US jobs expand, wages rise; Taiwan's new 45% CGT; Greek game unraveling; Ireland credit upgraded; UST 10yr yields jump again; NZ$1 = 70.4 US¢, TWI-5 = 75

its amazing what it costs in lost revenue. I like they have also recognised that they will have to make up the shortfall in rental stock.
its makes sense to me to use the revenue to build more houses wouldn't care if they were sold, it would keep house prices in check and support the local building industry

Everyone, everyone who owns property has an investment. It just depends on how the word is interpreted. But as everyone has an investment, then Negative Gearing should apply to ALL property owners or NONE AT ALL. It is the unequal treatment of taxation laws between two different classes of participants ( owner-occupiers and landlords) in the one asset segment that creates the distortion. And seeing as our Government ( and the Australian one) needs revenue to plug all sorts of revenue holes, then NO ONE should be allowed Negative Gearing. If there are losses to be applied on speculative investments, then quarantine them by all means, and allow them to be applied against any tax payable on realised income at point of sale. But in the meantime? If you make a loss, the rest of the country's taxpayers shouldn't subsidise your decision to make that loss.

Stephen L

Clever politics

The message we are getting here is that they are not proposing to abolish negative-gearing altogether

What is proposed is to close the negative-gearing-door as at a given date, so that anyone who is negatively-geared prior to that date retains that benefit

Very clever politically - The current crop with their snouts in the trough can't and won't complain

So who could complain?

There are many ways to curb negative gearing - to prove they are an intentional landlord

(a) Quarantine the losses against future rental revenue - carry losses forward

or

(b) allow the tax benefit at the lesser of a fixed rate of (say) 10% or the actual individuals rate
That treats every negatively geared taxpayer equally

Not another captured central bank? When will the formal investigation begin, if ever? When was it ever appropriate for a central bank to contrive to affect fiscal initiatives under the guise of monetary policy actions, and under instruction from whom?

A major reason for the official inaction is that this is a bubble that has been deliberately contrived.

In 2012, when the Reserve Bank began its easing bias, it was determined to create a housing boom - so residential construction could fill the gap created by the decline in resource project construction.

But as investors, rather than owner occupiers, plunged in almost from day one, APRA and the RBA should have taken action. Instead, they were happy to watch the bubble inflate and now, rather than admit a mistake, reluctantly are playing catch-up.

A large portion of the investor action emanated from self-funded retirees, taking advantage of changes to superannuation rules that allowed them to gear up their super funds.

While as a nation we boast about the extent of our national savings pool, little attention has been devoted to the fact that a significant amount of that pool is now exposed.