New research commissioned by building and construction industry group, Master Builders Australia (MBA) has claimed the Federal Opposition’s policies on negative gearing and capital gains tax (CGT) will not increase the supply of new housing or create jobs.
The research, undertaken by Cadence Economics, found that if Labor’s policies were implemented there would be up to 42,000 fewer new dwellings being built across the country and up to 32,000 fewer full-time jobs.
It said this translated in up to $11.8 billion less building and up to $210 million in less renovation building activity.
Commenting on the research, MBA chief executive, Denita Wawn said it suggested Labor’s own policies on negative gearing and CGT failed the party’s own test.
“Master Builders calls on the ALP to rethink their policies in the light of this new research and a changed housing market. Australia cannot afford for housing supply, building activity and employment to go backwards,” she said.
“Cadence Economics was commissioned by MBA to test Labor’s claims that its policy to restrict negative gearing to investments in new housing and halve the capital gains tax (CGT) discount to 25 per cent on all properties will increase the supply of new housing and employment in the building industry,” Wawn said.
She said the results of the modelling were that within five years of Labor’s property tax policy being implemented the construction of new housing would fall in all states and territories and employment would fall over the same period.
Superannuation funds have thrown their support behind the QAR reforms but want a “clear statement” that they will not be required to check all member SOAs.
In its latest report, the corporate regulator says the deduction of advice fees has led to instances of “inappropriate erosion of members’ balances”.
Financial advice is having a significant impact on how Australians are engaging with the more complex aspects of their superannuation, new findings have shown.
While the Financial Advice Association Australia said it supports a performance testing regime “in principle”, it holds reservations about expanding this scope to retirement products.
Add new comment