Ouch, that hurt SPQR.

But at least you have the sense to support my marvelous comments on other subjects.

there are many people who will never be able to afford to buy homes, so rental properties will always be needed.
Suseonline,
Only a moron would not agree with that. Give me one reason other than greed why rental properties should be built by taxpayers supporting the owner. Will the owner give that money he wrote off give back to the taxpayers ? Has this happened as yet ? I don't believe I have heard of this if it did.
If someone wants to make money out of providing accommodation they should do it at their own expense, after all they're the ones making the eventual profit.

Only a moron would provide rental accommodation 'at their own expense ' for others without getting anything out of it Individual.

Why else would the Government provide tax relief for people who buy investment properties?
Where else would they come from?

No one answered my question on another thread;
Why should property investment be treated differently to other businesses ?

Firstly, thanks Saul for participating, your input and knowledge is much appreciated and, if I misunderstood your statement to the ABC, I apologize.

This is my take on NG.
If we remove it there is only one potential gain, and that's a drop in house prices, perhaps making housing more affordable for some.

The potential losses on the other hand are huge.

Rents will increase as investors will stop buying.

The building industry will be decimated, along with every support industry right from planning, auditing, supply and training.

The other potential problem could be a tightening of bank lending as bank currently draw comfort in knowing that investors are there to pick up the pieces when owners loose their properties, as banks often factor in a loss when repossessing a property, without investors out there, the potential buyers are far fewer.

My fear is that banks may well demand a 20-30% deposit again, meaning anyone who can't afford a house at 5% deposit will still be out of the market as they won't have the deposit.

Now some say middle class are ripping of the tax payer. Well yes, perhaps they are, but, at the same time they are also securing financial independence which means they will not be a burden to the tax payer come retirement.

Perhaps one should be made to demonstrate that the investment will be profitable within a set time frame, much like a small farm.

A rule was brought in that these small farms (known as queen st farmers in the 90's) had to show a way to a profit within (I think) five years.
This was one loophole that was closed.

Perhaps this could be considered because the abusers of NG are those with ten properties, each with 80% debt.

Saul, I was of the opinion that rents increased sharply in all major cities when NG was abolished.

At the end of the day, the removal of NG will see few winners, but many losers, so careful consideration would have to be given, but tightening the rules may be the way to go.

Why else would the Government provide tax relief for people who buy investment properties?
Susonline,
I see you're not getting it. There should be no tax relief in the first place Tell me one good reason why one should have to pay less tax than the other ?
This crook system is the heart of the problem, the inequality, the rorting, the whole show is nothing short of criminal.
I got a car but I don't ask anyone to subsidise me for the running costs. The whole thing is that taxes should not be so high in the first place that relief is required.