Perth’s new apartment market recorded its strongest quarter of sales since Q4 2021, with 412 apartments sold in Q1 2026 and a record quarterly sold value of $537 million, according to Urbis’ latest Apartment Essentials results.

Urbis said the March quarter result reflects strong, highly product‑specific demand across both ends of the market, from more attainable projects delivering at scale, through to premium stock being absorbed by equity‑rich downsizers.&nbsp;

David Cresp, Partner at Urbis, said the key story in Perth is not demand, it is the market’s ability to convert demand into delivered housing.&nbsp;

“This is the strongest sales quarter since Q4 2021, and it reinforces that demand in Perth is real and it’s local,” David Cresp said. “But the task now is delivery, turning that demand into projects that can actually be built and completed.”&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=110291 project_image_fid=302785]

<h2>Affordable product leads, premium demand remains resilient</h2>

Sales in Q1 were led by more affordable projects, with The Boulevard (SKS Group) recording 115 sales in the quarter, the presentation noting this is only the second time a single project has surpassed 100 quarterly sales. The project was able to offer more affordable housing product right next to a train station.&nbsp;

Palmyra West (Finbar) also delivered strong results with 28 sales in Q1, following 84 sales in Q4, with an average price of under $800,000, underscoring depth of demand for well‑located, attainable new stock.&nbsp;

At the premium end, Urbis said downsizer demand is continuing, with the results highlighting Romeo (Applecross, Finbar) recording 75 sales and reaching almost 50% sold in one quarter.

Jual (Shenton Park, Celsius Property) also posted a strong quarter with 28 sales, reaching 39% sold in one quarter.

Urbis noted that Perth apartment demand is not speculative, not investor‑led, and not uniform, describing it as localised, often equity‑driven and highly product‑specific, a pattern reflected in the polarisation between strong “attainable” performers and premium downsizer product.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=148957 project_image_fid=364102]

<h2>Prices underpinned by costs, and the delivery risk is growing</h2>

Urbis said pricing pressure is cost not demand‑driven: construction costs and delivery risk are now a central constraint, with the results noting build costs remain elevated and volatile, and that energy, fuel and labour uncertainty weigh on feasibility.

David Cresp said a growing challenge for private Build‑to‑Sell developers is simply securing a builder in the current environment.

“Developers are really feeling the pressure from a building market that was operating at capacity and securing a builder is challenging,” David Cresp said, adding that even where a builder can be secured, “trying to get to the price that makes the development financially viable is incredibly challenging in the current market.”&nbsp;

Urbis’ broader WA commentary also notes that industry remains at or above capacity with lot and housing creation, and that many builders are limiting new sales to manage stretched workforces and fixed‑price contract pressures, conditions that flow directly into apartment feasibility and delivery timing.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108869 project_image_fid=317905]

<h2>Supply: improving later, but still constrained, and Perth lags eastern benchmarks</h2>

While near‑term supply remains constrained, Urbis’ forecast shows completions lifting “Supply is forecast to be back above 1,500 apartments per annum for the first time since 2019”, with 1,775 completions forecast for 2026, and volumes remaining above that level over the following years.&nbsp;

Looking further ahead, completions are forecast to reach 2,500 in 2028, with the report noting 32% of that total is social/affordable, reflecting the role of government‑supported delivery in rebuilding the pipeline.&nbsp;

However, Urbis said Perth remains behind comparable markets on pipeline scale. In a national comparison of projects under construction, the report shows under construction Perth Build‑to‑Sell (BTS) at 3,446 apartments versus the Gold Coast at 7,922. Mr Cresp said “The challenge for Perth is how to we grow the delivery pipeline”.

Urbis’ conclusion is that Perth’s market is increasingly defined by product discipline and delivery certainty, with the research identifying “delivery certainty is key” and calling out builder risk and procurement models as core success factors, alongside “timing and staging”.&nbsp;

Joel Robinson

Perth apartment sales hit strongest pace since late 2021 as builder capacity tightens

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/sammut-developments">Sammut Group</a> has secured development approval for its latest Brisbane apartment project, marking the Sydney developer’s next step in expanding its Queensland pipeline following the success of its debut Gold Coast development, Coast.

The approved project at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/44-glen-road-toowong-qld-4066">44 Glen Road, </a><a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/toowong-qld-4066">Toowong</a> will deliver a 15-storey riverfront apartment building with 42 residences, significantly increasing the scale of the site’s previous approval for a smaller luxury scheme. Designed by Bureau^proberts, the development will comprise a mix of predominantly four-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments positioned to maximise Brisbane River and city views.

Sammut Director Julian Sammut said the group had been actively searching Brisbane for several years before identifying Toowong as the right fit.

“Brisbane was the right step for Sammut,” Sammut said.

“With the success of Coast we thought we should definitely look to do more in Queensland alone. We then pushed up to look at Brisbane. We've been looking for I'd say two to three years actually and it was hard to find the right location.”

<img alt="Sammut makes Brisbane apartment play" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/f_auto,c_limit,w_1440,q_75/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/field/image/Screenshot%202025-12-23%20at%203.27.14%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=dYAVIL7qdcGA8ojvkslSrLjczXFejSSx" />

Sammut said suburbs including New Farm and Teneriffe were considered before the group ultimately focused on Toowong due to its strong downsizer demographic and limited supply of developable riverfront land.

The site was acquired off-market after what Sammut described as a lengthy negotiation and planning process, with the developer pursuing an uplift to the original approval.

“We are DA approved now which is very exciting,” Sammut said.

“We've had our change approval come through and we've obviously doubled the height, 15 storeys plus rooftop. We've got 42 amazing apartments that are going to be coming to market soon.”

<img alt="Sammut makes Brisbane apartment play" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,dpr_2.0,q_auto:good/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202025-12-23%20at%203.27.26%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=ohkRkY0dIZlqdfME2EZePsCQavRiBadE" />

Bureau^proberts said the design responds to Toowong’s evolving urban character, balancing contemporary apartment living with the area’s established residential identity.

“A place where traditional Queensland living has taken place for centuries; Toowong is seeing a shift of contemporary influence, commercial and retail hubs mixed with well-considered residential offerings – all the while maintaining its character and charm,” the architect noted in planning documents submitted to Brisbane City Council.

The architecture practice said the project’s form was shaped by its riverfront setting, flood considerations, neighbouring building scales, and view corridors.

“They said the mix of four and two-bedroom apartments capture the ‘fundamental qualities of Queenslander living,’ translated into the context of a contemporary subtropical building.”

The development sits just off Coronation Drive within walking distance of Toowong’s retail precinct and the upgraded Regatta ferry terminal, while also benefiting from proximity to the incoming green bridge connection to West End. Sammut said the accessibility and amenity offering were central to the site’s appeal.

The approval adds to growing residential activity along the Toowong riverfront, joining nearby projects including Consolidated Properties’ Monarch Residences and Spyre Group’s ARC Residences.

Sammut secures approval for debut Brisbane apartment development in Toowong

Developer Lanevick is heading back into Sydney’s apartment market after focusing more heavily on the luxury townhouse and terrace sector in recent years.

Lanevick, founded and directed by Steve Maroun, is expecting to receive approval in the coming months for a new apartment development in Gladesville, with the aim to launch it to the market later this year.

The 51-apartment project, designed by Studio Johnston, will comprise a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments positioned toward the Hunters Hill downsizer market.

“Traditionally it’s been difficult for people in that market to downsize because there just hasn’t been the right product available,” Maroun said.

“We’re targeting buyers who might have 30 to 40 per cent of their house value sitting in the bank after downsizing.

“They still want good spacious entertaining areas, they still want quality design, but they also want flexibility and the ability to enjoy life a bit more after working hard for a long time.”

The project sits near Boronia Park and within close proximity to the Parramatta River foreshore, an area Maroun says offers more of a Hunters Hill lifestyle than a traditional apartment precinct.

“From a lifestyle perspective, it’s really more Hunters Hill than Gladesville,” Maroun said. “You’re close to the foreshore, close to parklands, and still connected back into the village precinct.”

From level four and above, apartments will capture water views&nbsp;toward Sydney Harbour. Communal amenity will include rooftop entertaining areas, wellness spaces, and a gym tailored toward owner-occupier buyers.

“We’ve really designed these apartments around that buyer coming from the Hunters Hill LGA and what they’re actually looking for in their next chapter.”

The proposed development has also been designed to respond to the changing character of the broader Gladesville town centre, where a growing number of mixed-use and residential proposals are expected to emerge over the coming years.

“Gladesville presented a rare opportunity to deliver a genuinely design-led residential project within an evolving lifestyle precinct, just moments from the growing Gladesville town centre, and we’ve approached the project with a strong focus on architecture, liveability and long-term community value,” Maroun said.

Maroun said Lanevick saw a first-mover advantage within the precinct as planning controls continue to evolve to accommodate greater housing density.

“We think there’s a real opportunity there that hasn’t really been serviced properly yet,” he said.

“There’s going to be a broader evolution of the whole Gladesville village precinct over time, particularly with more activation and mixed-use outcomes.”

The Venus Street proposal will include a commercial and retail component at ground level designed to contribute to that evolving streetscape activation.

“A big part of the thinking was how do you activate that area properly and create more vibrancy and amenity, which is what Hunters Hill has been looking for,” Maroun said.

Lanevick’s focus since 2020 has largely been on smaller-scale luxury townhouse and terrace developments. The developer recently completed Royale Randwick, also designed by Studio Johnston, where prices reached $3.65 million. The project was featured in the UDIA NSW 2026 Professional Development Prospectus and was also named a finalist for Development of the Year.

&nbsp;

Lanevick to cater for Hunters Hill downsizers with new Gladesville apartment development

Property developer One Living, backed by former Macquarie banker turned investment manager Chris Green’s investment firm, has unveiled plans to bring more institutional capital into housing to help address the national supply crisis.

The New York-based investor has focused his firm, GreenPoint Partners, on addressing the supply shortage hitting middle market housing in Australia.

It is backing the new One Living business to develop more than 1000 units along the eastern seaboard. The new firm is starting with a development on Mona Vale Road, on the border of Mona Vale and Pymble, in Sydney’s Northern Beaches, with around 140 apartments planned. They are eyeing off more sites across the city.

With cost pressures rising in the industry, One Living’s model is to be a vertically integrated developer-builder, so it can respond directly to the housing gap by removing the cost inefficiencies embedded in traditional residential delivery.

“We are building a platform designed to operate at scale and starting in a market where there’s a clear need for quality, attainable housing,” One Living joint managing director Joseph Scuderi said.

“It’s that missing middle – it’s that attainable end of housing… that’s what most Australians invest into and what Australians can actually afford.”

<img alt="Mona Vale" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="798dfa93-4941-4db6-a696-31e9dc18e81c" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%202.31.50%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=mKBqi5C_DmeiXS.AtJkcR8LQIxqCqmFi" />

GreenPoint Partners brings years of experience assembling and scaling real estate operating businesses across major markets. And Green sees a big opportunity in Australia.

“For its size, sophistication and importance to the community, Australia’s living sector has remained largely under-institutionalised, which represents significant opportunity,” Green said. “GreenPoint identified that gap, assembled the right team, and is backing One Living to build a platform that is aligned to market needs.”

Green said being a builder-developer would give the company the capacity and flexibility it required to deliver reasonably-priced homes.

“We want it to be at that attainable level; not super high end luxury but at that attainable level,” he said.

<img alt="Mona Vale" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="74a5344a-4b26-4d4a-ada3-056b1220be77" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%202.32.15%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=vY8hXHO4reBMdO8ZXMWCNtGZJofUPQ3j" />

&nbsp;

One Living will undertake a component of affordable housing in its schemes, which it will own and operate, and it could also run build-to-rent on some sites.

Green praised local policy settings.

“The NSW government is being very supportive, strategic and pragmatic in terms of how do we generate more supply of housing,” he said. “We think it’s actually positive for development and the bit that’s been lacking at that attainable level is that it’s lots of relatively small private developers, whereas we want to create an institutional platform.”

One Living is also&nbsp;looking at high-density projects and could take on more institutional funding in the future.

