Trump's new world disorder catches Turnbull government napping.

"Watching Donald Trump take the oath of office is like seeing Bobo…

There is a big problem in the construction…

In November last year, Malcolm Turnbull issued a press release titled ABCC…

The Fiction Of Unemployment

"This is actually why Smith’s (Adam) work is so important. He created…

Federal ICAC: The Keys to the Electoral Mint?

By Tim Jones Would the promise of a Federal ICAC give one of…

Day to Day Politics: How time flies when…

Monday 23 January 2017 1 How time flies. Thursday 26th is Australia Day.…

March in March 2017: Are You Angry Enough…

Are you angry enough yet? That is the question March Australia would…

Pauline’s picks are on the nose

As someone who has railed against the rise of the political class…

Trump's First Day!

Ok, I'm going to try and be fair and remember that not…

«
»
Facebook

Scott Morrison Likes Mums And Dads, But Let’s Not Forget Those Other Poor Investors…

When looking at politics, I like to remind people that it’s always wise to remember the power of “framing”. For example, in the past week, when Malcolm Turnbull managed a deal with The Greens to pass the backpacker tax, it was hailed as a victory. This is in spite of the fact that once one takes into consider the changes to the backpackers’ super and the increase in landcare, it cost the Budget bottom line more than if they’d agreed to Labor’s compromise of thirteen percent. However, when a Labor government has negotiated with The Greens, they’ve usually been portrayed as being dictated to by those radicals or “held to ransom”. (Carbon tax, anyone?)

Similarly, we’ve been treated to the Liberals wringing their hands and complaining that our students were beaten by Kazakhstan in recent Maths tests. Whether this is a justification to stop wasting money on kids in the government system and abandon Gonsk, or whether it means that we need to vastly increase the education budget but target it better, is a whole other debate. For now, I’d just like to point out that, if you look at the table, the United States were also beaten by Kazakhstan, as were Finland and Germany, so it’s hardly as though this is the equivalent of being defeated at Rugby by Lithuania.

To quote “Lonely Planet” on Kazakhstan:

The world’s ninth-biggest country is the most economically advanced of the ‘stans’, thanks to its abundant reserves of oil and most other valuable minerals. This means generally better standards of accommodation, restaurants and transport than elsewhere in Central Asia. The biggest city, Almaty, is almost reminiscent of Europe with its leafy avenues, chic cafes, glossy shopping centres and hedonistic nightlife. The capital Astana, on the windswept northern steppe, has been transformed into a 21st-century showpiece with a profusion of bold futuristic architecture…”.

Apparently though, being beaten by Kazakhstan is a “wake-up call”. (I wonder who’s been asleep! My bet is that the current mob of muddlers that we refer to as the Federal Government wouldn’t ever think it was them…) It seems that we are using “Borat” as our frame of reference. To quote our Education Minituare, Simon Birmingham: “I don’t want to denigrate Kazakhstan, or indeed their artistic skills with movies like Borat.”

So, in the context of all this framing, whenever the government does something that helps investors over the Budget bottom line, I’ve been amused by the language. Scott Morrison and the rest of the gang always talk about “mums and dads”. The poor “mum and dad” investors who negatively gear or buy shares or invest in super.

Now I don’t know why the Liberals hate the childless so much. Remember Peter Costello urging us all to have three kids: one for mum, one for dad and one for the country. Remember John Howard taking away your hard earned money in taxes to give to “mums” in the form of a “baby bonus”! (Yes, the baby bonus of $5000 was great, but when Kevin Rudd gave people with kids $900 during the GFC it was a waste because they’d only waste it on booze and gambling.)

But it seems if you’re a “mum and dad” investor… Should that be a “mum or dad” investor”? Mm, doesn’t quite work, does it?

Anyway, if you’re a “mum and dad” investor we should leave you alone because you’re really the salt of the earth, just trying to “get ahead” for the sake of the children. Yes, don’t think of them as greedy; think of them as caring. And when they go into debt with negative gearing, it’s not like when Labor governments go into debt, because “mums and dads” are using the money to invest in the future. Labor wanted to go into debt to waste money on things like the NBN and we Liberals can do it cheaper and have it all finished by 2016. (Well, not 2016, we never said that and we’ve removed all the estimates from our website and the AFP will raid anyone with anybody with any information that we don’t like. On the NBN’s say-so, we never told the AFP to raid anybody. That’d be political, like the FBI getting involved in American politics. Just wouldn’t happen!)

However, I suspect that the “mum and dad” investors that the Liberals are most concerned about aren’t the people recklessly borrowing a few thousand: I suspect that they’re the mums and dads like Gina Rinehart and Rupert Murdoch. Rupert certainly has children and there’s no doubting that Gina is a mother. I’d love it if an interviewer were to ask if these were the “mums and dads”, Scott had in mind. Or at the very least, ask at what point in the aquisition of properties we could stop feeling that these “mum and dad” investors deserved canonisation rather than taxation.

But let’s not let the framing alter the facts. I’m going to take a $1,000,000 house because it’s easy to do the numbers.

