This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Turnbull Government

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
I guess you would prefer to believe "research" paid for by the Liberal Party to their mates in the Real Estate Institute or IPA ?
Click to expand...
I believe I covered that Horace, by saying that ALL opinion is speculative.
 
SirRumpole said:
Yea, the IPA is great on cutting spending on services but not cutting spending on rich landlords.

What w@nkers that lot are.
Click to expand...

Well, since they take from the poor to give to the rich... it does not make sense to give to the poor since it was their money in the first place.

You can't take from people just to then give it back to them, can you?

Negative Gearing is supposed to make more properties available for renting. Assume for a second that it does, somehow, eventually, create more inventory to be rented... Question is why in the heck is it better for people to rent rather than to buy their own home?

Why not make policies where it level the playing field, give the battlers a chance to own a home of their own instead of these bs about creating landlords and that's somehow good for everyone.

Not having a home will likely mean not having much to retire on. No equity to withdraw from in retirement. And forget about the kid/s' inheritance.

Which mean, beside the unhappy kids, the average renters will eventually have to keep working 'til they croak (Costello's grand plan, and he's proud of it)... or the costs, and rent, for these eventual pensions will fall on the average taxpayers.
 
luutzu said:
Which mean, beside the unhappy kids, the average renters will eventually have to keep working 'til they croak (Costello's grand plan, and he's proud of it)... or the costs, and rent, for these eventual pensions will fall on the average taxpayers.
Click to expand...

I think it's more likely that as they approach middle age they will become less attractive to employers and will find themselves jobless and out on the street, with the tab to be picked up by those who are still employed.
 
Negative gearing offsetting wages should be phased out and abolished. It was idiotic of the Hawke Govt and subsequent Govts to attempt to distort the laws of supply and demand with taxpayers money.
 
I think we are drifting into the "future of Australian property prices" thread, in the General Investment and Economics forum, this has been covered endlessly there.

Both Labor and LNP have had ample opportunity to address the issue, when in Government, neither have so neither can take the moral high ground.IMO
 
sptrawler said:
so neither can take the moral high ground.IMO
Click to expand...

So what is the "moral high ground" in this issue ?

If it is to give more people a chance to own their own home by swinging the balance away from investors to owner -occupiers then it certainly isn't the LNP who are doing that.
 
SirRumpole said:
So what is the "moral high ground" in this issue ?

If it is to give more people a chance to own their own home by swinging the balance away from investors to owner -occupiers then it certainly isn't the LNP who are doing that.
Click to expand...

The LNP has been in office for four years, Labor were in office for eight years prior to that, if negative gearing was such a problem both parties have had ample opportunity to address it.

I personally have stated on numerous occassions, when debating this very same subject with Sydboy on the "future of Australian property prices", that negative gearing has an upward pressure on prices and should be wound back.
But at the same time both Parties have been reluctant to do so.
I guess it may be the fact, that we still have 400,000 people coming into the Country every year, and the Governments don't want to have to supply housing.

The other issue is, it isn't about giving people a chance to own there own home, it is more about they maybe can't afford to buy one in the centre of Sydney or Melbourne.
Well I probably couldn't either, so that's why I live where I do.
 

Idiots generally skip over this bit.
 
The other bit that frequently gets skipped over in that debate is many people living in the centre of Sydney or Melbourne are doing it because that's where the employment is.

I sure as hell don't live in Sydney as a lifestyle choice.
 
Labor had 6 years in office, not 8. The lower house has 3 year terms unlike the 4 years many states have.
 
boofhead said:
Labor had 6 years in office, not 8. The lower house has 3 year terms unlike the 4 years many states have.
Click to expand...

My appologies, you're correct, however the issue is still the same. Both parties have had the opportunity, to address negative gearing and neither of them have.

Now labor have said they will take it to the next election.
https://thewest.com.au/news/australia/alp-stands-firm-on-negative-gearing-ng-b88708097z
The issue is what they do, if and when they are elected, until then it is just rhetoric.
As was W.A's Labors rhetoric, when they said they would keep the price of electricity down, pre election.
 
Last edited:
I remain of the broad view that the income tax base should be broadened to reduce effective marginal tax rates and to simplify. The problem with Labor is their motivation is to increase the tax take to increase spending. We saw during their previous time in office the wasteful fantasies they engaged in, some of which we are still dealing with the legacy of today.
 

I think that we have been through this before Doc. The most wasteful government was Howard's who squandered money from asset sales and the mining boom on family tax benefits and upper / middle income tax lurks.
 
SirRumpole said:
I think that we have been through this before Doc. The most wasteful government was Howard's who squandered money from asset sales and the mining boom on family tax benefits and upper / middle income tax lurks.
Click to expand...
John Howard and Peter Costello knew Labor would otherwise waste it on their ideological fantasies which in any case they did with border protection being the prime example amongst the many we have indeed been through on the pages of this forum.

Cutting negative gearing and reducing the CGT discount in themselves are not tax reform. That, like increasing the GST rate in isolation are just tax increases.
 

Not sure about that either. Didn't Labor project a July2017 timeframe at the last election?

Also it's not like the advice is new :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-...s-governments-negative-gearing-claims/7521930
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
WEF corrupts countries
Replies
6
Views
1K
SirRumpole
The Edge of Paradise
Replies
1
Views
288
Dona Ferentes
The Romance Scam thread
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
farmerge
The dynamics of money and TIME: crimping cashflow for a period
Replies
3
Views
1K
TiminOz
How to totally xuck the worlds largest economy with a chainsaw
Replies
14
Views
2K
basilio
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...