DreamOn, I pay my superannuation contributions monthly. Not a lot of interest to be earned there. Onthebeach, the retirement contribution was a 7.5% levy at the time when Menzies decided it should go into consolidated revenue rather than be accounted for separately. Given we're told we need at least 15% in super contributions to have a comfortable old age, and the workforce was mostly male back then, I'd say the contribution was never going to meet the cost of the pension. So it might as well go into consolidated revenue.

You are all waffling around the problem of affordable housing.
I have told you several times before but no one is listening !

Reverse the government decision that forced lending authorities to lend on both incomes.
The developers and builders realised that with twice as much money in
the market, twice the price could be charged.
That is why houses are now so dear that a family cannot afford $1,000,000 for a house.

Borrow on two incomes and you need two incomes to pay it off !

The second income minus child care fees for 2 children means that
only one income is available for interest and capital payment.

Is it any wonder the birth rate is so low that we will be pushed
out of our own country !

Anyway, not to worry, the next crash is not too far off so there will
be plenty of foreclosed houses on the market for a song.

Foxy, you blame Joe Hockey for removing NRAS (National rental affordability scheme) yet you want neg gearing stopped.

I own an NRAS house, it is by far the biggest rort. I get $10350 tax free a year to lower my rent by 20%, I am miles in front. NRAS benefits landlords, it does not help home buyers at all.

Negative gearing helps Landlords too, but it only reduces his/her taxable income. If I don't work I get no tax benefit. Whereas with NRAS, if I work or not I still get $10k a year for 10 years

Dear Kirby,

As economic experts explain - negative gearing
was a tax break that primarily benefits the
wealthy.

Most houses are sold at auction and about half of those
will be there to buy the house in order to rent it.
Almost all of those would be for the purpose of
negative gearing. Obviously with more people bidding the
price wil go higher.

Rising prices affect first home buyers the most.
They're not in the market. If they're already in the
market and it goes up, the house you're in goes up, so
if you're already in the stream, if you like, and can bid more.

The other reason is that a lot of investment properties
are the kind first home buyers are looking for, hoses that
are a little older or smaller. They are targeted by investors
who want to rent them out.

If negative gearing were removed house prices would either
come down or not increase for an extended period of time.

People have an aversion to selling a house for less than
they bought it. What often happens is rather than the
price collapsing it just doesn't increase for a period
of time until the market catches up.

Negative gearing or negative houses to rent, they will go hand in hand. So go ahead and pull that trigger and see where it gets you, those of you who want NG abolished.

No investor (land lord) in their right mind will invest in a rental property that does not have tax benefits, especially given the lack of control we now have over our rentals.

The rights of rental property owners have been drastically eroded over the years, so with few rights and no tax breaks, there will be plenty of homeless families out there, especially given our rising unemployment and weakening jobs security because banks will be less likely to lend and far less forgiving should you lot get your wish.

Actually , if you abolish negative gearing, house prices would increase.
AS there is no incentive for investors to build homes, Demand for properties would increase. Landlords would increase rent and first home buyers would have to compete with cashed up investors who would buy existing properties as the yield would increase.

As we saw in 1985 to 1987, the demand for public housing increased by 40% as no new homes were being built (when Paul Keating abolished neg gearing), rents increased by 27% and house prices by 25% (BIS Shrapnel / Real Estate Institute of South Australia (REISA)

So, instead of helping renters and first home buyers, it made it more expensive to buy and more expensive to rent.