The new <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/yarraville-green-42-stephen-street-yarraville-vic-3013">Yarraville Green</a> development in Melbourne's inner west is showing that landscaping can be just as influential as architecture, with buyers responding strongly to the garden-first approach adopted from the outset by developer Excelon Projects and the project's design team.

Excelon appointed Six Degrees Architects and landscape architects SBLA to work collaboratively on the development, with a brief to create "a sustainable, design-led building with a focus on community."

That approach has resonated with buyers. According to Next Chapter Director Tom Hirini, who is leading the sales campaign, the landscaped communal garden has become one of the project's defining features, alongside its boutique scale and European-inspired cluster housing concept.

Local downsizers, right-sizers and established families already living in Yarraville and surrounding suburbs have accounted for the majority of purchasers.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=144913 project_image_fid=297740]

Yarraville Green will comprise 53 homes, including apartments and townhomes, arranged around the shared central garden to maximise connections to the landscaped open space. Parking has been moved underground, allowing the ground plane to be dedicated to greenery, pedestrian movement and communal spaces.

The landscape extends well beyond passive planting. Productive garden beds, a pergola, communal gathering spaces, garden sheds and a pet wash have all been integrated into the masterplan, creating spaces designed to encourage everyday interaction between residents.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=144913 project_image_fid=297741]

The interiors continue Excelon's focus on craftsmanship, incorporating bespoke elements by Melbourne artisans including leadlight detailing by Adadaz, hand-turned timber hardware by Auburn Woodturning and blown-glass lighting by Ruth Allen.

Sustainability has also been embedded throughout the project, with Yarraville Green targeting an average 7-star NatHERS energy rating through passive design principles, rooftop solar servicing common areas and rainwater harvesting for landscape irrigation.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=144913 project_image_fid=297735]

Construction continues to progress at Yarraville Green, with structural works well underway and framing works approaching completion under builder Balmain &amp; Co. The project remains on track for completion in mid-2027.

Apartments at Yarraville Green are currently priced from $625,000, while townhomes start from $1.4 million.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=144913]

Joel Robinson

Garden-led design drives buyer demand at Yarraville Green

National diversified developer Fortis has officially launched Crest &amp; Walker, its latest Brisbane apartment development, with construction now underway on the 20-storey Newstead project.

Award-winning builder BINAH has commenced construction on the Bureau^Proberts-designed building, which will deliver a limited collection of 65 two and three-bedroom apartments on Kyabra Street.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=145922 project_image_fid=373556]

The project marks Fortis' fourth active residential development in Brisbane, following River House, which is nearing completion, alongside projects in New Farm and Hamilton as the national developer continues to expand its South East Queensland pipeline.

Fortis General Manager – Development Queensland Dan Boman said Crest &amp; Walker reflects the developer's long-term commitment to delivering design-led residential projects in Brisbane's established inner-city suburbs.

"We're proud to be strengthening our presence in Brisbane with Crest &amp; Walker, particularly in such a sought-after lifestyle destination as Newstead," Boman said.

"Every Fortis project is shaped by its context, and we approach each one with the respect and care it deserves.

"Our focus is always on creating places that feel connected to their neighbourhood and elevate the everyday experience for residents. Newstead continues to evolve as one of Brisbane's most sought-after urban communities, and Crest &amp; Walker reflects our ambition to contribute meaningfully to that story."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=145922 project_image_fid=373559]

Positioned between Gasworks Plaza and James Street, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/crest-walker-newstead-12-kyabra-street-newstead-qld-4006">Crest &amp; Walker</a> has been designed as a boutique residential address offering privacy and generous living spaces within one of Brisbane's most established lifestyle precincts.

The building features a contemporary brick podium softened by integrated landscaping, while the upper levels are characterised by restrained architecture and enduring materiality. Interiors have been designed to maximise natural light, acoustic performance and long-term liveability.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=145922 project_image_fid=373583]

Residences comprise spacious two and three-bedroom floorplans, with two-bedroom apartments priced from $1.55 million and three-bedroom, half-floor residences from $3.95 million.

Residents will have access to a wellness-focused rooftop featuring a swimming pool, sauna, steam room, landscaped dining spaces and outdoor lounge areas overlooking Newstead and the Brisbane CBD.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=145922 project_image_fid=373571]

Sales are being managed by Slaite Projects, with Fortis expecting strong demand from owner-occupiers seeking a high-quality, design-focused apartment in one of Brisbane's most tightly held inner-city suburbs.

Completion of Crest &amp; Walker is slated for late 2028.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=145922]

Fortis expands Brisbane pipeline with launch of Crest & Walker in Newstead

The enormity of delivering a true skyscraper in Australia's new development market is often overlooked.

It has taken the best part of a decade since plans for Chevron One were first unveiled, but the 41-storey tower is now complete, with residents collecting their keys and moving into what has become one of the Gold Coast's most recognisable new landmarks.

Rising 127 metres above Chevron Island, Chevron One stands almost twice as high as any other building on the island. Its scale places it alongside the trio of towers at Jewel, arguably the last truly significant addition to the central Gold Coast skyline when they were completed around six years ago.

While there are several developments underway around a similar height to Chevron One, they are more concentrated within clusters of the highest towers in the city. The fact Chevron One sits within a developing precinct, looking back at the other high-rise developments in Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach, makes it a different proposition altogether. It will certainly become a reference point on the Gold Coast skyline.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=6515 project_image_fid=68833]

Developer Bensons Property Group is behind the 41-storey tower, which has 229 apartments, along with an exhaustive list of resident amenity spread across what is the largest development site ever assembled on Chevron Island.

The tower has been the talk of the town for years, says Ray White Projects Gold Coast agent Caitlin Rosenboom, who is selling the remaining apartments.

"People have been watching Chevron One go up for years," Rosenboom says, adding that many prospective buyers have been surprised by the scale of the views once they step inside.

"It's only when they walk through a completed apartment that they truly understand the position of the building," Rosenboom says.

"The views are jaw-dropping. Whether you're looking east over the ocean, across Surfers Paradise, along the river systems or out to the hinterland, every level offers something different but equally impressive."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=6515 project_image_fid=360215]

One of Chevron One's defining advantages is its location on the eastern side of Chevron Island on Stanhill Drive, a position which protects the views forever.

"There's only one row of houses between Chevron One and the water, and the height restrictions along the river means views from Chevron One can never be built out,"&nbsp;Rosenboom says.

While new apartment developments continue to emerge across the Gold Coast, Rosenboom says opportunities to secure a completed apartment with this level of outlook are becoming increasingly rare.

"The size of the site is something that would be incredibly difficult to replicate today," she says.

"That's allowed Chevron One to deliver the sort of amenity, open space and resident facilities that very few projects can offer. There are not many completed apartment buildings on the Gold Coast right now that can compete with the combination of scale, quality and amenity."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=6515 project_image_fid=68839]

There's around 2,000 sqm of amenity solely for the use of residents of Chevron One. Club One features a uniquely shaped swimming pool that mirrors the footprint of the building itself, set within a extensively landscaped gardens. There's also an indoor pool and spa, a fully equipped gym with a Pilates room, a yoga garden, a bookable private dining area and lounge that can host up to 30 people, and a 24-hour concierge service.

