Negative gearing must not be touched ! I require at least 4 working couples and government assistance to maintain the lifestyle to which I am accustomed.
@markbrzezinski8889 Says:
Properties are not businesses. You should not be allowed to have tax deductions for what are homes for young people. Look at the birth rate. It’s the lowest in history. We have rapped young peoples lives so government workers can negatively gear..
They also want to reduce greenhouse gases but they are bringing in the highest rate of immigrants in history and giving them 100 percent loans which has sent money supply to its highest level to GDP in history. Why would they care. Their wages are tied to inflation and then some. We now have the highest paid government workers in the world. Multiple times what the same qualified person gets in the private sector. O that’s right, only our best and brightest are senior public servants.
Only new homes should be negatively geared and bring back even higher capital gains on existing properties, then watch they will dump them like xxxx and have to start a business or even support business like car building so they can then buy shares in those companies.
They ask the tax department to look at this. They have a conflict of interest. Why not ask young people what they want? What a pack of crooks.
@caveyful Says:
Not allowing a tax deduction on ur 1st home while allowing it on ur 2nd is barbaric.
@caveyful Says:
A home is not a business. No other country in the world treats homes as a business, and for good reason.
Why should investors get their 2nd (but not their 1st home) tax free when there's' a shortage of homes, or at anytime for that matter.
Negative gearing is a Ponzi used by those on extremely high incomes with huge asset portfolios to eliminate them paying high income tax. It's been sold to middle Australia as a means to do the same but in order to save on tax u must produce a much greater loss, so its' not nearly as lucrative to them as it is to the elites. They've been fooled, but why do the poorest taxpayers have to flip the bill for their foolishness?
@caveyful Says:
The main show is over-immigration.
@Zilron38 Says:
I'm for getting negative gearing. But what I believe will make the biggest difference is to lower the ratio of housing availability vs population. Achieved by two was, building a lot, which we are not building enough, so that should go to the other thing, significantly reduce immigration for housing and infrastructure can catch up. An availability of around 3-5% is considered health, currently we are around 1%, meaning only the wealthiest can get into the market due to competition.
@Ernst12 Says:
Labor pursuing with negative gearing and CGT seems very important because this punishes those who have been able to afford an investment property for renting out and it is redistributing wealth under the Marxist principle of forcing 'equal outcomes' in preference to 'equal opportunity' where individual choices result in different outcomes.
Labor has shown itself not to be a government to allow Australians build wealth, aspire, do well and be rewarded but it is now merely a wealth redistribution government to level the playing field according to Marxist doctrine and punish those who have done better than others.
In terms of 'bigger fish to fry' or taking on more important issues, it is fairly obvious that Labor has run out of arguments and there are no ideas worth considering forthcoming.
@satwindersaini4522 Says:
Give tax offset on morgage interest payment to first home buyer for first ten years , rather than giving first home owner or builder grant.(consider us tax model on housing), and tax second property as others investment taxed like shares.if they don't want to remove negetive gearing bring other tax saving products more attractive than negative gearing.first home buyer saving depost in bank or in the investment in shares should be tax free to encourge to buying thier first home.it will decrease the rental demand and home ownership will be increased
@adittypublications4141 Says:
Why Tax payers should pay for the investment property owners.
LATEST COMMENTS