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>
Rental rates would be driven upwards if negative gearing benefits were removed, the Real Estate Institute of Queensland (REIQ) claims.
The real estate industry lobby has criticised recent comments from Labor Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen, who flagged that the party may wind back negative gearing benefits if it comes to power.
REIQ chief executive Antonia Mercorella believes negative gearing increases the supply of affordable rental properties.
"Investors help maintain supply to the rental market and a strong supply also ensures rental affordability is maintained," claims Mercorella.
"In Queensland more than a third of our population is in rental accommodation, so it's crucial that supply is maintained for this large section of the community.
"If private rentals were drastically reduced this would place enormous strain on the limited resources in public housing.
"It would also serve to drive up rents in remaining limited stock," she says.
Mercorella cited a "surge" in rents when the Hawke government removed negative gearing benefits between 1985 and 1987.
"We saw rental affordability plummet in Sydney and Melbourne when negative gearing benefits were quarantined."
Her claim mirrors those made by Treasurer Joe Hockey recently on ABC's Q&amp;A.
"You saw a surge in rents and those people who were paying rents are usually - not always, but usually - people that can't afford in many cases to buy their own homes," Hockey said last month, of the 1980s negative gearing changes.
However, his claims were refuted by economist John Daley of the Grattan Institute, who said the rental increase was confined to Sydney, which could have been attributed to an undersupply of property.
"But look beyond Sydney and rents were dead - barely moved in Brisbane, didn't go up very far in Melbourne, didn't go up very far in Adelaide," Daley said on the show. The varied performance of rents across Australia "made you suspect very strongly that the race memory we have of abolish negative gearing, that rents will go up, is a race memory built on Sydney," he said.
Mercorella, however, believes there is still reason to draw evidence to support negative gearing from the 1980s.
"Sydney and Melbourne are our bellwether states, and they lead the property market trends, so we know with absolute certainty what will happen if we do this again – it will destroy rental affordability and place enormous  strain on the public housing system as investors desert property as an asset class," she argues.
She cites the Queensland government's Housing 2020 report, published in 2013, which details plans to scale back public housing, encouraging residents to consider social housing "transitional".
According to the REIQ, investors make up 34% of owners in the residential market.
</body></html>

jrichardson-uRX5hFdKfN

Don't abandon negative gearing REIQ tells Labor's Chris Bowen

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
A quarantining approach was adopted by the Hawke government in 1985 when it effectively abolished negative gearing for rental property investments.
For two years after the announcement of the policy, expenses related to rental property investments could not be claimed against income from other sources such as wages. In return for this restriction on deductions, a depreciation allowance was introduced to encourage investment in new rental housing. Existing investments were not affected.
A mythology has grown around the impact of this policy on rental property investment in the late 1980s. It is claimed that the ‘abolition’ of negative gearing directly led to a rental housing investment ‘strike’ and that this was the reason the policy was reversed. In fact, a major reason for the policy reversal was political: property lobbyists threatened to campaign against the then New South Wales state government in a forthcoming election.
It is possible that this campaign convinced some property investors in Sydney that it was no longer worthwhile investing in housing – a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In reality, the housing investment ‘slump’ was restricted to Sydney and Perth, two property markets that were already ‘over-heated’ at the time that negative gearing was restricted. Nationally, investment in rental property continued to increase with the total value of lending to rental property investors rising by 42% over the period that negative arrangements stopped.
<img src="/images/2015/04/16/chart-april-17-bre.jpg" alt="">
Source: Eslake (2014), “Submission to Senate Economics Committee Affordable Housing inquiry Note: Annual increase in median rents. Shaded area was the period during which negative gearing was not available.
Apart from the effects of the ‘normal’ housing cycle in markets that were overheated, the main causes of the property investment slump in Sydney and Perth were higher interest rates (partly designed to prevent a housing investment ‘bubble’) and the share-market boom of the mid 2000s (which diverted investment from housing).35 After the share-market crash of 1987, and the easing of interest rates in its wake, housing investment boomed.
The ‘restoration’ of negative gearing is likely to have added froth to this speculative boom which inflated house prices and triggered a steep rise in interest rates, which led in turn to the worst recession since the 1930s.
Improving on past policies In retrospect, the main weaknesses of the 1986 ‘quarantining’ policy were that it was introduced at a time when the housing market was about to deflate of its own accord, and that only rental property investment was targeted (when ‘negative gearing’ strategies also apply to investment in other assets yielding capital gains such as shares and agricultural investments).
Otherwise, it was a sensible policy response to a serious flaw in the tax system that distorts the operation of housing and other investment markets. Restricting deductions for negatively geared investments to income from the same asset or class of assets is a more comprehensive solution to the problem than other options considered in the past such as limiting ‘negative gearing’ to investment in the construction of new housing. While these proposals would redirect investment to new housing and ease inflation in home prices, they would not remove the structural flaw in the tax treatment of different investments: the bias in favour of borrowing to invest in assets yielding capital gains, including rental property, shares and agricultural schemes.
There is also a strong case for tackling this problem directly by reducing the inequitable and investment-distorting 50% discount for capital gains. This would best be done as part of a wider realignment of tax rates for different investments - including a reduction in tax rates on rental income as the ‘Henry Report proposes. This could be done in conjunction with ‘quarantining’ rules to remove the ‘timing advantage’ discussed above. These measures should be introduced in conjunction with more efficient tax incentives for investment in new housing, especially affordable housing.
The National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS), which provides tax credits for such investment, is being wound down before its impact on affordable housing investment can be properly assessed. This is a mistake. Special emphasis should be placed on incentives for long-term institutional investment in housing.
This policy package would be ‘pro’ not ‘anti’ housing investment. Investment would be redirected from where it is harming housing affordability towards where it is most needed: the construction of new affordable dwellings.
At the state level, the replacement of stamp duties on housing purchases with a broadly based Land Tax (as advocated by the Henry Report) and reforms to Land Tax on rental properties to encourage investment in multiple properties, should be considered. Policies that strengthen housing supply, including direct public investment in social and community housing and reform of planning laws should also be pursued.
These tax and housing reforms would improve housing affordability for tenants on low incomes, ease barriers to first home ownership, and improve the fairness of the tax system as well as the efficiency of investment. It would be good for people struggling to find decent and affordable housing and good for the economy as well.
This is an exerpt from the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) report, ‘Fuel on the fire: Negative gearing, Capital Gains Tax and housing affordability. Read the full report <a href="https://www.acoss.org.au/media/release/new_report_calls_for_action_on_negative_gearing_and_capital_gains_tax" target="_blank">here</a>.
Peter Davidson is senior advisor with ACOSS.
Ro Evans is policy officer with ACOSS.
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