“The way we will be able to achieve economies of scale is through size,” Green added.

One Living enters Sydney's new apartment market with Northern Beaches site acquisition

It's been several years since there's been an opportunity to buy a brand new townhome in Melbourne's coastal suburb of Mordialloc. Even apartment developments in recent times have been few and far between in the area.

Local developer LDS Property identified the gap in new housing, securing a site on White Street, directly opposite&nbsp;Woodlands Golf Club Mordialloc. They've recently launched&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-townhouses/wm-residences-mordialloc-102-white-street-mordialloc-vic-3195">WM Residences</a>, just 13 townhouses which they have already started building.

Projects by Buxton Director Heath Thompson, who is selling WM Residences, says the townhouses x that perfect middle ground be

"Mordialloc residents have had limited options to downsize within the suburb, often forcing them to look elsewhere despite long-standing ties to the area," Thompson says.

"With very little comparable new supply coming to market, projects like WM Residences are well placed, particularly as buyers look to capitalise on current conditions amid constrained supply."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6109]

The development, designed by regarded architecture firm&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/ewert-leaf">Ewert Leaf</a>,&nbsp;adopts a deliberately restrained architectural approach, focusing on simplicity, durability and liveability rather than overt design gestures.

The boutique scale is central to the offering. With only 13 three-bedroom residences, each home is configured to prioritise functional layouts and everyday use, supported by private terraces and secure two-car garages.

Ewert Leaf’s design response leans into a calm, neutral material palette. Interiors are defined by oak flooring, white walls and soft finishes, creating a consistent and understated backdrop. The approach avoids trend-driven detailing in favour of longevity, with an emphasis on natural light and spatial clarity.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6110]

Beyond aesthetics, the homes are designed to meet contemporary performance expectations. Each residence targets a minimum 6-star energy rating, incorporating double glazing, comprehensive insulation and all-electric Bosch appliances.

The project’s location supports a walkable coastal lifestyle, sitting within close proximity to Mordialloc’s foreshore, Main Street retail strip and the train station. Local cafés and dining venues, including Suburbia Deli and Hendriks Café, are within a short walk, reinforcing the area’s established neighbourhood character.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6116]

While <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/mordialloc-vic-3195">Mordialloc</a> is often defined by its beach and pier, the project taps into other areas of day to day living, offering easy access to local food, casual dining and transport, rather than positioning itself purely as a lifestyle retreat.

WM Residences reflects a continued trend across Melbourne’s coastal suburbs towards smaller-scale, design-led townhouse developments, particularly on infill sites where proximity to amenity is already established.

With construction commenced prior to its market entry, the project aligns with a growing preference among buyers for developments with visible progress and defined delivery timeframes.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=134646]

WM Residences fills gap in Mordialloc townhouse market

Negative gearing

<html><body>
CoreLogic RP Data undertook a thorough analysis when the Australian Tax Office (ATO) released the taxations statistics for the 2010/11 financial year. 
The statistics showed that over the year there were 1,811,174 individuals that owned a rental property. This was out of 9,416,002 individuals that have a taxable income and 12,637,623 individuals that lodged a tax return.
The data indicates that 14.3 percent of individuals that lodged a tax return owned investment properties while a greater 19.2 percent of individuals that reported a taxable income owned investment properties. This indicates that despite the fact 1,811,174 individuals own investment properties, the vast majority of Australians don’t invest in residential property.
Of the 1,811,174 individuals that reported to the ATO as having an investment property, 1,213,595 of these individuals, or two out of every three investors, were recording a loss on their rental income. The total value of these losses over the year was $13.285 billion. Obviously negative gearing of investment properties allows owners to claim a tax deduction on these costs. The average annual loss for these property investors with negatively geared properties was $10,947 or $210.50/week.
<a href="/images/2016/03/10/Individuals-rental-income-and-deductions.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/10/Individuals-rental-income-and-deductions.jpg" alt="">
There were 597,577 individuals that made a profit from their investment property in 2010/11. The total value of this income was $5.423 billion. These investors have no losses to claim a tax deduction on and would have to pay tax on their investment property; of course they would have more money in their hand each week as a result of the positive gearing. The average annual profit earned from these positively geared investment properties was $9,075 or $174.50/week.
<a href="/images/2016/03/10/Tax-summary-of-rental-properties.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/10/Tax-summary-of-rental-properties.jpg" alt="">
The data shows that on average, the losses made on investment properties that are negatively geared are larger than the profit on the positively geared propertied.  What negatively geared investors sometimes lose sight of is the fact that a loss is a loss. 
What I mean is that although the loss is tax deductible at the end of the financial year they have to carry the cost of that loss throughout the year at a sometimes significant cost.  For some it would undoubtedly be preferential to have that extra money on hand throughout the year rather than getting a larger tax return at the end of the financial year.
<a href="/images/2016/03/10/Net-rental-income-deductions-over-time.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/10/Net-rental-income-deductions-over-time.jpg" alt="">
The $13.285 billion in rental losses over the 2010/11 financial year was 24.7 percent higher than the 2009/10 financial year however, it remains -0.2 percent lower than the historic high value of losses recorded over the 2007/08 financial year. 
The number of negatively geared property investors rose by 4.8 percent over the year however, the number of investors was also below the historic high of 2007/08 by -1.8 percent.
<a href="/images/2016/03/10/Individuals-interest-in-rental-property.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/10/Individuals-interest-in-rental-property.jpg" alt="">
According to the ATO data, 72.8 percent of individuals that owned an investment property owned just one.  Meanwhile, 18.9 percent of individuals owned 2 properties while just 0.9 percent of individuals owned 6 or more.
No doubt the total value of the losses and the proportion of total investors claiming a loss on their property are quite alarming.  From an investment perspective you’d assume that it is generally preferential to make a profit than it is to carry a loss for 12 months of the year.  Where negative gearing works is when it reduces an individual’s taxable income to such an extent that there is a greater financial windfall from claiming that loss than there would be if that property made a profit. 
Of course investors using a negative gearing strategy also expect the value of their asset to rise, offsetting the shortfall. These benefits are usually more likely to accrue to those earning higher incomes and this is where you have to wonder if many investors really are benefiting from the negative gearing of their investment properties.
<a href="/images/2016/03/10/Individuals-net-rental-income-by-income-range.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/10/Individuals-net-rental-income-by-income-range.jpg" alt="">
The ATO data indicates that 72.3 percent of individuals with a loss making investment property have a taxable income of less than $80,000 a year, with 32.3 percent having a taxable income of less than $37,000 per year.
The total value of the losses for individuals earning less than $80,000 equated to $9,756.25 a year or $187.62 per week.  Assuming that they all had a taxable income of $40,000 per year, which represents the middle of the range, the $9,756.25 annually is 24.4 percent of their annual taxable income.
That is a significant proportion of their taxable income and a significant cost to the individual throughout the year just to secure a tax deduction at the end of the year.  If we assume the average income earner that has a taxable income of $51,342 owns an investment property, that investment property is costing them 21.3 percent of their taxable income throughout the year.
There have been many calls for negative gearing to be removed from residential property however, I believe it is extremely unlikely that either side of politics is likely to go down that path. 
Negative gearing of residential property saw the ATO forego $13.285 billion in taxation revenue over the 2010/11 financial year.  What it did allow for, because it is so ingrained in the psyche of those who invest in property, is for private residents to cater to demand for rental properties from those residents that don’t own their own home.  It is clear that the provision of rental accommodation is not a burden that Governments wish to bear however, one has to wonder if foregoing more than $13 billion in tax revenue is a cost that the federal Government can afford to give up.
The data also shows that many lower income earners are investing in negatively geared properties, perhaps many are doing so without understanding what, if any, the true benefits are.  The goal of investment should ultimately be to make a profit not a loss and with capital gains in housing much slower over the past five years and this trend anticipated to continue perhaps some investors should re-assess whether their current negative gearing strategy is truly working for them.
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

Property 101: The negative gearing numbers

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
With debate raging over who wins and who loses with proposed major changes to negative gearing, attention also falls on which Australian suburbs are most likely to suffer.
The Australian Financial Review recently discussed the “Top 10 suburbs set to suffer under negative gearing plan”. The Australian soon joined this scare campaign. Mandurah in Western Australia, where I spent a recent weekend, is on the AFR’s list.
When I grew up this was a lazy holiday town at the entry to an inlet. It’s now one of Australia’s fastest-growing suburbs with a 50-minute train connection to central Perth. Within walking distance of the town centre is a cluster of relatively recent medium-density mixed-use developments on or near the waterfront. The dolphins and crabs are prolific and opportunities for swimming, boating and kayaking are at everyone’s doorstep.
Unlike most outer suburban developments, the housing is relatively dense – mostly about four to five storeys high, with a couple of blocks up to ten storeys. This is a highly walkable neighbourhood with generous public space. Shops and cafes line much of the ground floor.
<h2>Built density but lacking intensity</h2>
This is not far from the kind of urban development we need a lot more of in Australian cities – places that encourage people to walk to work, shopping and recreation; where densities are high enough to support a good range of shopping and public transport.
The main problem here is that while the built density is relatively high, the population density is less than your average suburb.
The AFR article suggests this is the kind of place that is “set to suffer”, yet these parts of Mandurah already suffer from an occupancy rate that locals estimate at 20%. The empty housing has had a spillover effect into empty shops and offices, empty streets and parks, and poor public transport.
The public space is bereft of vitality (and the safety that comes with it); beaches, parks and walkways are largely empty even on a warm February weekend. While there is lots of built density, there is little intensity of public life. The streets are lined with empty shops used as billboards for real estate and financial services.
<div class="enlarge_hint">While much of this is holiday housing, it is within commuting distance of a major city. How much of it is going to waste simply because those who own it can profit from making a loss under the current negative-gearing rules?</div>
<h2>Bringing empty housing onto the market</h2>
While curbing negative gearing would ease house prices in the short term, in the longer term suburbs like this are set to benefit because it will surely bring much of this empty housing onto the market. Then the synergies of higher-density mixed-use development within reach of good public transport will begin to come into play.
As more residents live within walking distance, more amenities will become viable. The more people walk or cycle, the better the health and transport outcomes.
Ultimately, this is the kind of vibrant walkable city we need to build more of to achieve serious reductions in CO2 emissions – places where we can live great and healthy lives with less reliance on cars.
It is impossible to say how much this production of empty architecture is a function of negative gearing since it also goes hand-in-hand with neoliberal markets and high disparities of wealth. However, the curbing of negative gearing will have a significant impact in getting empty housing onto the market.
This in turn could go some way to reversing this cycle of emptiness – bringing life to the shops, offices, streets, parks and public transport.
<h2>‘Positive gearing’ across Australia</h2>
This is not just a benefit to places like inner Mandurah. It also applies to other empty suburbs and even high-density inner-city neighbourhoods. Southbank and Docklands in Melbourne come to mind as places that produce largely empty buildings – density without intensity.
Negative gearing produces an underutilisation of urban space. The imperative to curb it has important implications for the future of Australian cities.
And this raises a further question – why stop there? If we are looking for new tax revenues that will help to balance the budget, curb CO2 emissions and increase the productivity and vitality of cities, then why not tax the underuse of urban space? Perhaps we could call it “positive gearing”.
Kim Dovey is professor, Architecture and Urban Design, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kim-dovey-107660" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

How negative-gearing changes can bring life back to eerily quiet suburbs

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

Negative gearing changes won't mean all investors depart market

<html><body>
<div>
Australia has a serious housing affordability problem, according to Richard Holden, professor of economics at UNSW Australia Business School.
"Since 1997 price-to-income and price-to-rent ratios have nearly doubled," he recently wrote in the Australian Financial Review.
"Since 1995, price-to-income ratios have grown 50 per cent more than the OECD average."
He said the undisputed facts were Sydney's price to income ratio of 12.2 makes it the second least affordable city in the world, behind Hong Kong. Melbourne ranks fourth.
"It turns out that London and San Francisco are cheap by comparison."
</div>
<div>In June 2015 he wrote a report for the McKell Institute called Switching Gears, which suggested that certain changes to negative gearing could have a positive impact on housing affordability, the federal budget, job creation and growth.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"The ALP last week announced a policy that essentially adopts this recommendation." </div>
<div> </div>
<div>He said it respected existing investment arrangements and provided a smooth transition away from negative gearing of existing dwellings, rather than an abrupt disruption that would come from either capping or eliminating it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Modifying negative gearing along the lines of my McKell plan is the market-based, incentive-driven approach to solving our housing affordability problem.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"It addresses the skewed tax incentives in the current regime, and it uses the power of markets to tackle the housing affordability problem.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Perhaps that is why is has been met with general approval from economists like Saul Eslake and Warwick McKibbin, former politicians like Jeff Kennett, and business leaders like Jillian Broadbent."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>When I wrote the report I imagined that a pro-market, pro-incentive, fiscal conservative like Malcolm Turnbull would smile on the plan.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Instead, it has been welcomed by the Labor Party and Mr Turnbull has booed it," Richard Holden said.</div>
</body></html>

Malcolm Turnbull should embrace my negative gearing policy: Richard Holden

<html><body>
When you start to see politicians debating tax changes you should be afraid – very afraid. We know with the negative gearing debate that neither party has completed any costings preferring to work from the economic theory of guesstimates.
This is a very dangerous path as Australia does not have a Housing Minister and any changes are fraught with danger.
Just this week, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) revealed that for the first time rental, hiring and real estate service companies made $14 billion before tax in the second half of 2015 while mining companies made $9.8 billion. This is not the time to start meddling with property taxes as an excuse for economic reform policy.
I have no doubt that any changes to negative gearing will distort the market, and should there be an “investor run” prices will inevitably fall.
Australia is currently recording wage growth at a record low of 2.2 per cent a year. This is the lowest annual growth since the ABS started recording annual growth back in 1998. On top of that statistic in the September quarter, the ratio of household debt to income hit a new high of 184.6 per cent which translates to households’ debt now being at 1.85 times their total income.
This record growth in debt is a by-product from record low interest rates. But before we hit the panic button we need to investigate further and try and identify what is causing this.
On many occasions I have said “if there was a gold medal for real estate portfolios Australia would win hands down.” I see no use comparing Australia’s debt ratios with other countries when the Australian model has no tax payable on the principal place of residence and the overseas models do have tax payable on the principal place of residence. Australians work their principal place of residence as their main superannuation platform, which works very well when you have the cash rate at record lows.
If you were a betting person you would definitely be betting that the next cash rate movement will be down. Of course these high debt ratios will be challenged when the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) starts increasing the cash rate, but nobody really knows when that will be or in what decade even.
Prior to the Global Financial Crisis the average cash rate over a 25 year term came in at around 7.25 per cent, where based on what we are seeing today mortgage holders are going hard at 2.00 per cent.
Another statistic that is flying well off the radar are reverse mortgages which very few people discuss within the Australian property debate. In its annual Reverse Mortgage Report, Delloitte estimates more than $500 billion of home equity is held by Australians aged over 65, with the total reverse mortgage loan book worth $3.66bn as at the end of 2014.
This figure is naturally added to the Australian household debt figure so this would go part of the way to explaining why we are starting to see record debt levels. Back at the end of 2014 there were almost 40,000 reverse mortgages on issue in Australia with the average size being $92,000, up from $86,000 in 2013. It would then be reasonable to suggest that the number of reverse mortgages would have increased in 2015 as too the average mortgages – this is clearly a growth market.
To put this into further perspective the reverse mortgage market loan book was $3.66bn in 2014 and the Commonwealth Bank home loan portfolio currently sits around $393 billion. With many retirees opting for reverse mortgages this is another reason why we are seeing fewer properties on the market. Although this would change significantly once the cash rate starts increasing or a federal Government starts tampering with negative gearing in an adverse way.
What it does tell us is that Australia needs property investors as they play an integral part in Australian property machinations. If you want to have a rational debate about housing affordability in Australia firstly examine the delays by respective governments who forever and a day burden and choke the supply side of the property industry. It’s obvious to most that they fail to understand the Supply V demand equation.
Furthermore the Labor negative gearing proposal states that this will only apply to new properties. Well somebody should advise them that in December 2008 they lifted the number of properties that can be sold from new developments by foreign buyers from 50 per cent to 100 per cent. Property developers are selling all their new developments directly overseas as that way they can achieve higher prices so the local markets are blocked from buying these developments.
Nor is there any requirement nor legislation stipulating that foreign buyers must rent the property out to the local market – we do know that currently in Australia there are thousands of properties that have been land banked. Politicians are hopeless when it comes to the Australian property market.
The last thing the Australian economy needs is a domino effect with property prices because they are not pretty and should be avoided at all costs. If you want to bring property prices down do it organically by increasing supply which just so happens to be the greatest failure of local, state and federal Governments in the modern economy.
<h4>MOSMAN – 2088</h4>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 83
• Number of houses on the market last week – 64
• Number of houses on the market this week – 63
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 53
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 52 • Number of apartments on the market this week – 53
<h4>CREMORNE – 2090</h4>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 10
• Number of houses on the market last week – 18
• Number of houses on the market this week – 11
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 23
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 23
• Number of apartments on the market this week – 25
<h4>NEUTRAL BAY – 2089</h4>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 4
• Number of houses on the market last week – 8
•Number of houses on the market this week – 10
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year– 36
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 26
*Number of apartments on the market this week – 25
 ROBERT SIMEON is a director of <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/" target="_blank" title="RWM" rel="nofollow">Richardson Wrench Mosman and Neutral Bay</a> and has been selling residential real estate in Sydney since 1985.  He has also been writing real estate blog <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/news/" target="_blank" title="Virtual Realty News" rel="nofollow">Virtual Realty News</a> since 2000. 
</body></html>

