Mum and dad trucking companies… Mum and dad investors… Dum and mad people using negative gearing as a way of reducing their tax… Well, these people are just awe-f*cking-some!
Yep, I guess that I’m a little prejudiced and that I have a conflict of interest…
To explain:
Every now and then, I’m accused of being left wing because… well, anybody who doesn’t think that Andrew Bolt is a bit of a touchy-feely bleeding heart greenie is far too left for the current government and it’s fellow IPA travellers.
Being accused of being left wing amuses me because I’ve never advocated the overthrow of the system. In that sense, I’m even less left wing than Phil Adams who uses his Radio National spot to advocate for the redistribution of wealth and the introduction of Mao’s little red book as compulsory reading in kindergarten. Oh wait, no he doesn’t do that either.
I’m not left wing. Neither am I right wing. I am, however, about as boringly middle class as you can get. I am, also, a home owner. Well, I’m a home owner in the sense that I own more of my home than the bank does were we to liquify it. I am also one of those Mum and Dad people that you keep hearing about.
Yes, I have negative geared a property!
When I first suggested it to the person doing my tax in 2006, he suggested that there wasn’t really any great advantage because I wasn’t paying a high rate of tax and that the time for negative gearing had passed. I said that when I retired in a few years, my super would be pretty much all in shares and it’d be good to diversify, to which he said that it was entirely my decision and I said that it was also my wife’s but when I started using words like “superannuation” and “diversify”, her eyes glaze over and she gets that faraway look where I start to wonder if she’s still glad that she married me instead of somebody interesting. At this point I have a two minute window where I can say, “Quick sign this and I’ll stop talking!”
Anyway, my negatively geared property has recently become positively geared … Which means that I earn more than I pay in interest and I want to go to the accountant who advised against and say that it was a good idea even if…
Ok, I say all this in the interests of full disclosure. Now for those of you who have continued to read and don’t have that faraway look in your eyes which – if I could see – would make me wonder if you were beginning to think that maybe learning to read wasn’t such a good idea and that you’d be happier if you’d never started reading anything past the time you read the words “superannuation” and “diversify”, I’m about to ask you to consider the scare campaign launched by Malcolm Turnbull from my the perspective of someone like me who is definitely:
- A homeowner
- A “Mum and Dad” landlord investor… Well, I’m not a mum but I’ve been called a mother in my time.
Ok, now I’m about to launch a few points that seem a little contradictory but after three years of Liberal government you should be used to that. You know the sort of thing. Abbott was just great and he achieved lots but we replaced him because you didn’t like him and no, we don’t just respond to populism, we’re determined to do the right thing even if it causes a drop in the polls… Oh no, perhaps we should bring Abbott back! Wait, I didn’t say that. We promise that Malcolm will take us to the next election and we’ll even let him be sworn in before we launch our coup…
Ok, several points:
First point is that my home will go down in value according to Turnbull, while my rent payments will go up. Now, I presume he thinks that I should be worried by this. Well, I don’t plan to sell my home so whether it’s worth $500,000 or $1.5m is of no real consequence. However, my rent payments going up, why that’s just awesome! I’ll be able to screw an extra few thousand out of my poor tenant. Wow… Do you reckon they’ll double? Because then I could probably pay off my mortgage in no time at all.
Second point is that changes to the capital gains tax should mean that if I don’t sell my investment property quickly, then I probably don’t want to sell it at all. Won’t this mean that there’s a shortage of properties for sale, which should mean a boost to prices in the longer term?
Third point is that I’m a “mum and dad” investor so that means I have children. Or, in my case, one child. According to Turnbull, this Labor policy’s meant to be forcing down housing prices and as I see it, that should be good for my son when it comes time for him to buy a house… Or is he only talking about “mum and dad” investors like Gina Rinehart who’d rather their children went without just to teach them that it’s only by hard work that enables them to become rich. After all, all through her childhood she had to suck up to her obnoxious father who married Rose Porteous and how hard was that…
Anyway, I don’t know why Mr Turnbull thinks that I’ll be upset by his scare campaign. Neither do I understand what he has against investors who are childless. As for those people saving to buy a house, I suspect that he hopes they’ll be upset by the idea that their rent will go up. But it’s also possible many of them aren’t paying rent but living with the “mum and dad” non-investors and they’ll only hear the words “House prices coming down”…
It’s like when they tell us that this’ll mean a wages breakout. Yep, I know that I’m meant to be scared, but part of me is thinking that’s great so long as I’m included and not left behind.
I guess that’s the thing with a scare campaign. You can scare all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot scare all the people all the time.
[textblock style=”7”]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