The negative gearing myth of 1985: ACOSS

<html><body>
The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) continues to urge the government to restrict tax deductions for negatively geared property investments.
They claim the landlord tax breaks are “feeding a fire which the Reserve Bank and APRA are trying to put out”.
The ACOSS report, <a href="https://www.acoss.org.au/images/uploads/Fuel_on_the_fire.pdf" target="_blank">Fuel on the fire: Negative gearing, Capital Gains Tax and housing affordability</a>, says its is a myth that negative gearing makes rental housing more affordable and that the benefits mainly go to ‘mum and dad' investors on middle incomes. “Negative gearing and the tax break for capital gains don't improve housing affordability; they make it worse by fuelling home price booms like the one in Sydney right now. Less than one tenth of negatively geared housing investments are for new properties, the other nine tenths bid up the price of existing housing,” ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie said. “These tax breaks also make it more difficult for the Reserve Bank to manage the economy. Over-heating in housing markets is making it harder for the Reserve Bank to cut interest rates when this is needed. The tax breaks are feeding a fire which the Reserve Bank and APRA are trying to put out.” According to the report, tax breaks such as negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount have inflated housing costs in every housing boom since the 1980s. Since the cut to capital gains tax in 1999, lending for investment housing has risen by 230% compared with 165% for owner occupied housing. “It's not your average mum and dad investors on middle incomes who are benefitting from the generous tax concessions that have allowed two thirds of individual rental property investors, or 1.2 million people, to report tax-deductable ‘losses' of $14 billion in 2011,” Goldie said.  “The reality is that over half of geared housing investors are in the top 10% of personal taxpayers and 30% earn more than $500,000.”
ACOSS's negative gearing myths and facts
Myth 1: The Hawke government's restrictions on negative gearing from 1985-87 resulted in rent increases and had to be reversed.
Fact: The main reasons for rent increases at that time were higher interest rates and a share-market boom which diverted investment from rental property. Even so, this only happened in Sydney and Perth. Lending to rental property investors still rose by 42% across Australia. Myth 2: Negative gearing can't be responsible for overheating in housing markets in recent years because it's been in place for over 20 years.
Fact: Negative gearing adds fuel to each housing boom by encouraging property speculation. Its impact has grown because investors have easier access to credit. The halving of tax rates on capital gains in 2000 (in place of the indexation of capital gains for tax purposes which was less encouraging of speculative investment) also made negative gearing more attractive. Myth 3: The benefits of negative gearing mainly go to ‘mum and dad' investors on middle incomes
Fact: This is an illusion due to the way the Taxation Statistics break down deductions for rental property investment by taxable income, which is itself reduced by negative gearing strategies. Many households that appear to be ‘middle income' actually have higher incomes before deductions are subtracted. In reality, half the value of deductions for negatively geared investments go to the top 10% of taxpayers.
Source: ACOSS
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

