Windsor to challenge negative gearing Barnaby

Good news:

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce is in for a dog fight to retain his seat, with popular former independent Tony Windsor set to declare his intention to re-enter politics.

Mr Windsor has scheduled a press conference in Canberra for 10am Thursday and Fairfax Media has confirmed he will declare himself a candidate for the regional NSW seat of New England at the next election.

Mr Windsor, one of the crossbenchers who backed Julia Gillard to govern during the hung Parliament over Tony Abbott, held the seat for 12 years until he retired in 2013.

When he stepped away he gave Mr Joyce a clear run to move from the Senate to the House of Representatives.

Mr Joyce holds the seat with a margin of more than 19 per cent.

The polling suggested Mr Windsor would have pulled close to 38 per cent of the primary vote if an election had been called in August last year and favourable preferences could make New England a knife-edge contest.

Windsor is a man of principle as opposed to jelly-back Barnaby who claims to be concerned about Australia’s debt levels and foreign buyouts of local assets yet at the same time vehemently defends the primary cause of both, from The AFR:

Mr Joyce said while Labor’s policy to restrict negative gearing to new properties will make houses more affordable, it will erode the value of houses and pose a risk to banks.

“If you’re inherently going to make the value of their asset cheaper, you’re going to inherently going to make them a greater risk to the bank from whom they borrowed the money,” Mr Joyce told Sky News on Sunday.

Good luck to you, Tony Windsor.

Houses and Holes
Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)

Comments

    • Joyce is a dickhead. His ascent to the position of Deputy PM is depressing to say the least. He is the Dan Quayle of Australian politics. Remember Dan? “For NASA, space is still a high priority,” and “It’s time for the human race to enter the solar system.” He was a ripper…

  1. Here’s hoping he doesn’t get a vote. He did a deal with the devil once and look where it got the country.

    • Really? Is the devil you are referring to Julia Gillard? As opposed to doing a deal with the Tony Abbott?

      • Windsor sold out his electorate, he doesn’t stand a chance…

        Barnaby is actually good value. His own man.

      • Selling out the country is just so much better…. So exercising good judgement is selling out the electorate now?

      • Yeah his own man, I sent Barnaby a miners hat and rope cause he’s so far up Aunty Gina he will need it to find himself again.

      • 3DTime/Research1K talking up the LNP status quo yet again. Back to the Minerals council for you, little person. Your agenda is painfully transparent and everyone thinks you are very silly. Ha ha ha!

    • Yes he should have gone with the guy that gave us peerage, lifters and leaners, etc etc, I think he was a smart guy

  2. Man of principal – what are you smoking – this guy is the most arrogant arsehole to have ever walked the halls of parliament house – he sold his farm to Whitehaven coal but is now anti-coal, joined the nationals to build a profile then turned his back on them and then ran as an independent before being one of Labors most avid attack dogs.

    • i know he’s another 60 or 70 year old who’s had his time milking the tax payer and needs to be taken out the back paddock and put down.

    • There is going to be a row all right, Wait till Harold Mitchell comes out in support of BJ.
      Windsor will wish he had never been born Something is afoot??

    • Spot on Samscout. The voters of New England thought they were electing a soft Nat and were shocked when he did the deal with Gillard. His reason for doing so being that his position of influence was more likely to last the full term under Labor than with the Coalition. Barnaby will eat him for breakfast.

      • So basically what you are saying is the voters of that electorate will vote Nat and nothing but the Nat. Judgement and national interests be damned.

      • “His reason for doing so being that his position of influence was more likely to last the full term under Labor than with the Coalition.”

        Couldn’t have been that he foresaw how much of a disaster Abbott would be as PM, could it?

      • No Kevin, what I am saying is if the voters of New England had wanted Labor in power they would have voted for the Labor candidate. As Samscout says, Windsor had built his profile under the Nats and the people would have assumed he would support the Coalition when push came to shove. Instead of which he sold them out.

      • Surely if the voters of New England wanted a Nat or a Liberal they would have voted for one.

      • DT – they did – they voted for Barnaby by a substantial margin. I suspect Windsor is being two faced again and is being back by an anonymous source.

  3. Jelly backed Barnaby? He’s being honest – change negative gearing and there is a positive and negative impact.

    And isn’t he quite right to raise concern re foreign buyout of local assets? Last i checked MB is very vocal in its opposition to foreigners buying Australian property – or is that just homes/units – no concern re prime agricultural land?

    my thoughts on the NG debate here for what they are worth
    https://moneyfornothingdebtforfree.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/negative-gearing-let-sleeping-dogs-lie/

    • Nice article Jordan. I don’t agree with the conclusion but good on you for writing it.
      If not changes to negative gearing, how would you like to see the housing situation improved?

