Negative gearing and CGT discounts - how these tax breaks work: ACOSS

GUEST OBSERVATION

Tax concessions for investment housing include a 50% discount off normal individual tax rates on capital gains together with so-called ‘negative gearing’ arrangements, which allow investors to deduct ‘losses’ made on rental property investments (including interest on loan re-payments) from other income (including wages).

Deductions can, of course, be claimed for losses on other kinds of investments and this would not normally be regarded as a ‘tax concession’. The unique feature of ‘negative gearing’ for investments in assets such as property, shares, and agricultural schemes is that income from these investments often comes mainly from capital gains – the increase in the value of the asset over time.

Under the Capital Gains Tax rules these are only taxed when the asset is sold, and then at half the marginal tax rate. Yet expenses associated with the investment (especially interest payments on loans) can be deducted from tax annually and often exceed rental income.The tax system treats this as a ‘loss’. These ‘losses’ can be offset against other income that would otherwise be taxed at the full marginal rate (mainly wages).

In reality, in most cases the investment is not making a ‘loss’ because it is accruing capital gains. Otherwise there would be no point investing in these assets. If the tax system properly matched income and deductions, then either capital gains would be taxed each year at normal marginal tax rates or deductions for ‘losses’ could not be offset against other income until the capital gains are taxed on sale of the asset.

Whenever deductions for investment expenses are not properly matched with income, there is always a risk that people will maximise ‘losses’ in order to avoid tax on their other income.

This is achieved by structuring debt so that interest expenses on loans to purchase the asset exceed income from the investment such as rent, for instance by using more expensive ‘interest only’ loans (often with flexible interest re-payments so that investors can ensure their costs always exceed rental income), or by borrowing more to buy second and third properties as soon as the first one turns a ‘profit’.

In recent years, since superannuation legislation was amended to allow it, investors have been encouraged to borrow to invest in rental property through self-managed Super funds. A major advantage of this strategy is that capital gains on the sale of assets in Super funds are normally free of tax. Negative gearing is mainly used for rental property investment because housing is perceived to be a safe investment to borrow against, but it is also used to invest in agriculture (for example pine plantations), and shares (‘leveraged equities’).

The large-scale use of these tax schemes not only threatens public revenue and faith in the fairness of our tax system. It also reduces the efficiency of investment by encouraging people to invest with tax avoidance in mind rather than to achieve the best return at the least risk. It destabilises the economy by encouraging people to borrow more than they otherwise would and adding fuel to booms in asset prices – which are often followed by recessions.

Given that most negatively geared investment is in rental property, these schemes impact especially on housing markets. They encourage borrowing to speculate on housing prices, rather than patient investment in housing to achieve the best long term rental yield.

How widespread is their use? In the last year for which tax statistics are available (2011) two thirds of individual rental property investors – 1.2 million people - reported deductable losses of $14 billion. When those who reported profits from rental properties are included, taxpayers still claimed $8 billion in net rental losses overall in that year. Both the overall number of rental property investors, and the proportion who are negatively geared, have risen dramatically since 2000, when tax rates on personal capital gains were halved.

Source (figures 4-6): Eslake (2014)Op.cit

What do they cost and who gains? The Grattan Institute calculated that the cost of negative gearing concessions (compared to a regime in which deductions could only be claimed against income from the same investment) was $2 billion in 2011-12. The cost of the 50% discount on Capital Gains Tax for individual investors was $5 billion.

There is a perception that negatively geared investors are mostly middle income earners – so called ‘mum and dad investors’. This claim is usually based on the Tax Statistics data on individual taxpayers produced by the ATO. These data should be used with caution as they understate the incomes of negatively-geared rental property investors for the following reasons:

• Taxpayers are divided according to taxable income, which is artificially reduced by tax deductions arising from negative gearing strategies;
• Many property investors (especially those with higher incomes) control their investments through private trusts.
• They are listed in the tax statistics as recipients of trust income rather than direct property investors.

When the Reserve Bank compared investment in rental property by individual taxpayers at different levels of total income (rather than taxable income), they found that over half of all geared rental property investors earned over $100,000 (the top 10% of taxpayers in 2011) and 30% earned over $500,000.

Source: RBA (2014) “Financial stability review, September 2014. Box C: Households’ investment property exposures, evidence from tax and survey data.”

At the household level, the tax benefits of negative gearing and the Capital Gains Tax discount go mainly to those with high incomes.

In 2006, households in the highest income quintile (top 20%) received an average benefit of $73 per week from negative gearing and $30 per week from the capital gains tax discount. When combined ($103 per week), this was twice the benefit received by the middle quintile ($45 per week) and over 12 times what the lowest income quintile receives (a combined eight dollars per week).

Source: Yates (2010) in Stewart ‘Housing and Tax Policy’. Tax concessions by gross household income quintile, 2006.

Weekly benefit from negative gearing is averaged over only those households with negative rental income. Sourced from Melbourne Institute HILDA survey.

This is an exerpt from the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) report, ‘Fuel on the fire: Negative gearing, Capital Gains Tax and housing affordability. Read the full report here.

Peter Davidson is senior advisor with ACOSS.

Ro Evans is policy officer with ACOSS.