Labor Party

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
The announcement by the Federal Labor Party of their support for a build-to-rent model through tax relief is good news.
There is a big swing to rental accommodation in Australian cities, but tenants are unable to have long term security of tenure.
In America and Britain long term rental is available through build-to-rent models, but this approach has not worked in Australia due to excessive taxes.
The announcement by the Federal Labor Party that they will cut the managed investment trust withholding rate in half would make build-to-rent economically viable.
The build-to-rent model works with apartment precincts that have shared amenities where residents can have a comfortable lifestyle while having the security of tenure in their own rental home.
It is likely that the larger developers of apartments will be encouraged to move into this new long term rental market.
Hopefully the current Federal Government will also support tax incentives to encourage a swing to long term rental across Australia’s cities.
There are 2.7 million renters of homes across Australia. Urban areas in Sydney have very high percentages of renters with Parramatta having 70%, Surry Hills 64% and Newtown 62%.
It is clear that younger people in particular, are swinging towards rental accommodation in bustling inner city urban areas where they are close to amenities and work.
With housing approvals dropping fast in Australian cities the industry will need a stimulus to boost housing supply. A viable build-to-rent approach will encourage the development of more homes across the country.
The Urban Taskforce is a strong supporter of Australia having a viable long term rental approach.
It is clear that many millennials now prefer an urban lifestyle, and many prefer this to be through a rental model in apartments.
This is clearly a different lifestyle to the suburban home and it needs to be supported as part of our diverse approach to how Australians want to live.
CHRIS JOHNSON is the Urban Taskforce CEO.
</body></html>

cjohnson-8xfqfuuCSq

Labor's build-to-rent support is good news: Chris Johnson

<html><body>
The Opposition leader Bill Shorten has conceded that Labor's negative gearing/capital gains tax reforms were not “universally loved.”
“I would rather see more young couples buy their first home, than spend billions subsidising investors acquiring multiple properties,” Shorten argues.
“All of the experts know that with scarce taxpayer dollars it’s better to put money into health and aged care than give a tax subsidy to someone buying their sixth or seventh investment property,” Mr Shorten said.
The last time I looked there were only 20,023 Australians with an interest in six or more investment properties, as according to ATO statistics 71 per cent of the Australians with rental properties have just the one investment.
The latest SQM forecast research suggest the policy was "risky" to the Australian economy.
There are some commentators who suggest the best time to shut down negative gearing as we know it is when few people are taking it up.
And they suggest that time is now, given our enduring low interest rates.
But the detailed SQM study ought dictate a policy rethink.
Labor announced it would abolish negative gearing as we know it before the last election, along with putting up the capital gains tax on housing investment by 50 per cent.
The policy was pitched to help housing affordability.
Sydney house have since fallen by some 13 percent from the peak, the biggest, quickest drop in living memory.
The landscape is very different now, yet the policy stays the same.
Wise heads don’t want a return to the runaway house price growth that denied first-home buyers getting into the market.
But there is a need to protect against seriously further undermining the value of people’s exisiting homes.
If Australians lose confidence in the value of the biggest investment they ever make, then this will impact everything.
No one really knows the full behavioural outcomes of investors, but polling shows Australians are unconvinced by the flagship Labor reform.
Property is a critically important asset class as Australian households hold more than half of their wealth in residential property.
Ofcourse the current anxiety assumes a change of Federal government and then the passage of the policy through the parliament.
This article was first published in the Saturday Daily Telegraph.
 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Is now the best time to shut down negative gearing?