      • Thanks Claw

        I’m not 100% sure on the solution – but i’d be more inclined to go with

        – limit $$ losses per NG claimant per annum (a bit like there are limits on concessional/non-concessonial contributions to super)
        – land tax (that will get everyone that way)

        Grandfathering is the absolute worst idea in my mind – if they choose to do away with NG – they should do away with it completely – but maybe phase out to ease burden

        Im well aware of the problems – but i don’t agree we should DO SOMETHING just for the sake of it – sometimes solution creates more problems etc

        Cheers
        Jordan

      • Wouldn’t grandfathering result in all NG claims disappearing over 5 – 10 years as they become positively geared

    • The ALP policy applies to shares and other investments as well so your “roll up, roll up” fear is unfounded.

      But you are broadly right – the ALPs solution is attacking a walnut with a sledgehammer. There must be better ways to achieve whatever it is the ALP is trying to achieve with it.

      • Thanks Jason appreciate it

        Spot on re Labor – sorry my piece wasn’t only about their suggested policies – just the broader commentary re attempts to change/end/”Fix” negative gearing.

        Cheers and have a great day

    • Jordan,

      A good read and as someone who prefers that we deal with the causes rather than the symptoms I have a lot of sympathy for those who believe that we should not start with restricting the ability of people to claim losses on one investment against other income – from either other investments or wage and salary.

      However, there are couple points in your post that I disagree with.

      Grandfathering is not unfair. Right or wrong people have planned their finances on the basis of the existing state of affairs and that includes the ability to claim any losses against other income. We should only be talking about a prospective change – if for no other reason that the people rightfully upset about the change will present a massive political obstacle.

      Plus they don’t get to keep the deal for ‘perpetuity’ – they only get to claim losses against other income for as long as they have losses on the investment and there is little point in continuing to do that if the expectation of excessive capital gains fades. As you note the expectation of excessive gains on existing property are like to subside if new investors in existing property cannot claim losses against wage and salary income.

      Those who wish to be able to claim losses on investment property against other income, whether they be rich or poor, will be able to do so if they buy new property. But realistically this will only happen if the prospects of large capital gains on new property appear likely and that is also very doubtful as new housing, like new cars, tends to lose value once it has lost that new house smell. So investors in new housing are likely to be rental yield bounty hunters.

      You say that tilting the table towards new builds might result in an oversupply. Well the vacancy rates in most Australian capital cities across a range of housing stock demonstrate that an oversupply is not a current problem and has not been a problem in recorded memory. Lets worry about that if it happens – oversupply is something often spoken of but rarely seen. And if it does happen, it will be a temporary issue and one that is easily dealt with by allowing a few more migrants or refugees in for a few months.

      Building for the sake of building is not solution but it is a solution to a problem that currently exists – cat’s bum tight vacancy rates across the country.

      The issue of who gets the benefit of the losses claimed against other income is a red herring. The issue is not really who gets to claim those losses and whether they are rich or poor. The point is that claiming those losses is just a small part of why people invest in property. They are not investing to have up to half their losses repaid by the tax man. They are investing in the hope of making excessive capital gains. Limiting their ability to reduce their losses along the way to excessive capital gains takes some of the sweetness out of the deal but the big money they are after remains the capital gains and it likely that excessive investment in real estate will continue while the promise of those gains appears likely. And as we know the main determinant of that is in the hands of the RBA and APRA and how much cheap bank created money they allow to be sprayed in the direction of the property market.

      And that is ultimately why fiddling with negative gearing is not going to pop any bubble.

      At best it will knock a bit of foam off the property investors beer and reduce the rate of increase of property prices – maybe.

      Even the reduction in the CGT discount may only knock a bit more foam off – after all a discount on 25% of the gain is better than no discount at all.

      Ultimately the only things that can really pop the bubble are:

      1. The RBA and APRA forcing up the price of house hold debt and that seems unlikely as they love their household debt bubble.

      2. The demand of households to hold debt crashes – regardless of how tempting the RBA drives the mortgage debt “bait rates”.

      3. There really is an oversupply of property across a range of markets – and that is not something to be worried about as a bit of oversupply will help maintain downward pressure on prices and if we got really worried about it we can fix that with some migration or humanitarian intake.

    • Jordan,

      Excuse me, but I don’t understand your logic! On your blog you seem to agree that NG isn’t of value nor are rising house prices, yet, you then go into a defence of the status quo arguing against a grandfather clause because it’s unfair.
      “If it is bad policy it should be junked outright. Changes to taxation rates and policy in general is something every income taxpayer and business person has to live with, and I can see no good reason why this should be different for property investors.”

      Isn’t the above a bit contradictory if you believe in letting sleeping dogs lie?, I would have thought the present NG arrangements are unfair, grandfathering is a little less unfair. You also show concern for unintended consequences, which I would have thought a grandfather clause would at least reduce, inaddition you see issues with NG on new builds only. I would have thought any market distortion from that would take some time to come out and would be easily amended.

      The PCA have said their modelling indicates prices would rise by 1-2%, and their the spruikers. I can’t help but feel while you claim in general to be against present arrangements you do nothing but defend the status quo.

