Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

The two worlds of Australian housing

 

It’s said barristers should never ask questions they don’t know the answer to, and the same advice may apply to politicians. When Greens leader Adam Bandt asked the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) to advise him on the revenue foregone by Treasury due to negative gearing deductions and the capital gains tax (CGT) discount on residential investment properties, he likely knew the answer would be, to paraphrase, a helluva lot.

Now he has the details, as do we, and the figures are enormous. The response by the PBO, whose brief includes undertaking research for MPs on economic matters, said total tax foregone in the 2023-24 year was $10.92 billion. Let’s forget the zeroes for now, as there are many more with the next figure.

The PBO noted that negative gearing is the total rental expenses of properties being greater than the total rent received, and that all negative gearing deductions related only to residential properties. It said the negative gearing deduction estimates were determined from publicly available Taxation statistics. So, there should be no disputing their accuracy.

To be clear, this is money the federal government will not have to spend on essential services such as health, education, housing or social security. This is not just a shortfall, it is a tragedy, as so many people’s lives are impacted by this lost revenue.

St Vincent de Paul Society believes these tax benefits should be reviewed. Meanwhile, we urge the threshold for CGT concessions to be lowered from the generous 50 per cent to 37.5 per cent in order to free up money for improving social services, especially social and affordable housing.

The second part of Bandt’s question generated an even more concerning response. This related to how much revenue would be foregone over the decade to 2034-35.

This PBO revelation may not have surprised him either, except perhaps for its magnitude. At the end of the column on projected foregone revenue for Treasury, which is to say money lost to the citizens of Australia, sat the eye-glazing figure of $165 billion – that's $165,000,000,000. 

 

'Critics suggest that MPs, especially high office holders, are resistant to changing these regulations because many of them have investment properties and would stand to lose financially. A conflict of interest is suggested, but they are not alone: the latest data from the Australian Taxation Office shows that 2.25 million Australians, or around 20 per cent of 11.4 million taxpayers, own an investment property.'

 

The zeros go around a proverbial block that most aspiring homebuyers can’t afford to buy a home on. Investors - individuals, trusts, partnerships - are snapping up properties to enjoy the tax breaks offered by negative gearing (while they own the property) and the CGT (when they sell it).

These benefits, it should be noted, are a saving on the taxation applied to incomes that are unrelated in every sense except deductibility.

Critics suggest that MPs, especially high office holders, are resistant to changing these regulations because many of them have investment properties and would stand to lose financially. A conflict of interest is suggested, but they are not alone: the latest data from the Australian Taxation Office shows that 2.25 million Australians, or around 20 per cent of 11.4 million taxpayers, own an investment property. In the words of John Howard’s oft quoted remark, ‘No one ever complained to me about the value of their home going up.’

Except, of course, for those who don’t own a home and face the knock-on effects of unaffordable housing and rentals. A large slice of this group was profiled in a study whose release coincided with the PBO’s response to Adam Bandt. Despite its title, the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare report Housing assistance in Australia 2024 makes no mention of assisting people to reduce their tax by investing in housing.

Rather, its focus was on the 824,000 occupants of Australia’s main social housing programs. Also discussed were the 1.3 million ‘income units’ receiving Commonwealth Rent Assistance, almost 1 in 2 of whom were experiencing rental stress (spending more than 30 per cent of their income on housing) despite getting the CRA, which is available to those qualifying for an eligible social security payment.

Deeply disturbing was the statistic showing that in public housing, almost one-in-ten of all Indigenous households was found to be living in overcrowded dwellings. Also, that most tenants in social and community housing have complex needs, are on low incomes, ageing, and more than one third of households include a person living with disability.

Housing is a basic human right and the St Vincent de Paul Society is dedicated to ensuring all Australians have a secure place to live. As the federal election approaches, SVDP will continue to urge the major parties to address housing policies that exacerbate inequity and which, if resolved, would help create a fairer Australia. In the words of our namesake, Saint Vincent de Paul, there can be no charity without justice. The Society works closely with bodies such as National Shelter, a non-government peak that aims to improve housing access, affordability and security for people on low incomes.

Achieving these goals is fundamental to Australia’s future and for cherished social harmony. We appeal to right-minded parliamentarians for leadership on this issue. 

 

 

 


Mark Gaetani is National President of the St Vincent de Paul Society.

Main image: (Getty images)

Topic tags: Mark Gaetani, Housing, Homelessness, Welfare, Poverty, Taxation, SVDP, Australia

 

 

submit a comment

Existing comments

An excellent expose of the facts: "Negative gearing deductions and the capital gains tax (CGT) discount on residential investment properties . . . total tax foregone in the 2023-24 year was $10.92 billion".

That is disgraceful and a shameful indication of the failure of political parties to address 'difficult' political issues, not to mention the conflict of interest of so many politicians.


Peter Johnstone | 08 August 2024  
Show Responses

Mostly, I can agree with you Peter. However, we must part ways when you level criticism at "the failure of political parties to address 'difficult' political issues". Revisit the platform Bill Shorten advanced as Opposition Leader see https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/13/labor-promises-to-cut-negative-gearing-and-capital-gains-tax-concessions

Self-interest trumped that offering. The electors get what they choose. It is up to us not just politicians to point to the common good.


Kimball Byron Chen | 11 August 2024  

Thank you Mark.

I hope that if the essence of this piece is publicised enough, and angers Australians enough, that people will make housing a primary election issue: "If you don't have 5 policies to address the housing crisis from multiple angles, we're voting Green"


A M George | 08 August 2024  

Bravo Mark! Numerous politicians - including our Prime Minister - own, and I presume, negatively gear rental properties. Anthony Albanese is always rabbiting on about his humble origins. Once elected to office no state or federal politician can qualify as underprivileged. Negative gearing should be abolished. This may need to be done incrementally. I also like the system in the British Channel Islands (Jersey, Guernsey and dependencies) where there are two sorts of homes available for purchase. One is only available to proven locals. The other - vastly expensive - is the 'open' market. Few investors can afford these. Sadly we are getting more and more materialistic. Rather than follow St Vincent de Paul, we emulate Gordon Gecko. I weep.


Edward Fido | 09 August 2024  

As Mr Gaetani indicates, negative gearing only exists where housing is being provided by an individual for a rental rate that is less than their costs. The primary beneficiaries from this situation are those that rent these homes: As it is an after tax cost, the renter benefits by 100 cents of each one dollar of 'subsidy'.
The removal of negative gearing could be expected to result in an increase in rents, and/or a decrease in rental property supply. The biggest loser would be the renter!
Yes, the Government could step in and attempt to supply the shortfall in rental housing....but the data from these projects indicates this would almost certainly be at a higher cost (both direct, and indirect) to society. So what is achieved...unless the goal is to redirect higher taxes via the Government to be disbursed to the welfare 'industry'?


Andrew Walther | 11 August 2024  

Similar Articles

In search of lost liberalism

  • Russell Blackford
  • 09 August 2024

Once the backbone of Western democracy, the philosophy championing free speech, tolerance, and civil political discourse is often reviled by those on both the Left and Right. In our desire for justice and meaning, is there a need to rediscover the principles that have long fostered human flourishing? 

READ MORE

The Gospel according to ScoMo

  • Michael McGirr
  • 09 August 2024

As far as religion goes, Plans for Your Good is right out there, with a bible quote for every decision in the life of a prime minister. But Morrison never notices any arguments against the existence of God or explains why he believes. Everything in life confirms what he believes already. 

READ MORE