As for the buyers, Rosenboom is fielding enquiry from everywhere: Sydneysiders and Melburnians looking at the new and off-the-plan market following the changes in the Federal Budget, as well as those looking to relocate, through to South East Queenslanders seeking either a permanent home or a weekender bolthole.

"The Gold Coast lifestyle continues to resonate with people relocating from the southern states, and when they see the views and the quality of what's been delivered at Chevron One, it becomes very easy for them to understand the appeal," Rosenboom says.

A diverse mix of one, two and three-bedroom apartments remain available, with each offering "something a little different", be it the orientation and views, configuration, or level, to suit a wide variety of buyers.

The remaining apartments are ready to inspect in person, by appointment.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=6515]

A decade in the making: Residents to move into Chevron One as construction wraps up

A general rule of thumb in new apartment developments is that the penthouses get the rooftop.

It's a formula that's become commonplace across Australia's apartment market. Residents might have access to a pool, gym or barbecue facilities on a dedicated lower level, but the most desirable outdoor spaces are typically reserved for the highest-priced homes at the top of the building.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/sherpa-property-group">Sherpa Property Group</a> has taken the opposite approach.

Rather than dedicating the rooftop to a handful of buyers, the Gold Coast developer has made it the centrepiece of its Flourish collection, creating expansive shared spaces from the best vantage point in the building.

The philosophy has reached its most ambitious expression at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/flourish-soleira-palm-beach-1150-1160-gold-coast-highway-palm-beach-qld-4221">Flourish Soleira</a> in Palm Beach, where two rooftop precincts connected by a skybridge will deliver one of the most extensive lifestyle offerings seen in a residential apartment project on the Gold Coast.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150017 project_image_fid=374053]

"We're seeing a clear move toward developments that offer more than just an apartment," Sherpa Group founder Christie Leet said.

"People want spaces that support how they actually live, whether that's working from home, staying active, or spending time with family and friends.

"That's where amenity becomes critical. It's not just about what's included, but how those spaces are designed to be used every day."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150017 project_image_fid=374052]

The breadth of amenity has already attracted buyers across multiple demographics. Younger first home buyers have been drawn to Soleira's one-bedroom apartments, a product rarely delivered in Palm Beach, while families have responded to practical inclusions such as the shallow children's pool adjoining the main lap pool and the extensive communal recreation areas.

Instead of a single rooftop, Soleira delivers two distinct lifestyle zones.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150017 project_image_fid=372547]

The southern rooftop has been dedicated to wellness, featuring a gym, yoga and Pilates studio, work-from-home facilities, a wellness centre, spa, and hot and cold plunge pools.

The northern rooftop focuses on recreation and entertaining, incorporating a heated resort-style pool, private dining rooms, pizza ovens, barbecues, a golf simulator, children's recreation areas, and what is expected to be the Gold Coast's first rooftop basketball court, which will also double as a squash court.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150017 project_image_fid=374054]

Beyond the rooftops, Soleira will introduce 1,500 sqm of curated retail beneath the towers, creating one of Palm Beach's first genuinely mixed-use lifestyle precincts where cafés, restaurants and convenience retail become part of residents' everyday lives.

Sherpa has also retained management rights across the development, allowing it to oversee the long-term operation of the building through a 24-hour concierge model. The developer is also exploring additional revenue streams within the precinct aimed at helping offset ongoing body corporate costs for residents.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150017 project_image_fid=370962]

While Soleira is the largest project Sherpa has delivered, the rooftop-first philosophy has been evolving for several years.

It began with <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/amargo-6-12-sixth-avenue-palm-beach-qld-4221">Flourish Amargo</a>, the first project released under the Flourish brand. Rather than competing at the ultra-luxury end of the market with oversized half-floor and full-floor residences, Sherpa focused on creating lifestyle-driven apartments supported by resort-style shared spaces.

Amargo introduced more than 800 sqm of rooftop amenity, combining wellness facilities, heated pools, entertaining areas, cabanas, pizza ovens and private dining spaces into what was designed as an extension of residents' homes rather than a facility used only occasionally.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=146527 project_image_fid=366550]

That approach continued with Flourish Oasis, where the same amenity-led philosophy was refined into a more boutique development. Strong demand from Sherpa's growing VIP database saw much of the project sold before it reached the broader market, reinforcing buyer appetite for apartment communities centred around shared lifestyle experiences.

Flourish Amargo is slated for completion mid-way-through next year, with Oasis to be delivered by late 2027. Flourish Soleira is expected to complete in 2030.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=150017]

Sherpa takes amenity to the sky as Flourish Soleira captures booming Palm Beach demand

As apartment living continues to evolve across Sydney's growth corridors, the quality and distribution of shared spaces is increasingly shaping how residents experience home. Rather than functioning as add-ons, amenities are being embedded into the daily rhythm of a building, supporting everything from quiet retreat to social interaction, often within a single vertical community.

At <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/aeris-melrose-park-nursery-street-melrose-park-nsw-2114">Aeris</a> in Melrose Park, this approach is resolved through a layered amenity offering that unfolds from ground level through to its upper podium. Developed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/sekisui-house-australia">Sekisui House Australia</a> in partnership with Hankyu Hanshin Properties, the project introduces 468 apartments across two towers and a mid-rise building, positioned at the highest point of the broader masterplan.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=426 project_image_fid=359199]

The amenity experience begins at street level, where two courtyards sit within a landscaped setting that connects residents to the wider network of parks and green spaces. These green spaces are not isolated pockets but part of a wider pedestrian network that links Aeris to the surrounding <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/melrose-park-nsw-2114">Melrose Park</a> precinct, including Central Park, future schools, and the Town Centre opening in July 2026. The result is a transition that moves from public to private without abrupt boundaries, allowing residents to pass through shaded, tree-lined environments before reaching the building itself.

Moving upward, the focus shifts to the level five podium, where the primary communal facilities are concentrated. This space brings together a 16-metre swimming pool, outdoor seating areas, and a communal BBQ zone arranged to take advantage of elevated outlooks. Seating is positioned beneath pergolas, creating pockets of shade that extend the usability of the space throughout the day. The pool edge aligns with views toward the wider district, reinforcing the sense of elevation that defines the project’s positioning.

In the adjacent building, this is complemented by quieter, more contemplative spaces, including an outdoor cinema set within the same level. Positioned to operate primarily in the evening, it introduces a different tempo to the shared environment, shifting from daytime activity to after-hours use without requiring separate zones.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=426 project_image_fid=360299]

The podium also accommodates an intimate private resident gym. Located on the lower levels, it gives residents convenient access to fitness facilities without leaving the building.

Above, the elevated podium sky deck extends the amenity offering, providing additional open-air spaces with elevated outlooks across the surrounding landscape. While more restrained in program, this upper level reinforces the project’s vertical progression, from ground-level greenery to elevated outlook, allowing residents to move between distinct spatial conditions within a single address.

This distribution of amenities reflects a deliberate response to how residents use space across the day. Sekisui House Australia Sales and Marketing Director Peter Kalaf points to the role these shared areas play in shaping buyer demand. Aeris has been conceived as more than a collection of apartments, with the podium pool, gym and outdoor cinema forming part of a broader lifestyle offering that extends the home beyond each individual residence.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=426 project_image_fid=360300]

What distinguishes Aeris is not the inclusion of these elements individually, but how they are arranged in relation to one another. Active, social, and passive spaces are layered vertically rather than separated, allowing residents to choose between them without leaving the building or moving far from their apartment. This proximity supports both routine use, such as a morning swim or evening workout, and more occasional gatherings, whether around the BBQ area or within the cinema setting.

The amenity design also sits within a broader framework of connectivity across Melrose Park. The Melrose Park Town Centre, anchored by Coles and Dan Murphys, features a mix of retail, dining, health and lifestyle offerings, bringing everyday convenience closer to residents. By the end of the year, more than five hectares of parks and open space, equivalent to around seven football fields of green space on residents' doorstep, will further enhance the precinct, allowing the internal facilities at Aeris to operate as an extension of the wider neighbourhood rather than a substitute for it.

Construction at Aeris continues to gather momentum, with ground floor slabs expected to be completed in late 2026 before the first sections of the buildings begin to rise above ground.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=426]

Elevated amenity anchors daily life at Aeris, Melrose Park

Negative gearing

<html><body><div class="row">
GUEST OBSERVER
Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has announced plans to change negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount if Labor wins the next federal election.
Under costings released from the Parliamentary Budget Office, Labor’s proposed changes could save the budget $32.1 billion over 10 years once they come into force.
Key measures include:
<ul>
<li>Negative gearing to be restricted to "newly constructed homes"</li>
<li>Capital gains tax discount reduced from 50% to 25%</li>
<li>Both measures would come into force from July 2017</li>
<li>All existing investments under the scheme would be fully "grandfathered" and protected against the changes</li>
</ul>
With pressure on the current government to reduce the growing Budget deficit, and Treasurer Scott Morrison's refusal to rule out any changes in policy across the board, negative gearing would seem to be the one area squarely in the sights of both the government and the opposition, especially when you look at the statistics…
<ul>
<li>There are currently 1.2 million people who have negatively geared property, and most of these people are middle class Australians.</li>
<li>Australian Tax Office statistics show negatively geared property investors claim over $13 billion in losses each year, and the average loss per negatively geared investor is over $11,000</li>
<li>The average loss per negatively geared property doubles for people earning more than $180,000, to over $24,000.</li>
</ul>
Should our governments look beyond the numbers? Is it a false economy just to think that by tinkering with negative gearing it will solve the budgetary problem?
5 Reasons Why the Government Shouldn't Change Negative Gearing
1. Growing Population
With Australia's population set to grow significantly over the coming decades, our governments should be asking "How will we house these people?"
The government does not have the capacity, nor the finance, to provide public housing for the growing population so this is left to the private sector.
Negative gearing allows more Australians to invest in property, as the tax benefits assist with the cash flow to invest and hold onto that property. If negative gearing is changed and CGT concessions are reduced, it will mean less investors, less demand and less houses, and it will place further pressure on the government to fund and provide housing.
2. Financial Pressures of the Ageing Population
There are currently 1.2 million middle class Australians investing in property to generate a capital gain and increase their asset base for retirement, to subsequently ensure that they can maintain a standard of living in their retirement without having to solely rely on the aged pension.
If the government creates a blockage into entry for property investment by chipping away at the tax benefits or reduce capital gain concessions, property investment becomes less attractive. In the long term, this will see more Australians relying on government pensions, meaning less self-funded retirees and therefore further pressure will be placed on future budgets.
The government needs to take a long term view and look beyond today. A change to negative gearing and capital gain concessions will only make matters worse in the future.
3. A Drop in Property Prices
Will a change in negative gearing and capital gain concessions disincentivise investors and, if so, what impact will this have on property prices?
In the short term, we may see a dip in property prices due to lower demand and increased supply – which will impact on the economy across the board. State governments will miss out on a large chunk of revenue (via loss of stamp duties), which could mean less funding to spend on things such as education, hospitals and infrastructure at a state level. The federal government will then have to fork out more to state governments to compensate.
4. Knock On Effect to the Economy
Will the changes deter people from investing in property?
Due to the loss of the tax benefits, people will not be able to fund the cash flow of an investment property, meaning they simply won’t buy investment properties. This will cause a knock on effect similar to what we have seen in the mining industry after the boom.
It could also mean a rise in unemployment in the building sector and associated industries such as white goods, electrical and service related industries like real estate and everything that goes with it. As previously mentioned, state governments will be impacted with less revenue from stamp duties to spend on state infrastructures – which would also mean less jobs.
5. Short Term Thinking
For all of the reasons above, I can understand why the government might look at the numbers in front of them and think changing the rules around negative gearing and capital gain concessions is a win for budgetary reasons, but it is simply a case of short term thinking. The government really needs to take a deep breath, sit back and carefully consider what impact this will have on the economy long term.
Any changes made may increase revenue today, but they – or should I say we – could end up paying for this 10, 20 or 30 years down the track. To put it bluntly, a short term gain for long term pain is not good business.
With 1.2 million middle class Australian property investors impacted, changing the rules are negative gearing and capital gains concessions would be highly unpopular – and it could be a game changer for either political party.
David Naylor is co-founder &amp; non-executive director, Chan and Naylor National Accounting Group and can be contacted <a href="https://www.chan-naylor.com.au/" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div></body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Property 101: Five reasons why the government shouldn't change negative gearing

<html><body>
Australians' love affair with property investment could be tested by the continuing slowdown in home prices, and that investors may be second-guessing the validity of negatively geared investments, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
According to the bank, this may be the last property price boom Australians will see for many years, according to a recent article in the Australian Financial Review.
March data shows that median capital city prices rose just 0.2 percent, with annual growth decelerating to 6.6 percent year-on-year. These figures are down from a July 2015 peak of 11.6 percent year-on-year and 11.9 percent in April 2014.
"A period of weaker price growth or outright modest declines is likely to become entrenched over coming years," Merrill Lynch said in a note to clients. 
"We'd expect that such a period could severely test Australians' long love affair with property investment."
Record low interest rates, while initially prompting new entrants into the property market, has left few marginal buyers following the extended period of these conditions.
While diminishing house price growth has not overly knocked household spending or confidence, the bank sees significant oversupply exacerbating the apartment sector in the next 12-18 months, particularly in Brisbane and Melbourne's central districts.
"This will likely be of concern to new investors in this market," the note reads.
"Yet this development is not expected to materially [affect] price performance of detached housing but may [hurt] sentiment towards the property market overall."
Though the bank expects these pockets of apartment price weakness to lead the further deceleration of price growth and building approvals, it doesn't expect this to spill over into the detached housing market, although prices will continue to decelerate over the course of the year.
That said, the over-supply issue could take years to resolve, particularly as falling Australian immigration numbers slow population growth.
Those with negatively geared investment properties may find they need to hold onto these properties for longer to realise adequate capital growth.
"In addition, over this period, they are likely to face regulatory risks from both sides of politics," said the bank, referring to taxation statistics suggesting that, among the 2 million landlords in 2013-2014, one in six individuals were eligible to pay tax, a potential target for government tax policy.
However, thanks to the low interest rate environment, the average rental loss per landlord has declined from $11,000 in 2010-11 to $8,700 in 2013-14.
RBA governor Glenn Stevens recently said that a moderation in house prices was helpful.
The last time the RBA cut rates was in February and May of 2015, and Merrill Lynch argues the property market was one of the only beneficiaries, as price growth leapt in the following months.
Merrill Lynch thinks it unlikely the RBA will cut rates soon, unless a material rise in unemployment jolts the Australian economy.
"It is our view that only a material rise in the unemployment rate should force the RBA's hand - not a, likely transitory, deceleration of inflation or as an attempt to manage the exchange rate," the note reads.
But it's the promise of a slowing growth asset that weighs on the bank's thinking.
"If dwelling and in particular apartment price appreciation is difficult to come by over coming years, new investors may increasingly question the validity of their negatively geared investment," the bank says.
As such, Merrill Lynch remains wary, citing high indebtedness combined with extraordinary monetary policy globally as the reason appetite for property may be diminishing.
"With household income growth soft, the reduced ability to borrow, or at least no further extension of it, will weigh on prices," the bank says.
"This most recent boom in dwelling prices is likely the last one we will experience for some time."
</body></html>

