for first home buyers in the two largest cities who struggle to compete with those that already own homes.
In 2008, combined capital city home values fell by -6.1 percent in the space of 9 months. By the end of the year, home values had reached and began to climb further thereafter. 
<a href="/images/2016/05/25/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-26%20at%203.35.10%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/25/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-26%20at%203.35.10%20PM.png" alt="">
The growth drivers largely came from two forms of stimulus: aggressive interest rate cuts and a boost to the First Home Owners Grant (FHOG). Since the removal of the FHOG boost and scaling back and complete removal of others, first home buyers have continued to languish at near record-low levels.
The increase in home values across each capital city from December 2008 to April 2016 can be seen in the first of the adjacent charts. Another way to think about this is that if in December 2008 you owned a home worth $500,000 it is now worth $758,418 which is $258,418 more than in December 2008. Looking at this same calculation across each capital city, the increases in value over that time based on a $500,000 home owned in December 2008 are: Sydney ($400,825), Melbourne ($338,866), Brisbane ($73,417), Adelaide ($81,029), Perth ($64,096), Hobart ($11,263), Darwin ($109,293) and Canberra ($126,262).
The data clearly shows that the value property for home owners has undergone some massive rises, the increase in inflation and wages has been comparatively more sedate. 
Although combined capital city home values have increased by 51.7 percent between December 2008 and April 2016, inflation has increased by a significantly lower 17.1 percent over the period. CPI has increased by a greater amount than values in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart indicating ‘real’ home values have fallen. Meanwhile in Sydney, Melbourne, Darwin and Canberra CPI growth has lagged that of home value growth. 
Looking at wages growth between December 2008 and March 2016, the data shows that nationally, and in New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT, it has lagged value growth across the capital cities; wages are now growing at their slowest pace in at least 18 years. 
While the increases highlighted include strong wage increases in the latter part of the mining boom, nonetheless, it shows that in NSW and Vic wages are increasing at a much slower pace than home values in Sydney and Melbourne are. 
The last chart shows the change in the value of new lending (excluding refinances) to investors, owner occupier first home buyers and subsequent buyers between December 2008 and March 2016, and highlights how the value of lending to owner occupier first home buyers is now lower than it was in December 2008 across each state and territory. 
This has occurred despite the increase in home values over the timeframe.
While lending to owner occupier first home buyers has fallen, lending to investors and subsequent buyers has increased in most states and territories with substantial rises in NSW and Vic.
Outside of Sydney and Melbourne home values have increased below or at a similar pace to inflation and wages, however, it is a very different story in the two largest capital cities where existing Sydney and Melbourne home owners have seen significant increases in the ‘real’ value of their home.
Those that do not yet own a property will struggle to compete with investors and upgraders who have been active in the market and where significant equity has been acquired.
<a href="/images/2016/05/25/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-26%20at%203.36.10%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/25/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-26%20at%203.36.10%20PM.png" alt="">
The simple answer for first home buyers, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, is to look to buy properties outside of these cities however, that may seem a little simplistic given jobs creation has not been as strong outside of Sydney and Melbourne and for many moving interstate, employment opportunities are generally a big decision.
Even buying outside of Sydney in nearby regional cities may not be attractive because transport infrastructure does not provide quick and efficient access to Sydney and Melbourne from nearby regional cities. 
Whatever the outcome, we certainly don’t advocate for the return of grants for first home buyers as they have tended to just push up the cost of housing.
Cameron Kusher is research analyst for CoreLogic RP Data. You can contact him <a href="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/about/">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

ckusher-ujnxiKuFQs

Investors and owner occupiers keeping first home buyers out of market: CoreLogic RP Data's Cameron Kusher

<html><body>
Hi Margaret,
We have a 1 acre or 4000 sq metre block of land , zoned farming in country Victoria. We bought it in July 2014 as an investment to develop it as a future home site.
If I sell a block of land with contract of sale dated in 2017 financial year, but settlement is in 2018 financial year, is CGT based on contract of sale date or on settlement date? It will make a difference as we will be retired in 2018 financial year and will be in  a different tax bracket.
The block of land, zoned farming, did not have a planning permit to build a dwelling or shed and has generated no income while we have owned it but we have made improvements. Are the cost of the improvements deductible? We have planted 600 trees at a cost of $1100.
We have drawn up a set of house plans and successfully applied for a planning permit to build a dwelling and shed at a cost of $1400. Are maintenance costs deductible?
E.g. 100 trips to the block of land to mow lawns, water trees, earth moving costs to remove dead trees, loan costs and purchase costs and selling cost.
Can we deduct stamp duty on purchase? Legal costs on purchase? Loan borrowing costs? Loan interest from date of purchase to date of sale? Loan discharge costs? Legal costs on sale of land? Council rates from purchase date to sale date? Break fees on a fixed loan for the land purchase if I sell before the 4 year fixed term is completed?
Thanks for your suggestions
Regards
Kevin
 
