Skylarking
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2018
- Messages
- 10,125
- Reaction score
- 10,583
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 123
- Location
- Downunder
- Members Ride
- Commodore Motorsport Edition
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.… 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?
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