Luciferase,

The IPA?

You've got to be joking....

I'll find that article in The Economist that describes negative gearing as "crazy" and post it when I get back to the laptop.

Luciferase,

Here's the article from The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21698298-prime-minister-gambles-weeks-budget-will-win-election-turnbull-rolls-dice

And here's a paragraph on negative gearing...

"The budget rejected reform in an area that will feature in the campaign: housing. Low interest rates are not the only thing that has encouraged average house prices to nearly double over the past ten years. The crazy practice of “negative gearing”, which allows investors in property to write nearly everything off against tax, has also helped push up prices beyond the reach of Australians in their 20s and 30s (many of whom, even if they are able to buy a property, still have to live with their parents to afford it). Yet Mr Turnbull calls the idea of repealing negative gearing “reckless”, knowing that it would anger property-owners—and possibly alarm banks, heavily exposed to mortgages."

Read it if you wish...but I'm not going to bother reading anything from the extreme-right IPA.

Poirot, I really don't know why you weigh back into this discussion with the same vacuous puff as you left it.

When I hear Labor say that it's going to redirect negative gearing "concessions" to other expenditure, I wince. It, nor you, demonstrates the vaguest understanding that NG simply time-shifts operating losses, and that there is no net gain to the public coffer in the medium term to provide for expenditure.

Labor clouds this simple fact in class warfare, and it is one of the reasons I have cleaved away from it after many years of feeling it held the higher moral ground on many issues. Renewable energy is another area like that, for me.

The LNP has gone schtum on a the "debt and deficit disaster", but that didn't actually win it the last election. Labor's leadership fiasco was the cause of that. Either party must now face years of deficit while debt is sorted.

However, I do believe the LNP has a plan to reduce the expenditure side and dismantle Howard,s middle-class welfare system that is killing incentive. When 50% of families receive more in welfare than they pay in tax, we have a problem, Houston.

You obviously want to assert politics over the facts on NG and CGT I have raised in this and other threads. I'm disappointed, because I've always felt you were more of an independent thinker than a political hack.

"...I'm disappointed, because I've always felt you were more of an independent thinker than a political hack."

Says the guy who posts material from the IPA to support his argument....

Poirot,

Endlessly citing 'authority' is a bit pointless. Yeah, my authority is bigger than your authority and anyway my dad's a policeman and he can put you in jail. Yeah, well my dad is a boxer and he can bash yours up. Yeah, well .....

And that gets us .... where ?

Joe

Lucy,
I love the way that Labor gets itself twisted in knots and contradictions.

1 Their NG policy won't reduce the value of houses, but will increase affordability.

2 All NG investments will be grandfathered, but the handful of new investments will increase tax revenue by the $bns required for Gonski.

3 The incentives to invest in rental property are removed, but as rental supply dries up rental prices will miraculously stay the same.

4 People renting won't be competing for less rentals, because the 2% drop in house prices will enable those on the lowest incomes to afford the million dollar houses sold by investors.

5 The spike in rental prices when NG was removed in the 80s is no indication of what will happen today.

6 The model by economic modelling specialists BIS is rubbish, yet the modelling of one man at ANU (still unreleased) is far more valid.