prateek24-ezbwHMbNAk

Merrill Lynch says property slowdown will hurt negatively geared investments

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Negative gearing and capital gains tax are a looming battleground in the federal election.
The debate was heightened last month by the release of modelling by consultants BIS Shrapnel purporting to show that reforms would lead to rent increases of between 4 percent and 10 percent. If correct, this would scare any political party.
An article in The Australian on Tuesday revealed that the ALP had seen this modelling before it released its policy to wind back the tax breaks on negative gearing and capital gains,
The ALP should be applauded for proceeding nevertheless. The report was clearly going to be inconvenient. But it was also not worth the paper on which it was printed.
The report implied that a<a href="https://grattan.edu.au/news/a-low-cost-way-to-derail-the-housing-debate/"> </a>$2 billion increase in tax would reduce economic activity by $19 billion a year. The report’s model also suggested that every additional house or apartment would increase the size of the Australian economy by $2.6 million.
None of this is remotely plausible, and consequently, it is difficult to believe anything else that the modelling or the report has to say.
Nonetheless, this report is still being discussed a month later – so it clearly needs some more critical analysis.
Tax changes will clearly reduce the after tax benefits for property investors. The key question is whether the market responds by reducing the price of housing, or by increasing rents, or by absorbing a reduction in returns.
Most likely, the price of housing will fall somewhat, investor returns will reduce a little, and rents will barely move. This is why.
Changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax will increase taxes for investors and lower their returns. Normally this would lead to lower asset prices.
But the outlook for home-buyers is different. The benefits for a home-buyer (of living in the home) won’t change. The price of the home will be a little lower due to the changes in negative gearing and capital gains tax. Therefore the return on assets (the benefits divided by the price) will be a little higher for home-buyers.
Combining the effects of the changes for investors and home-owners leads to an average after tax return on housing that is about the same as today. There will be more home-owners and correspondingly fewer investors – but higher rates of home ownership are the political goal.
The outcome might be different if the supply of new housing dried up. If there were fewer incentives to develop new homes, then eventually rents would increase.
However, our best guess is that tax changes will have little effect on housing construction. The supply of new housing is mainly restricted by planning rules rather than a lack of returns. In any case, reforms to negative gearing are likely to reduce the price of developable land, but they won’t change the returns on development.
BIS Shrapnel assume otherwise. They believe that changes to negative gearing rules will reduce the price and therefore the profitability of property developments, but not the price of developable land. And so they assert that tax changes will lead to less residential development, and therefore higher rents in the long run. Their report assumed that the price of developable land wouldn’t change based on three claims.
First claim: if the price of developable housing land fell, sites would instead be used for commercial purposes. But as a firm that advises clients on property development, BIS Shrapnel should know that in most localities land provides a much higher return per square metre when turned into residences than when used for commercial purposes. Indeed, there are concerns that too much of the Melbourne and Sydney CBDs is being converted to residential rather than commercial uses. There isn’t much evidence of enormous pent-up demand for commercial development.
Second claim: landholders will be reluctant to sell at lower prices. This is simply wishful thinking. Prices don’t rise just because sellers would like them to do so.
Third claim: it will be more expensive to aggregate sites for development. But lower prices as a result of negative gearing reform will affect all residential properties, irrespective of whether they have already been developed, or have potential to be aggregated further.
Instead of assuming that tax changes will only affect the price of development, it is much more plausible that changes in after tax returns to investors will primarily lead to lower land prices. This won’t hurt the profitability of development, the supply of rental property will continue, and the impacts on rents will be minimal.
Even if tax changes did affect the profitability of development, it’s all small beer. Quick sanity checks (the kind of things that property developers do to ensure that their modellers don’t lose them a fortune) show that the effect of negative gearing changes on property prices will be less than 2 per cent across the Australian market.
One way to think about it is that negative gearing and capital gains tax provide investors in real estate with a tax benefit of about $3 billion a year; that annual benefit converts to an asset value of about $55 billion; and all Australian residential property is worth a little over $5 trillion. If negative gearing were abolished entirely the lost value would be $55 billion, just over 1 per cent of $5 trillion of property value.
Another way to crunch the numbers shows that negative gearing and capital gains tax changes would reduce the after tax returns on real estate investment assets by about 7 percent. But this wouldn’t affect all housing assets – only 30 percent are investment properties, and the rest are owner occupied. So across the market, return on assets – and therefore asset values –would fall by about 2 percent. Or in the unlikely event that investors succeed in passing on tax costs, rents would rise by at most 2 percent.
BIS Shrapnel presented the ALP with a claim that tax changes would increase rents by 4 to 10 percent. But that claim was several times larger than fundamentals would suggest. It used a model that was not publicly available. It was allied with a series of manifestly ridiculous economic results. And it all rested on an unjustifiable assumption that tax changes won’t affect land prices.
The ALP was right to ignore such flawed analysis. It is a relief to discover that – sometimes – a political party’s policy cannot be bought off just by commissioning a flawed report with scary numbers.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-daley-1870" rel="author">John Daley </a>is chief executive officer, Grattan Institute and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-daley-1870" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Why it is good policy, not bad politics, to ignore bad modelling on negative gearing

