Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

REIA persists with negative gearing lies

By Leith van Onselen - posted Wednesday, 23 October 2013


Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes true. This appears to be the approach taken by the Real Estate Institute of Australia (REIA), which has issued yet another media release warning the Government not to “meddle” with negative gearing, claiming that it would lead to rental shortgages and push-up rents:

The Real Estate of Australia (REIA) says it agrees with the new Grattan Institute Renovating Housing Policy report that a major overhaul of housing policy in Australia is needed, but differs in what needs to be done.

REIA President Peter Bushby says, “We strongly agree with the report’s recommendations to eliminate stamp duties, however it’s essential negative gearing be retained in its current form for the purpose of property investment.”

“REIA has always supported negative gearing because it helps in the provision of rental accommodation. Negative gearing for property investment is complementary to the goals of the Government’s Housing Affordability Fund (HAF) in addressing the supply of rental accommodation.”

“To remove it would show that we haven’t learnt anything from history. When negative gearing was abolished in 1985 it had disastrous consequences for the property market and for people trying to rent. Rents rose 37% across Australia and by 57% in Sydney. Thankfully, negative gearing was reinstated in 1987”…

“The myth that negative gearing is a plaything of the wealthy also needs to dispelled. The majority of taxpayers with a negatively geared property earn less than $80,000 a year.”

Once again, let’s use something called “evidence” to debunk each of the REIA’s claims regarding negative gearing, starting with this one:

Advertisement

REIA has always supported negative gearing because it helps in the provision of rental accommodation. Negative gearing for property investment is complementary to the goals of the Government’s Housing Affordability Fund (HAF) in addressing the supply of rental accommodation.

This claim is clearly false.  Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) data clearly shows that the overwhelming majority of investors - over 90% - buy pre-existing dwellings, not new dwellings, and that the proportion of investors buying new dwellings has fallen spectacularly since negative gearing was re-introduced in September 1987 (see next chart).

ScreenHunter_30 Oct. 22 07.33

Moreover, the amount of investor funds going into new housing has barely shifted in 25 years:

ScreenHunter_31 Oct. 22 07.34

Because investors primarily purchase pre-existing dwellings, negative gearing in its current form simply substitutes homes for sale into homes for let. As such, negative gearing has done little to boost the overall supply of housing or improve rental supply or rental affordability.

Advertisement

In the event that negative gearing was once again quarantined and a proportion of investment properties were sold, who does the REIA think they would sell to? That’s right, renters. In turn, those renters would be turned into owner-occupiers, thereby reducing the demand for rental properties, leaving the rental supply-demand balance unchanged.

Now, let’s examine the REIA’s next claim:

To remove it would show that we haven’t learnt anything from history. When negative gearing was abolished in 1985 it had disastrous consequences for the property market and for people trying to rent. Rents rose 37% across Australia and by 57% in Sydney. Thankfully, negative gearing was reinstated in 1987…

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

This article was first published on MacroBusiness.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

13 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

An Australian currently working for a leading investment bank. I have previously worked as an Economist at the Australian Treasury and a Senior Economist at the Victorian Treasury.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Leith van Onselen

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Leith van Onselen
Article Tools
Comment 13 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy