Let’s take a walk down memory lane.
In 2003, then founder of Wizard Mortgages, Mark Bouris, called for a review of negative gearing, claiming that too many Australians were using the tax lurk to buy real estate:
Wizard’s executive chair Mark Bouris says negative gearing is being used for incorrect taxation purposes, and could be overhauled without producing a drop in the market.
“My strong view is that negative gearing is something that should not be available to investors where the purpose of the acquisition is to obtain a tax benefit only,” he said.
“At the end of the day it’s the wrong reason to buy real estate and too many Australians buy real estate just because they are going to get a tax deduction.”
Now let’s fast forward to today, where Bouris has warned of impending doom in the housing market if negative gearing is changed:
“It will kill the investment market. I think it’s a terrible idea,” Mr Bouris, the chairman of financial services group Yellow Brick Road told the Financial Review.
“The fabric of Australian portfolio has been investment property. Any change would rip the guts out of the economy and growth.”
“Politicians talk about the amount of money we lose from people claiming negative gearing tax breaks, but I would love to see the impact on the other side, when the investor market dies off.
Let’s rewind again to 2014 when “Aussie” John Symond lamented that negative gearing is killing the first home buyer market:
“Negative gearing is a great tax break, but it needs a total overhaul to make it fairer. First home buyers have no hope of getting into home ownership these days unless they’re helped by their families,” Mr Symond said…
Now fast forward again to today, where Symond has warned that “any change” to negative gearing would be detrimental to mum-and-dad investors:
“Many property investors who are negatively geared are PAYG taxpayers and their nest eggs will be hit for six in any change,” Mr Symond said.
Which follows similar words by Symond over the weekend.
The question that needs to be asked is why have their stances changed? Why did Bouris and Symond once strongly endorse negative gearing reform only to change track now that it is firmly on the political radar?
