Debate

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
It is budget time again and, like on many previous occasions, the voices seeking easy publicity are calling louder and louder for the abolition of negative gearing. Housing affordability is a hot topic in an environment where property prices are rising, in some places quite significantly, so the media is happily running with this agenda without questioning the basis of various claims.
But how can you have an honest debate on the issues involved if none of those commenting against negative gearing demonstrate enough knowledge on the topic they are talking about?
Dispelling myths about negative gearing is like trying to convince a 3 year old that "spinach is good for you"… It requires some maturity to comprehend the topic of the discussion before one is able to participate without any prejudice.
It may appear as a harsh and provocative assessment of those criticising negative gearing and Australia’s current tax arrangements - especially since the anti-negative gearing voices include prominent economists, managers of investment funds, various social think-tank organisation and media personalities. But if you scrutinise what they are saying it is very obvious they are just repeating overheard phrases without any understanding of the meaning of what these words really mean. Just like the aforementioned 3 year olds…
Just to illustrate, the prevailing theme is that negative gearing is a "cost to taxpayers"… Really? How about taking a class in basic accounting to understand the principles of cash flow before making any such statements publicly? Then the commentator would understand the negative gearing is all about cash flow and not about profit and therefore, that it is neutral from an overall tax perspective. (I explained the mechanics in my earlier article if you care to read - <a href="/news/27438-negative-gearing-benefits-the-average-investor-more-than-it-does-the-rich">Negative gearing: The three facts that will challenge your assumptions</a>).
Then there are ideas about changing the provisions to allow negative gearing on new properties only, to increase new build. Yeah, right, great idea. Let’s keep all those people unable to buy isolated in renter ghettos, or relegate them to city fringes, and keep the suburbs pristine and free from temporary drifters. Let’s repeat those social housing experiments from 1960’s and 1970’s (this time round with private money) which legacy is still haunting parts of our capital cities half a century later.
Of course I am exaggerating the possible consequences but only to highlight that those who call for such arrangements did not think through the full consequence of what may happen. Ask yourself, where is the greatest demand for rental accommodation? Of course, in city centres and along major transport routes. This is where investors are providing the bulk of rental stock - because this is where the demand is. And of course this is, in the great majority of instances, second-hand and not brand new stock for a very obvious reason.
“But” they say, “if properties were cheaper in those convenient locations, more people could afford to buy there and would not need to rent”. Great logic. Sure, let’s implement policies that will allow converting everything in such locations to cheap owner-occupier housing – and then we will end up with a real housing affordability problem for those who prefer or are forced to rent. But sure enough, taxpayers will be very happy to spend billions of dollars to address it, no worries.
The premise that renters will buy “cheap houses” rather than continue renting would be amusing if it was not promoted so seriously by those prominent commentators. The naivety of such thinking, on such a large scale (mind you, without any evidence and/or testing the assumptions), is staggering.
One only needs to look to late 1990 to understand why such thinking has no merit whatsoever. In particular, towards the end of 1990’s, the cost of owning a property was at a historically low level and in many locations renting was costing more than paying off a property and still, not everybody was prepared to buy, even if they could afford it easily.
All those commentators are forgetting the basic logic that drives people’s decisions – if prices are cheap, they are so for a reason. That is, owning is perceived by the majority as unattractive and without a merit, and cheap prices in relation to rental expenses only reinforce this perception. People need to perceive a positive outlook for the property market to want to own the place of their residence - this outlook can only be reinforced by a history of rising prices. It’s as simple as that, yet so difficult to comprehend for many.
Then we have such pearls of wisdom like grandfathering negative gearing on existing purchases but, at the same time, allowing for the writing-off of operational loses against capital gains. Great, let’s make tax affairs so complicated that nobody will be able to figure out whether they are making money or losing it. Accountants will love it and growth of employment at the Tax Office will propel Australia’s economic growth for the next few decades.
Or how about proclaiming that before 1986 there were no property investors in Australia (because this is what housing finance statistics “show”) and that the “current property investment boom crisis” is the fault of Keating and Hawke re-introducing negative gearing and Howard and Costello halving the capital gains tax on investment properties? This position conveniently disregards the fact that the proportions of rental stock remained relatively static for many, many decades. So what is really going on?
<img src="/images/2015/05/04/Occupied_private_dwellings.png" alt="">
Those commentators simply don’t comprehend that there was a shift in the investor profile from, a situation where a single person owned entire blocks of flats, to that where now many individual investors only own one flat each. Those aforementioned policies were just a catalyst enabling this transition to happen.
And because of these policies, people now have a choice to either live where they are and invest their extra money in the long term rental accommodation business (yes, it is a business after all) or upgrade their primary residence - and the financial outcome is the same at the end. Unbelievable but true, once you do the math.
But the biggest fable of all is that negative gearing is the reason prices are “so high” today. So, by removing negative gearing, we will restore “housing affordability” - whatever that means. Pity not many can understand what is really driving property prices in Australia.
It doesn’t fit in these people’s agendas that the cost of buying and renting in Australia is close to its historically best level, and that housing is more affordable now than at many points in time in the last three decades. Even in Sydney – the apparent “epicentre of housing speculation”.
<img src="/images/2015/05/04/Long_term_purchase_affordability_Sydney.png" alt="">
Interestingly enough, NSW’s share of net rental income losses was only 5.7% in the 2012-13 financial year (or $312 million out of $5.5B claimed by investors – as per Table 15 of recently published statistics that show all income and expense items from rental property schedules, by the state/territory location of the property). This means that just two years ago, in aggregate, profits from long term rental accommodation business in NSW almost matched losses.
In other words, negative gearing was not as widespread in NSW as everybody is led to believe. No surprise here at all since purchases with gross rental yields of 6-7% were not that uncommon in Sydney in 2012. But why bother with facts that spoil a “good story” for media attention.
By the way, where were these commentators in 1997-99, 2005/6, 2009 or 2012-13 when there were ample opportunities to buy property cheaply? Why they were not heralding those opportunities then as loudly as they now voice their opposition to negative gearing? (As a side note, did you notice how regularly these opportunities come about?) There is a simple answer - because back then they were chasing media headlines with another favourite crowd pleaser - the upcoming Armageddon.
My, in many ways, aggressive and ironic commentary serves the purpose of mobilising you - the reader - to start confronting these commentators and questioning their understanding of a concept they are so outspoken about. And secondly, treating what you read and hear on the news about negative gearing with a fair dose of scepticism.
After all, in the whole scheme of things, negative gearing is inconsequential for individual property investors – sure, it helps with cash flow but it does not impact profitability and certainly, it does not make houses more expensive. So, its abolition would not change a thing – but that point of view is missing from the public debate.
Journalists are failing in their duty to present information objectively by not offering contrasting opinions and, most importantly, by not questioning individual commentators on merits of their points of view.
I have a tip for anybody who wants to know whether a particular commentator has any idea about the topic of negative gearing - check if they consider negative gearing to be a cost to taxpayers, or offering extra profit for investors, or none of the above. If they do consider it a cost or extra profit opportunity, then you know you cannot take seriously anything they say, no matter what other credentials they present.
Arek Drozda is an independent property market analyst. Follow on Twitter @arekdrozda.
 
 
 
</body></html>

Debate

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Debate

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News