The potential losses on the other hand are huge.

Rents will increase as investors will stop buying.

The building industry will be decimated,
rechtub,
You're just wrong on that but you're not game enough to try it for fear your profits might drop from 45 % to 35 % or so.
Whatever industry slows another will establish, it's called economy. An economy doesn't run on profits it runs on the money going around. What you perceive as economy is making unfair profits by having others foot the bill. That's not an economy, that's ruining an economy or haven't you noticed yet how many businesses have gone to wall because of it ?

Indi, you and I both agree a better, fairer tax system will solve many problems, but not a straight out flat tax, because that will hurt the poor too much, as they rely on 100% of their income, just to survive. Taxing those dollars you refer to is a better option.

As for me being greedy, if that's what you are suggesting, you are wrong, as I don't have any negatively geared property, I did, but my aim was always to hold them until the became cash posetive, which they now are, although one has become a problem due to inner city rental downturn, but I'm working on a solution.

The real problem with NG is those who accumulate dozens of properties, all of which have max debt. If anything needs to be addressed, it this as this is abuse of tax payers funds.

As for housing affordability, one answer lies with super.

If one were allowed to use part of their super for a deposit, that would be a huge relief.

It's quite simple, first, the max they can use is 75% of the deposit, which must be matched with a further 25% of their own cash. The full deposit being 20% of the purchase price, like it used to be.

Let's face it, if they can't save 5% then they can't afford a home.

Second, the property must be their principle place of residence and and rents received would void the arrangement, unless from direct family.

Third, if at any time the property is borrowed against, or sold, the amount provided by super must be repaid, plus interest.

Lastly, mortage insurance must be taken out to protect the super component. Also, super could only ever be used once to buy a home.

This would allow investors to continue investing and more potenisl owners could afford to buy.

Individual; answer my question !
Why should investment property be treated differently to every other business ?

Bazz,
Sorry, but I thought my posts are exceptionally clear that no-one should be treated differently. When I say I want to rid us of this dreadful NG I would have thought it to be clear to anyone that that means no writing off whatsoever. Any business, any investment, any speculation,. Full Stop ! I'm really truly amazed that big business can't see the long-term benefits of that. I suppose they actually do but with no NG they couldn't go into liquidation whilst all their writing off profits are safely tucked away in some obscure accounts in the names of three year olds whilst those families who are owed this money do tough.
I see what it has done to so many countries economies, can 't you ? NG is a good profit maker but it is an economy wrecker.

Indy, youdid not answer my question.
Why should property business be different ?
Any other business could be sold and realise a capital gain.
Borrowings for that business have deductible interest.

Bazz, I would think that the Government wouldn't supply the same tax relief to businesses as they would to investment homes because if there weren't these homes available for rental from the many people who can't afford to buy, then they would have to fork out for more welfare payments and state housing.

The business investment loans may not always benefit the Government in the same obvious way would they?

Individual, you are not understanding me.
Where, exactly, would rental homes come from if there were not these tax incentives to buy them?