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

Removing negative gearing would have little effect on rents

By Philip Soos - posted Wednesday, 2 January 2013


Further, it is unclear why the government should promote investment into the residential property market. Although assertions can be bandied around that benefits outweigh costs, two hurdles should be met: that intervention is necessary and that the proposed intervention is the most efficient and effective relative to alternatives. Given that surging rents in recent years have caused increasing financial stress among many renters, policymakers may believe that intervention is necessary as a social and economic objective to assist those in need. It is farfetched, however, to assume negative gearing is the best policy available, especially with the obvious alternatives of the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) and the Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) program.

Much of what is written by supporters of negative gearing is in terms of assisting renters for the social good rather than admitting that it is simply an unjustified handout to property speculators. Anyone who understands the basic principles of the marketplace sees that investment is made solely for the investors' self-interest in profiteering. This, of course, does not prevent investors from trumpeting the wonder and selflessness of their actions, whether they believe it or not (witness Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein claiming to carry out god's work). The conservative individualism and self-interest that guides participants in the marketplace are strangely absent when negative gearing is discussed.

Given that private investment is done solely on the basis of profit, a curious contradiction arises: if eliminating negative gearing did cause rents to rise, as is commonly claimed, investors would certainly not oppose this outcome. This contradiction can be explained by realising that the housing lobby and investors recognise (never publicly) that negative gearing has little, if any, effect upon market rents. Removal of it would simply hurt their bottom line, but not that of renters. If rents did rise, the well-targeted CRA can be easily boosted to compensate accordingly.

Advertisement

Those who do support negative gearing, unsurprisingly, have conflicts of interest. It would help the case for negative gearing if arguments were made by those who could legitimately claim to be objective, that is, not have a stake in the policy they support. Whether it be the housing lobby or so-called "mum and dad" investors, it is difficult to accept that conflicted individuals and organizations can legitimately claim they know what is best for others when their self-interest dictates their public stance (imagine tobacco executives claiming to know what is in the best interests of public health). It is difficult to find an objective and conflict-free commentator willing to consider the necessary theoretical and empirical evidence to show that negative gearing is an efficient and effective policy.

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


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

37 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

Philip Soos is co-founder of LF Economics, co-author of Bubble Economics and a PhD candidate.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Philip Soos

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

Article Tools
Comment 37 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy