We have two leaders with hugely differing views on how best to manage our economy.
Turnbul says no more taxes and has forced the state premiers into a position (very cunningly I might add) where they can no longer hold their hands out for more, saying they now have to live within their means.
This means no funding for Gillards unfunded education and health dreams which means this funding has to be found from more cuts elsewhere.

Shorten on the other hand wants to cripple the economy by taking an axe to negative gearing, and his aim is to use this perceived windfall to fund Gillards dreams.

Two major problems here, firstly where is a land going to come from for new housing and commercial buildings, and secondly, where are the buyers going to come from for the old houses or premises when people/businesses want to upgrade.

Talk about a slippery slope on a road to nowhere.

rehctub,

"...(very cunningly I might add)...."

Oh yes.....about as cunning as a farce can get.

The reason these taxes were abolished was because of inequity and complexity.

Mal would love to see all that return with a vengeance...retrograde confusion and complexity.

Good luck with that, Malcolm the Magnificent.

Can I just add, rehctub...that Turnbull's "cunning" idea didn't even make it to a written proposal.

He had a bit of blather to offer the premiers at COAG.

That was it...

So here's our fabulous leader proposing to make a seismic change to our country's taxing regime - and he doesn't even have documentation to support it.

Incompetent.

"Shorten on the other hand wants to cripple the economy by taking an axe to negative gearing,"
rechtub, you know that isn't true.

Shorten does not want to cripple the economy. He wants to close a major tax loophole that's pushing up house prices. Even if you think that's a bad policy in isolation, consider the combined effect of this and an interest rate cut. Recently the RBA's been reluctant to cut interest rates for fear of stoking a housing price bubble.

Some anonymous people are trying to give the impression that Shorten's policy would cripple the economy, and have released a report that gives that impression (to the delight of the Murdoch Press). But there are two problems with it: firstly the quality of the report is extremely low, and secondly it's not based on Shorten's policy at all. See http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4424811.htm

Did you actually read rehctub's post Poirot?

He is saying that all this waffle by Turnbull was actually a clever trick to force the states into a position where they can no longer hold their hands out demanding more money. They have after all now refused the opportunity, to raise as much as they would like.

If I thought he was right, I would have a new healthy respect for Turnbull. I however think it was just a lucky accident by a blundering fool. He will have to pull a few more, & more obvious coups for me to believe it.

After all, he has just done another Rudd lookalike, & reopened the gate to the people smugglers with his last very stupid announcement.

If Shorten et al really wanted to do anything about house prices he could:

-reduce the over-enthusiastic immigration policies that saw new records regularly being set for immigration; and,

-reduce the taxes that affect land development and home building.

Shorten and Greens are playing the dangerous game of Class Warfare that didn't work for Julia Galah'd (Obama got that right!) and could easily result in the collapse of the already uneconomic and very shaky, rental homes industry.

Shorten could easily provoke a run of those mums and dads aspirational 'investors' away from housing. It would be a run that would be impossible to stop once it got going.