Hubbry Logo
Negative gearingNegative gearingMain
Open search
Negative gearing
Community hub
Negative gearing
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Negative gearing
Negative gearing
Negative gearing
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Negative gearing is a form of financial leverage whereby an investor borrows money to acquire an income-producing investment and the gross income generated by the investment (at least in the short term) is less than the cost of owning and managing the investment, including depreciation and interest charged on the loan (but excluding capital repayments). The investor may enter into a negatively geared investment expecting tax benefits or the capital gain on the investment after it is sold to exceed the accumulated losses of holding the investment. The investor would take into account the tax treatment of negative gearing, which may generate additional benefits to the investor in the form of tax benefits if the loss on a negatively geared investment is tax-deductible against the investor's other taxable income and if the capital gain on the sale is given a favourable tax treatment.

Overview

[edit]

Negative gearing is often discussed with regard to real estate, where rental income is less than mortgage loan interest costs, but may also apply to shares in companies whose dividend income falls short of interest costs on a margin loan. The tax treatment may or may not be the same between the two.

Positive gearing occurs when one borrows to invest in an income-producing asset and the returns (income) from that asset exceed the cost of borrowing. From then on, the investor must pay tax on the rental income profit until the asset is sold, at which point the investor must pay capital gains tax on any profit.

When the income generated covers the interest, it is simply a geared investment, which creates passive income. A negative gearing strategy makes a profit under any of the following circumstances:

  • if the asset rises in value so that the capital gain is more than the sum of the ongoing losses over the life of the investment;
  • if the income stream rises to become greater than the cost of interest (the investment becomes positively geared); or
  • if the interest cost falls because of lower interest rates or paying down the loan principal, making the investment positively geared.

The investor must be able to fund any shortfall until the asset is sold or until the investment becomes positively geared. The different tax treatment of planned ongoing losses and possible future capital gains affects the investor's final return. In countries that tax capital gains at a lower rate than income, it is possible for an investor to make a loss overall before taxation but a small gain after taxpayer subsidies.

Some countries, including Australia and Japan, allow unrestricted use of negative gearing losses to offset income from other sources. Several other OECD countries, including the USA, New Zealand, Germany, Sweden, Canada and France, allow loss offsetting with some restrictions. Applying tax deductions from negatively geared investment housing to other income is not permitted in the United Kingdom or the Netherlands.[1] With respect to investment decisions and market prices, other taxes such as stamp duties and capital gains tax may be more or less onerous in those countries, increasing or decreasing the attractiveness of residential property as an investment.[2]

A negatively-geared investment property will generally remain negatively geared for several years, when the rental income will have increased with inflation to the point that the investment is positively geared (the rental income is greater than the interest cost).

The tax treatment of negative gearing (also termed "rental loss offset against other income") varies. For example:

  • the United States restricts the practice to lower/middle income taxpayers who are active in managing their rental investment and also allows interest costs against the family home to be fully tax deductible.
  • Canada limits the practice by ensuring the investment generated a positive return over its life.
  • countries with lower tax rates have a lower benefit from negative gearing due to a lower top rate of tax or a higher threshold for a specific tax rate.

Taxation implications of negative gearing by country

[edit]

Australia

[edit]
Main article: Negative gearing in Australia

Negative gearing can be a tax-effective strategy in Australia, because the tax system has a single income tax schedule for income from all sources. This means that for taxation purposes net investment income losses can be offset against other types of income, such as wage or business income, with only a few limits or restrictions.[3]

Negative gearing continues to be a controversial political issue in Australia and was a major issue during the 2016 Australian federal election and the 2019 Australian federal election, during which the Australian Labor Party proposed to eliminate the tax-deductibility of negative gearing losses against non-investment income (with some exceptions), and to halve the capital gains tax discount to 25%.[4] Analysis found that negative gearing in Australia provides a greater benefit to wealthier Australians than the less wealthy.[5]

Federal Treasurer at the time, Scott Morrison, in defence of negative gearing, cited tax data that showed that numerous middle income groups (he mentioned teachers, nurses, and electricians) benefit in larger numbers from negative gearing than finance managers.[3]

United Kingdom

[edit]

While allowing for negative gearing in its basic form, the United Kingdom does not allow the transfer of one type of income (or loss) to another type of income. This is due to its schedular system of taxation. In this type of taxation system, the tax paid is dependent on income source. Therefore, an individual who received an income from labour and from land would pay two separate tax rates for the two relevant income sources.

Between 1997 and 2007, the Tax Law Rewrite Project changed this system by simplifying the schedules. As with the previous system, people would not be allowed to transfer incomes (or losses).

A UK government online resource on renting out property in England and Wales[6] outlines how to offset losses. It states that losses can be offset against "future profits by carrying it forward to a later year" or against "profits from other properties (if you have them)".

New Zealand

[edit]

New Zealand abolished negative gearing in March 2021 and it will be fully phased out by April 2025.[7]

The Rental Income Guide[8] states a loss can only be deducted against other incomes if the rental income is at market rate.

The Opposition Labour Party attempted to raise negative gearing in the 2011 election, but after their failure to win government the issue reduced in significance.[9]

New Zealand now has ring-fencing rules, abolishing negative gearing in the residential property market. Residential property deductions can only be made against residential property income and cannot be deducted from income from other sources, e.g. wages.[10]

Canada

[edit]
See also: Taxation in Canada

Canada allows the transfer of income streams in some situations.

Personal business expenses may always be deducted from personal business income. If those expenses exceed business incomes (i.e., the business is losing money for tax purposes), the resulting "non-capital loss" may be deducted from other personal incomes, so long as the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) believes that it is a genuine business (and not a personal activity being used to generate tax losses).[11] This loss may also be carried back up to 3 years, or carried forward up to 20 years, to offset income earned in those years.[12]

Interest paid on a loan can be treated as a business expense, so long as the money was borrowed to generate income.

Claim the following carrying charges and interest you paid to earn income from investments: [...] Most interest you pay on money you borrow for investment purposes, but generally only if you use it to try to earn investment income, including interest and dividends. However, if the only earnings your investment can produce are capital gains, you cannot claim the interest you paid.[13]

United States

[edit]

In principle, the US federal tax does not allow the transfer of income streams.[14] In general, taxpayers can only deduct expenses of renting property from their rental income, as renting property out is usually considered a passive activity. However, if renters are considered to have actively participated in the activities, they can claim deductions from rental losses against their other "nonpassive income".[15] A definition of "active participation" is outlined in the "Reporting Rental Income, Expenses, and Losses" guide:[15]

You actively participated in a rental real estate activity if you (and your spouse) owned at least 10% of the rental property and you made management decisions or arranged for others to provide services (such as repairs) in a significant and bona fide sense. Management decisions that may count as active participation include approving new tenants, deciding on rental terms, approving expenditures, and other similar decisions.

It is possible to deduct any loss against other incomes, depending on a range of factors.[16]

Japan

[edit]

Japan allows tax payers to offset rental losses against other income.[17]

Individuals can claim losses against rental loss with minimal restrictions,[18] but if the property was owned through a partnership or trust there are restrictions.[19]

There are a number of additional rules, such as restricting claims of losses due to Bad Debt. Additional information can be found in the Japan Tax Site.[20]

Germany

[edit]

The German tax system is complex, but within the bounds of standard federal income tax, Germany does allow the transfer of income under certain conditions. Rental losses can be offset against rental income and against income from other income streams including employment income, income from independent personal services and trade and business income.[21][22] In order for losses from renting and leasing to be offset against income or profits from other types of income, it must be established that there is an intention to generate a profit from the source of income generating the losses. In the case of real estate that is rented out for regular residential purposes, the German tax authorities generally assume an intention to generate a profit, unless the real estate is rented out at unusual low conditions (less than 2/3 of a comparable rent).[23]

Germany recognises seven sources of income:[24]

  1. Agriculture and forestry
  2. Trade and business
  3. Independent personal services
  4. Employment
  5. Capital investment
  6. Rents and royalties
  7. "other income", as specified and strictly limited by law to certain types of income such as income from private transactions and income of a recurring nature (e.g. pensions)

The income from each of these sources is calculated separately.

Rental income is taxed as income and is subject to the progressive tax rate. Interest on loans provided to finance real estate, expenses, and property-related cost (e.g., management fees, insurance) can be deducted from the taxable rental income.[25]

If real estate is held as private assets (i.e. not as a business asset), the gain from the sale of a property after a holding period of more than 10 years is generally tax-free respectively does not constitute taxable income.[26] However, there are exceptions to this rule, e.g. it is assumed that the sale of three "objects" (individual properties, real estate or rights equivalent to real estate) within 5 years constitutes a business activity and that the income generated from the sale is therefore business income and not possibly tax-exempt "other income".[27]

Netherlands

[edit]

In principle, the Dutch tax system does not allow the transfer of income. Most citizens calculate tax, separately, in 3 income groups:[28]

  1. Box 1 income includes income from employment and income from the primary residence
  2. Box 2 income, which includes income from a substantial holding in a company, as well as gains from substantial shareholdings
  3. Box 3 deals with income from savings and investments

Dutch resident and non-resident companies and partnerships owning Dutch property are in principle allowed to deduct interest expenses on loans from banks or affiliated companies, and property-related costs from their taxable income.[29]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Negative gearing

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Negative gearing is a tax mechanism in that permits investors in properties or other income-producing assets to offset net losses—where deductible expenses, such as loan interest and costs, exceed income—against their other from sources like wages, thereby reducing their overall liability. This practice, which relies on borrowed funds to finance investments expecting future capital appreciation, has been embedded in Australian since 1936 as a means to stimulate investment during economic downturns like the . Primarily applied to residential , it incentivizes leveraged property purchases by high-income earners, who comprise the majority of beneficiaries, as the amplifies after-tax returns when combined with the 50% discount on assets held over a year. The policy's economic effects center on housing dynamics, where empirical models indicate that negative gearing, alongside capital gains concessions, elevates property prices by encouraging investor demand for existing over new supply, thereby hindering affordability for owner-occupiers, particularly younger households. Quantitative analysis suggests abolishing it could yield a net welfare improvement of approximately 1.5% through prices and higher homeownership rates, as investors shift toward more productive assets, though short-term rental supply might contract marginally before adjusting via price signals. Proponents argue it bolsters rental availability by attracting capital to , yet causal evidence points to limited net addition to dwelling stock, with benefits disproportionately accruing to wealthier investors who use it to shelter rather than purely for supply expansion. Debates over reform have intensified amid persistent shortages, with proposals to losses or phase out deductions for additional facing political resistance due to electoral influence from property owners, despite modeling showing minimal long-term disruption to flows. While not unique globally—similar deductions exist elsewhere—Australia's uncapped application to individuals amplifies its fiscal cost, estimated in billions annually, and distorts toward leveraged over broader economic .