ACOSS says mum and dad investors are a negative gearing myth

<html><body>
While his Treasurer is overseas, Prime Minister Tony Abbott has quashed speculation over the future of negative gearing by promising there will be no changes.
"Yes," was his answer when asked on Thursday whether he could rule out changes to negative gearing
There has been speculation that the government, through its taxation white paper process, might bow to pressure over claims negative gearing was benefiting the landlord class.
Abbott said he wanted to have a conversation about reducing taxes and curbing spending.
"Now, I don't absolutely rule out closing loopholes and ending anomalies and trying to make sure that existing tax rules are fairly and squarely applied, but the government I lead wants taxes to be lower, simpler, fairer," he said.
"We'll continue tax reform in the upcoming budget with a small business tax cut. I would say to the people who are running around looking to increase taxes on people, what we really need to do is to get our spending under control.
"Australia does not have a problem with taxes being too low; Australia has a problem with spending being too high because of the excesses of the former government."
</body></html>

No negative gearing changes: PM Tony Abbott

<html><body>
Most of the debate surrounding so-termed "negative gearing" in Australia circles endlessly debating one point: were the rules regarding deductions to be quarantined again as they were previously in 1985, would rents increase at eye-watering growth rates?
<img src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LekpHXdEyV4/VSebrNLNTaI/AAAAAAAAUYc/Fm6u0wlxNzg/s1600/VIc4.jpg">
In other words, are the existing rules an effective rental subsidy that are now pushing rental growth down below the rate of inflation. It's something of a hypothetical debate. Firstly that's because looking historically nobody knows the counter-factual (i.e. would rents have kept rising beyond 1987 had the rulings not been reversed?). And secondly, because to all intents and purposes there were no property investors in the lead up to 1985, so conditions today are completely different. In the year 1985 investor finance accounted for a miserly 13% of total housing finance, compared to a whopping 40% or a stonking <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/housing-finance" target="_blank">$139 billion of domestic investor finance</a> over the past 12 months alone. 
<img src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6JnIgcfHRIA/VSeb36SW8dI/AAAAAAAAUY0/oK4u8WnVBU8/s1600/HF3.jpg">
I'm sure that nobody believes for a minute changes to the tax law would force rents higher in Kununurrra or Kurrajong, but research has consistently shown that there is a heavy concentration of investor-owned dwellings in the inner- and middle-ring suburbs of our largest capital cities - remove a portion of the rental stock in these locations and some increases in rents would be certain. Moreover, changes to the tax law would quickly undo the system which has succeeded in kick-starting the <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/building-approvals-smash-record-high" target="_blank">greatest residential building boom</a> in Australia's history, which will soon result in an oversupply of dwellings in at least six of our capital cities, and possibly eight of them. <img src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-c7hq4qdu59o/VPUtgH00IUI/AAAAAAAATfQ/HYH30ROsgMA/s640/Approvals3.jpg"> With a nascent boom in residential construction now underway and home starts <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/record-high-for-dwelling-commencements" target="_blank">breaking record highs</a>, the tax law won't be changed because it's creating the supply that's needed, estimated at more than 180,000 dwellings per annum. Budget impacts
The rents argument is a sideshow in any case. It's often also argued that negative gearing rules should be scrapped in order to "save" $4 billion from the budget and $2 billion per annum going forward but this is a flawed notion.
Between 1985 and 1987 the numbers on the New South Wales housing waiting list reportedly increased alarmingly by almost a third from fewer than 110,000 up to nearly 140,000 in only 18 months, a trend which was immediately reversed upon the re-introduction of the previous ruling on interest deductions.
In Britain, approximately 17% of households live in social housing. The problem in Australia is that at a measly 4.5% of total housing stock, public housing "cannot provide a realistic alternative to a private rental market for existing homeowners" - AHURI's 2010 <a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/projects/p40561" target="_blank">report</a> on the future of public housing explains in detail the many reasons why:
"Through the stimulus package, the Commonwealth put $6 billion on the table to build 20,000 houses. That’s lovely. But the shortfall in social housing is 160,000 dwellings. So either they find another, whatever that is, another $50 billion - no way!".
Other estimates put the shortfall at up to 200,000 dwellings, and without adequate additions the social housing shortfall can only get worse.
<img src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GB5kSEgYZoc/VShKLsYGTEI/AAAAAAAAUZY/A_AO-ngvJ84/s1600/AHURI.jpg">
Source: AHURI
As highlighted in AHURI's report, with Commonwealth and state elections held in 3-year cycles, committing large amounts of money for long-term capital housing investment is seen to be risky for politicians. It's just not going to happen. And indeed, there is no intention of addressing underfunding of the sector, with core funding declining in real terms by 26% between 1996 and 2008. Confirmed the AHURI report "there is no way that Commonwealth or state governments are going to kick-in capital funding which is going to enable social and affordable housing to grow at 2% per annum". Australia is projected to have <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/43-million-more-households-by-2036" target="_blank">4.3 million more</a> households in the 25 years to 2036, and (and<a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/aussie-investing-until-2055" target="_blank">millions more</a> by 2055, particularly <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/big-australia-to-give-way-to-huge" target="_blank">if my assumptions on population growth are proved correct</a>) so the total demand for rental accommodation will be beyond huge. 
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ag1ZbNZWc3Q/VSitV8CD1LI/AAAAAAAAUZs/cJOsx22Ue9Y/s1600/AHURI2.jpg">
Source: AHURI
As I will discuss below, the solutions can only come from private individual and offshore investors, with upwards pressure on prices encouraging more construction, which is exactly what is playing out right now. 
Case study: Public housing in Victoria
Having been the subject of an <a href="https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20120328-Public-Housing/20120328-Public-Housing" target="_blank">audit</a> in 2012, public housing in Victoria is worthwhile case study. In my living purgatory as an auditor I wrote seemingly endless reviews and reports for Central Banks, Treasuries, Ministries of Finance, Government Finance Departments and the like - the reality is that such reports in draft form often promise to be somewhat spicy, but after internal reviews and by the time final reports are issued the recommendations tend to be watered down and uncontroversial. I don't think I've seen many more damning auditor reports than the one issued by the Auditor-General to the Legislative Assembly on the subject of "Access to Public Housing".
