All Topics / Legal & Accounting / Removal of Depreciation

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Profile photo of livewildcardlivewildcard
    Member
    @livewildcard
    Join Date: 2012
    Post Count: 36

    Interesting read

    http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/tax/property-council-seeks-more-details-on-proposals-to-scale-back-tax-depreciation-allowances/2012081456018

    Wonder how far this will go.

    I know the debate of negative gearing etc been around for a while but another recent attack now.

    Profile photo of DWolfeDWolfe
    Participant
    @dwolfe
    Join Date: 2009
    Post Count: 1,253

    It is interesting isn't it.

    If you look at property investing purely as a business then essentially you are leasing an item to another person. If you did this with a product such as a washing machine, the machine would have wear and tear associated with the use. Same with houses. Bathrooms and kitchens and carpet and paint all wear out, it'd be great if they never did!

    Governments always seem to pull something like this out, then it gets shelved when they realize that every baby boomer has a rental, and the rental market depends on some of these tax breaks. Look at the Henry Review, if anyone can find it on the shelf.

    Cheers

    D

    DWolfe | www.homestagers.com.au
    http://www.homestagers.com.au
    Email Me

    Profile photo of livewildcardlivewildcard
    Member
    @livewildcard
    Join Date: 2012
    Post Count: 36

    Yes I agree these things always come and go when they realise what ramifications and recourse there would be.

    There is such a shortage in housing and everyones trying to stimulate people buying/building houses then they go and make it even harder by removing some of the benefits of doing so.

    Sure, if you can afford if before/after depreciation, interest deductions being claimed etc then maybe you shouldnt be investing I have heard those people around as well but at the same time waving a wand around trying to fix things with such a broad brush just sounds silly to me.

    Profile photo of DWolfeDWolfe
    Participant
    @dwolfe
    Join Date: 2009
    Post Count: 1,253

    Well put livewildcard.

    They want the housing propped up by private investors. It's so much cheaper for the Govt to provide a tiny tax break than to have to own heaps of rental properties. Personal wealth has increased through property ownership which means the govt can also have lots more taxes.

    Should still be interesting to see how quickly the govt makes this topic of discussion go away. Heading into an election year!

    D

    DWolfe | www.homestagers.com.au
    http://www.homestagers.com.au
    Email Me

    Profile photo of Jacqui MiddletonJacqui Middleton
    Participant
    @jacm
    Join Date: 2009
    Post Count: 2,539

    If the government did something as substantial as removing the ability to receive tax breaks for depreciation schedules, or negative gearing as a whole, private investors would be less interested in investing.  Then providing housing for all those people who rent would be a problem for the government to solve.  Don't see it happening.  Ignore it. 

    Jacqui Middleton | Middleton Buyers Advocates
    http://www.middletonbuyersadvocates.com.au
    Email Me | Phone Me

    VIC Buyers' Agents for investors, home buyers & SMSFs.

    Profile photo of livewildcardlivewildcard
    Member
    @livewildcard
    Join Date: 2012
    Post Count: 36

    Thanks guys for the insights be good to see what happens or if I can get a hold of this paper they are talking about to have a read what kind of proposals or changes are being made.

    I heard today changing rates around for depreciation is now on the cards rather than abolishing it. For example a rate of a certain building will depreciate faster/slower than something made of a different material. Interesting.

    Profile photo of washingtonbrownwashingtonbrown
    Participant
    @washingtonbrown
    Join Date: 2006
    Post Count: 44

    You can see all the submissions here in relation to removal of depreciation.

    http://www.treasury.gov.au/ConsultationsandReviews/Submissions/2012/Business-tax-reform/Submissions

    I think they should increase to 4% building allowance to encourage investment and save money.

    If you're interested read the Washington Brown submission.

    Regards

    Tyron Hyde

    CEO

    http://www.washingtonbrown.com.au

    Profile photo of DWolfeDWolfe
    Participant
    @dwolfe
    Join Date: 2009
    Post Count: 1,253

    Great submission Tyron.

    Thanks for posting the link.

    Cheers

    D

    DWolfe | www.homestagers.com.au
    http://www.homestagers.com.au
    Email Me

    Profile photo of washingtonbrownwashingtonbrown
    Participant
    @washingtonbrown
    Join Date: 2006
    Post Count: 44

    Well the good news is – the Tax Working Group did nothing.

    Depreciation is back baby!!

    Regards

    Tyron Hyde

    http://www.washingtonbrown.com.au

    Profile photo of TerrywTerryw
    Participant
    @terryw
    Join Date: 2001
    Post Count: 16,213
    washingtonbrown wrote:
    Well the good news is – the Tax Working Group did nothing.

    Depreciation is back baby!!

    Regards

    Tyron Hyde

    http://www.washingtonbrown.com.au

    This i typical of Gorvernment. Spend heaps of money doing all this and causing others to work making submissions etc and then nothing comes of it.

    In this case it is probably a good outcome but still…

    Terryw | Structuring Lawyers Pty Ltd / Loan Structuring Pty Ltd
    http://www.Structuring.com.au
    Email Me

    Lawyer, Mortgage Broker and Tax Advisor (Sydney based but advising Aust wide) http://www.Structuring.com.au

    Profile photo of Scott No MatesScott No Mates
    Participant
    @scott-no-mates
    Join Date: 2005
    Post Count: 3,856

    Yes but now they can legitimately do nothing! At least they haven't stuffed it up.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.