Fundamentals

Definition and Core Mechanics

Negative gearing refers to a financial arrangement in which the total expenses incurred on an -producing asset, particularly on borrowed funds used to acquire it, exceed the assessable generated by that asset, resulting in a net loss. This term, though not formally defined in , aligns with Australia's system's treatment of net outcomes, where deductions for costs of producing are subtracted from gross receipts. The core mechanics operate through standard tax deduction rules applicable to individuals and entities. Investors calculate net income from the asset—typically rental properties or shares—by subtracting allowable expenses such as loan interest, , council rates, , fees, and from like rent or dividends. When expenses surpass , the resultant loss offsets other assessable (e.g., or wages) in the same financial year, reducing the taxpayer's overall liability at their marginal rate. Any unutilized loss due to insufficient other carries forward indefinitely to future years, preserving the deduction's value against later earnings. In practice, negative gearing is most prevalent for leveraged investments, where high loan-to-value ratios amplify deductions amid subdued rental yields. For instance, an investor financing a rental with might incur $40,000 in annual and other costs against $25,000 in rent, yielding a $15,000 deductible loss applicable to —a process verifiable via ATO rental schedules. This strategy presumes future capital gains will compensate for interim shortfalls, with only 50% of such gains taxable if the asset is held over 12 months. The approach extends to other assets like shares but is predominantly associated with due to its scale, with over 1.3 million Australians reporting net rental losses in 2012–13 data.

Tax Deduction Process and Examples

Negative gearing allows investors to offset a net loss from a rental against other assessable , such as wages or earnings, thereby reducing overall . This occurs when deductible expenses exceed rental , a situation commonly arising from high costs on borrowed funds used to acquire the . The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) defines negative gearing as applying when rental is less than associated deductible expenses, enabling the full loss to be claimed against total provided the property is held for income production. The deduction process begins with reporting gross rental income in the annual , followed by subtracting allowable expenses to determine the net rental position. Deductible expenses encompass on loans, rates, water and charges, repairs and maintenance (distinct from capital improvements), fees, travel costs for inspections, and on fixtures or plant and equipment. Non-deductible items include acquisition costs like or initial renovations that enhance value. If expenses exceed income, the resulting loss offsets other income under section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, which permits deductions for outgoings incurred in gaining assessable income. Investors must maintain records, such as receipts and loan statements, to substantiate claims during audits. Losses may be deferred under non-commercial loss rules if the investor fails income, profits, or tests (e.g., adjusted below certain thresholds), but qualifying rental activities generally allow immediate offsetting. To illustrate, suppose an investor earns $20,000 in annual rent but incurs $28,000 in expenses (primarily $20,000 , $3,000 rates and , $2,000 , and $3,000 ). The net loss is $8,000 ($20,000 minus $28,000 expenses). With additional salary of $90,000, the investor's drops to $82,000, yielding a saving based on the marginal rate—e.g., at 32.5% (applicable to between $45,001–$120,000 in 2024–25), the saving approximates $2,600. This calculation assumes the loss qualifies without restrictions and ignores other offsets like Medicare levy adjustments.
ComponentAmount ($)
Rental Income20,000
Deductible Expenses:
Loan Interest20,000
Rates, Insurance, etc.3,000
Repairs/Maintenance2,000
3,000
Total Expenses28,000
Net Rental Loss-8,000
Other Income (Salary)90,000
Adjusted Taxable Income82,000
Such examples demonstrate how negative gearing amplifies tax benefits for higher-rate taxpayers, as the deduction's value scales with marginal rates up to 45% plus Medicare levy for incomes over $190,000 in 2024–25. However, the strategy relies on eventual capital appreciation to offset ongoing cash outflows, as short-term losses are not recouped via tax refunds alone.