<html><body>
The negative gearing debate is back to haunt Labor again, with The Australian newspaper reporting that the party stuck with its policy of limiting negative gearing to new homes despite opposition Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen being warned last year that it could hurt house prices and hit economic growth. 
Accounting and financial advice firm Bongiorno &amp; Partners last year secretly commissioned BIS Shrapnel to analyse the effect of limiting negative gearing to new houses.
It communicated its findings to Bowen’s staff and then Labor ­financial services spokesman Bernie Ripoll, according to a <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/labor-ignored-property-negative-gearing-warnings/news-story/3fb63715d3f6ddd3e0798c22c65b6ab3" target="_blank">report in The Australian</a>. 
BIS Shrapnel’s report — which found limiting negative gearing to new houses could lead to lower house prices, rent rises of up to 10 percent, cost the budget more than it saved and cause unemployment to rise — sparked a political furore when it was publicly released last month.
The identity of the firm that commissioned the report was not released at the time, prompting Bowen to claim it was by “an anonymous vested interest”.
In attacking the document, Labor did not reveal it had received the advice last year from Bongiorno &amp; Partners while it was developing its negative gearing policy.
“Whoever’s commissioned it, they know who they are, but then they’ve put it out on the newspaper anonymously, you’ve got to have the courage of your convictions when you’re in these policy debates,’’ Bowen told ABC Radio National on March 3. He claimed that “whoever paid for it” should get their money back.
The report was intended to be an economic document rather than a political document to inform policy development on the negative gearing issue, The Australian said.
Bongiorno &amp; Partners is the same firm that commissioned research in 1983 as then Labor treasurer Paul Keating considered disallowing negative gearing. The report was ignored and negative gearing was abolished in 1985. In 1987 the then Labor government reinstated negative gearing.
Both Staff working for Bowen were briefed last July on the findings, while Ripoll was sent the report after a meeting with Tony Bongiorno, a partner from the accounting firm, at the ALP national conference last July.
After the report was publicly released last month, Labor seized on its finding that neither rents nor dwelling prices displayed any notable change of behaviour or deviation from trend during 1985-87 during Keating’s abolition of negative gearing. But Bowen dismissed its warnings that it could push down housing prices and increase rents.
“It is a poor excuse for analysis,’’ Bowen said on March 3. “It was commissioned by an anonymous vested interest who won’t even put their name to it. I mean that’s how much faith they have in it. And whoever paid for it she (sic) would get their money back because it is an atrocious piece of political propaganda, it is not analysis. It does not bear any scrutiny.’’
“From the start, media reporting of this BIS ‘analysis’ should have included a discussion of who commissioned it. Failure to do so is irresponsible.”
Labor plans to limit negative gearing to new dwellings from July 1, next year with existing investments grandfathered. After that date existing houses and share income could be offset against investment income but not against wages and salary income.
It also proposed halving the capital gains tax discount on assets held for more than 12 months to 25 per cent.
Property Observer earlier reported how Labor's policy and the government's seeming abandonment of any change, at least for the time being, could trigger diverse consequences. 
Like the balloon effect: squeeze a balloon in one place, and it inflates elsewhere, some vendors might bring their sales forward while others will bring their purchasing forward. Other owner occupiers and investors will delay.
It will be much more about the future value of people’s houses given Labor’s plans and the Government's seeming abandonment of any changes. 
It seeks to restrict the use of negative gearing in the property market to new homes, and to also halve the discount applied to capital gains tax.
Property Observer had also reported on BIS Shrapnel's report, Economic Impact of Limiting the Tax Deductibility of Negatively Geared Residential Investment Properties which said changes to the current negative gearing setup would go well beyond any saving of the income tax concession, to a multitude of unintended consequences.
It suggested new home building will shrink by around 4% nationally, or 7,200 dwellings a year and GDP would shrink by around $19 billion per annum on average, or 1 percent of Australia’s $190 trillion annual income.
The BIS Shrapnel report assumed the change was restricted to limiting negative gearing to new houses and assumed a start date of July 1, this year. It did not factor in the capital gains tax change.
It predicted higher rents would push 70,000 households into “rental stress’’, where they are paying out more than 30 per cent of their incomes on housing costs.
Median rents of $510 a week would need to rise by $73 a week in Sydney to provide an investor who had lost the benefits of negative gearing with an equivalent return.
Melbourne’s median rent of $370 would have to rise $56, Brisbane’s ($375) by $32, Adelaide’s ($280) by $29, Perth’s ($415) by $30, Canberra’s ($375) by $28, Hobart’s ($280) by $10 and Darwin’s ($465) by $20.
BIS Shrapnel found limiting negative gearing would result in “a short-run correction in real prices due to lower investor demand”.
“However, it will result in higher rents than would be expected with negative gearing,’’ the report said. “Landlords will require higher yields to compensate for the lost negative gearing concessions.”
The report said it was unlikely prices would fall enough to restore rental yields to compensate for lost negative gearing concessions. But a fall in prices would reduce the feasibility of development, causing construction to fall and rental supply to dry up.
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Labor ignored warning of economic impact in its negative gearing structure: The Australian

<html><body>
Thinking about buying your first home because you've saved for that big deposit? Or are you contemplating instead becoming a first home investor because of the current advantages of negative gearing?
Thanks to negative gearing, buying an investment property may present a better financial proposition than buying a home to live in, particularly if you and/or your partner pay income tax at a relatively high marginal rate. 
Negative gearing involves claiming a tax deduction against your taxable income from all sources for the interest and other expenses which exceed the income from a rental real estate investment.
Owner-occupiers, which includes first-home buyers, get no such incentive.
Thus for an investment property, a rule of thumb is to consider it as a business, meaning any costs running the property can be deducted from your taxable income.
Many young, and not so young, Australians are now taking to what's been dubbed rent-vesting, a trend where buyers – typically Gen Y, purchase their first property for investment purposes rather than living in it.
According to Mortgage Choice research, around 37 percent of property investors are first home buyers, compared to just 21 percent in 2014. 
Estate agent John McGrath noted the logic: buy in affordable suburban areas, while you perhaps stay at home saving or rent in inner city locations that are out of reach but offer a better lifestyle.
It is the case in many markets of Sydney where the rent on a newly acquired investment property will not cover repayments and other costs in their entirety, so an investor will have negatively gearing, and that means tax savings.
So, what are other issues to consider? Certainly the future of negative gearing will be a big federal election issue, so pay close attention on the debate on possible changes to the scheme.
Property investment needs a long-term approach, and the real benefit will likely come from the capital growth, rather than negative gearing, but strong price growth can't be taken for granted especially after the past three years.
Beware that the lenders will be closely tabulating all your actual expenditure and income assumptions in your loan applications, so its best to check for feedback before you sign up on any property purchase.
Unless you are staying rent free or subsidised at home, much of the outcome depends upon the rent you have to pay because, as with any owner-occupied house mortgage, this is paid from after-tax income.
The higher the rent you pay, the less capacity you will have to service the cost of a negatively geared investment home, even after allowing for the tax benefit from a negative gearing loss.
No two lenders will lend you the same amount, so shop around.
And when you do sound out the emerging no go postcodes that lenders are shying away from lending.
</body></html>

