Mr Agreeable,
I would like to point out, the income and capital gains made through negative gearing strategies are both tax assessable.
Clearly, if you understood “Negative Gearing” you would also understand that, by definition, it actually costs the investor money to pursue a negative gearing investment strategy.

I would further point out, every other (legal) form of commerical investment is treated like property investment, viz, gains are taxable, net of the costs incurred in their production. Making property investment some form of exception to this basic rule would destabalize the rental property with the consequence that investors would either flee the market (fewer rental properties) or demand higher rentals - either way, the rental property consumer and not the investor will be the one who "Pays". As was seem in the 1980's when the grim reaper (Keating) tried it.

Family trusts have limited life and very restricted tax exceptions. Again, I take it you know “the words” but not the consequences of such strategies and can safely assume reasoned debate on the matter would fly well over your head.

I am still waiting for Tristan to respond to the notion that our life purpose is to generate taxes for indolent governments to squander on his “warm fuzzy ideals” where some nice state of semi-coma is induced from those cozy feelings derived from knowing the state will look after our every need.

My view is, always has been and always will be

We were born to become the best we could be, to develop and grow as individuals through our own diligence and effort.

Obviously, “self reliance” is a concept beyond the grasp of some who post here

Col, nicely put.

R0bert

Negative gearing artificially inflates rental prices.

Corporate fraud robs the economy of far more $ than welfare fruad.

Majority on welfare DO return to work.

It is not illegal to own or be paying a mortgage while on welfare - I lost my job last year and had to claim dole - should I have sold my home and moved into car? Struggling to own home is a part of 'self reliance'.

Exorbitant disparity between executive level staff and workers - not good for economy as lower paid can't purchase home, buy consumer goods etc. If company can afford multi million $ CEO's then can afford decent living wage and safe working conditions for low level workers - otherwise shouldn't be in business.

Majority of people are both self reliant and cooperative or we'd still be living in caves - natural part of being social animal.

I guess Col Rouge has never ever had an accident or made a mistake - doesn't need anyone at all. Cold world if we were all the same as him.

Hey Robert, thanks for the support

Scout “Negative gearing artificially inflates rental prices.”

Maybe you could explain to us all HOW rental property costs are inflated by negative geared investors entering the investment housing market.

The only thing which can “inflate” rental property costs are more people wanting to rent, not more people wanting to invest in rental property.

Your dissertation on corporate fraud is irrelevant to the discussion, so to the incidence or otherwise of welfare fraud. All fraud is illegal by definition and is to be seriously discouraged by all and every means.

Income disparity – that has a lot more to do with the “working-smart” versus “working-dumb” disparity of attitude and approach to work than simply executives being paid more than “workers”.

I currently earn $100,000 pa from a part time job (plan “C”) (not network marketing) and why – because my employer thinks I am worth it.
For the rest of my “work week”, I spend some time developing a service business (plan “B”)
And am also trading through a multi-streamed software company (Plan “A”).

I will drop plan “C” and possibly sell my investment in “B” when “A” kicks in.

I guess my 6 day a week combined job commitments might earn more than most but I “do” and “risk” more than most.
It is all about making “Choices” for ourselves and not relying on government largesse funded from the immoral proceeds of the excessive taxes Tristan would see us levied.

Re “Col Rouge and accidents” - when I had a heart attack and later when I had bypass surgery, my income was covered by an income protection insurance policy, which I have paid into for about 20 years. We can all seek to insure ourselves against the risks and vagaries of life.

Mistakes, I have made many and have paid the price, the worst was marrying an American. It cost me around $200,000. However, I have never ever suggested anyone else should bear the cost or contribute to my subsistence for that or any other “mistake” which I have made.

Col, my pleasure. I appreciate the perspective that you bring to these debates. My views in the balance between society and the individual may not always be as far on the side of the individual as I perceive yours to be (please excuse me if I've phrased that poorly).

There is a balance in there somewhere. I think that most of us work best when we work together helping one another as we go. I've done plenty of bushwalking over the years and the best walks are with a group with a mix of strengths and weaknesses where we help each other through the bits we struggle with but everybody does the best they can with what they have got.

I would not like to see Scout have to sell her home to get thru a short period of unemployment. At the same time I do not willingly give up the rewards of my efforts to help those who choose not to put in effort themselves. I doubt that the tax system and government are effective means to deal with issues like social justice and compassion but right now they seem to be the best we have got.

I hope that was not to much of a ramble, I've struggled to find the words I wanted to use to express where I'm at on this issue.

Cheers
R0bert

----"Negative gearing artificially inflates rental prices."

An absence of interest deductability does not decrease rents, it increases them, since investors will need to make up for the extra tax they are paying. House prices soar thanks to speculation fuelled by loose monetary expansion. Negative gearing is a consequence of this, not a cause - after all, negative gearing is, by definition, a negative return on an investment. What could possibly be so enticing about that? Interest is a legitimate expense, and its deductibility is not the culprit - our banking system is.

Abolishing negative gearing to curb speculation is like tying the hose up rather than just turning the tap off.

----"It is not illegal to own or be paying a mortgage while on welfare - I lost my job last year and had to¨claim dole - should¨I¨have sold¨my home and¨moved into¨car? Struggling¨to own home is¨a part of¨'self reliance'."

And helping yourself to taxpayer dollars for assistance is not.

----"Exorbitant¨disparity between¨executive level¨staff¨and workers¨- not¨good¨for¨economy as¨lower paid¨can't¨purchase home,¨buy¨consumer goods¨etc.¨If company¨can¨afford multi¨million¨$¨CEO's then¨can¨afford¨decent living¨wage¨and safe¨working¨conditions for low¨level workers¨-¨otherwise¨shouldn't¨be¨in¨business."

Perhaps you don't know how the concept of trade works. It is the voluntary exchange of things between parties and it is how pay is determined. There is no "miracle step" that occurs where "the poor" somehow gets scammed, unless of course someone is conned or coerced, which nobody here is advocating. Income disparity is not an "injustice" and it is entirely compatible with voluntary, honest trade. The only "injustices" in our market today are the persistent coercive interventions of the government.

It is also a myth that people will become "so poor that they won't even be able to consume to fuel the economy". In a free market prices always adapt according to demand. To suggest that sellers will constantly charge more than anyone is willing to pay, knowingly depriving themselves of a sale, is absurd.

----"Majority of¨people are¨both self reliant¨and cooperative or¨we'd still be living in caves - natural part of being social animal."

Which is exactly why (besides all the ethical reasons) we don't need to force cooperation or altruism.