<html><body>
<div class="m_-9217550253763290028gmail-page" title="Page 4">
<div class="m_-9217550253763290028gmail-section">
<div class="m_-9217550253763290028gmail-layoutArea">
<div class="m_-9217550253763290028gmail-column">
Property is a critically important asset class as Australian households hold more than half of their wealth in residential property.
Policies that have the potential to affect housing values have a direct bearing on household confidence and then the appetite for consumption versus savings.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
When the ALP negative gearing policy was first unveiled several years ago, Sydney’s residential property market was in a boom.
The landscape is very different now, yet the policy stays the same.
It was pitched as a policy to make home ownership more affordable, which the recent price falls have certainly achieved.
Labor wants to halve the capital gains tax discount and restrict negative gearing to newly built homes, while “grandfathering” existing arrangements.
It calculates the policy would save (and or raise) $32 billion over 10 years.
The proposed changes have contributed a little to the nervousness surrounding the property market, and therefore contributed to the decline in prices.
Ofcourse the anxiety assumes a change of Federal government and then the passage of the policy through the parliament.
There's plenty of feared impacts should the policy to become law.
<div class="m_-9217550253763290028gmail-page" title="Page 18">
<div class="m_-9217550253763290028gmail-section">
<div class="m_-9217550253763290028gmail-layoutArea">
<div class="m_-9217550253763290028gmail-column">
While the proposed changes to negative gearing and also to capital gains tax will only apply to investments purchased after any policy change, there are going to be huge impacts on investment behaviour.
There are some impacts quietly at work now, while other impacts are coming down the track.
Some investors will now be buying established housing as the purchase will be able to be negatively geared and also avoid the higher capital gains tax on any resale.
After the policy comes in, there would be a period of inactivity as investors appraise the new landscape and initially avoid new housing purchases. Historically investors have a marked preference for established housing as it is cheaper.
Investors would also refrain from selling investments at the higher capital gains tax in the hope that there would be a return to a Coalition government who'd possibly scrap the policy.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Not withstanding the CGT impact, the biggest concern is the policy would likely reduce the overall supply of property in the rental market, and trigger a rise in rents.
Rental accomodation is essential for one-third of Australian households.
No one really knows the full behavioural outcomes of investors, but Australians are unconvinced by the flagship Labor reform with 44 percent against the policy change.
Voters are also against the mooted change on capital gains tax on investments, with 48 per cent against.
The Opposition leader Bill Shorten has noted that the tax reforms were not “universally loved.” That would because some 2.1 million Australians have a rental property.
“I would rather see more young couples buy their first home, than spend billions subsidising investors acquiring multiple properties,” Shorten argues.
“All of the experts know that with scarce taxpayer dollars it’s better to put money into health and aged care than give a tax subsidy to someone buying their sixth or seventh investment property,” Mr Shorten said.
The last time I looked there were only 20,023 Australians with an interest in six or more investment properties. 
According to ATO statistics some 71 per cent of Australians with rental properties had just the one investment.
There's going to a lot of upheaval to get stuck into the 20,023.
Maybe the solution should be, without retrospectivity, simply limit claims to just one negatively geared policy.
This article first appeared in The Daily Telegraph.
</body></html>

Let every Australian investor negatively gear just the one property 

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
The NSW Labor Party announcement that they will eliminate spot rezoning if elected in March is a misunderstanding of the planning system.
Spot rezoning was introduced because many councils were very slow to update their Local Environmental Plans yet population growth had increased or new infrastructure like metro rail was being built.
Many councils were against new child care centres that competed against their own centres or did not support affordable housing in their area. In these circumstances where councils were stopping social responsible development or where their planning documents were out of date it is necessary to have a review system that has independent assessment.
The Plan for Sydney, A Metropolis of Three Cities, by the Greater Sydney Commission is only a year old and it sets the big picture agenda for where growth should occur. Unfortunately most councils have LEPs that are sometimes decades old. It is essential that planning responds to today’s needs not the past.
Giving councils too much power in the rezoning process creates an environment conducive to corruption. The current District Planning Panels are independent and were set up to keep potentially corrupt councilors out of the process.
Former Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Glenn Stevens, in a report to the NSW Government raised concern that the planning system was too slow and out of date with current economic circumstances.
The spot rezoning approach allows independent assessment of planning proposals that fit the Greater Sydney Commissions most recent plans but don’t conform to out of date council plans.
As Glenn Stevens highlighted to wait for 5 years for the council plans to catch up is a very inefficient way to keep the economy of housing supply being relevant.
The Labor statement that spot rezoning is about developer deals is totally wrong. It is about being current with planning rather than being out of date. It is also about ensuring that anti -development councils cannot undermine the metropolitan wide approach taken by the Greater Sydney Commission.
Importantly Pre-Gateway reviews of Planning Proposals are undertaken by appointed experts on District Planning Panels that include a local council representative. The checks and balances are there to ensure probity and independent decision making.
It is of concern that the Labor Party is attacking developers for trying to follow the independent GSC plans when local councils are out of date with their own plans.
CHRIS JOHNSON is the Urban Taskforce CEO 
</body></html>