Why negative gearing is a positive for a first home as an investment

<html><body>
Negative gearing can't be equated with standard business tax practice, and is not allowed in many countries, says economist Saul Eslake. 
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has recognised this in the past, says Eslake in a recent post in the New Daily.
In a recent interview with the ABC’s Leigh Sales, Turnbull defended negative gearing as “income tax 101”, going on to explain it as  “a fundamental principle of tax law and has been forever that you can deduct from your income the interest expense of money that is borrowed to purchase an income-producing asset”.
This is quite a common proposition put forward by those who wish to defend the practice. It allows individuals who borrow finance the acquisition of an investment asset to offset the excess of interest they pay on those borrowings over the income the investment produces, in any given year, against their other income (for example, from wages and salaries) to reduce the amount of income tax they would otherwise be liable for.
They argue that this simply allows individuals to do what businesses can – offset the costs of ‘doing business’ (including financing costs) against taxable business income.
However, it ignores a very important difference between the tax treatment of companies and individuals. Companies don’t get the 50 per cent tax discount on capital gains which individuals have done since 1999 (nor did they get the CPI inflation adjustment to the cost base of assets which individuals did between 1985 and 1999).
Once upon a time, Turnbull appreciated this difference.
Eslake cites a speech by Turnbull from 2005 to a conference co-sponsored by The Australian newspaper and the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, in which he described negative gearing as a form of ‘tax avoidance’, one of the few open to PAYE and other ‘unincorporated’ taxpayers.
A month earlier in a paper co-authored with the ANU’s Jeromey Temple, Turnbull observed that “Australia’s rules on negative gearing are very generous compared to many other countries”, noting that “the normal deductibility principles do not apply to negatively geared real estate such that the taxpayer is not obliged to demonstrate that the negatively geared property will generate positive cash flow at some point in the distant future”.
People are, of course, entitled to change their minds – especially when, as Maynard Keynes is supposed to have said, the facts change, says Eslake.
But the only relevant fact that appears to have changed between 2005 and today is that Turnbull is heading a Coalition government, rather than being a backbencher in one, and he is confronting an Opposition advocating changes to negative gearing, unlike the Labor Opposition in 2005.
In their 2005 paper, Turnbull and Dr Temple argued “the concessionary taxation of capital gains encourages people to invest in a manner which turns income into capital and, as in the case of negative gearing, allows them to deduct losses at, say, 48.5 per cent and then realise gains and pay tax at effectively half that rate”.
They cited then Reserve Bank Governor Ian Macfarlane and other commentators as claiming “this divergence in the taxation of income and capital coupled with negative gearing has contributed to the asset bubble in residential real estate”.
Ten years on, the things that have changed are that the top tax rate is now effectively 49 per cent, that capital city residential property prices are almost 75 per cent higher than they were then, and that Macfarlane is no longer Governor of the Reserve Bank.
As Turnbull acknowledged, most other countries with personal income tax regimes similar to ours don’t allow negative gearing in the way that we do. The US removed it (for investment properties) as part of a broader package of tax reforms in 1986 – with no apparent adverse consequences for the level of investment in the housing market.
And two of Turnbull’s closest political soulmates – New Zealand’s John Key and Britain’s David Cameron – both recently introduced changes to their countries’ tax regimes explicitly designed to dampen speculative investment in housing.
New Zealand has subjected investment properties bought and sold within two years to income tax at the investor’s full marginal rate, with effect from 1 October last year. And last year’s UK Budget provided that, from 2017 onwards, landlords will no longer be able to deduct the cost of their mortgage interest from their rental income in calculating their taxable income.
In conclusion, Eslake says that Turnbull would do well to follow the example set by these, electorally successful, centre-right Prime Ministers, as well as the inherent logic of his own opinions of a decade ago, rather than regurgitating the self-serving propaganda of parts of the property industry.
Saul Eslake is a leading Australian economist. He worked as the Chief Economist at the ANZ for 14 years and has worked at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch. Between 2009 and 2011, he was the Director of the Productivity Growth Program at the Grattan Institute. <a href="https://www.sauleslake.com.au/">Visit his official website here</a>.
</body></html>

Negative gearing is simply a form of tax avoidance: Saul Eslake

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
More Australians than ever before owned a rental property and those relying upon negative gearing dropped, according to the latest ATO Taxation statistics release.
The 2013-14 year ATO taxation return statistics show a drop to 1.257 million people (or 62 percent) declaring a net rental loss out of the 2.03 million persons that own an investment property.
The total amount of net rental loss declined from $12.04 billion to $10.97 billion which shows that more rentals across Australia were being positively geared than ever before.
There is a year on year decrease in the loss made by a rental with lower interest rates supporting this outcome. 
In the past 12 months, Australia has seen a substantial rise in the number of individuals with a rental interest, which is mainly due to the increase of middle Australia into the residential market.
In terms of additional investors, the numbers of individuals with a rental interest and a taxable income between $37,000- $80,000 has increased by 8,872 over the year, with those in this taxable income bracket hitting 707,282 individuals with a net rental interest.
The largest volume increase in overall investors came through an additional 42,362 individuals in the $80,001- $180,000 taxable income bracket. Middle Australia is clearly buying into residential property and this is the largest increase in net rental interest over the year. This taxable income group makes up 34.7 percent of all individuals with a net rental interest.
<a href="/images/2016/03/23/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-22%20at%2012.00.10%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/23/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-22%20at%2012.00.10%20PM.png" alt="" width="727" height="312">
In 2013-14 there was also a:
• 12.9 percent increase or a 9,029 additional individuals in the $180,001- $250,000 taxable income bracket with a net rental interest.
• 10.3 percent increase or a 5,023 additional individuals in the $250,001- $500,000 taxable income bracket with a net rental interest.
• 12.4 percent increase or a 1,431 additional individuals in the $500,001- $1,000,000 taxable income bracket with a net rental interest.
• 18.5 percent increase or an additional 729 individuals in the over $1,000,000 taxable income bracket with a net rental interest.
<a href="/images/2016/03/23/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-22%20at%2012.13.08%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/23/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-22%20at%2012.13.08%20PM.png" alt="">
There has been a clear growth in the number of lower to middle income earners that have joined the investment ranks over the past several years with those earning over $80,000 growing the largest in terms over the 12 month period.
Although the percentage increases in net rental interest at the higher taxable income ranges are the largest, their actual additional numbers are quite small compared to the lower taxable income brackets. The scale of investment in these higher taxable income brackets would be expected to be much greater than at the lower end.
<a href="/images/2016/03/23/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-22%20at%2012.15.00%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/23/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-22%20at%2012.15.00%20PM.png" alt="">
Total property investors increased by almost 67,000 persons over the year to surpass the 2 million mark for the first time. With an eye on retirement, 29,600 of these additional new investors were aged between 40-59.
In particular, low interest rates have seen Rent Interest deductions decline by around $1.08 billion on the previous year which reduces the number of investors making an annual loss on a property.
Also contributing to the positive gearing position, there was an increase in the total Gross Rental Return from all properties by around $2.19 billion compared to the previous year.
By age, younger investors are still the most likely to rely upon negative gearing with 82 percent of all property investors aged between 18-29 declaring a net rental loss.
All age groups except those over 70 saw a decline in the net rental loss with positively geared investment increasing across the age groups as investors get closer to retirement.
Some 13 percent of all persons across the country earning a taxable income under $80,000 had a rental property, whereas 26 percent of those earning over $80,000 per year had a rental interest. The likelihood of owning a rental increases as wages increase with 40 per cent of all those earning $500,000 -$1 million having a rental interest.
In vast numbers those earning in the lower tax brackets make up the largest proportion with a rental interest.
By income, 767,000 those declaring a taxable income under $80,000 made up 61 per cent of total net rent losses, with an average Net Rent Loss of $7,351 in the year.
Other Rental Deductions, which include deductable expenses on rental properties such as repairs, maintenance, cleaners, tradeswork, insurances and other costs paid out by investors to maintain a property, climbed by almost $1.4 billion from $16.99 billion to $18.38 billion over the year. 
Over the past 20 years the Other Rental Deduction category which reduces taxable income has grown from $4 billion to $18 billion per year, so there is clearly a shift in investment patterns around the repairs and maintenance which is beneficial for tenants, jobs and the economy.
<a href="/images/2016/03/23/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-22%20at%2012.16.22%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/23/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-22%20at%2012.16.22%20PM.png" alt="">
The rise in Other Rental Deductions shows that despite average Net Rental Losses declining, there is an increasing propensity from all investors to plough some of the gains from lower interest rates back into the property. With the negative gearing concession being a motivating factor, the increase in Other Rental Deductions provides incentive to maintain the rental yield by putting money back into keeping the tenant happy in a more competitive rental market.
With average rents starting to flatten in 2013-14 as growth that corresponded to rapidly rising property values in the previous decade subsides in parts of the country, the Other Rental Deduction investment is clearly supporting and sustaining the yield.
This increase in Other Rental Deductions by way of investment in Australian property stock would be a supporting boost for the base level trades and maintenance services on upkeep and would have provided a significant boost to jobs across these areas.
What generally has been overlooked when considering the ATO Taxation statistics in previous years is the increasing value to the economy for the trades, cleaners, gardeners, plasterers, chippies, sparkies, plumbers and others that come from the property investor that pays out when things break, need repair or maintained.  
What hasn’t been factored into account is that there has been strong growth in the numbers of those small handy trades that comprise a significant part of the property and construction workforce.
<a href="/images/2016/03/23/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-22%20at%2012.17.38%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/23/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-22%20at%2012.17.38%20PM.png" alt="">
The increase in foreign investment in residential real estate is becoming apparent in the 2013-14 year with an 82 percent increase in non resident investment in residential real estate compared to the previous years.
<a href="/images/2016/03/23/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-22%20at%2012.18.44%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/23/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-22%20at%2012.18.44%20PM.png" alt="" width="1120" height="726">
Nicholas Proud is principal of <a href="https://propertyanalytics.com.au" target="_blank">Property and Construction Analytics Australia</a>.
</body></html>

