Welcome to Just Commodores, a site specifically designed for all people who share the same passion as yourself.

New Posts Contact us

Just Commodores Forum Community

It takes just a moment to join our fantastic community

Register

Is 100,000kms too high for buying second hand?

Skylarking

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
9,993
Reaction score
10,319
Points
113
Age
123
Location
Downunder
Members Ride
Commodore Motorsport Edition
… I don't really know what all the whining is about regarding "negative gearing", that's just being able to not pay tax given you have actual real-world costs. Why would you have to pay tax on money you didn't earn?
If you make a loss selling shares, you carry over those losses and apply them against any earnings from shares. With negative gearing, you get a loan to buy a home and rent it out knowing it won’t turn a profit from rental… Those known loss are applied against your wage earnings (personal effort earnings) and not contained within the earnings class the loss was made. That is the losses aren’t used to offset future rental readings. It’s the only investment type that I know which is treated in such a way.

As such the real problem with negative gearing is the aim isn’t to make money from rental. The real intent is to leverage ones position and minimise personal earnings tax while making a profit from capital gains (which is also discounted by 50% as well).

It’s a foobared system that rewards the wealthier in society at the cost of the poorer via ever increasing house and rental prices. It isn’t a good method to invest in societies future where generational mortgages will become the norm. It’s 100% fcuked up and distorts the market which is supposed to be a sacred and undisturbed thing within our capitalist system. And it’s a rule for the ditch at the expense of the poor…

So it’s not whining for the sake of whining… I strongly feel that this form of tax relief isn’t in the interest of society at large. It’s a scam on the majority of society’s lower class and up their with the scam that is family trusts :mad:
 

Skylarking

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
9,993
Reaction score
10,319
Points
113
Age
123
Location
Downunder
Members Ride
Commodore Motorsport Edition
Yes the tax was taken into account in the calcs; residual is a little irrelevant when you have the choice to buy it out at the end of the lease, if it's worth more than the residual then you pay the residual & sell it for more than you paid, if it's worth less than the residual you just hand it back. Win/win.
In this arrangement there are three people, the lessor, the lessee and the taxman… You said that the lessee is $150 a month better off but that’s can only be because the taxman looses…

And residual isn’t irrelevant as the lessee has the potential for an untaxed profit which likely wouldn’t have been the case had he bought the vehicle using after tax income… That’s another potential loss to the taxman…

The consideration seems to be only looking at the benefit to the lessee and not the loss to the taxman and the public at large… Novated lease is just another rort of sorts…
 

Forg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
6,197
Reaction score
4,184
Points
113
Location
Sydney
Members Ride
Regal Peackock VF SS-V Redline Wagoon
The largest relative loss was incurred by Ford Australia, agreeing to a huge discount in return for high sales volumes & no need to put costs into a sales channel.
This was 15 years ago, and he did drive the car a LOT, so indeed he paid less tax than he would’ve if it hadn’t been a novated lease; these days, though, that’s changed and it’s pretty close to tax-neutral, what you don’t pay in income tax you pay in FBT, regardless of how far you drive. For cars in a non-business use, at least.
 
Top