31
Higher interest rates smashed landlord profits, but negative gearing means few sold up (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 4 days ago by maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone to c/australia@aussie.zone
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The ATO data, released exclusively to the ABC, shows the only investors making an average rental loss in 2022–23 were those with 19 or more property interests, both on an individual investor and individual rental basis.

...

In 2022–23, profits from investor-owned rentals plummeted 73 per cent.

In dollar figures, that equated to net rental income (income after expenses) falling from almost $5.9 billion in 2021–22, to less than $1.6 billion in 2022–23.

Despite the drop, investor numbers, and the number of rentals they owned, shrank less than 1 per cent, suggesting falling rental profitability did not trigger any significant rental sell-off.

...

The ATO data showed mega landlords with 20 or more rentals were the only group that made average losses throughout the COVID-19 era of record-low interest rates.

Mr Eslake says this underscores the importance of negative gearing to the wealthiest investors and scuppers the argument that it is predominantly used by "mums and dads trying to get ahead".

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 days ago

Obviously negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions have to go. I think gone completely, all at once is probably not the right move but I'll let the modelling people figure that out.

That said, using interest rates as a way to throttle economic activity is fucking bullshit.

With the eye watering interest rates we've had over the last several years it's been Gen X and under doing the heavy lifting while as usual boomers enjoy the benefits.

I don't really have a solution but fuck me there has to be a better way.

[-] buxtente@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

We've legislated ourselves into a corner - we can't get rid of CGT concessions and negative gearing without crashing the housing market and therefore our economy...

The only way out is slowly introduced reform that aims to flatten house prices, but it has to be done almost clandestinely so as to not scare investors.

[-] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

I agree that changes need to be measured and carefully considered.

There's so many ways to do that though, grandfathering or capping.

[-] makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago

Gen x here. Agree. We get leveled. Again. Whilst the boomers just coast through it, mortgage free, reaping bucket tonnes from their multiple properties and huge super, and sipping their laté in delight.

[-] SaneMartigan@aussie.zone 3 points 3 days ago

I feel like higher interest rates smashed renters.

[-] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago

It's weird to say that because of negative gearing, property investors can't lose. Negative gearing is literally losing. You can only negative gear when you're making a loss.

[-] CoolThingAboutMe@beehaw.org 2 points 2 days ago

Yeh I think a lot of people don't seem to get this. My husband and I have an "investment property" (super rural, was sub $200k, all we could afford for a first house, not much more than a shed) that my parents live in now after we moved to a city for work. They pay a tiny amount of rent which only covers a portion of the mortgage repayments, so the place is negatively geared.

But the money we're spending on keeping my parents housed is not free money we get back in full at tax time. Some of it just comes off our taxable income, so we get a very slight tax break. I cbf doing the full maths right now but if we spend $4000 on rates and water and interest for that house we might get something like $1000 off our owed tax. Still down $3000. Plus down the principal mortgage repayments not covered by rent (~$4000), because they can't be claimed.

Which is fine. I'm grateful to be in a position to be able to support my parents, and I know it's not a typical landlord situation.

I'm also certainly not saying negative gearing is totally fine and should never be questioned. There are definitely too many consessions that parasites with huge portfolios of properties take advantage of. And I'm sure there are people that game the system to their full advantage.

I just, yeah, for me negative gearing just very slightly reduces how much it costs to not charge my parents much rent. It's not a golden goose or anything.

this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2025
31 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

4435 readers
193 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
Nath@aussie.zone