Middle Australia is buying into residential property 

<html><body>
At the moment, the issue of negative gearing is extremely topical due to the Federal opposition proposal to change the availability of negative gearing to new properties only. 
In data released last week, the Australian Tax Office (ATO) published their annual taxation statistics for the 2013-14 financial year. 
The latest data shows that over the year there was a substantial decline in net rental losses claimed.  In fact, net rental losses haven’t been this low in close to ten years.
<a href="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-1-3-580x210.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-1-3-580x210.jpg" alt="">
The first chart looks at net rent over time and what is immediately noticeable is that since the beginning of the 2000’s net rental losses have been consistent and grown to be much greater than they ever were before that time. In 1999 the capital gains tax indexation was scrapped and replaced with a 50 percent discount on the capital gain if the asset is held for more than a year.  Since that time we have seen an increase in net rental losses suggesting that this change has made rental income losses more attractive to investors.
Over the 2013-14 financial year the value of net rental losses was $3.719 billion which was down 34.2 percent from the previous year when there were net rental losses of $5.654 billion. Net rental losses peaked at $9.065 billion over the 2007-08 financial year which indicates that rental losses are now 59.0% lower than this peak. 
Lower mortgage rates clearly have an impact given that holding costs are lower and this has no doubt contributed to the value of rental losses having fallen.  We would expect a further reduction in rental losses over the 2014-15 financial year considering that standard variable mortgage rates fell by a further 50 basis points over the 2014/15 financial year.
<a href="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-2-2-580x203.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-2-2-580x203.jpg" alt="">
The net rental data is split into two components, those that make a profit and those that make a loss. Focusing on those making a profit, there were 776,672 individuals that recorded a net rental profit in 2013-14, with the number increasing by 6.1 percent over the year to its highest number on record.  These individuals made a total profit from their net rent of $7.248 billion which was an historic high and up 5.3 percent over the year. As a result, the average net profit by these individuals was $9,332 which was -1.0 percent lower over the year.
The reason for the decline in the average net profit is most likely due to the fact that some of those that have shifted from making a loss to making a profit are making far smaller profits than those that were already established as making a profit.
<a href="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-3-3-580x203.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-3-3-580x203.jpg" alt="">
Turning to those individuals claiming a net rental loss, there were 1,257,301 of them in 2013-14 and they claimed a total of $10.967 billion worth of rental losses over the year. The number of individuals claiming a rental loss was -3.7 percent lower over the year which was the fewest claiming a loss since 2009-10. In value terms, losses were -12.5 percent lower over the year and at their lowest total value since 2009-10 as well. The average loss claimed was $8,722 which was the lowest it has been since 2005-06.
<a href="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-4-3-580x210.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-4-3-580x210.jpg" alt="">
The taxation statistics also split out the proportion of individuals that were claiming a loss compared to those whose properties were neutral or returning a profit in each state and territory.  Individuals with an investment property in Queensland were the least likely to be neutral or positively geared (30.7 percent) while investors in New South Wales were the most likely to be neutral or positively geared (47.5 percent).
<a href="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-5-1-580x137.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-5-1-580x137.jpg" alt="">
The above table shows net rental statistics across income ranges which match to the national income tax bands.  Firstly the non-taxable individuals’ data shows that 3,251,992 individuals are non-taxable compared to 9,712,276 that are.  Of those non-taxable individuals, 11.3% have claimed net rent compared to a higher 17.1% of taxable individuals and non-taxable individuals average net rental loss is much lower than those taxable individuals.
Focussing only on taxable individuals, the data shows that those on the lowest income band, more than half of them claim net rent and it is the only income band shown where on average they are seeing a rental profit.  This is probably reflective of retirees or those close to retirement positively gearing investment properties to provide them with an income source. 
In terms of number of individuals, far more individuals on lower incomes claim net rent however, this is by virtue of far more individuals overall are on lower incomes.  If you look at the percentage of individuals claiming net rent across the income ranges you can see that the proportion is much higher for the higher incomes (except for less than $18,200). 
As the income range gets higher you can also see that the average net rental losses increase significantly.  This indicates that the benefit from negative gearing tends to be greater for those that have higher incomes, conversely, the lower income earners are more likely to have their investment properties either positively or neutrally geared.
The taxation statistics show that the lower mortgage rates are reducing the value of losses claimed on rental properties.  With mortgage rates currently lower than they were in June 2014, it is reasonable to expect that the value of rental losses will continue to decline. 
Interestingly, since June 2014 we have also seen the level of investor participation in the market has hit record high levels and has since sunk back to decade average levels.  Given this, we would expect that over the coming year the number of property investors to increase quite substantially at the same time as the value of losses to fall.
It is important to also note that there is a significant shortcoming to all of this data.  Because it is all based on net figures, the data is assessed once the deductions have been made.  Particularly in the case of the income brackets, we don’t have a clear indication of how many people have shifted into a lower taxation bracket due to the deductions they have been able to make.
Although there has been a lot of debate about the tax burden negative gearing creates and changes to negative gearing policies, this data shows that the actual value of these losses has fallen substantially and is likely to remain much lower as long as interest rates remain at low levels.  While any policy changes may be seen as making access to the housing market more equitable, the financial benefit to the Government from such changes is likely to be limited.
Cameron Kusher is research analyst for CoreLogic RP Data. You can contact him <a href="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/about/">here</a>.
</body></html>

