Millionaires who pay no tax

[davidc4430]

Millionaires who pay no tax and Australia's richest and poorest postcodes revealed

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-18/tax-stats-2017-18-ato-millionaires-no-tax/12467016?nw=0

makes me think of those uplifting words from scomo

we are all in this together

[bright.ton42]

Interesting links.   No surprise to me which postcodes are the wealthiest or poorest   (in NSW and Vic, not familiar with other states)

I don't begrudge wealthy people their millions and some have earned it through sheer hard work.  I'd sure like to have some of their money but am not jealous.  The tax system is inequitable but it always has been and will be.  Some of the wealthy do 'good works'  and quietly and some of the poorer do bad works and loudly.   It's not an issue that bothers me, it is what it is.  

[go-tazz]

Seventy-three millionaires paid no tax in 2017-18 and instead most likely claimed all their tax back by having

properties that were negatively geared and/or other tax breaks and the cost of negative gearing rose to $13

billion in lost revenue last year.

Negative gearing has made renting a property impossible for a lot of people because landlords increased rents

so they could gain more back in tax without having to rent their propertues and just get a loss back in tax.

It was brought in so there would be more rental properties available but pricing those properties has produced

the opposite affect where the cost of rentals are unaffordable.

There were 3.2 rental properties last year and 1.8 million properties last year ran a rental loss that was claimed

back via tax returns.

A high number of those properties didn't have tenants as they simply can't afford to rent those properties and

it's only getting worse and not better.

To the Liberal Government it's working as there are 3.2 million rental properties bu in reality only 1.3 million

are being run as positive geared as their rents are affordable.

In reality it also means that other tax payers are paying for those "investors" as they have to pay enough tax

so that the $13 billion can be cancelled out.

[4channel]

---

@davidc4430 wrote:

Millionaires who pay no tax and Australia's richest and poorest postcodes revealed

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-18/tax-stats-2017-18-ato-millionaires-no-tax/12467016?nw=0

makes me think of those uplifting words from scomo

we are all in this together

---

I believe a certain PM once said that tax breaks for folks earning over such and such a amount were warranted as their earnings were proof of hard work. Something to that effect anyway. He also gave the impression that he was a believer in the class system. Some folks think this is a good idea to have a wealthier minority influencing our politicians.

Spoiler

The word Polly is usually associated with a parrot. Politicians are sometimes called pollies. There's another reason for this than just a slang term.

[chameleon54]

Its certainly true that negative gearing has had some impact on raising property prices to the extent that many can no longer afford to purchase. But what has had an even greater impact on prices and affordability is our out of control immigration intake. The governments ( all colours ) are using immigration to support the giant pontzi scheme of continuous growth through land development for housing and ever increasing consumer demand.

If we are going to look at negative gearing we also need to drastically reduce our migrant intake if we are going to make housing more affordable for those renters who will be displaced by falling rental house investment.

The other structural problem is that over the years the balance of power in the rental agreement has swung vastly towards tenants. Once you sign a fixed term tenancy agreement, a troublesome tenant can basically do what they like with the property and the landlord has got Bucklies chance of holding them accountable. They can smash the place up, fall behind in the rent, run a Meth lab in the joint or cause problems for the neighbours etc. and the only way to realistically have them removed is to go to court and get a court order to forcibly remove them. Even then they can appeal and drag the whole process out forever.

There needs to some financial incentive for investors to provide rental housing because the stressors involved are often considerable.

[rogespeed]

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

Its certainly true that negative gearing has had some impact on raising property prices to the extent that many can no longer afford to purchase. But what has had an even greater impact on prices and affordability is our out of control immigration intake. The governments ( all colours ) are using immigration to support the giant pontzi scheme of continuous growth through land development for housing and ever increasing consumer demand.

If we are going to look at negative gearing we also need to drastically reduce our migrant intake if we are going to make housing more affordable for those renters who will be displaced by falling rental house investment.

The other structural problem is that over the years the balance of power in the rental agreement has swung vastly towards tenants. Once you sign a fixed term tenancy agreement, a troublesome tenant can basically do what they like with the property and the landlord has got Bucklies chance of holding them accountable. They can smash the place up, fall behind in the rent, run a Meth lab in the joint or cause problems for the neighbours etc. and the only way to realistically have them removed is to go to court and get a court order to forcibly remove them. Even then they can appeal and drag the whole process out forever.

There needs to some financial incentive for investors to provide rental housing because the stressors involved are often considerable.

---

re : balance of power : legally that is true but Landlords are business people and members of the Business & Community Infrastructure and as such have their ways of correcting problem tenants ....

[chameleon54]

---

@rogespeed wrote:

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

Its certainly true that negative gearing has had some impact on raising property prices to the extent that many can no longer afford to purchase. But what has had an even greater impact on prices and affordability is our out of control immigration intake. The governments ( all colours ) are using immigration to support the giant pontzi scheme of continuous growth through land development for housing and ever increasing consumer demand.

If we are going to look at negative gearing we also need to drastically reduce our migrant intake if we are going to make housing more affordable for those renters who will be displaced by falling rental house investment.

The other structural problem is that over the years the balance of power in the rental agreement has swung vastly towards tenants. Once you sign a fixed term tenancy agreement, a troublesome tenant can basically do what they like with the property and the landlord has got Bucklies chance of holding them accountable. They can smash the place up, fall behind in the rent, run a Meth lab in the joint or cause problems for the neighbours etc. and the only way to realistically have them removed is to go to court and get a court order to forcibly remove them. Even then they can appeal and drag the whole process out forever.

There needs to some financial incentive for investors to provide rental housing because the stressors involved are often considerable.

---

re : balance of power : legally that is true but Landlords are business people and members of the Business & Community Infrastructure and as such have their ways of correcting problem tenants ....

You are better informed than me then, because I don't know of any way to get rid of a problem tenant until the lease period expires. Many of the troublesome tenants know the laws inside out and know how to game the system. They are also supported by the social service organisations that will go to great lengths to assist the tenant to retain the lease even when they are in clear breech of the lease conditions. 

It takes a considerable period of time to have a lease termination heard by the courts and even once this is done, the judiciary, like the social service organisations tend to support the tenant rather than the landlord. Even if a termination of lease is granted by the court, the tenant can then appeal, ( often funded through legal aid ) again tying the process up in legal knots for months. And all of the time the legal costs to the landlord grow to the point that most landlords put up with disruptive tenants, rather than try to evict them.

I doubt that many of the people who complain about " greedy landlords " have ever experienced being on the receiving end of a tenant smashing up the rental house that they have scrimped and saved to buy. ( the vast majority of Landlords only own one rental property )

---

[the_great_she_elephant]

Chameleon wrote: I doubt that many of the people who complain about " greedy landlords " have ever experienced being on the receiving end of a tenant smashing up the rental house that they have scrimped and saved to buy. ( the vast majority of Landlords only own one rental property )

And by the same token, the vast majority of those landlords (greedy or otherwise) have never had their property trashed by a troublesome tenant.

[eol-products]

I think you may be surprised by the number of issues landlords have with rentals. Most times it is rent payment issues and not so much damage but it is common from my personal experience.

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@eol-products wrote:

I think you may be surprised by the number of issues landlords have with rentals. Most times it is rent payment issues and not so much damage but it is common from my personal experience.

---

No, it wouldn't surprise me; but the post to which I was replying referred specifically to 'a tenant smashing up the rental house' and that was the issue I was addressing.