The main source of social housing in Victoria is public housing, yet as at the audit date there were fewer than 83,000 social housing dwellings in Victoria, 65,352 of which were public housing, owned and managed by the Department of Human Services (DHS).  Victoria's population, meanwhile is <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/help-commentary-on-demographics-and" target="_blank">rapidly approaching 6 million</a> and counting.
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gcUpwdaGmkk/VRPWXczZb7I/AAAAAAAAT-M/AWfaCu1AmRE/s640/Dem4.jpg">
The chart below shows those 65,253 public housing dwellings by type and location at 30 June 2011.
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mQRMvvwP1RI/VSebrJYBj0I/AAAAAAAAUYU/zR_qakFZrGc/s1600/VIC1.jpg">
Source: Auditor General 
A $17.8 billion property portfolio, housing around 127,000 Victorians, noted the auditor, requires “informed, cohesive and comprehensive asset management”, but condemningly the audit found no such systems in place. Here are four reasons that public housing is not a viable alternative to the provision of rental stock by private investors. 
This article continues on the next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
Reason one - The public housing financial model is unsustainable
The situation for public housing was found by the auditor to be “critical” and public housing’s operating model “unsustainable”.
Funding for the division in 2011–12 was $402 million, with set aside $169 million for social housing activity, and the audit found that the operating model for public housing, with costs comfortably increasingly exceeding revenues, to be unsustainable. 
The review found that in 2011 operating costs exceeded rental revenue by a thumping 42%, up from 30% in 2002. The review further forecast that the division's deficit would more than double from $56 million in 2011 to $115 million by 2015 and that all cash reserves would be exhausted by within two years.
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mbA3FPTqdHg/VSebr1fo_1I/AAAAAAAAUYg/fAUj9uATIRk/s1600/Vic2.jpg">
Source: Auditor General
The division’s short-term strategies to address its financial position had only deferred and compounded the problem using short-termist band aid solutions to address its dire financial situation.
Such short-term solutions included the reduction of stock acquisitions, the deferring of preventative maintenance, and funding deficits by utilising cash meant for long-term programs - which only compounded the issue, particularly the growing maintenance liability.
While rent and other property income had increased by 7% (in nominal terms by $24 million between 2007 and 2012), operating costs had spiralled by 27% or $92 million in nominal terms over the same period.
Reason two - Public housing stock is grossly inadequate and under-supplied
The Auditor-General found that demand for public housing had easily exceeded supply over the preceding ten years - the cost of living and household numbers had increased and the availability of affordable housing had decreased. 
The demand for public housing is measured as the number of households that have applied for public housing and are on the public housing waiting list.
The audit found that as at 30 June 2011 there were more than 38,000 households on the waiting list – and once applicants are approved for public housing, they still have to wait to be housed. 
In 2009–10, applicants who had received a priority allocation waited an average of 8.5 months for housing, and non-priority applicants wait several years. 
Reason three - Public housing stock is grossly mismatched
The tenant profile of public housing has changed substantially over time.  Large estates built in the 1960s were intended for working families on low to moderate incomes as a transitional measure before moving into private housing. Most properties were accordingly built to meet the needs of families as opposed to an increasingly single and older tenant group.
Today, however, public housing now serves an increasing proportion of elderly, single and economically and socially disadvantaged tenants.
Thus the need for one-bedroom dwellings has increased dramatically while the need for larger dwellings has decreased. The chart below shows the mismatch between public housing stock, and demand as reflected by the public housing waiting list.
<img src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AOPBSIO7JD4/VSebrPFmwMI/AAAAAAAAUYY/oOr3pbg_uxo/s1600/VIC3.jpg">
Source: Auditor General
Unfortunately, legislative, regulatory and policy settings prevent authorities from actively trading public stock to help finance necessary dwelling upgrades (or from expanding stock levels by changing the mix of densities, dwelling types and locations to match the needs of target households). As was shown in the above graphic, at the audit date it would have required almost 100% turnover of households in one-bedroom properties to meet waiting list demand, as compared to only 25% for three-bedroom properties. The National Housing Supply Council projected that the demand across Australia from older householders for single households would increase from 86,500 to 189,800 between 2010 and 2029.
Reason four - The quality of public housing stock is in sharp deterioration 
The public housing portfolio was found to be in a seriously deteriorating condition with the division estimating that 10,000 properties (or 14% of the total) would reach obsolescence over the following four years, and a significant mismatch of properties to tenant needs.
The asset base was found to be deteriorating awfully with 42% of housing stock being over 30 years old. Of course, properties of this age generally require more frequent and larger scale repairs, maintenance and upgrades. 
Yet the division was found not to have articulated any long-term objectives or plans at all for public housing.
A property portfolio approaching $20 billion in value housing 127,357 Victorians, requires an "informed, cohesive and comprehensive asset management system", but in fact no such systems were found to be in evidence.
In 2011 well over 14,000 dwellings (25%) had not been assessed for over three years, with 2,400 of those not inspected for over five years, in spite of the supposed divisional policy to assess all properties at least three-yearly.
The division also estimated that, due to limitations within the system, maintenance costs of $298 million across the portfolio were, on average, understated by a whopping 138% for each property.
The wrap
As concluded by AHURI, is very little optimism that public housing can or will play a significant role in the overall housing system, or contribute in any significant way to addressing the supply of affordable rental housing stock. Perhaps more importantly, there is no political will at all to invest in public housing. Private housing is all there is, and government policy has clearly concluded that the road ahead will necessarily involve incentives for Mum and Dad investors to provide rental accommodation. Institutional funds and the private sector won't touch the sector because rental returns are too low. Indeed the Treasury was approached with a request for investment from the Future Fund and the response was exactly that - the Future Fund will not invest in residential property because rental returns are too low. So if the private sector won't invest in rental housing because the returns are too low, and the Australian government won't invest its money there either, the only remaining alternative is to incentivise individual investors to do so. And that's why the negative gearing rules won't be squashed. 
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 book '<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>' is out now.
</body></html>