ckusher-ujnxiKuFQs

Net rental property losses at near ten year lows: Cameron Kusher 

<html><body>
<div>The Labor Party's Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen had pledged to limit negative gearing to new properties only from 1 July 2017 in order to save the federal budget a highly questionable $32.1 billion over a decade. This always sounded suspect based upon my day-to-day experience in the market given that the overwhelming majority of property investors are only making at worst moderate net rental losses these days. Yes, investors have been considerably more active recently due to prevailing low interest rates, but remember the ratio of stock versus flow, while new investors have been generally able to borrow money at around just 4 percent, or somewhere close to it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Unfortunately as I expected it transpires that the ALP have botched their numbers, and Labor will accordingly cop a good deal of heat on this point from the Coalition. Net rental losses halved
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The latest Australian Taxation Office (ATO) Taxation Statistics to 2013-14 show that the potential budget impact of negative gearing to taxpayers has crumbled by well over 50 per cent in only two years (and by considerably more from the peak), and of course there will be more declines to come for at least the next two tax years as well. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is no shock to me to discover that net rental deductions have fallen by more than half in the two tax years to 2013-14, from $7.9 billion to just $3.7 billion. And recall that the cash rate has been cut several times further since 1 July 2013, from 2.75 per to only 2 percent, so there are yet further declines to net rental losses in the post. The latest statistics for financial year 2013-14 show that just under 1 million or exactly 60 percent of those claiming net rental losses have a taxable income of less than $80,000 (thereby paying tax at a highest marginal rate of only 32.5 percent or lower), while only 133,307 or 8 percent of those claiming are paying tax at the highest marginal rate. It is true to a point that middle aged and slightly older Aussies tend to negatively gear property around their peak earning years. This rings true from my experience and the experiences of my peers - none of us owned rental properties as students, or indeed for some time after that as we paid off student debts and saved initial deposits, but plenty do now we are in our late thirties. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Given that taxpayers across all taxable income brackets use negative gearing, after tax-effecting net rental losses of only $3.7 billion in financial year 2014 it is clear that as things stand such a move to limit negative gearing to new dwellings prospectively could only save a fraction of the amount claimed from the federal budget.</div>
<a href="/images/2016/03/21/NG.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/21/NG.jpg" alt="">
<div> </div>
<div>Remember that Labor is not proposing to scrap negative gearing, rather to grandfather existing arrangements and limit negative gearing to new dwellings. With a record 776,672 earning a profit for their rental properities, the total cost of negatively geared properties only fell by 12.5 percent to a four year low of $10.9 billion. And given that negative gearing losses are carried forward and taxes levied at a future date - or upon eventual sale in event of a capital gain - net rental losses are a timing difference only and the ALP projections are exposed as too optimistic. Further declines in the post  Realistically, then, the projected $32.1 billion of savings could only feasibly come from cranking up the rate of capital gains tax, itself a crappy tax - an inefficient tax insincerely marketed as a "discount", although in the case of property it is actually levied on top of fairly vicious stamp duties as well as rates/land taxes etc. Total capital gains reported by taxpayaers increased by 37 percent to $34.4 billion, largely thanks to fewer loss making transacions as the financial crisis fades into the rear-view mirror. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is worth noting in passing that moves to restrict property investor activity and therefore lending would also result in lost levies from stamp duties and reduced company taxes on bank earnings, as well as putting downward pressure on superannuation balances via lower share prices.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If this sounds harsh on Labor, recall that they were actually in government until 2013, so where were the sweeping policy changes then? Ironically, the ALP was in power for a six year stretch when scrapping negative gearing might actually have made a material difference to the budget, but alas that particular ship has now well and truly sailed. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Futures markets are pricing in a further 25 basis points cut to the cash rate by November 2016, suggesting that the ATO aggeregated statistics for net rental deductions could continue declining for at least another three tax years to come. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>A potent combination of the existing negative gearing rules and low interest rates have encouraged record dwelling investment - and in turn a surge residential construction jobs - and at the same time have done an an sterling job of keeping capital city rents down as new supply comes online apace, encouraged by strong aggregate demand for property and an uplift in prices. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>And all of this is before the potential distortions of encouraging investors to speculate on considerably riskier new properties are even touched upon, let alone the concerning impact of increased public housing costs on the budget.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On the back of these slim pickings, and given that PM Turnbull has already batted changes to the capital gains tax to the fence, there is Buckley's chance of the Coalition proposing a similar move to the ALP in Opposition. Presumably this is for similar reasons that Labor took no such action when they weren't in Opposition - pollies actively deflating a housing market in the midst of a once-in-a-century terms of trade and resources investment bust? It seems like a remote possibility to me, but you can choose to believe whatever you want. The wrap All of this has been well known about for some time, of course: scrapping negative gearing was never going to be much of a boon for the budget. If negative gearing is going to be binned then it should be so on intergenerational grounds or because it represents iniquitous tax legislation, not based upon bogus claims of "billions" to be saved in the budget. Finally for today, spare a thought for the taxation figures above, the line items of which I have charted simply as the ATO present them, for they're doubtless set to once again be tortured mercilessly come Monday morning. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
PETE WARGENT is the co-founder of <a href="https://allenwargent.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">AllenWargent</a> property buyers (London, Sydney) and a best-selling author and <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">blogger</a>. 
His latest book is <a href="https://www.bigskypublishing.com.au/Books/General-Interest/Four-Green-Houses--and-a-Red-Hotel/1015/productview.aspx" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Four Green Houses and a Red Hotel</a>.
</div>
</body></html>

pwargent-M4siyDbqQY

Negative gearing set to stay: Pete Wargent

<html><body>
The cost to the federal budget of negatively-geared rental property deductions has fallen 12.5 percent to $10.9 billion.
It sits at the lowest level in four years due to record low interest rates.
The latest Tax Office statistics show the country's two million landlords claimed interest deductions of $21 billion, a decline of 9 percent.
It noted earnings from rents were flat at $38 billion.
The figures, published on Friday, were based on taxpayer's 2013-14 tax returns.
<a href="/images/2016/03/21/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-21%20at%2010.24.04%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/21/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-21%20at%2010.24.04%20AM.png" alt="">
SOURCE: PCA/ATO
It show 62 percent of landlords are returning net losses, down from 64 percent the year before.
A record 776,672 taxpayers earned a net profit from their investment property in fiscal 2014, an increase of 44,322 people compared with the year before.
Columnist Pete Wargent writes the ALP have botched their numbers, and Labor will accordingly cop a good deal of heat on this point from the Coalition.
</body></html>

Negative gearing

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Negative gearing

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News