robertsimeon-hRNTwJyXkQ

It’s time for the Australian property debate: Robert Simeon

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Politics has its own purgatory, as Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott might have reflected when they sat on the same table at the Howard government’s 20th anniversary dinner on Wednesday. After a day when their animosity had been on shocking display, here they were together, unable to escape.
Among the speakers during this nostalgia night was Peter Costello, whose prime ministerial hopes John Howard held at bay.
Which prompts the question: if you’re prime minister, is it easier to deal with the ambitions of someone who covets your job, or the revenge of one whose job you’ve grabbed? Arguably there are more restraints on an aspirant than on a bitter “ex” with little regard for consequences.
As Abbott has become increasingly overt in his sorties against Turnbull, he is discrediting himself. The defence department has trashed his much-publicised claim this week – on the back of leaked classified material – that the Turnbull government delayed the submarines project.
So far Abbott has been undeterred by fear of self-harm. His critics believe (or hope) the public will say enough is enough. Abbott’s ability to wound would be less, however, if the Turnbull government had its act together.
And that takes us to the dreadfully mismanaged tax policy process.
Under party and other pressures, Turnbull is said to have backed away from action on negative gearing, although it remains on the options list. Superannuation is a maze. It is still unclear when and in what form the tax package will be released. Treasury is now working frantically. Turnbull has become impatient. The expenditure review committee is due to consider tax on Tuesday.
Treasurer Scott Morrison appears spooked, assailed by backbench nerves and media criticism, and fighting to prevent further backsliding from a package he wants substantial enough to finance at least modest and probably targeted tax relief. He and Turnbull often seem in different places, and not just on tax options. Morrison for months noisily ruled out giving the states extra funding to help with health and education. It is now expected Turnbull will provide some pre-election sweetener.
With his credibility already low, Morrison did himself no good when he grabbed a report on abolishing negative gearing on established dwellings done by BIS Shrapnel, which he described as “a very damning … indictment on Labor’s policy”. The report predicted a rise in rents, a fall in new home building, and GDP shrinking by A$19 billion a year on average.
The work had different assumptions from the ALP policy, pre-dated Labor’s plan, and was prepared for a client BIS Shrapnel refused to identify. It contained an embarrassing error in one of its figures.
The report’s methodology and estimates have also come under fire, in a critique from Grattan Institute’s chief executive John Daley and Danielle Wood, a fellow at the institute. And they condemn the fact a report “that would flunk any first-year economics course has been allowed a serious voice in the public debate”.
The concern “goes beyond the claims of this nonsense-on-stilts report”, they argue, to the prominence received by “independent” reports produced to advance vested interests' causes. “No matter how outlandish their claims or how obscure their provenance, the media report them and politicians quote them. The public, confused or frightened by the numbers, forms the view that policy change is simply too risky.”
The message should at least be absorbed by the media, especially as the election approaches. It is not much good appealing to the politicians to exercise restraint. Scaring people is precisely what the government seeks to do in the negative gearing debate. But the rapid discrediting of the Shrapnel report meant Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen were able to push back with some authority.
As the contest about tax intensifies, the contrast is notable between the performances of Morrison and Bowen.
Morrison has been at odds with his leader; he has been forced back from bold ambitions to modest measures yet to be landed. Bowen has spearheaded robust policies that put the opposition on the front foot in the debate when the government still has nothing on offer. In the House of Representatives he and others have cornered the government with tight questions. Outside parliament, Bowen is quick to have press releases out to counter claims about Labor’s policy.
But the debate will get tougher; Shorten can be thankful his shadow treasurer is good for a lot of heavy lifting. If Turnbull’s treasurer was performing as competently as his “shadow”, Turnbull might be better placed on the tax front.
Meanwhile there has been an interesting development for the double-dissolution watchers. The list of bills the government wants passed in the last week of this session, commencing March 15, does not include the much-talked-about Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) legislation.
The Greens have agreed to extended hours that week to get Senate voting changes through, but not to deal with the ABCC. In public comments the government has repeatedly linked the ABCC legislation to the threat of a double-dissolution election. Its exclusion from the priority list would weaken the case if the government wanted to include it as a “trigger” on the grounds it had “failed to pass”.
But if Turnbull decides to use the brand new voting system to quickly clean out the Senate crossbenchers, he has “trigger” legislation regardless of the ABCC.
 
Michelle Grattan is professorial fellow, University of Canberra and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michelle-grattan-20316" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Chris Bowen is outshining Scott Morrison in the tax hurdle race

<html><body>
The federal government has signalled that plans to cap the negative gearing tax benefit as part of its tax reform policy are unlikely to proceed.
When asked last night by 2GB's Money News host Ross Greenwood about negative gearing, treasurer Scott Morrison responded by saying: "You have always got to tailor your policies to the environment you're in."
"Right now we have a very special set of circumstances," he said.
"If we are going to make changes in tax then it has to be made up for by changes in the tax system elsewhere."
"The scope for that has been reduced over time and the final decisions will ultimately be in the budget."
He said that the Labor Party have put forward a policy on negative gearing which they haven't thought through.
"The PM made it clear last September he was putting that issue (negative gearing) generically back on the table to be considered.
"It had been removed before.
"He asked for it to be looked at so there's been a process of looking at that.
"But no one should draw a conclusion from that, that necessarily means the government would make changes to the negative gearing.
"They were saying the same thing about GST.
"People were asserting we were going to do something differently on that.
"We looked at it (GST) carefully, we made a considered decision and I think we made the right decision.
"You don't rush to failure on this stuff.
"We have to be careful and be patient that we get these calls right," the treasurer said which appears to clear the way for an easy assault on Labor's tax plans in the run-up to the federal election.
Senior sources have confirmed to The Australian Financial Review that while the proposal to cap negative gearing deductions at $20,000 a year had been looked at, it has been decided "we're not going to touch it".
For the policy to have raised the estimated $1 billion it was worth annually, it would have had to apply to existing investors with multiple properties. A source said it was "in our DNA not to apply tax increases retrospectively".
Treasurer Scott Morrison has previously flagged the option of a cap, describing it as targeting the "excesses" of negative gearing. He and his colleagues have stopped using that description in recent days in a strong hint that there will now be no change.
The AFR noted on Wednesday, Mr Morrison, when pressed, used the term "enthusiasms".
The decision to not proceed with changes to negative gearing leaves the government with just superannuation tax concession and tax deduction trade-offs to help fund plans to deliver a small personal income tax.
Labor says its policy – to halve the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for investors to 25 per cent, and to limit all new negative gearing to new homes only from July 1, 2017 – will raise $32 billion over 10 years and generate an extra 25,000 construction jobs annually because of the demand for new housing.
But the government is expected on Thursday to seize on a report by property and building industry advisory group, BIS Shrapnel, which claims the opposite.
It claims Labor's negative gearing plans will increase rents by an average of 10 per cent, or $2600 a year, depress new home construction by 4 per cent and shrink gross domestic product by $19 billion a year.
BIS Shrapnel claims the plans will also lead to 175,000 fewer jobs over 10 years, shrink government tax revenues by $1.65 billion a year and put 70,000 households into rental stress.
But the Grattan Institute chief executive John Daley slammed the report as untrustworthy and implausible.
He said the findings were the product of skewed and grossly exaggerated assumptions and the report could not be trusted because BIS Shrapnel will not say who commissioned it.
You can listen to <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/160231" target="_blank">Scott Morrison's chat with Ross Greenwood here</a>.
</body></html>

Treasurer Scott Morrison hints negative gearing changes are off the table

<html><body>
The consequences of limiting the tax deductibility of negatively geared residential properties would impact any expected tax savings, according to a new report from BIS Shrapnel.
BIS Shrapnel's report, Economic Impact of Limiting the Tax Deductibility of Negatively Geared Residential Investment Properties, 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 added limiting the tax deductibility of negatively geared residential investment properties would have consequences that go well beyond any tax saving to the Federal budget and 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 report suggested:
•  Rents will rise by up to 10% ($2,600) per annum
•  New home building will shrink by around 4% nationally, or 7,200 dwellings a year
•  GDP would shrink by around $19 billion per annum on average, equating to some 1% of Australia’s $190 billion annual income
•  175,000 fewer jobs would be created over the next 10 years, resulting in the unemployment rate rising from 5.8% to 5.9%
•  Government revenue across a range of taxes would shrink by $1.65 billion per annum
•  70,000 extra households would be pushed into housing rental stress
•  If the government were to compensate these stressed households, it would require an additional subsidy outlay of $650 million per annum.
"Government revenue across a range of taxes would shrink by $1.65 billion per annum... 70,000 extra households would be pushed into housing rental stress," it noted.
"If the government were to compensate these stressed households, it would require an additional subsidy outlay of $650 million per annum. In other words, the impact would go well beyond any saving of the income tax concession, to a multitude of unintended consequences. 
"The Federal government will save $2.1 billion per annum as fewer individuals deduct losses from property, but will incur an income tax loss from lower home building of $1.8 billion. Stamp duty revenue will fall by around $1.1 billion per annum; GST collections will drop by $0.2 billion a year. 
"Altogether, total tax revenue is likely to fall by $1.65 billion per year... at the end of a 10-year horizon the market would find a new normal, but the legacy will be a ‘lost decade’. Rents will sit 2-10% higher depending on the city."
Estimated price of units in 2026
<div class="moveable_w" data-element-id="table_25816751" data-object-id="0c8633ff-c21a-44c3-9f3f-b17f64e66ffd" data-object-type="chart">
<div id="table_25816751" class="moveable chart ig-theme-group-chart">
<div class="igc-chart inner">
<div class="igc-table-container">
<table id="Chart_25816751" class="igc-table igc-table-align-center __visible tablesorter tablesorter-default">
<thead><tr class="tablesorter-headerRow">
<th class="igc-table-header igc-hidden-cell igc-table-fixed-column tablesorter-header tablesorter-headerUnSorted" scope="col" data-column="0">
<div class="tablesorter-header-inner"> </div>
</th>
<th class="igc-table-header tablesorter-header tablesorter-headerUnSorted" scope="col" data-column="1">
<div class="tablesorter-header-inner">Full negative gearing</div>
</th>
<th class="igc-table-header tablesorter-header tablesorter-headerUnSorted" scope="col" data-column="2">
<div class="tablesorter-header-inner">Limited negative gearing</div>
</th>
<th class="igc-table-header tablesorter-header tablesorter-headerUnSorted" scope="col" data-column="3">
<div class="tablesorter-header-inner">Difference</div>
</th>
</tr></thead>
<tbody class="igc-table-body">
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Sydney</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">873,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">820,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">-6.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Melbourne</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">602,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">585,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">-2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Brisbane</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">590,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">565,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">-4.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Adelaide</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">425,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">420,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">-1.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Perth</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">590,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">580,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">-1.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Canberra</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">540,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">535,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">-1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Hobart</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">358,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">350,000</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">-2.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="moveable_w" data-element-id="particle_11401cc9-cac0-4b5a-a43f-5d28d864c4ed" data-object-id="11401cc9-cac0-4b5a-a43f-5d28d864c4ed" data-object-type="particle">
<div id="particle_11401cc9-cac0-4b5a-a43f-5d28d864c4ed" class="moveable particle body-text ig-theme-group-text">
<div class="bodytext">
<div class="innertext" data-placeholder="">Source: BIS Shrapnel</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
 
Estimated unit rent in 2026
<div class="moveable_w" data-element-id="table_25816227" data-object-id="28dd2e96-a8be-4ac3-b9c6-52489593236d" data-object-type="chart">
<div id="table_25816227" class="moveable chart ig-theme-group-chart">
<div class="igc-chart inner">
<div class="igc-table-container">
<table id="Chart_25816227" class="igc-table igc-table-align-center __visible tablesorter tablesorter-default">
<thead><tr class="tablesorter-headerRow">
<th class="igc-table-header igc-hidden-cell igc-table-fixed-column tablesorter-header tablesorter-headerUnSorted" scope="col" data-column="0">
<div class="tablesorter-header-inner"> </div>
</th>
<th class="igc-table-header tablesorter-header tablesorter-headerUnSorted" scope="col" data-column="1">
<div class="tablesorter-header-inner">Full negative gearing</div>
</th>
<th class="igc-table-header tablesorter-header tablesorter-headerUnSorted" scope="col" data-column="2">
<div class="tablesorter-header-inner">Limited negative gearing</div>
</th>
<th class="igc-table-header tablesorter-header tablesorter-headerUnSorted" scope="col" data-column="3">
<div class="tablesorter-header-inner">Difference</div>
</th>
</tr></thead>
<tbody class="igc-table-body">
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Sydney</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$695</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$735</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">5.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Melbourne</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$470</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$515</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">9.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Brisbane</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$490</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$515</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">5.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Adelaide</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$350</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$385</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">10.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Perth</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$535</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$565</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">5.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Canberra</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$475</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$505</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">6.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="igc-table-header igc-table-header-left igc-table-fixed-column">Hobart</th>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$350</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">$365</td>
<td class="igc-table-cell">4.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="moveable_w" data-element-id="particle_2eb94838-97b6-4079-8284-9f18b2bb0664" data-object-id="2eb94838-97b6-4079-8284-9f18b2bb0664" data-object-type="particle">
<div id="particle_2eb94838-97b6-4079-8284-9f18b2bb0664" class="moveable particle body-text ig-theme-group-text">
<div class="bodytext">
<div class="innertext" data-placeholder="">Source: BIS Shrapnel</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

