FreeOZ论坛

标题: RP Data分析文章：Henry Review对房市的影响 [打印本页]

作者: houge 时间: 7-5-2010 17:34
标题: RP Data分析文章：Henry Review对房市的影响
标题为‘澳大利亚未来的税务系统’的Henry Review Report长达1000多页，提出了138条税改方案。不过绝大部分方案政府都没采纳。
对于房产投资者，规则基本没有任何变化。
报告建议将个人税务优惠如负扣税、资本利得税的50%折扣等代之以一揽子的对利息收入、投资房净收入、资本利得税和一些利息支出等给予40%的税务折扣。不过基于选举考虑，政府对这些建议暂不会考虑。毕竟有过1985年时任财长基廷试图取消负扣税的先例。当时政府提出只能将房产投资亏损抵消将来利润，结果引发大量投资者退出市场。由于澳洲的租房市场严重依赖个人投资者，当个人投资意愿减退时，严重影响了新的投资房产供给，使房租直线上涨。2年后政府不得不恢复了负扣税政策。

作者: houge 时间: 7-5-2010 17:36
标题: 原文
The comprehensive review of the Australian taxation system contained plenty of recommendations but resulted in little action from the Federal Government. For property investors the playing field remains largely unchanged.

Titled ‘Australia’s Future Tax System’, the Henry Review report spanned almost 1,000 pages and included 138 recommendations for taxation reform. The Review is arguably the most thorough assessment of the Australian taxation system and processes undertaken. The response from the Federal Government to the Henry Review has been characterised by a distinct lack of recognition for the vast majority of these recommendations.

The most significant recommendations to be supported by the Government were announced together with the report release on Sunday May 2. These included:

* A reduction in the company tax rate progressively from 30% to 28% by 2014/15.
* Superannuation reforms, including shifting the compulsory employer contribution from 9% to 12% by 2019/20 and a $500 annual superannuation bonus for workers earning under $37,000 per annum
* A 40% tax on profits from the resources sector (known as the Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT)) which should funnel $12 billion in revenue to the Government over the first two years it is implemented.
* Establishment of a new infrastructure fund which will support state infrastructure projects.

The Henry Review had the potential to change the way Australian’s view the property market as an investment class The big ticket recommendations for the property sector were associated with negative gearing, capital gains tax and stamp duty reform – all of which remained virtually untouched in the Federal Government’s response to the review.

The Henry Review recommended replacing personal taxation discounts such as negative gearing and the 50% capital gains discount with a broader reaching 40% discount on interest income, net residential rental property income, capital gains and some interest expenses (recommendations 14 to 17). In the Federal Government’s response these recommendations were largely ignored.

Investors can continue to use negative gearing to offset losses on their investment property against their personal income tax and capital gains are still subject to a 50% discount if the asset is held longer than one year.

It should come as no surprise that these tax discounts remained untouched, particularly in an election year. One only has to cast their mind back to 1985 when Treasurer Paul Keating attempted to tamper with negative gearing, replacing the policy with a system that offset net losses against future profits. The result was that investment in property declined significantly and with no introduction of new rental stock, rental rates shot upwards. Two years later the policy was wound back.

With Australia being largely reliant on private investors to introduce new rental stock, the resulting reduction in new rental supply that would result from a downturn in investment would likely be fuel to the fire of an already undersupplied rental market.

The Review also recommended major changes to stamp duty provisions, where state based stamp duties would be replaced by a more efficient and broader based land tax system. The recommended land tax system would apply to all land holdings and use a sliding scale for assessment based on value per square metre. In this way, more valuable land would be taxed at higher rates and concessions would be given to low value and agricultural land where the dollar value per square metre is likely to be relatively low. Additionally, land tax would be applicable to individual properties rather than across aggregated land holdings.
The Government has not commented on this recommendation, apart from stating that the family home would be exempt from any land tax. Removing stamp duties will not be a decision the Government makes lightly, considering that stamp duty makes up about 34% of State Government property taxes (which in turn comprise about 45% of the entire State Government revenue base).

Another key section from the Henry Review relates to housing affordability and housing assistance. The review proposes:

* “a review of institutional arrangements (including administration) to ensure zoning and planning do not unnecessarily inhibit housing supply and housing affordability”; and
* a review of infrastructure charges / developer charges to ensure they appropriately price infrastructure contributions from developers to ensure unnecessary costs are avoided, transparency of these charges is improved and reductions in regulation are introduced that will streamline the development time frame.
* an increase in the maximum rate of rental assistance and a provision for escalations in rental assistance to be indexed to rental rates rather than CPI.

All of these recommendations have been ignored in the Federal Governments response to the Henry Review.

Whilst the Government’s response seems to lack a great deal of support for the recommendations contained in the ‘Australia’s Future Tax System’ report, it is still early days. There are likely to be further announcements as the Government releases budget papers next week. In particular, the Government is expected to announce further intentions for tax simplification and savings incentives such as tax breaks on bank savings.

Overall for the property sector, it is largely ‘business as usual’ and potentially a case of ‘watch this space’

作者: aprilpoon 时间: 7-5-2010 21:17

原帖由 houge 于 7-5-2010 17:34 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

毕竟有过1985年时任财长基廷试图取消负扣税的先例。当时政府提出只能将房产投资亏损抵消将来利润，结果引发大量投资者退出市场。由于澳洲的租房市场严重依赖个人投资者，当个人投资意愿减退时，严重影响了新的投资房产供给，使房租直线上涨。2年后政府不得不恢复了负扣税政策

论坛里不是有人说负扣税是房价高居不下的罪魁祸首吗？那究竟这东西是好是坏？

作者: houge 时间: 8-5-2010 01:36

原帖由 aprilpoon 于 7-5-2010 21:17 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

论坛里不是有人说负扣税是房价高居不下的罪魁祸首吗？那究竟这东西是好是坏？

我觉得这个东东是保护既得利益者的，高收入、缴税多的人通过它合理避税，普通人也可以通过它更快地积累财富；不过对于自住房都没解决、或低收入群体来说，确实享受不到什么好处。

但另一方面，工薪层也可以通过投资房产使用负扣税来加快财富积累，合理合法地致富。算上房租收入和负扣税，只花很少的月供就可以控制一套房产，坐等资本升值。

作者: vichyboy 时间: 13-5-2010 21:20
谢谢LZ，您说的negative gear取消又回复的我在一本讲投资的书里也看到过。

另一篇帖子http://www.freeoz.org/bbs/thread-899719-1-1.html 又说亨利税改案将是跨越两党取得的未来施政共识，实施是早晚的问题？您怎么看？投资房地产的利息支出来抵税的政策有可能取消吗？

作者: houge 时间: 14-5-2010 00:00
标题: 回复 #5 vichyboy 的帖子
个人看法，现在澳洲房市under supply确实很严重，而政府在公屋或廉租房方面的投入有限，发放土地、审批工程的速度又非常慢，所有这些原因造成出租房屋大量依靠私人投资。
如果取消负扣税，直接的后果可能就是投资客大规模撤出房市，造成新建投资房开工不足，进一步加剧供应紧张，房租大幅上涨，这个影响也不小。暂时看不到政府有魄力做这件事。
除非将来供给大量增加，例如政府大量投资公屋，或者人口快速增长的趋势逆转，否则很难改变供求格局，取消negative gearing也不太现实。
说亨利报告是未来税改的方向，也许不是专指投资房这一块吧。
个人看法，欢迎讨论。。。

作者: cathyyan 时间: 29-6-2010 19:31
支持，感谢lz

欢迎光临 FreeOZ论坛 (https://www.freeoz.org/ibbs/)