pwargent-M4siyDbqQY

Four reasons negative gearing won't be squashed: Pete Wargent

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Rents always go up – don’t they? The 1.2 million negatively geared Australian tax payers whose property expenses exceed their rental income think so. Their cunning plan is to patiently wait while the rent ratchet turns their negative cash flows positive and net income losses into profits.
If house prices stabilise at current levels – even if they fall back for a time – overall, wages will continue to grow if only by inflation, pushing up rents. And time is on the land owner’s side.
That’s why it’s called a ratchet. Rentiers make money in their sleep or while striking alpha male poses around the BBQ.
But what if rents don’t rise?
Blasphemy! Yet the historical record shows that is exactly what happens in downturns – and rents can keep falling for years.
My pals, Paul Egan and Philip Soos produced the following chart, of both nominal and real rents Australia 1880-2012.
<img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-9199" src="https://www.prosper.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/australioan-real-rents-1880-2014B-526x300.png" alt="australioan real rents 1880-2014B" width="526" height="300">
After the 1888 boom, rents fell hard and kept falling for eight long years. In WWI, real rents fell again, while wartime inflation maintained at least nominal rental growth and rentiers’ poise. The 1929-33 depression again saw savage cuts with three years of strongly negative rent contraction. WWII was an era of rent controls to keep wages down and protect the war effort. The spike after the election of the second Menzies government and their removal in a housing shortage shows just how effective the controls were. The 1959, 1972 and 1990 recessions are clearly seen, even though rising inflation kept nominal rents rising.
I expect the legions of spruikers and yes-men employed by the FIRE sector to distract citizens from reality will find fault with my skip through the historical record.
A key theme will be that it is the nominal change in rents that matter as borrowings are in nominal dollars, and that the Australian economy is more broadly based now.
OK. Let’s look in nominal terms at Australia’s last recession in 1989-92. I have to acknowledge Australia’s extraordinary 25 years that followed without a technical recession, a world record, but the downturn really hurt residential rents.
<a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/australian-ABS-nominal-rents-1972-2014.png" target="_blank"><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-9203" src="https://www.prosper.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/australian-ABS-nominal-rents-1972-2014-526x300.png" alt="australian ABS nominal rents 1972-2014" width="526" height="300"></a>
The record shows very weak rental growth from 1990 to 2006, under four per cent annually in nominal terms, while inflation consistently tracked near 3%. In fact, aside the three years 2006-09, nominal rents have been quite stodgy since 1990. The weakening trend since 2010 continues to this day.
That is a very very long time between drinks. And remember, the Australian economy was much more diversified then – we weren’t relying on iron ore and coal for export income – we even exported cars.
For every well-chosen well-located rental property that sailed through this era providing solid rent rises to absent owners, another underperformed. Never mind the continual fresh investment to update property facilities and features in a highly competitive market for quality tenants.
Real, after inflation rents 1972-2014 fluctuated around zero.
<a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/australian-real-rents-1972-2014.png"><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-9205" src="https://www.prosper.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/australian-real-rents-1972-2014-526x300.png" alt="australian real rents 1972-2014" width="526" height="300"></a>
This is not the stuff of fortune-building or a secure retirement, let alone making a decent return on investment. We as a nation have gone massively into debt in pursuit of paltry returns. Nuts.
David Collyer is policy director of <a href="https://www.prosper.org.au/" target="_blank">Prosper Australia</a>.
David ran as a Senate candidate for the Australian Democrats in the 2013 federal election.
This article first appeared on Prosper's website.
</body></html>

