Tristian, why wont you enter a serious debate on Negative gearing?

You put it out there, so why not debate it.

It's also sad to hear arguments tot he effect: 'we don't have the money for industry policies'. Good debt is when you invest in productivity and get a return on your investment. Industry policies which raise wages, create high wage jobs, deliver more money into the public purse through the GST, Company Tax and Income Tax - is 'good debt'. Also assuming you have a decent job it makes sense to invest some of your income to have a roof over your head. What happens if you don't? Not only do you lead a terrible life - but also you can't hold down that job anyway... Similar principles apply to paying for infrastructure. Without the basics nothing is possible. And 'saving money' by failing to invest in productivity enhancing infrastructure and services is 'a false economy'. NBN could also transform our economy ; and there is no saying what new industries will arise in the coming decades... But some people here are just 'dyed in the wool' Conservatives who will oppose any kind of government intervention re: services, infrastructure, welfare and tax - no matter what the social and economic consequences. Its about 'maintaining the line' rather than having an enquiring mind.

Negative gearing is a subsidy for the top 10 per cent of Australians. Shorten's policy will only affect existing properties - and so it creates an incentive for new properties - creating economic activity. There are billions at stake for every year in the future. But also public and social housing would also increase supply and making housing more affordable for most of us. Yes there will be 'winners and losers' - but many more people will win than will lose. And its funny how some people oppose these kind of measures because they may affect property values - but at the same time they support effectively confiscating working class families' houses when they grow old to pay for Aged Care. A death tax but just by another name...

Another option is a tax on idle properties. Apparently there's a lot of it going on...

Tristian, eggs are now $8 at your local cafe, and milk sells for $45 per litre in late form, and the café owners are going out of business, or struggling, yet you want them to pay higher wages. Get a grip.

There will be heaps of jobs created in the forth coming decades, just not here.

The NBN will make it easier to out source so unless one wants better gaming speed, or to download faster pornos, I doubt much will come from our hundreds of billions. And of cause we are working on the assumption that most will opt to stay home so they can surf the NBN net.

As for businesses, if it makes them more efficient they will pocket the savings, and why not, because you get penalised for employing people. Payroll tax, extra super, compo, parental leave, even domestic violence leave is on the agenda.

This may come as a surprise to you Tristian, but business people go into business to create wealth and a lifestyle, not to create jobs, because jobs are just something that has to happen.

Anything you do to make creating jobs avoidable will be welcomed with open arms by the business community, just look at how the big players are going, or even the frustration experienced when you wish to talk to someone and get a computer providing a million and one options.

Rechtub ;

And then you should think what its like for a worker slaving on $560 a week full time...

Again some vocations will support higher wages because the demand is non-negotiable. Others won't. Those that won't should be subsidised in various ways by government instead. Unless they can be replaced with better jobs. In which case think about that via an industry policy. For those that will: it is better to pass the costs on to wealthier consumers for fairness's sake.

As for business - its share of the economy has been steadily increasing for decades. Though you'd be right some business people are about their lifestyles and wealth and not creating jobs. That's a problem with capitalism.

But interestingly a whole host of factors attract capital - and not just low wages. Infrastructure, services, skilled labour.

Again I'm not saying have 'an entirely flat' labour market ; or to enforce 'flat' wealth distribution via tax. But I am saying the differences now are too much. We need the upper middle class and wealthy to pay more tax; we need the working poor to pay less tax. And we need to regulate the labour market to give a fairer deal where the labour market will bear it. And where it doesn't we must intervene via the social wage.

As the for cost of a latte - as a low income Australian I'd be willing to pay a dollar more if it meant a big increase in workers' wages.

Tristan, I know I am probably wasting my time, talking to a closed mind, but a couple of thoughts for you.

Tell me why you don't believe our loss of our motor industry is down to grossly over paid employees.

Do you know any history. Do you understand the loss of the British motor industry, ship building & coal mining were down to workers, [an oxymoron if ever there was one] demanding more in wages than the industry could earn using their labour.

Do you know, & if not why not if you wish to be taken seriously, that only 43% of Australian employees actually pay any net tax. The lower paid 57% already pay no tax after handouts? Just how do you think they could pay less?

Yes let's have government owned industry. We could buy back Telstra. When it was privatised the workforce [joke] was reduced progressively by 62%, while the range of services were doubled. You were probably still in nappies, but we remember paying a days wages for a 3 minute call to the UK. Hell it was almost that much for 10 minutes to Melbourne. Us workers wrote letters, we couldn't afford interstate phone calls.

Hell China has only managed to feed & house most of it's people since it went to a capitalist model of business, & Russia is still trying to catch them up.

If you want to push this stuff, give us a working model to look at, if you can find one.