What Is Negative Gearing & Is It Really Bad? Property Expert Answer

One topic guaranteed to cause a strong reaction in the media is negative gearing.

And it’s been hitting the headlines again as it seems to every year around this time in the lead up to the budget.

The problem is that many people with only a hazy idea of what it actually is, blame negative gearing for virtually everything from locking first home buyers out of the market, to causing high property price rises, too ugly greedy investors roasting the tax system and driving the National Budget into deficit.

Indeed, the reaction to negative gearing has been so, well, negative, that there are once again calls for it to be scrapped.

But is negative gearing really that bad?

Firstly a quick primer:

A property is negatively geared when the costs of owning it — interest on the loan, bank charges, maintenance, repairs and depreciation — exceed the income it produces.

Since the costs of producing an income are generally deductible against the taxpayer’s other income, property investors can effectively offset some of the interest expense against their wages.

This has made some argue that other, less fortunate taxpayers help these property investors meet their costs.

Now negative gearing is nothing new, it was first introduced with the Income Tax Assessment Act in 1936.

But let’s make things clear — negative gearing is not (or maybe I should put it differently — should not be used as) a property investment strategy. It’s just a result of how a property has been financed.

So it’s never been a reason to invest in real estate, even though some misguided (or self-interested) advisors have recommended it as such.

Why would anyone go into AC?

Alternatively, a negatively geared property may become neutrally or positively geared as the rental increases, but in the main, negative gearing really only makes sense from an investor’s viewpoint if the property increases in value.

And in Australia, this capital gain is not taxed unless you sell your property, and then it is concessionally taxed; again evoking the argument that it favours wealthy landlords.

Of course, negative gearing is more favourable for taxpayers who earn high incomes.

Imagine an investor had excess interest expenses of $10,000.

If they were on a marginal tax rate of 15 cents in the dollar they could use their loss and reduce their tax by $1,500.

So the benefits of negative gearing are greater the more you earn and the higher your tax rate.

What gets some people hopping up and down is that Australia’s negative gearing regulations are different to most parts of the world in that they allow investors, in both property & shares, to write-off the cost of borrowing used to acquire the asset in addition to other holding costs against all sources of income (including the investors' personal wages ) and not just the income generated by the asset.

And in contrast to most other countries, in Australia, there are no limitations on taxpayers’ income (in other words negative gearing works for billionaires as well as average income earners), on the size of losses, or the period over which losses can be deducted, which makes some suggest they’re a great tax shelter.

But negative gearing is not just for the rich

However, the assertion that all negatively geared property investors are ‘ugly wealthy Australians’ is simply unfounded and incorrect.

According to ATO info released last year, there are close to two million property investors in Australia, of whom two thirds (1.3 million) negatively gear.

Interestingly, these investors do not predominately come from the wealthy end of town.

Indeed, 70 per cent of negatively geared investors earned less than $80,000.

Less than 6 per cent were in the top tax bracket.

Fact is using the benefit of negative gearing investment has allowed many ordinary working-class Australians to invest in property and to take control of their financial destiny.

Property investors provide an essential service

I would argue that property investors provide an essential service to millions of Australians who chose to, or have to, rent their accommodation and as such these investors should be treated like all other business people.

In our modern society, we pay taxes and expect the government to provide us with certain essential services.

In Australia, the government often shares the burden of providing these services with private enterprises that can often deliver them more efficient and cheaper.

When the government can’t supply enough public hospital beds, private-run hospitals step up to the mark and not only receive tax deductions for their business loans, but also allowances to subsidize them.

So do aged care providers, schools and public transport providers who provide services in tandem with the government.

Our government also provides public housing, but not enough for all those who can’t afford to buy their own property.

While government social and public housing programs are helpful, it is only the private rental market that can deliver rental accommodation at the rate and scale that is required at present.

Property investors save a deposit, buy a property, commit to a loan for 25 or 30 years and provide accommodation for others in our community.

In return, we expect to get a reasonable return on our investment risk, just like other business people do.

We know that the rent won’t cover our expenses, but accept that certain tax benefits plus the long term capital growth will make up for this.

Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t.

What if the government removes negative gearing?

I know as many people who have lost money in property investment as those who have made money.

Much like most other small business people.

If the government takes away my tax concessions, I would have to consider my investment options.

To ensure I get a decent return I’d put up my rents if I could, or maybe I’d invest elsewhere to get the best bang for my bucks.

The result would be that rents would rise and tenants would have to fight over the few rental properties left, or the government would have to invest its own money and buy or build properties and enjoy the pleasures of being a landlord.

Of course, the government already provides some public housing, but not enough, leaving the task of providing rental accommodation in our capital cities and regional Australia and the remote mining towns to private investors.

People like you and me have chosen to run our own little property investment businesses.

If I set up a dog wash business or a restaurant, I’d be able to claim a tax deduction for legitimate business expenses including loans to set up our business or purchasing business equipment.

Why should it be different for property investors who take on business risk?

Doesn’t negative gearing push up property values?

Just look what happened to property prices overseas in countries like the USA and parts of Europe where negative gearing isn’t allowed.

They experienced a boom and a subsequent bust of much greater magnitude than we have gone through.

What these lobbyists may not recognise is that borrowing in order to undertake productive investment actually helps economic growth because the value is being added.

After all, there will always be some investments that have lower returns than the interest expenses on the loans taken on to acquire them.

This economic reality has nothing whatsoever to do with tax.

For example, typical property investment may start with a large loan and lowish rent.

As time goes by the loan is paid down and the rent increases.

Overall the investor makes a profit and the tax office gets its share of this.

Actually, there is not as much loss of revenue to the authorities as some critics believe because for every dollar of interest claimed as a tax deduction by a borrower there is a corresponding dollar of interest assessable to a lender.

If the governments stop the availability of negative gearing benefits the danger arises that there may be unintended consequences.

It is possible that even following a positive cash flow strategy you end up negatively geared and suffer.

What if:

• Interest rates rise after you buy your investment
• Rents fall or your property becomes vacant for a period of time? Or
• You have to undertake a major repair of your investment property.

To deny the person making commercial a loss like this a tax deduction would be to inflict a double whammy on them and increase their hardship unduly.

In conclusion

Any reduction in negative gearing benefits would significantly reduce rental investment in new and existing properties and worsen rental affordability through a reduced supply of investment housing.

A reduced rental supply means lower rental vacancies and increased rents.

Property investment is a real and effective method for bolstering the savings of middle Australia at the same time providing accommodation for those who the government can’t or won’t help and should remain as is.

Here’s what you can do about this…

Don’t make your long term investment decisions based on short term concerns or rumours about potential policy changes.

If you want to take advantage of our growing property markets' opportunities, now is a good time to consider your options.

If you’re looking for independent advice, no one can help you quite like the independent property investment strategists at Metropole.

Remember the multi-award-winning team of property investment strategists at Metropole have no properties to sell, so their advice is unbiased.

Whether you are a beginner or a seasoned property investor, we would love to help you formulate an investment strategy or do a review of your existing portfolio, and help you take your property investment to the next level. Please click here to organise a time for a chat.