dcollyer-7rQRVBSdz6

The rent ratchet mumble of the BBQ landlords: David Collyer

<html><body>
In my 30 years of selling real estate I’ve seen some amazing market trends - but what I am seeing now is arguably the most amazing trend that Australian real estate has ever witnessed before. 
The last such event, which happened on a much smaller scale, was the introduction of the capital gains tax on 20 September 1985. I was a real estate agent on my L plates who was just learning the trade and caught the back end of a mad investor rush to buy investment properties before the new legislation was enacted.
It’s called the Grandfather clause or the Grandfather Policy. It's where an old rule continues to apply in certain existing situations, while a new rule is introduced and will apply to all future cases. Cue negative gearing which is now front and centre of Australia’s great tax debate. What we are seeing today is just how smart and savvy Australian property investors are as they vigorously gold-plate their property investment portfolios. The reality of being guaranteed full deductions on your investment property explains exactly why property investors have run amok with Sydney real estate.
The government recently released its tax discussion paper which just so happens to be spruiking debate on negative gearing and capital gains tax. Property investors in Australia are all over the “Grandfather clause” simply because of the sheer weight in numbers of property investors  - in 2011-12 a staggering 883,325 of 1.266 million taxpayers claimed deductions. Negative gearing by property investors reduced personal income tax revenue in Australia by $600 million in the 2001-02 tax year, $3.9 billion in 2004-05 and $13.2 billion in 2010-11. So one can only shudder to think what this year’s deductions will be like given the investor boom.
But let’s now look at what effect this is having on local real estate markets. They reveal (something that I have been alluding to for ages) exactly how household sentiment has radically changed when it comes to buying the principal place of residence today – thanks mainly to the global financial crisis which has re-calibrated how households approach their modern day property folios.
Trading up is now a thing of the past with households now opting to renovate and then leverage investment properties from their principal place of residence – that’s right, the gold plated guaranteed tax deduction.
Look at how many houses are available today in Neutral Bay - the number is zero. If you look at the number of houses available today in Cremorne the number is also zero. When I go back over our house data for the last five years on a weekly basis Neutral Bay averaged 12 houses on the market each week and Cremorne averaged 15. Mosman houses have averaged 88 houses and today there are just 57 and going lower. What we are seeing is unprecedented given whilst the principal place of residence is tax free, households have decided to stay put and lock in long-term real estate investment property with a locked-in maximum tax deduction. All thanks to the Grandfather clause.
For the record this is the very first time that no houses have ever not been for sale in Cremorne and Neutral Bay. A coincidence? I don’t believe so.
The Sydney Morning Herald ran a piece last week – <a href="https://news.domain.com.au/domain/real-estate-news/property-investors-use-of-negative-gearing-contentious-20150330-1maq16" target="_blank" title="Property investors’ use of negative gearing contentious.">Property investors’ use of negative gearing contentious.</a> 
My commentary: “Given all that’s currently going on with overseas buyers – more particularly, the uncertainty of exactly what’s happening – it would only be reasonable that with all new developments, only Australian citizens can qualify to buy. The Australian government has lost all control for new developments where it is now imperative that the multitude of loopholes are immediately addressed. It’s that serious that our government is only now just starting to understand the debacle we have with overseas buyers who are the driving force behind these booming markets.
"When negative gearing was introduced back in July 1985 by the Hawke/Keating government, the architects would never have calculated the effects it would have in the market when you have a present cash rate of 2.25% and going lower. Only when the Liberal and Labor parties agree that they will support a bipartisan inquiry into negative gearing will we see a (probable) slowing down of the Australian property investor tsunami.
"Having said that, negative gearing is now 30 years old, where only in the last five years has it reached maturity. The fact that after each financial year we have now seen a new Australian record deduction clearly shows how well the system is being manipulated by investors.
"The consensus is not calling for its abolition – rather an intelligent discussion on what is a fair and reasonable outcome that best suits our property industry today. Given we have a record low cash rate that looks to go even lower, we could then see the cash rate at or around this level for well over a decade to come – maybe even longer, if Australian Treasury bonds are any indication.
"Instead of burying the negative gearing debate in that too-hard basket, the time has now arrived for it to be debated warts and all. It would be a fascinating debate.”
The reality of the matter is that Australia is not in one of the worst ever housing bubbles we have ever seen, rather household’s cherry-picking investment properties over trading up simply because we have a record low cash rate and with negative gearing a gold plated tax deduction which won’t be available for much longer if rumor and speculation prove to be correct.
Sydney is also on track to become the first Australian city with a population to hit 5,000,000 with demand consistently outperforming supply.
I’m of the opinion that too many commentators have completely missed the ‘big’ housing picture and are way off the mark with their persistent household debt criticism lecturing.
</body></html>