Spot rezoning need to be independently assessed: Chris Johnson

<html><body>
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg is under pressure to release the final report of the banking royal commission on February 1 – the day it is handed to the federal government.
Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen is demanding the report be released publicly on the same day it’s handed to the government, ahead of Parliament resuming in mid-February.
The New Daily website reported Labor will warn any failure to release the royal commission’s final report immediately would “unnecessarily politicise the handling of the report and give rise to potential material market risks around leaks of all or part of the report”.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/subscribe" target="_blank"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/1/Subscriber%20strip%20ad.jpg" alt=""></a>
“It is in the national interest for the Australian people and victims of banking scandals to be able to access the <a href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2018/11/30/bank-royal-commission-wrap/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hayne Banking Royal Commission</a>’s final report and form their own views, at the earliest opportunity, and that means on Friday, February 1,” Mr Bowen said.
“I have written to the Treasurer requesting they release the final report and related documents of the banking royal commission as soon as practicable after it is received by the government.”
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg established a precedent of releasing the <a href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2018/09/28/kenneth-hayne-royal-commission-interim-report/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Royal Commission’s interim report</a> on the day it was received.
The Treasurer will deliver a major economic speech at the Sydney Institute on tonight, which is expected to touch on the government’s approach to the royal commission.
The government voted 26 times against establishing the royal commission. 
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Labor seeks February 1 release of banking royal commission report

<html><body>
Australians are unconvinced by the flagship Labor reform on negative gearing, with 44 percent are against the policy change.
A poll found 43 percent in favour of restricting the tax deductions on investment properties.
The remaining 13 percent did not know.
It comes as Opposition Leader Bill Shorten mounted a spirited defence of his tax plans at the ALP national conference.
The Ipsos poll conducted for Nine Entertainment also found that voters were against the mooted change on capital gains tax on investments, with 48 per cent against and 43 per cent in favour.
Labor voters overwhelmingly back the changes.
Labor wants to halve the capital gains tax discount and restrict negative gearing to newly built homes, while “grandfathering” existing negative gearing arrangements.
It has claimed the policy would raise $32 billion over 10 years, making it Labor’s second-biggest policy after its proposal to raise $56 billion over a decade by restricting tax refunds on dividend imputation.
The Opposition leader noted on Sunday that the tax reforms were not “universally loved.” 
“I would rather see more young couples buy their first home, than spend billions subsidising investors acquiring multiple properties,” he told the Labor national conference.
Those who oppose Mr Shorten’s changes to negative gearing include 30 per cent of Labor voters, 26 per cent of Greens voters, 70 per cent of One Nation voters and 61 per cent of Coalition voters.
The policy is backed by 60 per cent of Labor voters.
The poll comes as housing policy emerges as an election issue.
<div class="_1665V undefined">
The biggest Labor policy at the national conference was a plan for $6.6 billion in affordable housing over 10 years by giving a subsidy to developers to build new homes and charge rents that are 20 per cent below market rates.
</div>
<div class="_1lC_G">The plan only includes $102 million over its first four years.</div>
<div class="_1665V undefined">
<p data-gtm-vis-recent-on-screen-6236702_632="1544961372749" data-gtm-vis-first-on-screen-6236702_632="1544961372749" data-gtm-vis-total-visible-time-6236702_632="4000" data-gtm-vis-has-fired-6236702_632="1">The Labor policy revives the National Housing Affordability Scheme introduced by the Rudd government in 2008, which also gave a subsidy to developers but did not fund the full cost of construction.
<p data-gtm-vis-recent-on-screen-6236702_632="1544961372749" data-gtm-vis-first-on-screen-6236702_632="1544961372749" data-gtm-vis-total-visible-time-6236702_632="4000" data-gtm-vis-has-fired-6236702_632="1">The government is committed to spend almost $30 billion on housing over the next five years.
</div>
</body></html>

