 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The first external link is to an external forum - is this appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YT99 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this article needs a good edit and the negative gearing link is to a site which appears to be very biased and selling a get rich quick dvd
Please make it clear which statements are referenced and to what. RedRabbit1983 16:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure this doesn't happen in the U.S.? Just because the loans aren't for 100% doesn't mean there aren't a lot of "negatively geared" residential rental properties out here. There's a chance that I'll be the owner of one shortly (if I can't sell the damn thing outright). Argyriou (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Negative gearing (Australia) and Negative gearing were tagged for merger back in November 2011. There's been no movement since. The entirety of the the "Negative gearing" page is unsourced, though the "Negative gearing (Australia)" has had some sourced added to it doesn't seem to contain enough information to be have a dedicated page for it, the Australia-specific section is still a sub-section of the page. This could easily be integrated into this page allowing general and specific coverage of the topic. Looking at what links to each of the pages both have about 3 pages that link to each page. None of the pages that link to the "Negative gearing (Australia)" would suffer information wise if they pointed to the primary topic as most of their info for negative gearing is also unsourced. --Tangerineduel (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above, its all too Australia centric. I have attempted to add some section about negative gearing in other countries, but someone removed them. Can I suggest that we need to add information concerning other countries so this page could be considered useful to non-Australians.
As for the bias, there are two statements which are either option or a fact with no context. Rather than removing them I have attempted to provided some sources and context for these statements, but again someone removed them. Can I suggest the first two paragraphs under Australia be modified to provide more references for the two statements being made.
Finally, my earlier removed section used British spelling, i noticed a comment was made about spelling. I assume I need to use US spelling and will do so in future.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pchadford (talk • contribs) 11:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has a done a good job trying to clean this article up, but its still very messy - especially the section for Australia. There are too many "This is popular" or "this is unpopular" and "there was no evidence, except for ????". I am not prepared to change other peoples text, apart from spelling or gramma errors and any obvious errors - such as canada not allowing investment property costs being offset against salary and wages, but someone is going to have to go through this and remove all personal comments and unneccessary adjectives - especially in the "australia" section.
In the meantime i will try and add some data and links around the opinions so readers can determine if the opinions are relivant or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfmodel (talk • contribs) 23:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Negative gearing/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| ==Class==
Start class because it covers the tax law in Australia in detail but only mentions the law in New Zealand and Canada in passing. Needs more citations.EECavazos 06:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] ==Priority== Mid priority because this article has detailed tax treatment of business concept and it covers several English-speaking countries.EECavazos 06:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] |
Last edited at 06:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Extended content |
|---|
|
Negative gearing history in Australia In 1986, Australia's Treasurer Paul Keating stated "I'm going to stop rich businessmen negative gearing rental property!" A month later, a collective of charities went to Canberra to inform him that he had frightened landlords into selling their rental properties to invest elsewhere. As a consequence the former rental tenants had nowhere to reside. He had caused a massive rental shortage. (A 1% rental shortage equates to tens of thousands of people without a home). Treasurer Keating rescinded his edict but too late. The rental shortage became a housing boom as former renters were compelled to buy homes. Home prices increased greatly. Many of those who sold their homes during the boom used the windfall profits to buy imports. Conversely, home buyers used mortgage money acquired overseas - both unfavourably affected Australia's trade balance. Keating complained that Westpac bank was not doing its civic duty by raising its interest rates fast enough. He wanted to slow the over-spending on imports and over-borrowing from overseas. He stated that he "had the Treasury in his pocket" and had the Treasury create a Treasury note for 17% (?) for 18 months. This level was far higher than commercial banks provided their depositors. Those with money elected to invest it with the government. Banks were forced to raise the interest they paid customers, and also the rates that borrowers had to pay to unsustainable levels. Tens of thousands of firms were destroyed and Treasurer Keating eventually borrowed 94.6 billion dollars to maintain the economy. This money would have been able to buy a million homes worth a hundred thousand dollars (or vice versa). The incoming government spent almost ten years repaying the debt and the present ALP opposition have learned nothing about the cause of the previous recession, or are in denial, particularly because during the crisis it falsely blamed Bond and Skase, the greatest victims of the Boom-bust recession. treasurer Keating personally created the boom-bust recession which he said "we had to have."
|