Negative gearing reform could lead to lost decade: BIS Shrapnel

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The many questions around whether negative gearing should be removed.
Let's look at some of the questions and the facts. 
1. Currently there are around 30% of the population who rent or around 7.2 million people who are either currently tenants or looking for accommodation. 
2. The government provides only around 4% of public housing for tenants.
3. The private sector provides around 96% of the properties for tenants through investment properties.
4. The ATO figures shows $13 billion in tax deductions claimed by property investors in FY2013.
5. That represents $4.3 billion lost in revenue to government at an average tax rate of 30 percent.
6. If private investors pulled out of property market and the burden of public housing fell more heavily on government, would it cost the government more than the $4 billion it currently gives up in tax. Where would the government get the funds to build these properties to replace the private investors when they are already in such debt 
7. The State governments collect millions of dollars in Stamp Duty and Land Tax due to the active trading and investing in all types of properties. Will the removal of negative gearing have a domino effect on the States economy?
8. Currently the real estate industry has replaced the slowing down in the mining industry. Do we risk killing off another industry and currently is helping the economy in light of the current government debt levels.
9. What happens to industries such as the blue collar industry carpenters, plumbers, electricians etc plus real estate agents and banks etc. if the private investors pulled out of the property market. 
10. Negative gearing applies to all other investments such as shares, businesses, companies and other investments. Is it legislatively possible to remove negative gearing from only one industry, the property investors and not from other investment like shares and business.
11. Negative gearing is simply a fancy term attributed to making losses. If one makes a loss it can be offset against other income.
12. This is the same argument put forward by Labor when they introduced the Mining tax on a booming mining industry. Some accused the Labor Govern= ment of having a "Tax it till it disappears" mentality. But what happens to economic growth if we tax our most productive industry.
13. Is Labor repeating the same mistake with the property industry. Tax it till it disappears.
14. Most property investors are not rich. Over 70% earn income at around $80,000pa or less.
15. Australia's population is aging and should we be encouraging people to become self funded by taking risks in investing in real estate and therefore not rely on an old age pension. The governments debt levels are unsustainable.
16. The great Hawke/Keating Labor government replaced negative gearing after 18 months when rents went through the roof and the waiting list for public housing doubled as private investors left the property market and created a huge shortage of rental properties.
17. Negative gearing means someone is paying out more than they are earning. In other words losing money. Why would anyone do that? It's in the hope that they can make up the losses and more, due to capital gain of the investment. This occurs not just in property but applies to those who invest in shares as well as in businesses and many forms of investments where there is prospect of capital growth.
18. So why would someone take such risks because there are no guarantees that the property market will increase greater than the losses suffered. Many property investors have lost hundreds of thousands dollars.
19. It's an extremely risky strategy and the risk applies across the board to other investments also.
20. It's made more risky if they cannot claim the losses like every other industry can. How can this be fair when one has to pay tax on capital gains but not the losses from negative gearing. It feels like the government wants it both ways.
21. Labor's call to reduce capital gains tax concession from 50% to 25%. But what if someone has made a capital loss. One cannot claim capital losses against other income. This has increased the risk to investing in real estate. Will the returns from real estate now be so low that it no longer becomes an attractive investment to put one's money into and what does the reduction is demand do to prices?
22. Is there sufficient incentive to attract investors back into property to help meet the demand for property and in order to keep both rents and prices down.
23. Our economy is not healthy. We have head winds coming out of Europe and USA. The global market is unstable. Is this a risk to our only industry that is keeping our economy going. Is this the right time to do this?
24. Are property investors discriminated against when one considers they pay stamp duty on purchase and pay land tax for owning it.
25. Share investors do not pay a "share tax" simply for holding the shares or stamp duty on purchase of shares. Share investors still are permitted to negative gear their portfolio.
These are the questions being asked by both sides of those for and those against getting rid of negative gearing. 
 Ed Chan is founder and non executive chairman, Chan &amp; Naylor Accountants and can be contacted <a href="https://www.chan-naylor.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>. 
</body></html>

Property 101: Ed Chan's 25 facts you need to know about negative gearing

<html><body>
Malcolm Turnbull's tax change options have been narrowed by what the Canberra press gallery has dubbed as the dramatic partyroom intervention of Tony Abbott.
Some MPs believe it is now "practically impossible" for Turnbull to move on negative gearing in any way, now that Abbott has so clearly positioned himself.
It has been suggested Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has been corralled by his predecessor, Tony Abbott. 
The opposition leapt on Abbott's re-engagement, depicting it as a strategic "shirt-fronting" of a weakened Prime Minister by his predecessor.
The Age suggested Scott Morrison was caught in the middle haing previously referred to "excesses" in the negative gearing policy.
One MP said it was apparent that Abbott had come prepared - even testing election lines, which Turnbull would have no trouble using if he backs no increases. These were: a tax on super is an attack on elderly Australians; a tax on capital gains is an attack on battlers trying to get ahead; and, a tax on negative gearing is an attack on families.
Praising what he called Mr Turnbull's "brilliant" campaign against Labor's negative gearing changes, he warned the party room colleagues: "We can't go down this path ourselves."
</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