Labor's negative gearing policy splits the nation

<html><body>
Goldman Sachs has claimed fears around a home lending credit crunch, the housing "bust", the ALP housing policy and excessive apartment overbuilding, won't be realised.
Its commentary comes in a report that concludes that Labor will likely struggle to fully implement its feared housing policies should they win government next year.
The economists, Andrew Boak, Bill Zu and William Nixon especially questioned whether Labor would be able to pass the capital gains tax measures through the Senate.
"We are somewhat sceptical of the ability of the ALP to pass changes to the capital gains tax arrangements through the Senate given the likely make-up of the cross-bench – which in our view is the most impactful aspect of the reform package (as opposed to the changes to 'negative gearing')," they said.
The Labor opposition's proposal to limit negative gearing tax breaks to new housing investments would only lower an investor's return in the event of little or negative capital gain on dwelling values, the economists wrote in a report titled, Fear vs. Fundamentals.
Click here <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2018/12/12/Goldman1.jpg" target="_blank">to enlarge</a>.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/12/12/Goldman1.jpg" alt="">
Bill Shorten announced Labor's plan to curb negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions in early 2016, saying it would stop a $10 billion tax subsidy to leveraged-up investors with big portfolios who were driving up prices and driving poorer first-time buyers out of the unaffordable housing market.
The Goldman Sachs report noted the impact from the proposal to cut the capital gains tax deduction from 50 per cent to 25 per cent would have a greater impact.
"The changes make property investing less attractive from a cash flow perspective, but negatively geared rental properties are already an unattractive asset from a cash flow perspective.
"The impact of the lower capital gains discount is somewhat more important, but we note this only binds when price growth is positive.
"This means that, from an individual's perspective, leveraged property investment will remain attractive if property prices are expected to rise and unattractive if prices are expected to remain flat/decline – regardless of the ALP's proposed changes."
Their report suggests the CGT policy would in total reduce the return by about a quarter over the average annual return of an investment.
Click here <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2018/12/12/Goldman2.jpg" target="_blank">to enlarge</a>.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/12/12/Goldman2.jpg" alt="">
"In our view, while there is a kernel of truth to many of the popular narratives, a close inspection of the data suggest most are overly negative," the report advised.
"That said, we acknowledge the housing market presents a clear downside risk to our fairly upbeat 2019 outlook – including our expectation that the RBA will raise rates in late 2019."
It noted tighter credit rules did not constitute a "credit crunch" that typically happened when banks became unable to lend.
"The value of finance approvals to investors in NSW and Victoria continues to fall sharply, but is little changed elsewhere; while the number of finance approvals to owner-occupiers remain fairly elevated in NSW and VIC (albeit a bit weaker) and mixed in other regions," the economists said.
"In our view, this remains broadly consistent with our earlier view that the primary driver of softer loan approvals over 2018 has been lower demand from investors – driven by a normalisation in expectations for capital gains in Sydney and Melbourne."
Tighter scrutiny of mortgage applicants' expenses was slowing approval times, but the effect was likely to be temporary, they said.
Click here <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2018/12/12/Goldman3.jpg" target="_blank">to enlarge</a>.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/12/12/Goldman3.jpg" alt="">
"This slower processing period may well take a few months to wash through and cause some temporary distortions in the interim," they said.
"The evidence that supply-side credit tightening is significantly worsening is not compelling to us."
They also suggested they did not see widespread stress as interest-only loans converted to principal-and-interest mortgages requiring higher repayments.
The greatest risk to housing demand and housing construction, would come from severe immigration cuts, the report said.
"In our view, the much more material risk to both the underlying supply/demand balance and the level of construction activity would be a significant reduction in population growth."
"We note Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently proposed to reduce Australia's annual permanent migration quota by up to 30,000 per annum (or about 15 per cent) and redirect new migrants away from Sydney and Melbourne.
"While formal changes are yet to be made – and the impact on population growth of this proposal would likely be negligible given (i) actual permanent migration is already below the current cap, and (ii) the measures don't address the large amount of temporary migration – the increasing political focus raises the possibility of a more substantial policy shift in the future."
Boak advised while housing does present a real risk to the Australian macro outlook, he believes "the doomsday chatter" is inconsistent with the underlying data.
"Our conclusions may not be as dramatic as some out there – but hopefully the focus on the data brings some balance and perspective to the debate," he suggests.
<div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="m_-5197703672619154994m_-9209214850610210910WordSection1">
 
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
 
 
</body></html>

Labor unlikely to get all its feared housing policies through Senate: Goldman Sachs

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
If elected in 2019, Federal Labor plans to introduce restrictions on negative gearing for investors. Two weeks ago, I confirmed with the Labor Party that their proposed changes to negative gearing would apply across the board to all investments.
Previously, it was thought that Labor’s negative gearing restrictions might only apply to property investment, as they <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/negativegearing" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a>:
Labor will limit negative gearing to new housing from a yet-to-be-determined date after the next election. All investments made before this date will not be affected by this change and will be fully grandfathered.
This will mean that taxpayers will continue to be able to deduct net rental losses against their wage income, providing the losses come from newly constructed housing.
From a yet-to-be-determined date after the next election losses from new investments in shares and existing properties can still be used to offset investment income tax liabilities. These losses can also continue to be carried forward to offset the final capital gain on the investment.
This article examines some practical examples of how Labor’s restrictions might operate. I make no political statement, either on my own behalf, or on behalf of The Tax Institute.
In summary, under the proposals, the excess of interest expense over income (such as rent or dividends) cannot be utilised against salary and wage income. It must be carried forward for offset in future years against future investment income or capital gains from the disposal of the investment assets.
<h4>Negative gearing: how big is the problem?</h4>
Although interest rates have been at record lows for many years, negative gearing remains pronounced as rental returns have also fallen. Interest rates of 4 to 5 % and rental returns of 2 to 3% are common profiles giving rise to negative gearing, albeit far more modest than when interest rates were at 15%-plus levels back in the 1980s. (That may provide some explanation for the failure of negative gearing reforms in the mid-1980s – but that is another story!)
Further, in the context of margin lending to fund share acquisitions, interest rates are usually into double digit levels. While some shares pay dividends much higher than the often-paltry returns achieved on property investments (think RIO 7.19% BHP 7.02% CBA 8.94%), that is not always the case (think CSL 1.24% QBE 2.57% Aristocrat 2.12%).
Labor’s figures suggest an improvement to the Federal Budget bottom line of $32 billion over 10 years. That figure, I believe, relates to both negative gearing and the proposed halving of the capital gains tax (CGT) discount from 50% to 25% so the exact tax contribution from negative gearing restrictions is unclear. Nonetheless, it does seem that Labor expects a substantial return from the change.
<h4>The scope of Labor’s proposed measures</h4>
After some interrogation, I have confirmed that Labor’s restrictions on negative gearing will apply (after a yet-to-be announced commencement date) to all investments on a global basis to every taxpayer. In other words, it will apply to property and shares and any other relevant asset class. It will look at a taxpayer and assess their overall investment income measured against their overall investment interest expenses.
Both these points are critical to an understanding of what is proposed.
<h4>What does this mean for investors in a practical sense?</h4>
Let me illustrate what this means for investors with three examples.
Example 1 – Harry
After the proposed commencement date, Harry, an Australian resident, borrows $500,000 from a bank and uses the borrowed funds to buy an investment property in suburban Melbourne. The interest rate is 5% per year and the net return (after all deductions other than interest) is 3.5% net per year. Harry is employed deriving PAYG income of $200,000 per year but has no other investments, geared or otherwise.
Example 2 – Raylene
After the proposed commencement date, Raylene, an Australian resident, borrows $500,000 under a margin loan arrangement and uses the borrowed funds to buy shares in an Australian company. The interest rate on the loan is 8% per year and the net return on the shares (after all deductions other than interest) is 2% per year (being the grossed-up dividend yield on CSL, QBE and Aristocrat combined, for example). Raylene is employed deriving PAYG income of $300,000 per year but has no other investments, geared or otherwise.
Example 3 – Suellen
After the proposed commencement date, Suellen, an Australian resident, borrows $1,000,000 from a bank at a 5% per year interest rate and uses the borrowed funds to:
<ul>
<li>buy a property for $500,000 which has a net rent (before interest) of 3%; and</li>
<li>buy shares in an Australian listed public company which will pay a grossed-up dividend yield of 5%.</li>
</ul>
In addition, Suellen uses $500,000 of her own funds to purchase 5-year treasury bonds, paying her an interest rate of 2% per year (I assume treasury bonds will be covered by the restrictions).
The restrictions on negative gearing will need to be carefully monitored by all three people.
Harry and Raylene will both fall foul of the proposed negative gearing restrictions as their interest expense exceeds the income – in Harry’s case by $7,500 and Raylene’s case by $30,000 (that is, interest expense of $40,000 or 8% of $500,000 minus $10,000 dividend or 2% of $500,000).
Under current rules, that excess could have been used to offset other income earned by Harry and Raylene giving rise to tax savings of $3,375 for Harry and $13,500 for Raylene. Under Labor’s proposals, the excess cannot be so utilised but must be carried forward for offset in future years against future investment income or capital gains from the disposal of the investment assets.
Their position will need to be looked at afresh every year as their circumstances may change. If, for example, the interest rate falls and the rent rises, the property may become positively geared (or just less negatively geared). In addition, they may buy new assets with better gearing ratios, in which case the problem may again be reduced or even completely eliminated.
Suellen, on the other hand, owns property bought with borrowed funds, shares bought with borrowed funds and bonds bought with her own funds. She will not have a negative gearing problem. Her total interest expense is $50,000 but her total investment income from the three sources is $50,000. She will be able to fully utilise the losses which she makes through the negative gearing of her property and share portfolio essentially through the positive gearing of the bond portfolio.
It’s bad news for Harry and Raylene but okay for Suellen. No doubt she might also prefer a life without the added drama of watching the negative gearing ceiling but with careful planning she can manage the process.
This is the key to dealing with the fallout from Labor’s restrictions. Management of portfolios should have regard to the restrictions on negative gearing.
In addition, purchasing properties in the name of the family member best able to manage any negative gearing restrictions will also be vital.
Finally, while I believe this interpretation is conceptually consistent with what Labor has announced, much will depend on the detail of the legislation. Sometimes the detail can surprise and can be inconsistent with the conceptual foundations.
Professor Robert Deutsch is Senior Tax Counsel at <a href="https://www.taxinstitute.com.au/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Tax Institute</a>. This article is for general information only and does not consider the circumstances of any investor.
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