Hi Kevin,
According to the Australian tax office:
When you sell or otherwise dispose of real estate, the time of the event (when you make a capital gain or capital loss) is usually:
<ul>
<li>when you enter into the contract (generally the date on the contract), not when you settle – the fact that a contract is subject to a condition, such as finance approval, generally doesn't affect this date</li>
<li>when the change of ownership occurs if there is no contract (such as when a property passes to a beneficiary), or</li>
<li>if the real estate is compulsorily acquired – the earliest of</li>
<ul>
<li>when you receive compensation from the acquiring entity</li>
<li>when the entity became the property's owner</li>
<li>when the entity enters the property under a power of compulsory acquisition, or</li>
<li>when the entity takes possession under that power.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
In your case this means the event occurs in 2017 and this is the year the tax becomes due and payable.  If you have already lodged your tax return before settlement and the receipt of the proceeds, you would need to request an amendment to the prior year’s return. 
As for the remainder of your questions, you do need specific advice which takes into account all of your circumstances, including the purpose for which you originally bought the property and your intentions at the time.  Generally speaking though, I can tell you that:
1.   If this is not a working farm the zoning should not impact deducibility of any bona fide investment property related deductions.  You will need to get some specific advice around the planting of the trees, though, as they may not be deductible, unless such planting was required for the purposes of earning property related income.  
2.   Improvements to a rental property are deductible as long as the purpose for the block was to build an investment, and not to build future own home. 
3.   Once a property becomes income producing, maintenance costs are deductible.  If your intention was to build a property to rent out but instead you sell, some of your costs may become capital costs, but again this one would have to be determined by your accountant.
4.  You have a large list of other costs and again, their deductibility depends upon the reason you bought the block – if it was for an investment some may be considered capital costs (and so add to your cost base for the purposes of determining capital gains tax) and others, as long as the property was income producing, may be deductible as yearly expenses.  Even some costs which are normally yearly expenses can be added to the cost base in certain circumstances.  
It is critical that you consult with a highly skilled accountant who has experience in this area to be sure that you get the right advice.  Remember, regardless of what any one tells you, the responsibility for making the right claims rests with the tax payer.  Bad advice won’t get you out of trouble if you make an incorrect claim.
 
Have a property question?  <a href="mailto:news@propertyobserver.com.au" target="_blank">Ask Margaret!</a>
</body></html>

mlomas-KC9MUPZ6Ca

Ask Margaret: Is CGT based on contract of sale date or on settlement date?

<html><body>
Hi Margaret, my wife &amp; I live on 50 acres we bought the property 20 years ago , built a house &amp; lived in since. We have 10 cows which we make a little money on each year &amp; is the only income of the property. Our main income is away from the property (apart from the office &amp; shed) my question is would we be CGT exempt because we use the other 45 acres for farming, although it's not our main source of income?
Answer: The answer to this question has many parts and depends on a number of circumstances, and so I checked with Property Success tax expert Ian Rodrigues to see what he thought about it. The first this to check is the actual date that you purchased the property.  It appears to be after they introduced the Capital Gains Tax rules but that is worth checking first as if it was before, then everything changes.  It's also important to know if you bought the property or if it was passed to you, perhaps through an inheritance as this impacts as well. The Principal Place of residence exemption should apply to the house and surrounding land up 2 hectares (about 5 acres). You mention an office and shed - were these rented out, or did you use them for conducting any kind of business, and subsequently claim any proportional deduction on them?  If you did then this will mean that a part of your principal place of residence will be considered to be liable for capital gains tax and this will need to be established. The rest of the land outside the 5 acres are subject to CGT regardless of how they were used. There are major issues to consider here in regard to:-         1. was farming a business for tax (and so, what went into your tax returns?). Small business CGT concessions could apply here and         2. what is the valuation split of PPOR and acres? Sometimes the house is the substantial part of these acres and therefore carry the much of the value of the entire block, and at other times the acres are prime land and therefore make up a substantial part of the calculations.  Your situation is a little complicated,  and it is absolutely critical that you get advice based on all the facts of this situation. Although the outcome may end up the same, you need some serious planning put in place, as you may have access to small business CGT rules and super rollover rules too. 
Have a property question?  <a href="mailto:%20&lt;script%20type='text/javascript'&gt;%20/n%20&lt;/script&gt;&lt;script%20type='text/javascript'&gt;%20%20&lt;/script&gt;This%20email%20address%20is%20being%20protected%20from%20spambots.%20You%20need%20JavaScript%20enabled%20to%20view%20it.%20&lt;script%20type='text/javascript'&gt;%20%20&lt;/script&gt;" target="_blank">Ask Margaret!</a>
</body></html>

Capital Gains

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Capital Gains

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News