Let’s say, my wife and I are on $100,000 each and we have a reasonable amount of capital in our home already. We go to the bank and say we want to do a bit of negative gearing. Strangely, although the bank will ask about our dependants at some point in the conversation, whether of not we’re “mum and dad” investors won’t be the first question that they’ll ask. No sir, they’ll want to know all about our income and our assets. So, after filling in countless forms they’ll lend us the million dollars need to buy the house. At 4.66% interest, an interest only loan will cost us $46,000 a year. Add $5000 for rates and other repairs and you have $51,000. It would be reasonble to expect about $40,000 a year in rent, leaving us a deficit of about $11,000 a year. This is then taken off our tax leaving us a deficit – meaning that we’d need to find an extra $6,000 net in the first year. As inflation will slowly increase the rent, eventually we’ll be positively geared and end up paying tax unless we go back to the bank and use the extra income to help us negative gear another property to avoid that evil tax thing.

Now, let’s say instead that my wife and I… Actually, let’s say a mum and a dad go to the bank and instead of being on $100,000 each, they’re on a total of $75,000 and they say to the bank they want to borrow a million to become investors and let’s see if Scott Morrison is prepared to go guarantor on the loan…

All right, I’ll start comparing apples to apples and PCs to PCs. To work out a comparison for the same people purchasing a home to live in, relies on so many assumptions that it’d be impossible to do before someone said, “Hang on, what if they had a deposit of $200,000?” or “Wouldn’t they have an interest and principal loan?”, but if we ignore all the possibilites and do it as simply as possible, then a couple using an interest only loan to acquire the same house to live in, would need to find an extra $11,000 in that first year (I’m presuming that they’re renting exactly the same house as the first example). Even if the bank would lend a 100% of the money without wanting mortgage insurance, it’s far easier for the couple purchasing for investment to find the money needed. Yes, even if both couples are childless.

As yet, I haven’t heard the Liberals talk about not cutting funding to some of the richer private schools on the grounds that they people sending them there are just “mums and dads”, but I’m sure that day can’t be far away.

I read a joke a couple of years ago which asked if Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey were both drowning and you could only save one of them, what kind of sandwich would you make? Well, Scott Morrison’s stewardship of the economy sort of reminds me of that joke. I mean, I can picture him being asked in some future interview what is the number one challenge for the coming months and him answering:

“I’d just like to ensure that all the mums and dads out there have enought bread to make their kiddies lunch and that they don’t do what Labor would do and give them money to buy it at the canteen!”

 

Help Support The AIMN

Please consider making a donation to support The AIMN and independent journalism.

Regular Donation
Frequency Amount

Your donation will be processed securely through PayPal.
One-off Donation
Amount

Your donation will be processed securely through PayPal.


11 comments

  1. kerri

    Why isn’t the MSM pointing out that the stats show the biggest group of negative gearers are Airline pilots?
    I mean they may well be mums and dads but a pilot’s salary is well beyond average!

  2. Ella

    Rossleigh, thank you…a very worth while read.

    Didn’t you know the children of the ordinary mum and dad don’t need to be well educated, because if they were they might demand their rightful place in society?

    We must preserve the social pyramid in tact at all cost….keep those uneducated unwashed at the bottom of the pyramid and to ensure this the distribution of the education budget is the inverse of the social pyramid…ie the most get the least , and the least get the most.
    Shame on all of them ….but they can’t give up their perks , gold plated travel card, the support of their vested interests.!!!
    Sick to death of them all !!!!!

  3. Jack Straw

    And what a wonderful and great humanitarian Peter Dutton is. Pete has just bought his 6 investment property.He has done all this house his fellow Australian citizens.

  4. ben

    As a kind of economic joke, the Aus tax systems rewards loss-making mums and dads who go into quantums of debt that are counter-productive to a functioning economy.
    The tax system has been designed to help the wealthiest.
    “Surgeons who use negative gearing get some of the largest tax deductions, claiming nearly $30,000 each on average in 2013-14. Other medical professionals also had some of the highest losses.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-10/explainer-negative-gearing/7402442
    Can politicians govern for the benefit of all of us? Or is that just too much to ask?

  5. Jaquix

    And Peter Dutton, bless his little cotton socks, has begrudgingly had to admit that he has just bought his 6th negatively geared property. One of them is worth 2.3 million. Another owns 18. My own MP just 8. How can we seriously expect them to “reform” this wonderful rort known as “negatively gearing” ??? The short answer is, you cant. They are too embedded to its benefits, which as high income earners, is a great way of bludging off the taxpayers.

  6. Matters Not

    What matters now, Hughes argued, is not whether his fraud claim is true. No, what matters is who believes it.

    Yes in this post truth world, all that matters, is belief . Claim what you like, say what you like because it matters not – all that counts is whether it is believed or not.

    Some may remember:

    The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink.”

    While it may be a tad late, 1984 arrives. Orwell as a seer is up there with Michel de Nostredame.

  7. Wayne Turner

    “Framing” Liberal party style is “lying non-stop”.Aided by their MSM and sadly believed by too many of the ignorant and gullible public.In the case of “negative gearing” it’s clear to me and many of us,that it’s still around because of the “conflict of interest”,and “gravy train” of the Libs and Nats self serving benefiting off it themselves.The way I see it,it’s NOT just a “conflict of interest”,it’s also “corruption” by using a policy to benefit themselves at the expense of society as a whole.

    In saying that Labor have to be so much better at trying to “frame” arguments – Of course harder to do,when you have an anti-Labor MSM.

  8. Arthur Baker

    You need a proofreader.

  9. Ricardo29

    Arthur, he’s got one, its called predictive text and its often the least literate of readers. Dont let a few grammaticals distract fromtge message.

  10. Michael

    Mum and Dad (LNP) investors = intergenerational equity (for future LNP drones)

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: