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

Should be,
"You have identified why rents will rise when 'negative gearing' is abolished for existing accommodation and there will be a flow on effect to new."

As I thought, Poirot, all pants and no trousers.

Poirot,

The whole point of negative gearing is that if you can't make a profit on the rental, then you make a profit on the capital gain. However, when you sell the house you built, it can no longer come with negative gearing, so the resale value is depressed. Thus the investment value of a new house is reduced, and thus the construction of new houses is depressed.

The effects predicted for negative gearing are:
1 That house prices drop which is bad for the 75% of owner occupiers, bad for investors selling their houses, but good for the relative small number of new buyers. (capital gains revenue is depressed too)
2 That rents will go up. (as it has done every time NG has been removed) This is bad for the lowest paid in Aus that rent and have to compensate for the new tax.
3 That some tax revenue will be received. However, given the grandfathering clause, this will be close to bugger all for the first decade or so as existing investors will hold onto their properties longer and the revenue from capital gains will drop.

SM,

"The whole point of negative gearing is that if you can't make a profit on the rental, then you make a profit on the capital gain...."

Judging from the investment advice I posted, "the whole point of negative gearing" was to reduce your taxable income - with the possible capital gain being of secondary importance.

A la "How is losing money considered a wise investment strategy?"

"...Put simply, if you make a loss on an investment property, you can claim a tax reduction on your income (known as a tax offset). You can then use the tax offset to lower your tax bracket, meaning you pay less tax."

As things presently stand the top 10% are making a killing.

In 2005, Malcolm Turnbull described negative gearing as "tax avoidance".

It's pushed up house prices out of reach of first home buyers in general.

It's a system which provides an unbalanced largesse to the rich - they are the one's deriving the most from the set up - I think that's an unfair advantage.

....

Luciferase,

You and your defender, "onthebeach", appear to have a problem when you can't control the narrative and the debate...so you sling around derisive epithets.

While I expect such low rent tactics from otb, your latest style is a tad disappointing.

Worried about rents rising, we will regulate rent prices. Gouging the system does not go down well. Rent prices are a national issue and should be treated as such.

What do we need investers in housing at all. You lot go on as if they are doing a favor. The real investers are house byers to live in. Get rid of price gouging investers.

I expect people with whom I discuss a topic have a well informed, down to details, opinion.

You sir/madam, do not.