• DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone
    ·
    11 months ago

    I think if the company makes no profit and pays no tax that's fine. The problem people have with negative gearing is that it offsets non investment income. So Ms Jones now pays less income tax on her salary.

    • Nath@aussie.zone
      ·
      11 months ago

      It offsets personal income by the difference between what the property costs and what it brings in for rent. We need an accountant to chime in here. If Ms. Jones invests money into her business to keep it going (since costs are outweighing income), is that money still income? Or would it be deductible as well?

      Either way, that amount isn't a going to be more than the rental income. And under either model the rent income isn't taxed until the property is generating more rent than its outgoings. Once that happens, it's time to buy the next property and go back into the red. It feels like s ponzi scheme, doesn't it?

      I see the problems. I just don't know how to fix them.

      • billytheid@aussie.zone
        ·
        11 months ago

        You don’t seem to see the problem at all, the goal of removing negative gearing is to force people to sell, what that means to their personal finances is immaterial