      • Hey Dennis

        appreciate your comments. I don’t think I’m being inconsistent – or a defender of the status quo. What i am saying is that all of the proposals have very clear issues with them (grandfathering allows 10% of Australians to keep a sweetheart deals perpetually denied to others, but getting rid of it also makes it harder for a lot of low/middle income earners)

        New builds will add to supply – but building for sake of building no solution etc.

        Im not defending status quo by saying we shouldn’t just jump on the bandwagon and back any new plan to end/reduce negative gearing. In the absence of a proper solution (which i don’t think we’ve yet seen), then doing nothing might be the better option.

        For record – land tax, or capping $$ that can be claimed by negative gearing might other solutions

      • paul adam peel

        “but getting rid of it also makes it harder for a lot of low/middle income earners”

        Its always easier for the rich to rort the tax code… not really a defence to keep the lurks open.

        In WA, Colin Barnett and Ralph Nalder are framing their arguments in a similar fashion.
        “We know you’re all mad that we haven’t delivered any of the light rail we promised and now we’re broke. But we have been thinking about tunneling and building heavy rail!”

        Let’s all talk about our fantasies so we don’t have to have a conversation about the failed relationship.

    • Hi Jordan,

      I’m sorry, but your post and blog are both contradictory in the manner that I read them and I’m not accusing you of anything but that! The build for buildings sake ignores what I said, and that is if NG on new builds only results in an unwanted supply addition it can be changed if required. Grandfathering protects those who would be harmed and prevents the abuse (as I see it) of NG being allowed to distort the estb homes side of the equation. For the life of me this response is tinkering at the edges in the short to medium term, but can be extended down the track once it can be seen where it’s headed.

      I still think your post and blog are basically supporting the present system while saying you don’t quite agree with, in other words contradictory.

      Edit: capping is imo is so extremely tinkering it’s likely to do nothing overall.

  4. “When he stepped away he gave Mr Joyce a clear run to move from the Senate to the House of Representatives”
    Why would you do that?

    • A good question.
      I hoped that Windsor would run for the Senate, when he retired from the H of R.
      Maybe it’s personal between him and Barnaby?

      • There’s no maybe about it – Windsor hates Joyce.

        Windsor running will probably be good news for the LNP – it will take Joyce away from the national campaign (does anyone really think Joyce won’t say something immensely stupid at some stage during a 7 week election campaign) and even if Windsor wins, he is more likely to align to a Turnbull-lead, Joyce-less LNP than the ALP.

      • “Turnbull-led”

        You can’t be serious, do you really think Turnbull is leading the LNP? Even with all the evidence staring at you?

        Make no mistake, LNP is and will be Abbott faction led before and after the election.

        Also did you not notice LNP just put a brand new 28 year old IPA drone on the number one spot on the senate ticket (in Vic I believe). Above every other more deserving LNP candidates. Turnbull-led? Bulls.

  5. Yes he should have gone with the guy that gave us peerage, lifters and leaners, etc etc, I think he was a smart guy

  6. “If you’re inherently going to make the value of their asset cheaper, you’re going to inherently going to make them a greater risk to the bank from whom they borrowed the money,” Mr Joyce told Sky News on Sunday”

    You might as well just cut to the chase and say, “f**k the poor and anyone else who can’t afford a home”.

  7. bernard collins

    Bring it on as it wont be a contest ,country party voters know when they have been cheated.

  8. Go Windsor, f*ck off Joyce.
    Reminder: Joyce’s recommendation to housing affordability is to move out further & further away from family, friends and work until you find something affordable. Oh and let’s not forget big scary pistol & boo. All the hallmarks of a coward and none of a leader.

    • “Go Windsor, f*ck off Joyce.”
      I’m assuming if you’re a Windsor supporter you understand and turn a blind eye to a person who got into bed with coal miners to offload his house, and then implemented shallow hypocrisy via voicing dissent against them?”
      There are certainly numbnuts on here.
      No offense intended, but both Windsor and Joyce are muppets. In fact, both the ALP and LNP are – this country is being run by a collection of muppets let’s face it. It’s the muppet show but this time, there’s no agenda, no big thinking, no snowy mountain scheme-scaled infrastructure projects, just rampant self-interest and rampant immigration to dilute living standards and catering to those wonderfully entitled cretanous groups in baby boomers. Make way for bed pan employment to serve that cashed up but declining boomer gen and life-long renting for our youth all courtesy of a boomer gen that saw it as their entitlement to invest and grab the high rents from their impoverished counterparts instead of investing in Aussie local businesses. But then again, you couldn’t expect a gen that is so self-serving to look past their own nose and think of what maybe in the best interests of Australia’s future. Stand aside.

  9. Malcolm..”…balances out the argument”…lol…
    How typically boomer-centric in response. Where there’s shame there’s a diversion. Laughably transparent. Tit for tat just won’t suffice Mal. And what’s more, your name is Malcolm. Sorry to hear that. Have a good night.