AJ Philips,

Saul Eslake, who has the support of some on this forum has advised the Tasmanian government to sell off state-owned assets including electricity retail, poles and wires, transmission and distribution businesses to stimulate the Tasmania's economy.

Economist Poirot would doubtless be all for that since, 'What Saul Says, Rocks!' and without question.

So there you go, you will have higher rents through the withdrawal of negative gearing if Saul has his way and you will be competing for jobs with a host of job seekers from public service redundancies to allow their managements to compete against private bids for public utilities.

Of course the sales would happen anyway and the new workers will be coming from overseas (and more competition for rental accommodation as a spin-off).

Luciferase,

I will debate how it suits me, thank you very much : )

For someone whose style you critique so fulsomely, I think I acquit myself rather well on this forum - if I may say so.

I've posted articles on this thread with which I agree. If you wish to dismiss them as "cherry pickings" - go right ahead. Just because you throw questions at me doesn't mean I've got the time or inclination to answer them (I have neither this morning)

Now you get to throw a few more epithets in Poirot's direction a la "weaselly cop-out"...and ..."Stop crapping on and address my points on taxation."

Charmed I'm sure!

Why, when I have the choice to whom I respond, would I reply to that sort of churlish rhetoric?

So AJ, have you figured out where the rest of the $2K per week has gone yet? I have established that some $650 of it (give or take) has gone towards the house, so where is the other $1350 going.

Remember warmed milk is $45 per lt, eggs sell for $8 each, and ink costs about $150 per hour. Just thought I would throw that in to help you find where the money goes for the deposit that is unachievable. Apparently!

As for where to live and jobs, if you choose to live in the big smoke, Sydney/Melbourne and you are on a minimum wage due to lack of skills, then you are choosing to live outside of your means. It truly is that simple.

There are jobs around for un/low skilled in the likes of Caboolture, 50 km north of Brisbane and a house can be bought for mid $200,000's. How is that not affordable?

Poirot, part of the thought process of buying a new home for rental purposes is capital growth forecast. Now if there is little to no capital growth, why would an investor invest in a rental, with all the risks, both known and now unknown, when they can still negative gear with the likes of shares and, they can cash out in about 3 days.

Where is the incentive in this?

BTW, Saul Eslake has debated me on OLO before, by direct invitation, 2014 as you pointed out. He has not done the same this time so I have asked Mr Bolt to try and bring him, or anyone out to debate this very important issue of 'where is the new land going to come from'. So watch this space.

On the other point, do you acknowledge that the lenders pay tax on their earnings (being interest charged) meaning on the one hand we have money going out, to NG, while on the other we have money coming in, taxes.

Let's face it, if we give away $10 billion, and receive $9 billion back (example only) is this really worth risking our housing industry over?

Poirot,

Pretend offence and stalk off. Exit stage left, yet again.

Heh, heh, for a boy you are big girls blouse. That distinct pear-shape, the high-pitched voice and the obviously false moustache were dead give-aways. Then again it could be the too high, too tight trousers.

BTW, you never got around to detailing your own property holdings, which must be extensive given your belief in the magic of 'negative gearing' - money for nothing and so on. Well, you would have taken advantage, you'd be a fool otherwise knowing what you know, right?

otb,

"Heh, heh, for a boy you are big girls blouse. That distinct pear-shape, the high-pitched voice and the obviously false moustache were dead give-aways. Then again it could be the too high, too tight trousers."

There you have it, folks..."onthebeach" in full flight in a sexist rant to satisfy some bent little foible he nurtures around here.

Seen it a million times...yawn.

rehctub, "Poirot, part of the thought process of buying a new home for rental purposes is capital growth forecast. Now if there is little to no capital growth, why would an investor invest in a rental, with all the risks, both known and now unknown, when they can still negative gear with the likes of shares and, they can cash out in about 3 days.

Where is the incentive in this?"

You have identified why rents will rise when 'negative gearing' is abolished for new and existing accommodation. I

Simply put, there is NO money in long term rental housing, and there are big risks and costly management problems.

Those mums and dads 'investors' are being sold the dream of one day making a windfall profit from a final sale. Yet unless there is a favourable rezoning, which is highly unlikely for zoned residential, it is quite impossible for the 'investor' to even claw back what he put into the property over a ten or fifteen year period (by way of example).

That is because the value of residential housing tracks behind inflation for years, then does a catch up and overshoots, drops back and tracks behind inflation again. All of that time however, the owner has to have very deep pockets for the high maintenance, repairs and other losses associated with rental housing.

On top of that, very few modern homes/units and fittings can withstand the rigors of letting. In tenanted dwellings, dishwashers, stoves, air-conditioners and kitchen benchtops and cupboards as examples, do not last anywhere near the ATO depreciation periods and usually have to be repaired by tradesmen in between.