"The modelling and analysis you quote was aimed at figuring how Labor could get its new taxes up."

Hohoho!...new taxes?

Snort!

You mean attempting to cease the practice of the highest 10% having a field day guzzling taxpayer's money for their own enrichment?

Here's a go. Someone put this up on Twitter and Stephen Koukoulas said it was correct:

"If you earn a salary of $500K and make $420K in interest deductions on an investment portfolio - your taxable income is $80K.

Nice little earner, eh!

Where will Shorten be building that new low income and welfare housing and how many units? What about housing for the disabled?

The answer is that Shorten has no plans to build anything, let alone get into long term rental management.

Shorten is after new taxes. He regards shelter as a milch cow for new taxes to support Labor's and Greens' spendthrift ways.

That is his track record. He wasn't interested in those 'Struggle Streets' either and went on about gay marriage instead. 'Negative gearing' (a misleading term) is just more of the same tactics from irrelevant Labor and their Greens sidekicks. Mark Latham about Labor and gay marriage, and he could add 'negative gearing' as another diversion,

<Former Labor leader Mark Latham slams Labor over gay marriage

FORMER Labor leader Mark Latham has slammed his party’s “obsession” with gay marriage saying it should focus on the nation’s “Struggle Streets” instead.

He told 3AW radio Bill Shorten’s private members bill to push for changes to the marriage act to allow same-sex couples to tie the knot, to be introduced into parliament on Monday, was nothing more than a symbolic gesture.

He said the biggest social issue facing Austalia was unemployment, drug use and homelessness in suburbs such as Mt Druitt which was the focus of the SBS documentary, Struggle Street.
..
“We didn’t hear anything.
“They’re obsessed, instead, by gay marriage.”>

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/former-labor-leader-mark-latham-slams-labor-over-gay-marriage/news-story/6c89f7077536bf321ee40c25946e6f0f

What will be the next diversion after 'negative gearing' and when will Shorten and his crew of leftovers from the failed Galah'd and Rudd Labor governments come up with some real policy?

Hi OTB,

A propos to your reference to Labor and diversions, yonks ago, there was a brilliant series on ABC TV on poverty in South America, David Dimbleby, I think: in his focus on village Bolivia, he noted the terrible problems, but also that the village council was preoccupied with fixing the communal barn door. Ever since, we used to exclaim when we saw a diversion, usually in relation to what is called laughingly 'Aboriginal self-determination', 'Barn door !'

Poirot, your envy is showing :)

Cheers,

Joe

Poirot, im starting to think you are taking the piss, either that or you have no idea what so ever how the wheels turn.

For someone to earn $500,000, then borrow to commit in excess of 80% of their gross income in interest payments simply would not happen as all lenders have strict policies on what percentage of ones salary can be used to service debt.

The other flaw in this is that the $80K you say their wage is reduced to would hardly be enough to pay their tax, because you must remember, tax is taken out first, then refunds applied, so the tax office is assuming you are earning the whole $500K and taxed appropriately. Surely you're not that stupid to be fooled by such rubbish!

I've seen some holes dug on this site before, but that's a doozy!

As for housing affordability, my dad was a welder in 1972 and netted $42 per week, paid about $2 tax. This made his annual wage about two and a half grand. My Grandmothers house sold in 1973 for $12,000, it was in Bardon, Brisbane. That's about 5 years of my dads salary.

Not sure where your numbers came from but this is fact.

With duel incomes and record low interest rates, combined with fierce lending competition and the likes of mortgage insurance and first home buyers grants to boot, housing affordability has never been easier. The problem is rents have been too cheap and lifestyles have been too extravagant so homeownership is made harder than it needs to be, especially when buyers become too fussy.

Poirot,

The problem for you is that modeling agencies with far more expertise and experience than the ones you mentioned agree with me.

I too believe Poirot is stirring possum and struggling to understand the basics of taxation, butch.

C'mon, Poirot, do better or stick to threads you can grasp. You know you're struggling when you reference Twitter.