Historical Development

Origins and Early Adoption in

Negative gearing in originated with the enactment of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936), which codified the principle that taxpayers could deduct expenses, including interest on borrowings, incurred in producing assessable income from rental properties, even if those deductions exceeded rental income and resulted in a net loss offsettable against other income sources such as wages. This provision aligned with broader rules under section 23 of the Act, allowing losses from income-producing investments to reduce overall . The policy was introduced amid the to incentivize private investment in housing, aiming to alleviate shortages by encouraging property acquisitions and subsequent rentals. Early adoption occurred primarily in the and , as investors leveraged the deduction to mitigate risks in a volatile recovering from depression-era constraints on construction and lending. Post-World War II housing demand further promoted its use, with the policy supporting private sector responses to acute shortages—estimated at over 300,000 dwellings by 1945—by enabling leveraged purchases that offset holding costs against liabilities. However, uptake remained modest through the mid-20th century, limited by high interest rates in the and , restrictive credit controls until , and a focus on owner-occupier homeownership promoted via schemes like the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement of 1945. By the , as eroded real rental yields and values began appreciating, more middle-income earners adopted negative gearing strategies, viewing properties as long-term assets where relief bridged cash flow shortfalls until capital gains materialized. The practice's foundational role was underscored in when the Hawke-Keating government temporarily quarantined rental losses from new investments after July 17, preventing offsets against non-rental income, a move reversed in amid observed rental increases of up to 40% in some markets. This episode confirmed negative gearing's pre-existing integration into planning for investors, though data from the era indicate it was not yet the dominant strategy it became post-, with fewer than 10% of taxpayers utilizing rental deductions in the early compared to surges thereafter.

Key Policy Changes and Expansions

In July 1985, the Hawke-Keating Labor government implemented a quarantine on negative gearing deductions for rental properties as part of broader reforms following the National Tax Summit. Under the changes, effective from 18 July 1985, net rental losses—primarily from interest expenses exceeding rental income—could no longer be offset against other such as wages; instead, these losses were required to be carried forward and deducted only against future rental property income. This measure applied to new and existing investments, aiming to curb perceived and prioritize revenue collection amid fiscal pressures, though it grandfathered certain pre-existing arrangements in practice. The quarantine lasted until September 1987, during which time property investor activity declined sharply, with sales of investment properties surging and rental vacancy rates tightening in major cities like and Perth, contributing to localized rent increases of up to 20-30% in some markets. In response to these market disruptions, announced the reinstatement of full negative gearing deductibility on 16 September 1987, effective for the 1987-88 income year starting 1 July 1987, citing the need to restore investor confidence and support rental housing supply. This reversal returned the policy to its pre-1985 form, allowing unlimited offsetting of rental losses against other income without restriction. Since the 1987 reinstatement, negative gearing has faced no substantive legislative expansions or contractions in , remaining a core feature of the system under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and subsequent iterations. Complementary policies, such as the 50% discount introduced on 21 September 1999 for assets held over 12 months, have indirectly enhanced the strategy's appeal by reducing taxes on eventual property sales, but these do not alter the deductibility mechanics themselves. Ongoing reform proposals, including quarantines for new investors floated during the and federal elections, have not been enacted, preserving the policy's unchanged structure as of 2025.

Economic Rationale

First-Principles Justification

Negative gearing embodies the core economic principle of taxing rather than gross receipts, permitting investors to deduct legitimate expenses and losses from income-producing activities against other sources. This ensures that taxation reflects an individual's actual economic capacity to pay, avoiding the of imposing on that does not materialize after for costs such as , , and on rental properties. In practice, when rental falls short of these outlays, the resulting loss offsets or business , aligning with the symmetric treatment required for a neutral base where deductions mirror allowable credits against gains. From a foundational standpoint, disallowing such offsets would create an asymmetric fiscal penalty on risks, effectively taxing losses while exempting equivalent gains from full reckoning, which undermines causal incentives for capital deployment into productive assets like . This fosters efficient market signals, as investors can pursue opportunities where short-term flows are negative but long-term value creation—through asset appreciation or supply expansion—is anticipated, without artificially inflating the cost of entry. Economic theory posits that taxation demands this deductibility to prevent overstatement of taxable resources, thereby supporting undistorted decision-making akin to business expense deductions under standard accounting principles. Such a mechanism extends beyond to any income-generating , reinforcing system neutrality by treating capital outlays consistently with labor-derived , which avoids preferential biases toward low-risk or non-depreciable assets. Without it, investors might shun leveraged ventures that enhance overall economic , as the code would impose a de facto hurdle rate exceeding market realities, contravening principles of minimal interference in voluntary exchanges. This deductibility thus serves as a baseline for equitable fiscal treatment, grounded in the recognition that true emerges only after netting all associated costs.

Incentives for Capital Formation and Housing Supply

Negative gearing provides a for by permitting investors to offset losses from rental properties—primarily interest expenses exceeding rental income—against other sources of income, such as wages, thereby reducing the effective for investments. This deduction aligns with broader principles of taxing , but in practice, it subsidizes investments in assets with low initial cash yields, channeling private savings into and acquisition rather than alternative uses like equities or business ventures. Without this offset, the after-tax hurdle rate for such leveraged property investments would rise, potentially diverting capital away from and slowing the accumulation of residential capital stock. In , this incentive has empirically supported growth in investor participation, with approximately 2.25 million taxpayers reporting net rental losses deductible under negative gearing rules in the 2019-20 financial year, many tied to deductions on loans. The encourages the purchase and holding of for rental purposes, contributing to an increase in the proportion of dwellings owned by investors, which rose from about 25% in the early to over 30% by the mid-2010s amid sustained negative gearing uptake. Quantitative models indicate that negative gearing boosts housing demand, particularly for marginal projects, fostering in the residential sector as a productive asset class that generates rental streams over time. Regarding housing supply, negative gearing incentivizes the expansion of by making it viable to invest in where upfront costs exceed immediate returns, thereby increasing the availability of leased accommodations without relying solely on government-subsidized . Empirical simulations, such as those from research, show that curtailing negative gearing would reduce investor activity, leading to higher equilibrium rents due to diminished supply—implying the policy's role in maintaining or augmenting the investor-owned segment of , which constitutes a significant portion of total dwellings available for occupancy. While critics argue much investment targets existing rather than new builds, the incentive nonetheless sustains a larger pool of units by discouraging during low-yield periods, supporting overall supply elasticity in response to and pressures. This effect is evident in Australia's relatively low vacancy rates, averaging below 3% in major cities from 2010 to 2020, sustained partly by investor retention facilitated by tax loss offsets.

Empirical Assessments

Impacts on Housing Markets and Affordability

Negative gearing subsidizes leveraged investment in rental properties by allowing deductions of losses against other income, thereby increasing investor demand for housing and contributing to elevated prices. Quantitative modeling indicates that eliminating negative gearing would reduce house prices by approximately 1.7%, as the policy inflates values through heightened competition from tax-advantaged investors. The International Monetary Fund has noted that unlimited negative gearing, combined with capital gains tax discounts, encourages speculative leveraged buying during market upswings, exacerbating demand pressures in high-price cities like Sydney and Melbourne. This mechanism reduces affordability for first-time buyers and owner-occupiers, who face higher entry barriers without equivalent tax relief, leading to lower homeownership rates. In a general equilibrium model calibrated to Australian data, removing negative gearing raises the homeownership rate by 5.5 percentage points (from 66.7% to 72.2%), with disproportionate gains for younger and lower- households, such as a 26.4% increase for those under 35 in the lowest income quintile. Empirical analyses from the (AHURI) confirm that negative gearing disproportionately benefits high-income investors, skewing market participation and intensifying price competition against non-investors. On the supply side, negative gearing expands the rental stock by incentivizing property purchases for leasing, though primarily in existing dwellings rather than new construction. The same modeling shows rental supply declining by over 30% relative to baseline if negative gearing is abolished, implying the policy sustains greater availability of . However, AHURI finds limited evidence of significant long-term rental supply growth, as investor behavior often prioritizes short-term capital gains over sustained expansion, with most negatively geared properties being established homes. This dynamic may moderate rent growth for tenants but does little to alleviate overall affordability constraints tied to total stock limitations from and development barriers. Overall welfare effects are mixed, with net gains from in some models due to broader homeownership benefits outweighing rental supply reductions, though landlords—concentrated among wealthier cohorts—bear losses. The policy's distortionary incentives favor a minority of investors (about 13% of households) at the expense of market efficiency, as evidenced by improved aggregate welfare (1.5% gain) and benefits to 76% of households under abolition scenarios.

Fiscal Implications and Revenue Effects

The deductibility of net rental losses allows investors to offset property-related deficits against other taxable income, resulting in direct forgone revenue for the Australian government through reduced personal income tax collections. In 2020-21, rental losses totaled $7.8 billion, yielding a $2.7 billion tax benefit from these offsets. By 2021-22, the volume of claimed rental losses had risen to $6.3 billion, providing an estimated $2.2 billion in tax savings, amid 1.0 million negatively geared individuals. These figures reflect the tax expenditure specifically attributable to loss offsetting, distinct from deductions on positive rental income. Projections indicate escalating costs driven by higher interest rates since 2022, which amplify deductible expenses and net losses. The estimates total rental deductions—including those enabling negative gearing—will forgone $26.5 billion in revenue for 2024-25, up from $17.1 billion in 2020-21, with continued increases to $32.4 billion by 2027-28. The Parliamentary Budget Office forecasts the cumulative fiscal impact of negative gearing at $97 billion over the decade to 2033-34, based on extrapolations from 2021-22 taxation statistics and assumed persistence in investor behavior. These estimates assume no behavioral changes, such as reduced investment, which could alter revenue dynamically. While direct revenue losses dominate fiscal assessments, proponents note potential offsets from heightened realizations upon property sales, though empirical , including modeling, find limited net positive effects after accounting for timing and discount interactions. Overall, negative gearing contributes to structural pressures, ranking among significant expenditures alongside the , with combined costs exceeding $165 billion over the same decadal period per PBO .

