At the time of her death she was already engaged in getting together essays for a further volume, which she proposed to publish in the autumn of or the spring Of
By Michael Janda Updated September 24, ABC News Property groups want us to believe that average income earners dominate property investment and negative gearing - a closer look at the statistics shows that's a furphy, writes Michael Janda.
There's no doubt that a lot of ordinary, average-income Australians own investment properties, many of which are negatively geared. If you aren't a property investor yourself, then there's a good chance you know plenty of them, and run into them incessantly at weekend barbeques, weddings, on the golf course, or at a range of other social functions.
That's not surprising, because Tax Office statistics show there are almost 1. That's one of the key justifications trotted out for maintaining the current negative gearing regime - that it overwhelmingly benefits ordinary, average-income 'mum and dad' investors.
When the HIA made that claim again this week Broadcasting industry employment rate essay releasing an economic report in defence of negative gearing, it set off my bull-dust detectors big time.
So I went to the source, the ATO's tax stats, to find out the truth. For those who argue that negative gearing isn't overwhelmingly the domain of society's better-off, the truth hurts. Investment housing debt by income percentile Figures compiled by the Reserve Bank from that survey show that investment housing loans are, unsurprisingly, more than twice as common amongst the top fifth of highest-earning households than amongst any other income group.
That got me thinking about the apparent discrepancy between the RBA data and the tax stats - such a large survey as HILDA surely couldn't have got it that wrong. An obvious issue with the HIA's use of the ATO data was that it looked at taxable income - after people take out various deductions to lower their tax bills.
That takes the HIA's claimed 74 per cent, which is 72 per cent on the latest data, further down to 68 per cent. That's when I found the ATO's Excel tables that look at what taxable and total incomes people have declared who collect rent from investment properties. Who's in negative territory?
They could be people who own a property, are losing money on it, but are living off their partners' incomes; they could be people living off savings whose rental losses outweigh any investment income they earn; they could be superannuants drawing on now non-taxed drawdowns and pension streams; maybe they have some sophisticated trust structures which mean they can pay the bills while apparently earning no money.
Or they could be foreign investors. Rental income or losses are the only earnings that non-resident foreign property investors are likely to have to declare to the Australian Tax Office, as their wages, profits or other investment earnings are likely to be sourced overseas.
So take them out of the HIA figures and you are now down to That's already a fair bit less than three-quarters, but still more than the HILDA figures would seem to suggest. Again, it is highly unlikely that these people could survive if that was their genuine income level, let alone service the mortgages that theof them who are negatively geared have.
That's because the ATO's measure of "total income" includes net, not gross, rent - that is, rental earnings or losses after deductions such as interest payments have already been removed. The net result of all these calculations could be boiled down to a 'fact check' of the HIA's statement, and the outcome would be 'massively overstated'.
Income by itself is also an incomplete measure of whether these are 'average' Australians - wealth is just as important as income when considering the equality of tax measures.
Given that superannuation drawdowns aren't counted either, it is certain that many of these superannuants are exactly the "so-called wealthy investors" that the HIA claims the tax figures show are so few in number.
A lot of this group may no longer be utilising negative gearing, but it will have undoubtedly assisted them in building up the assets that will give them a comfortable retirement.
For all these reasons, the HILDA data - used extensively by the Reserve Bank - is a much more reliable measure than the Tax Office data on what type of household gets by far the biggest benefit from negative gearing, and it ain't the poor. Michael Janda is an online business reporter with the ABC.Television broadcasting industry in India ia a very huge industry and has thousands of programs in almost all states of India.
Almost half of the households in India own a television. In a research conducted in , it was found that a total of channels are available in the country out if which nearly are paid channels.
Broadcasting Industry Go to: Nature of the Industry | Working Conditions Factors contributing to the relatively slow rate of growth include industry consolidation, the introduction of new technologies, and competition from other media outlets.
Employment in radio broadcasting is expected to decline. In addition to consolidation . Read the headlines and you'd be forgiven for thinking we have been transported back in time. Trade wars, spies poisoned, a new Mao Zedong and the threat of nuclear war, writes Stan Grant.
Technical Skills Self-assessment: I make a point of keeping my technical skills as good or better than those of my staff and peers.I maintain an awareness of the evolution of comp and benefit practices, employment law, and computer software, hardware and peripherals.
The following are Scholarships/Awards that will be administered by the Tertiary Unit of the Ministry of Education for the /19 academic year.
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment Statistics, 39, people worked as reporters, editors, photographers, or film and video editors in the newspaper industry in That is down 15% from and 45% from