robertsimeon-hRNTwJyXkQ

The looming demise of negative gearing has triggered a tsunami of investor activity: Robert Simeon

<html><body>
Joe Hockey said that while he appreciates the concerns of economist Saul Eslake, removing negative gearing has national ramifications.
Rob Hudson from the Brotherhood of Saint Laurence asked the Australian Treasurer at yesterday's luanch of the government's discussion paper on tax reform in Melbourne: "Can you commit through this tax review that if in fact negative gearing and other tax concessions are found not to be the best way to assist low-income people in terms of housing affordability, that you will do something about them?"
Hockey's response was: "I've already spoken to Saul many times over many years about his view on negative gearing and the view was when Bob Hawke got rid of negative gearing back in the '80s, a lot of people said well that meant that rents increased, so those people who were least able to afford an increase in costs ended up paying more rent because of course homeowners, home investors needed to recover the full costs of the interest payments on the loans associated with those properties.
"But Saul's point is: well it only happened in Sydney it didn't happen in other places that rents went up.
"Well, if it happens in one part of Australia, it happens effectively in all parts of Australia because the Commonwealth government can't discriminate in one particular market and certainly can't apply tax in one particular jurisdiction within the Commonwealth.
"We have to apply it to the whole country.
"So you know, people have raised negative gearing in comparison with Europe.
"Europe has rent controls, so they’ve got a different system entirely and then others have – other countries have rental subsidies above and beyond the rental subsidy we pay for those people that receive welfare in Australia.
"So there are many different systems. I and Tony Abbott, Tony Abbott and myself, all the government are concerned for first home buyers in particular who are finding it increasingly difficult to get into the home market, into home ownership. We are very concerned about that.
"One of the big areas of response is going to be supply and I'm also going to raise that with the Treasurers in the next couple of weeks but there are many other suggestions on the table and we welcome the input but I'm not giving guarantees now.
"I mean I've released the paper in the last 20 minutes and now you're the first cab off the rank to say please give a guarantee."
Eslake, the Bank of America Merrill Lynch chief economist, has been a long-term critic of negative gearing for existing dwellings, arguing it does not create supply.
Eslake also said yesterday that capital gains tax concessions should be reduced.
“I can’t see a policy rationale as to why income from speculating should be taxed at a lower rate to income from working,” he told News Ltd papers.
</body></html>

Joe Hockey says Saul Eslake's negative gearing critique is Sydney-focused

<html><body>
<div>
The Aussie Home Loans founder John Symond doesn't think investors in the luxury home market should enjoy the benefits of negative gearing.
Entering the tax white paper discussion, John Symond said negative gearing should be capped.
</div>
“The intention of negative gearing when it was introduced was not to facilitate a $10 million- $20 million house to rent out, get a 2% yield and write the rest off on negative gearing,” Symond told The Australian.
“It needs tweaking on capping the benefits.”
But he warned that scrapping the tax break in the broader market would affect housing supply.
“The downside with messing with negative gearing is that it would stifle investor appetite and there would be an even bigger problem in the supply of housing," Symond said.
"The lack of an orderly supply strategy for housing has brought on price increases in cities like Sydney.”
The Treasury white paper suggested that negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions were probably inflating house prices.
It found that taxes on property – stamp duty and land tax – contribute 9% net of the total tax base which is far more than the OECD average of around 5%.
Investment property was described by the paper as the Australia's third most popular savings.
The paper indcated a preference for removing stamp duty.
</body></html>