Distributional Analysis and Wealth Effects

Negative gearing in disproportionately benefits higher-income taxpayers in terms of tax savings, despite a majority of users falling into middle-income brackets. According to data analyzed by , nearly 70 percent of individuals with negatively geared properties reported taxable incomes below $80,000 annually as of recent assessments, indicating widespread participation among average earners. However, the value of deductions scales with marginal tax rates and the size of losses claimed, leading to greater absolute benefits for top earners; for instance, those in the highest (above $180,000) capture nearly one-quarter of total negative gearing tax offsets, as higher leverage and values amplify deductible expenses. Similarly, analysis estimates that the top 20 percent of income earners receive over 50 percent of the benefits from negative gearing deductions. This distributional skew arises because negative gearing offsets rental losses against other income, providing larger tax reductions for individuals with higher marginal rates, while lower-income participants often claim smaller losses. Empirical modeling from , drawing on ATO taxation statistics, shows the bottom 50 percent of receives only about 20 percent of the total tax benefits, underscoring a system's interaction with investment losses that favors those with greater capacity to incur and deduct substantial shortfalls. Industry analyses, such as from the Property Council, counter that middle-income households (around $80,000 or less) dominate usage numerically, enabling modest wealth-building through property, though these claims emphasize participation over per-capita benefits and align with stakeholder interests in maintaining the policy. In terms of wealth effects, negative gearing facilitates by allowing investors to sustain cash-flow-negative properties through tax-subsidized losses, often in anticipation of capital gains taxed at a 50 percent discount upon sale. This mechanism has contributed to rising wealth among participants, with ATO indicating average annual losses per negatively geared around $8,930, offset against to preserve holdings during low-yield periods, thereby enabling long-term appreciation in Australia's market where median dwelling prices rose from approximately $500,000 in to over $1 million by 2023. Quantitative studies, including Reserve Bank welfare models, suggest that while the policy distorts toward tax-favored assets like , it boosts for geared investors by reducing effective holding costs, though aggregate welfare gains from abolition imply inefficiencies that may exacerbate concentration among owners. Critics argue these effects widen wealth inequality, as savings—estimated in billions annually—primarily accrue to affluent households already positioned to enter leveraged markets, diverting resources from broader economic productivity. Proponents highlight that it democratizes access to asset growth for middle-class savers, with empirical profiles of investors showing negative gearing cushions losses amid fluctuations, supporting portfolio diversification and intergenerational transfers via equity buildup. Overall, causal evidence links the policy to heightened investment but uneven wealth outcomes, with higher-income groups leveraging it for amplified returns amid systemic supply constraints.

Criticisms and Debates

Claims of Market Distortion and Inequality

Critics argue that negative gearing distorts markets by incentivizing speculative in existing properties over new , as investors leverage deductions to outbid owner-occupiers, thereby reducing available stock for first-time buyers and elevating prices without commensurate supply increases. A quantitative analysis modeled the policy's removal, projecting a 1.7% decline in house prices alongside a 5.5 rise in overall rates (from 66.7% to 72.2%), particularly benefiting younger and lower-income households, which suggests the artificially sustains elevated valuations and ownership barriers. The has similarly identified negative gearing, combined with discounts, as a factor distorting Australia's sector and contributing to falling rates since the early 2000s. On inequality, detractors claim the policy widens disparities by delivering outsized tax benefits to higher- earners capable of financing leveraged investments, effectively subsidizing asset accumulation among the affluent at the expense of broader affordability. Parliamentary Budget Office projections for 2024-25 estimate negative gearing deductions at $14.5 billion in forgone , with benefits skewed such that investors earning over $180,000 annually—comprising a minority of users—capture nearly one-quarter of total advantages, amplifying returns on assets held predominantly by the top deciles. Complementary estimates indicate that 73% of gains from negative gearing and related capital gains concessions flow to the top 10% of earners, entrenching intergenerational transfers via while younger cohorts face compounded .

Responses Highlighting Neutrality and Benefits

Proponents of negative gearing assert that it represents neutral treatment rather than a concession or , as it permits the deduction of verifiable losses from income-generating activities against other , a applicable to investments beyond , such as shares or businesses. This aligns with the benchmark, where expenses incurred to produce income are offset without restriction, avoiding or undue penalization of leveraged investments. Critics labeling it a overlook that restricting such deductions would introduce asymmetry, taxing gross revenue rather than , which deviates from standard fiscal neutrality. Empirical responses emphasize negative gearing's role in bolstering rental housing supply by incentivizing private , with investor-financed accounting for approximately 33% of new dwellings annually in . Historical data from the 1985–1987 quarantine of negative gearing losses under the demonstrate its supply effects: rental declined sharply, resulting in contracted supply and rent spikes of up to 20% in and Perth within two years, which reversed upon reinstatement in 1988. Modeling in industry-commissioned indicates that abolishing these provisions would elevate rents and prices in the short to medium term by deterring , thereby countering claims of market and supporting long-term affordability through expanded . Participant demographics further underscore benefits for wealth accumulation among non-wealthy households: around 66.5% of negatively geared owners earn $80,000 or less annually, with 58% of total losses claimed by those in this bracket based on 2012–13 data, enabling middle-income professionals like teachers and nurses to offset modest average net losses of $9,000 against wages for . When paired with the discount, it encourages holding periods that stabilize markets and channel savings into productive assets, exerting downward pressure on prices relative to scenarios without such incentives. These mechanisms promote without fiscal favoritism, as losses reflect real economic costs like interest and maintenance, repaid via eventual capital appreciation or yields.

