Subsidies? At least be consistent

Allan Johnson
Allan Johnson Janie Kayes

A FEW weeks ago, I heard the government has decided local production of Holden cars is so important that we can afford to subsidise the operation for the next decade.

The amount of the subsidy is somewhere north of $200 million, and what do we get for our money?

We get continued employment for a number of South Australian workers, and of course protection for Australian manufacturing capabilities.

Of course, other car manufacturers enjoy the same privileges, so I was interested to read that South Australia's Centre for Economic Studies has suggested that the handouts are bad public policy.

But in case you are thinking I have an axe to grind with car manufacturers, let's move on to sports people. Once again, the government spends a considerable amount of our tax dollars supporting the development and promotion of our athletes, with a view to hearing our national song at international sporting events. Is this a good use of our money?

No doubt you can think of other areas where government subsidies are necessary to maintain the activity, and whether or not that is an appropriate use of taxpayer funds is always a matter for debate.

The same applies to rental property investors. Here we have a situation where many rental property owners rely on the support of taxpayer funds through tax advantages from negative gearing. These tax benefits are factored into the decisions that the investors make in assessing the risk of the investment. What do we (as the taxpaying public) get for this level of government subsidy?

The obvious answer is a large number of accommodation units for Australians who, for various reasons, do not own their own homes. The alternative is for the government to provide the housing (and I would suggest that the government would be a very bad landlord!). It is doubtful whether the government would be able to provide the same volume of housing by diverting the current subsidy to the acquisition of rental properties.

Unfortunately, whenever the subject of tax or economic reform is mentioned, negative gearing is almost inevitably cast as a blight on society. The social benefits of providing housing are quite clear, and the right of all property investors to engage in this legitimate business activity cannot be denied.

Any business owner is able to deduct all legal expenses incurred in earning income, so I always struggle to understand why the rules should be different if you are running a business of renting a property.

By all means, if we need to change the rules, the rules should change for everyone - not just a particular class of investment. Subsidising manufacturing jobs or athletic prowess should also be on the agenda. What do you think?

Topics:  car industry, economy, manufacturing, protectionism, subsidies



Local Real Estate

Featured Real Estate
FULLY SELF CONTAINED... $9500.00 From
Cabin $12.5K for 6 x 2.4 x 2.5m fully installed. D.I.Y $9.5k bare ...
QUIET LIVING IN... $280 Weekly
House 2 1 2
Small Acreage Property... $440 Weekly
House 4 2 4

Featured Jobs

Bundaberg jobs listed daily

Featured Jobs
BUSINESS ANALYST... Bundaberg Full Time
FULLY QUALIFIED... Bundaberg Full Time
Cabinet Maker Bundaberg Full Time
SCHOOL CLEANER Givelda Part Time


Local Partners

LATEST DEALS AND OFFERS

Local Jobs

Search for your next job now!
Learn More

View today's ePaper!

Read the digital edition
Learn More

Cars For Sale

Find cars for sale online now.
Learn More

Subscription Sale

Subscribe now for $1 for 14 days.
Learn More

Local Profile

Stay Connected

Get the news as it happens, in your inbox

You can change the newsletters you are subscribed to when you edit your profile

Edit Profile


Special Offers

Latest deals and offers

Horoscopes

Leo

You may want to reconsider whether your friends have the same spiritual goals as you, otherwise you could get distracted and start to wonder...

read more

Marketplace

Special Offers & Promotions

Compare & Save