The Forum > Article Comments > Kohler's mistakes underline why negative gearing is threatened > Comments
Kohler's mistakes underline why negative gearing is threatened : Comments
By Graham Young, published 5/4/2016Alan Kohler is a great c.ommentator but his analysis of negative gearing and the ABCC commit fundamental errors
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
-
- All
It should also include discussion of deemed expenses and depreciation on 2nd homes - why not only allow real expenditure, not 4% (?) of a notional asset value?
Each of these and perhaps other factors as well are at foot. We are well able to consider three or more factors in a single discussion. We should do so.
While we are at it, perhaps a quick discussion about intergenerational transfers is in order as well - family trusts, estate duties and so forth. Should Australia even consider re-adopting estate duties?
Each one of these is, of course, a "sacred cow" topic - one where no politician wants to go, because he, his family, his friends and a fair share of his electors have their fingers in the pie.
To add another, consider living-away-from-home allowances as paid to politicians and others. How can a discussion of penalty rates not be parralelled by a parallel discussion of perks?
I guess that where I am heading is towards a series of discussions about what a fair and adequate remuneration and personal taxation system would look like and how to put it into place.
But the sacred cows are all in the too-hard basket. Pity, that.