Jurisdictional Variations

Australia-Specific Features and Recent Discussions

In , negative gearing permits individuals to deduct net rental losses from investment properties—primarily comprising , maintenance, council rates, and —against other assessable , such as wages, thereby reducing overall . This mechanism aligns with the general principle of 's system, which allows deductions for expenses incurred in deriving assessable , without specific quarantining for property investments. Unlike some jurisdictions, these deductions are not limited to offsetting rental alone, enabling broader relief that has historically encouraged leveraged property . The policy, embedded since 1936 to stimulate supply amid shortages, was briefly modified in 1985 under the to quarantine losses from other sources, a measure reversed in 1987 following from groups and concerns over reduced rental stock. A distinctive feature amplifying negative gearing's appeal is its interaction with the 50% (CGT) discount introduced in 1999, which applies to assets held over 12 months, including investment properties, effectively taxing only half the nominal gain upon sale. This combination has sustained high participation, with approximately 2.2 million property investors claiming deductions as of recent estimates, predominantly in residential . Empirical data from the Parliamentary Office (PBO) indicates that negative gearing deductions cost the federal budget around $5.7 billion annually in foregone revenue, though investors contribute substantially more—$45.6 billion yearly—in CGT payments upon realization of gains. Critics, including think tanks like the , argue this structure disproportionately benefits higher-income earners, with Treasury modeling showing 2024-25 deductions skewed toward the top income deciles, while proponents emphasize its role in maintaining rental supply without net fiscal drag when CGT is factored in. Recent discussions, intensified amid housing affordability pressures, have centered on potential reforms without enacted changes as of October 2025. In September 2024, Treasurer confirmed commissioning analysis on negative gearing's impacts, amid projections of rising costs—$10.2 billion by 2029-30 and $14.5 billion by 2034-35—prompting debates on revenue recovery for budget repair. The PBO's June 2025 evaluation of phasing out negative gearing and the CGT discount for investors with multiple properties (sparing the first pre-reform asset) estimated modest rental increases of 1-2% short-term but potential long-term affordability gains through redirected investment. Industry bodies like the Housing Industry Association countered in September 2025 that such alterations would deter supply, citing historical data showing no correlation between gearing changes and sustained price moderation, while the Institute's reinterpretation of models suggested rents would rise negligibly (under 0.5%) and home prices fall 2-4%, challenging government reluctance. Proposals have included restricting deductions to new-build properties or short-stay rentals, with a September 2025 report estimating $556 million annual losses from the latter's tax treatment exacerbating long-term rental shortages. Opposition Leader has opposed reforms, arguing they would inflate rents without aiding first-home buyers, echoing 2019 election dynamics where Labor's curtailment pledge contributed to electoral defeat. As of mid-2025, no legislative shifts have materialized, with federal policy maintaining the amid competing priorities like for supply growth.

Implementations in Other Countries

In Canada, rental losses from investment properties can be deducted without limit against other taxable income, subject to requirements such as demonstrating a reasonable expectation of profit and prohibiting depreciation claims from creating or exacerbating losses. This policy facilitates negative gearing akin to Australia's, though the profit expectation rule aims to prevent abuse through perpetual loss-making investments. Germany permits the deduction of rental losses against other income sources, with additional flexibility for carrying losses backward one year or forward indefinitely, mirroring Australia's unrestricted offsetting but enabling greater tax planning via loss timing. Despite these similarities, 's housing market has exhibited since the early 2000s, attributed to a large regulated private rental sector, low , and stringent lending standards from public institutions, underscoring that negative gearing alone does not drive price escalation. Japan allows unrestricted offsetting of rental losses against other income, though interest expenses related solely to land ownership cannot offset non-rental income, providing a close parallel to Australian practice while imposing a targeted limitation on non-income-producing components. Norway similarly enables rental losses to offset other income, excluding deductions for capital improvements and requiring properties to be rented for more than 30 days annually to qualify, which supports incentives with safeguards against speculative or underutilized holdings. In contrast, jurisdictions like and the employ ring-fencing, confining rental losses to offsets against future property income rather than broader taxable earnings; reinstated full interest deductibility in phases starting April 2024 (fully effective by April 2027) after a 2019 restriction, yet retained ring-fencing to curb cross-income deductions. The further limits deductions by treating mortgage interest as a 20% since 2017, preventing direct expense offsets that could generate losses. In the United States, offsets are capped at $25,000 annually for taxpayers with below $100,000 (phasing out to $150,000), with excess losses carried forward unless the investor qualifies as a "real estate professional" for unlimited deductions. These variations highlight a spectrum of policies balancing encouragement with fiscal safeguards, often tailored to local market dynamics.

