• @[email protected]OP
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I thought the central “lie” of negative gearing was that landlords could spend money improving their properties, claim the rent received on said property could never cover the cost of said improvements but in reality be accruing massive capital gains on said property - which will never be taxed until the sale of the property. In the meantime the money spent on these improvements can reduce the owner’s income tax, potentially to zero, despite the owner accruing massive wealth that will not be taxed. Am I missing something?