Policy Lever or Policy Liability?
Negative gearing remains one of the most contentious elements of Australia’s housing and taxation framework. For decades, it has been both defended as an essential tool for encouraging private investment and criticised for distorting the housing market, exacerbating affordability issues and contributing to wealth inequality. As the nation grapples with an intensifying housing crisis characterised by barriers to first home ownership, record-low vacancy rates and skyrocketing rents, the debate surrounding the efficacy and equity of negative gearing is once again in sharp focus. While advocates argue it supports small investors and promotes housing supply, critics assert it fuels speculative demand and places home ownership further out of reach for many Australians. The challenge lies in balancing these competing views while considering whether alternative policy mechanisms could achieve more sustainable outcomes.
Negative gearing refers to the practice where an investor borrows money to acquire an income-generating asset—most commonly residential property—and the costs of holding that asset, including loan interest, exceed the income the property generates. In the Australian context, investors can deduct this net loss against their other taxable income, thereby reducing their overall tax liability. The rationale underpinning the policy is to incentivise private investment in the housing sector, thereby increasing the supply of rental properties and easing pressure on public housing. However, in practice, the policy’s distributional effects and behavioural impacts have become a source of increasing focus and concern.
One of the main arguments in support of negative gearing is that it levels the playing field for small investors. It enables middle-income earners, not just the wealthy, to invest in real estate and build long-term financial security through capital appreciation. For many Australians, property is not only a source of income but also a retirement strategy. Negative gearing allows individuals to absorb early losses in the hope that capital gains will eventually offset initial deficits. This has created a powerful incentive for individuals to enter the property market, particularly during periods of low interest rates and high property price appreciation. Supporters also claim that negative gearing promotes housing availability by encouraging new investment in rental properties. This, in theory, increases the supply of rental accommodation and offers tenants more choice in a market where demand is strong.
Yet the real-world impact of negative gearing has often deviated from its theoretical foundations. The majority of negatively geared properties are not new builds but rather existing dwellings. This undercuts the argument that the policy directly contributes to increasing housing supply. Instead, critics suggest that it adds to demand-side pressure, pushing up house prices and crowding out first-home buyers who are unable to compete with tax-advantaged investors. Data from the Australian Taxation Office indicates that a significant proportion of the benefits of negative gearing accrue to higher-income earners, who are better positioned to leverage debt and absorb temporary losses. This raises concerns around equity, as the policy effectively subsidises property investment for those already in stronger financial positions while doing little to improve housing affordability for low-to-middle-income earners.
The link between negative gearing and the current housing crisis is complex. While it is not the sole cause of rising prices and constrained supply, it is a contributing factor. By amplifying investor demand for residential property, especially during booms, it can intensify price competition and inflate asset values. Coupled with favourable capital gains tax concessions, it creates a tax structure that can favour investment in property over other asset classes. This concentration of capital into the housing market distorts broader economic productivity and reduces the incentive for investors to allocate funds toward more innovative or job-generating sectors. Moreover, the effect on rental supply is not as straightforward as often claimed. In some high-demand inner-city suburbs, heavy investor activity can push up prices without materially improving long-term rental availability, particularly when units are bought as speculative assets and left vacant or short-term leased via platforms like Airbnb.
Several policy alternatives have been proposed over the years to address the shortcomings of negative gearing without causing systemic disruption. These include limiting the deductibility of losses to new builds only, capping the number of properties that can be negatively geared, or phasing out the policy altogether while grandfathering existing arrangements to protect current investors. The Labor Party’s 2019 federal election platform included a plan to restrict negative gearing to newly built homes from a future date, though it was ultimately abandoned following the party’s defeat and subsequent political recalibration. The fear of alienating middle-income voters and triggering a fall in property values remains a significant political barrier to reform, despite growing consensus among economists that change is overdue.
If changes to negative gearing were to be implemented, the potential impact on small investors would need to be carefully managed. Many individual investors operate with modest portfolios and limited cash flow buffers. Abruptly removing negative gearing benefits could place a financial strain on these households, especially if rental yields do not cover mortgage costs. Property values could experience short-term declines, particularly in investor-heavy suburbs, creating risks for leveraged owners. However, international examples suggest that phased reform—if accompanied by broader housing supply measures and rental support policies—can mitigate these risks.
The broader over arching issue is whether Australia’s housing tax policy is fit for purpose in today’s economic climate. Structural demand drivers such as population growth, migration and urbanisation are colliding with supply-side bottlenecks like planning restrictions, high construction costs and infrastructure shortfalls. Negative gearing, while only one piece of the puzzle, shapes investor behaviour and market expectations in ways that often work against affordability goals. Tax incentives should ideally promote productive investment and social benefits, not merely reward speculative capital flows into existing assets. A shift in the policy framework could redirect investment toward build-to-rent developments or other housing models that expand supply in a meaningful way.
Reform could signal a rebalancing of the tax system to ensure greater perceived fairness. Presently, the combination of negative gearing and the 50% capital gains tax discount arguably provides an outsized benefit to property investors relative to other taxpayers. This undermines perceptions of equity and encourages tax minimisation strategies that may be economically inefficient from a societal perspective. A more neutral tax treatment—where all asset classes are treated consistently—could enhance economic dynamism and reduce distortions in household investment decisions.
Critics of reform often raise the spectre of rent increases, arguing that discouraging property investment would reduce rental stock. However, studies have found limited evidence that changes to negative gearing would materially increase rents in the long term, particularly if reforms were part of a comprehensive housing strategy.
Ultimately, the question is not whether negative gearing is good or bad in isolation, but whether it is delivering the outcomes the country needs. In its current form, it has arguably failed to promote housing affordability or stimulate the right kind of investment. At a time when governments are under pressure to address the housing crisis through a mix of supply-side initiatives and demand-side reforms, continuing to preserve a tax policy that favours speculative property investment appears increasingly untenable.
Any transition away from negative gearing must be done in a deliberate, transparent and well-communicated manner. Protecting existing investors from retrospective policy changes while redirecting new incentives toward construction and affordable housing could offer a compromise. Policymakers must resist short-term political calculations and instead focus on long-term housing sustainability, equity and economic productivity. Australia’s housing market is too critical to its social fabric and economic wellbeing to be governed by inertia.
PrimaryMarkets
For companies and managed funds that are not listed on a stock exchange, the PrimaryMarkets trading Platform is an ideal way to facilitate the off-market sale of shares in your company and units in managed funds.
PrimaryMarkets is a flexible and evolving Platform that responds in real time to an ever-changing investment environment. In doing so, it provides sophisticated investors with access to companies that are shaping the future in a wide variety of industries and sectors. We provide access to opportunities previously only accessible to institutional investors. In addition to trading, PrimaryMarkets helps companies raise capital from our global investor database.
PrimaryMarkets exemplifies how innovation can transform the way we invest, trade and raise capital by breaking down traditional barriers, providing liquidity solutions and promoting transparency.
As the Platform continues to grow and evolve, it promises to unlock even more opportunities for investors and companies shaping the future of economies.