How will Labor's negative gearing rules apply? Robert Deutsch

<html><body>
The Senate crossbencher Derryn Hinch has told The New Daily he was open to supporting Labor’s negative gearing changes.
But the Victorian politician appears to seek to take the grandfathering aspect further that the opposition policy.
"My view is that I would vote for the ALP changes if grandfathered, but I would limit negatively geared properties to two or three.”
Senior MPs doubt the Shorten-Bowen policy will pass the Senate if Labor wins the next election.
The policy survived subdued attacks at the last election.
A Labor frontbencher told The New Daily it will be a very difficult Senate. 
“We can announce a date, say July 1, 2019 but I don’t think we are going to get it through. We’ve got to get 39 votes.”
While the Labor Party remains strongly committed to the policy, there are calls for the ALP to delay the introduction while the housing market remains volatile in Sydney and Melbourne.
In recent weeks, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has ramped up the campaign over Labor’s negative gearing policy.
Labor also proposes reducing the capital gains discount from 50 per cent to 25 per cent.
Shorten’s changes will “grandfather” existing property investors, which means the 1.3 million Australians who currently negatively gear can continue to do so.
“For yonks I resisted changing it. I own one negatively geared property,” Hinch said.
“Now I know of one senator who owns more than 20 negatively geared properties. Not what was intended.
“I agree that nurses and cops own such properties.
"My view is that I would vote for the ALP changes if grandfathered, but I would limit negatively geared properties to two or three.”
It is not the first time Hinch has raised the issue giving insights in his 2017 Budget in reply speech.
"I support negative gearing.
"I have declared in my pecuniary interest register that I have one heavily mortgaged negatively geared apartment, but I am open to legislation to limit the number of properties, residential or commercial, that a person can negatively gear. 
"I am increasingly being convinced of a limit of two or three such properties,' he said last year.
"It could help first-time buyers who are being swamped by investors, local and foreign, at every weekend auction."
</body></html>