John Symond says scrap millionaires' negative gearing

<html><body>
<div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
Treasurer Joe Hockey, launching the government's discussion paper on tax reform in Melbourne today, has refused to rule out changes to negative gearing.
He says he disagreed with the long held perspective of the economist Saul Eslake.
However <a href="https://bettertax.gov.au/files/2015/03/TWP_combined-online.pdf" target="_blank">the paper said</a> negative gearing played a contentious role in driving up property prices when combined with the 50% discount on capital gains.
"We haven't done what our predecessors did and start ruling things out," Mr Hockey said.
"We are putting the whole system down and asking what could be done better," he said.
Negative gearing was a hot topic on last Monday night’s Q&amp;A on the ABC.
Hockey, then and this morning, cited that when the Hawke government did away with it, rent prices shot up in some parts of Australia.
Laura Tingle in the Australian Financial Review noted the Abbott government had "thrown open the doors to a broad-ranging debate on tax reform – from changing the rate and base of the goods and services tax to increasing capital gains tax, reducing superannuation concessions, removing dividend imputation, and dealing with bracket creep by indexing income tax thresholds."
Joe Hockey said the discussion paper marked "the start of a conversation about how we bring a tax system built before the 1950s into the new century" as globalisation and the rise of the digital economy had the potential to render Australia's heavy reliance on income taxes unsustainable.
<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4207069.htm" target="_blank">Earlier on the ABC's AM</a> he was asked by Michael Brissenden: "So are these things in the mix in the conversation - the super tax, and negative gearing?" JOE HOCKEY: "Well we haven't done what our predecessors did and start ruling things in and out, because if you're having a fair dinkum conversation with the Australian people, everyone should be fully informed about what the pressures are on the tax system, everyone should be fully informed about the success or otherwise of individual taxes, and everyone should be able to express an opinion.  And if you go to the website bettertax.gov.au, people will be able to see all the information there and be able to express a view."  MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: "So negative gearing is in the mix, then?" JOE HOCKEY: "Well again, it's so tempting to get into this rule-in, rule-out situation."
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: "Okay."  JOE HOCKEY: "We're putting the whole tax system down, all the concessions down, and asking Australians for their opinion about what could be done better."
Peter Martin in The Age noted that rather than critiquing the practice known as negative gearing, which allows Australians to write off against their income tax losses made from rental properties, the Treasury calls into question the tax arrangements that makes it profitable. 
"Since late 1999, capital gains tax has applied to only half of the profit made when each rental property is sold. 
"The paper says it is this arrangement rather than negative gearing itself that is driving investment in rental properties," the economics commentator at The Age noted.
The white paper advised the tax treatment of investment properties is the same as it is for investment in any asset that produces a mix of current income and capital gain.
"That is, the rental income is taxed at the individual’s marginal tax rate as it is earned, while generally only half of the capital gain is taxed, and only when the property is sold (or realised in some other way).
"Investment properties are the third most popular saving vehicle after the family home and superannuation.
"Many of the reasons people invest in housing over other assets have little to do with the tax treatment.
"However, the role of the tax treatment in driving investment in real estate and the impact that this has on housing supply and affordability is a contentious issue.
"One issue that is contested is the role that ‘negative gearing’ plays in driving investment in rental properties." (See the charts below). 
<a href="https://propertyobserver.com.au/images/2015/03/30/Picture%2034.png" target="_blank"><img src="/images/2015/03/30/Picture%2034.png" alt=""></a>
 
<a href="https://propertyobserver.com.au/images/2015/03/30/Picture%2035.png" target="_blank"><img src="/images/2015/03/30/Picture%2035.png" alt=""></a>
Click the images above to open in a new window.
On the family homes, the paper noted the family dwelling is both a consumer durable — a house provides benefits over time like a washing machine or a television — and also a savings vehicle.
Australian households hold 43% of total household assets in the value of the family home.
Of the 7.8 million households living in private dwellings in Australia in 2011, 5.2 million or 67% owned their own home (with or without a mortgage) and a further 2.3 million were renting either privately (25%) or in social housing (5%).
"Like most other OECD countries, Australia taxes owner-occupied housing more favourably than other types of investment (including dwellings purchased purely for investment).
"Both the ‘imputed rent’ — in other words, the value of housing services a home owner receives from their own home — and capital gains on the property are exempt from income tax; Chart 4.1 accordingly shows the effective tax rate of zero."
</div>
<div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
<div class="page" title="Page 70">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<div class="page" title="Page 74">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<a href="https://propertyobserver.com.au/images/2015/03/30/Picture%2036.png"><img src="/images/2015/03/30/Picture%2036.png" alt=""></a>
Click on the chart above to open in a new window.
"This makes it an attractive vehicle for saving. The primary home is also exempted from the means-test for transfer payments.
"While the family home is exempt from paying land tax, it is subject to stamp duties and municipal rates levied by local and state governments.
"Given the central importance of the home for Australian families, there is a strong consensus that it would not be appropriate to tax either the imputed rent on owner-occupied housing or capital gains derived from it." 
</div>
</div>
</div>
 
</div>
</div>
</div>
 
</div>
</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