References

  1. https://www.ato.gov.au/api/public/content/c460573305384ad6bbe6ffb1dcf4f03a
  2. https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/using-our-website/definitions
  3. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Affordable_housing_2013/Report/c09
  4. https://www.pbo.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-06/PBO-ECR-2025-3414-Phase%2520out%2520negative%2520gearing%2520and%2520CGT%2520tax%2520concessions%2520for%2520property%2520investors%2520with%2520more%2520than%2520one%2520investment%2520property.pdf
  5. https://polis.cass.anu.edu.au/research/publications/distributional-modelling-negative-gearing-and-capital-gains
  6. https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2019/2019-01/full.html
  7. https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/workshops/research/2017/pdf/rba-workshop-2017-simon-cho-may-li.pdf
  8. https://hia.com.au/our-industry/newsroom/economic-research-and-forecasting/2023/08/global-negative-gearing-comparison
  9. https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/submissions/housing-and-housing-finance/inquiry-into-home-ownership/impact-of-taxation.html
  10. https://www.menziesrc.org/latest-research/negative-gearing-the-facts
  11. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/Equality-Rights-Alliance-att-2.pdf
  12. https://treasury.gov.au/review/tax-white-paper/negative-gearing
  13. https://www.ato.gov.au/forms-and-instructions/rental-properties-2015/other-tax-considerations/negative-gearing
  14. https://www.ato.gov.au/forms-and-instructions/rental-properties-2025/other-tax-considerations
  15. https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/investments-and-assets/property-and-land/residential-rental-properties/rental-expenses/how-to-claim-rental-expenses
  16. https://lawpath.com.au/blog/calculate-negative-gearing
  17. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-16/negative-gearing-wont-push-up-rents-experts/7172502
  18. https://www.propertyology.com.au/facts-about-australian-housing-and-negative-gearing/
  19. https://theconversation.com/how-many-of-australias-2-2-million-property-investors-would-lose-out-under-a-new-plan-to-curb-negative-gearing-262595
  20. https://www.moneymag.com.au/controversial-history-of-negative-gearing
  21. https://www.rentwest.com.au/local-news/a-history-of-negative-gearing-in-australia/
  22. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-06/hockey-negative-gearing/6431100
  23. https://theconversation.com/policycheck-negative-gearing-reform-58404
  24. https://www.prosper.org.au/2012/10/written-off-negative-gearing-report/
  25. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/original/00007223.pdf
  26. https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=99cfa3f6-858f-467d-91a9-31e384534a5e&subId=31798
  27. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-11/foi-3456.pdf
  28. https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/opinion/negative-gearing-barely-affects-the-price-of-houses-in-the-market/
  29. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2023/01/20/why-do-we-allow-investors-to-deduct-stock-market-losses-from-their-taxes
  30. https://crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/2025-05/2a_2021_Cho_Li_Uren_Original_Jan2021.pdf
  31. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10901-023-10069-3
  32. https://ausfirstlending.com.au/blog/negative-gearing-in-australia-how-policy-shapes-your-property-plan/
  33. https://www.primarymarkets.com/negative-gearing-in-australia/
  34. https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=06db1501-8bbf-4374-b4ff-1fb8e925fc0c&subId=712168
  35. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/002/2018/045/article-A003-en.pdf
  36. https://www.ahuri.edu.au/sites/default/files/migration/documents/AHURI_Final_Report_301_pathways_to_housing_tax_reform.pdf
  37. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-01/p2024-489823-teis.pdf
  38. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-12/p2024-607085-teis.pdf
  39. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-03/foi-3539.pdf
  40. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jul/01/negative-gearing-and-capital-gains-tax-discounts-to-cost-australian-budget-165bn-over-10-years-analysis-reveals
  41. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/sep/27/how-the-most-affluent-australians-disproportionately-benefit-from-negative-gearing
  42. https://www.rba.gov.au/information/foi/disclosure-log/pdf/202131.pdf
  43. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Top-Gears-How-Negative-Gearing-and-CGT-benefits-top-10-per-cent.pdf
  44. https://www.propertycouncil.com.au/media-releases/average-workers-the-major-beneficiaries-of-negative-gearing
  45. https://www.jensenproperty.com.au/negative-gearing-not-mainly-benefit-average-earners/
  46. https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/research-and-statistics/in-detail/taxation-statistics/taxation-statistics-2022-23
  47. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/the-capital-gains-discount-and-negative-gearing-benefit-the-rich-and-destroy-housing-affordability/
  48. https://www.rsm.global/australia/insights/common-misconceptions-about-negative-gearing
  49. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/imf-confirms-tax-concessions-distorting-australias-housing-market/
  50. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/the-housing-crisis-is-turning-into-an-inequality-crisis/
  51. https://ipa.org.au/research/australias-prosperity/should-we-scrap-negative-gearing-no-it-will-do-nothing-to-solve-australias-housing-crisis
  52. https://www.propertycouncil.com.au/media-releases/new-research-on-negative-gearing-and-cgt-debunks-myths
  53. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-11/foi-3751.pdf
  54. https://grattan.edu.au/news/why-negative-gearing-should-be-on-the-table/
  55. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-27/jim-chalmers-negative-gearing-modelling/104405060
  56. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/21/australia-housing-crisis-negative-geating
  57. https://hia.com.au/our-industry/housing/in-focus/2025/09/negative-gearing-and-cgt-sorting-facts-from-fiction
  58. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/the-report-the-prime-minister-cites-against-changes-to-negative-gearing-actually-shows-housing-would-be-more-affordable-and-rents-barely-affected/
  59. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/01/negative-gearing-on-short-stay-rentals-costs-australia-up-to-556m-a-year-report-estimates
  60. https://www.wealthcopilot.com.au/negative-gearing-australia-vs-world
  61. https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2018/01/negative-gearing--a-tale-of-two-countries
  62. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-20/nz-reinstate-interest-deductibility-on-investment-properties/103685396
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.