Senator Derryn Hinch says he'll seek even more restrictive negative gearing than Labor

<html><body>
Some of the highest concentrations of property investors with negatively geared investment properties are in Labor-held electorates, analysis released by the federal government to News ltd papers show.
The income and tax statistics-based report by the Australian Taxation Office was published along with a coalition attack on Labor’s policy to phase out negative gearing.
Some 1.3 million Australians take advantage of the tax break on investment properties, with 640,000 living in coalition electorates and 570,000 in Labor-held seats.
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said Labor’s property plan would punish investors, he told The Australian.
According to a nationwide seat-by-seat study by the government, the most recent incom­e and tax statistics from the Australian Taxation Office shows that more people ­residing in Labor-held seats had negatively geared rental properties than in Coalition-held seats, in five out of the eight states and ­territories.
Josh Frydenberg ­said the ATO data showed that in the biggest property market, NSW, the number of people who negatively geared rental properties was divided equally among Labor and Coalition-held seats, with deputy ALP leader Tanya Plibersek’s seat of Sydney featuring in the country’s top 10.
The electorates with the highest number of investors were the two seats in the ACT, both of which are held by Labor.
The latest data shows about 254,000 Queenslanders claimed a loss in 2015-16.
Some regional Queensland electorates have been hit with huge slumps in property prices since the mining downturn, The Courier Mail has noted.
In Capricornia and Flynn in central Queensland, along with Dawson, which has a strong mining and tourism workforce, have about one in 10 voters who claim for a net rental loss.
In NSW The Telegraph published data from Treasury revealing 374,000 Sydneysiders are claiming the benefit.
“No real estate market will be harder hit by Labor’s ill-conceived property tax than the NSW market,” the Treasurer said.
Treasury data reveals about 10,000 people in each of the Labor electorates of Parramatta, Greenway, Barton, Sydney and Kingsford Smith claimed the tax discount. 
The 8655 people using the concession in deputy opposition leader Anthony Albanese’s Grayndler electorate is more than the 8195 people in former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull’s old electorate of Wentworth, the paper noted.
Labor's proposed rules apply to properties bought after the policy start date: either July 1 next year or July 1, 2020, depending on the timing of the next election.
The government claims that investors already holding negatively geared property will feel the impact of the grandfathered policy by trying to sell into a depressed market with less interest coming from investors.
Labor’s policy to restrict negative gearing to new dwellings - and to cut the capital gains discount from 50 per cent to 25 per cent - has come under sharper scrutiny, The Australian reported. 
Master Builders Australia has warned that it would result in a $12bn hit to building activity in the sector and lead to 42,000 fewer new homes being built over five years.
There are 120,000 ­investors with three or more properties, up from 116,700 just a year prior.
This week the Westpac boss Brian Hartzer noted a factor weighing on property uncertainty was the Labor policy, although he stopped short of blaming the proposed policy as a reason for falling prices.
"Clearly negative gearing is a significant feature in investors' decisions on property investment, or certainly, it has been over recent years. So a change in negative gearing policy would be viewed by many investors as a significant issue to be thought through before they make a further property investment," Mr Hartzer said.
 
 
</body></html>

Labor Party

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Labor Party

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News