Wedge politics or not, onthebeach, the social implications of creating a permanent, intergenerational underclass are well-established. You can write them off as jealously all you like, to avoid addressing the claims, but it doesn't change the facts.

One of my other favourites is “class warfare”, which conveniently brushes off the fact that those with the coin make the rules and, therefore, the activities of the poor are more likely to be criminalised and demonised; while white-collar crime goes almost completely unnoticed, despite the fact that the social and economic costs of it far outweigh those of conventional crimes.

But I digress.

For what it's worth, I resented having to link to Shorten's Facebook page, but it was all I could find. I was, however, curious to see if someone on your side of the debate would point that out rather than address what Aly had actually said.

Poirot,

Brilliant, wasn't it? Watching Turnbull fumble around, trying to muster some sort of a scare campaign with nothing to back his assertions, was as priceless as it was painful.

"....perhaps you can come up with a better arrangement - one that targets more fulsomely the ordinary mums and dads without providing a feeding trough for the nobs to gorge themselves?"

I have, in my posts above, if you would only understand them, Poirot. I even suggesting a cap on NG so Mums'n'Dads could still have a win without incorporating, while curtailing the big end of town, (which would revert to a company structures if ever investing in housing after this).

Where a loss is made in business are you suggesting, Poirot, that's quarantined as the investor's problem but, where a profit is made, the Gov't should expect a piece of the action? If you are then I'll withdraw, with the understanding that you and Labor are beyond reason.

If you are not, tell me where you draw lines, or where we disagree, rather than drum beating. Same AJPhilips.

The US and other countries have no NG but have a lower home ownership rate than Australia. Perhaps we should aim emulate Romania? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate . Where's the causal link between the level of home ownership and NG?

On ABC 7.30 Report, LEIGH SALES: "The statistics are that the top 10 per cent of income earners...... who are receiving three quarters of taxable capital gains"

MT: " Well Leigh, that is - that's beside the point. Of course - of course people on the highest incomes will make the highest gains because they tend to have more property. But Leigh, ..."

LS then talks over him in another direction but, somehow, MT's words get turned into something about NG, not CGT, by twisters like the Guardian and its lynch mob of followers. Who makes taxable capital gains IS beside the taxation point, but bring out the Guillotine and lop heads, guys, not missing that pig that makes a real capital loss yet pays CGT (see my CGT thread).

I contend that there is a sensible way forward, while you guys just fall in behind Labor's ill-considered class war on NG and CGT.

Spare the Les Miserable rhetoric and get to tax details.

The first problem is why does Labor need a new tax.

The second, why isn't Labor proposing savings to pay for its promises?

I believe that the Property Owners Association of Australia, whose membership is in the thousands and few if any might be those wealthy millionaire entrepreneurs Labor talks about, is right in its assessment,

< PROPERTY DEVELOPERS WILL BENEFIT HUGELY UNDER SHORTEN’S PLAN.
The Property Owners Association of Australia has slammed Bill Shorten’s proposals to increase the Capital Gains Tax and to restrict negative gearing to new housing, calling for no change to CGT and negative gearing.

The Association, representing all the states Property Owners’ Associations, in response to the ALP’s proposals, says the ALP plan would hit first homes buyers and tenants most.

However, property developers would benefit hugely under Shorten's plan.
“Bill Shortens proposals are short sighted and if anything will make it harder for 1st home buyers who only have relief from Stamp Duty by buying new housing, which combined with restricting negative gearers to this class of property too, would definitely see increased profits for developers.

The proposals also would reduce confidence in established residential property, that would reduce the supply of rental
housing and disadvantage tenants.” Property Owners Association Of Australia President Bruce McBryde
said.

“The only major asset most Australians have is under threat from political opportunism based on envy, lack of vision and money grabbing. Most Australians want to own their own home at some stage, some want to rent but usually not forever.

By announcing such ill-considered policies Bill Shorten has actually
proposed increased taxation on property, Bruce McBryde said.“History is littered with failed government ideas of taxing property & stamp duties have increased faster by bracket creeps than property prices, which have largely increased due to lower interest rates and interest-only loans.>
http://www.poaa.asn.au/POAA%20Shortens%20Negative%20Gearing-1.pdf

AJ Philips, I've said this often, "take a drive down your local café strip on almost any weekend and you will see why so many can't afford a house". "$45 per litre for warmed milk, and $8 for eggs".

It is not uncommon for a couple (mainly young) to spend up to $60 for a single breakfast, yet they complain that they cant save a deposit for a house. Tattoos also make up for a large portion of their ill spent money.

Of course the other huge problem with housing affordability is the fact that so many today want 'THE HOUSE' not 'A HOUSE'.

It is not uncommon for a young couple to bring in $120K combined per year, yet, from this they cant save a third of that for a deposit.

They have two nice cars, mobiles, plasmas, Tatts, Tatts and more Tatts and pay about $450/week in rent.

So where does the money go!

We definitely have a spending crisis, but im not convinced we have a housing affordability crisis, unless of course the proposed buyer is too fussy.

If a couple can earn $2 to $3K per week and not afford a home with record low rates, and a gifted gov grant, then they have a spending problem.

"The first problem is why does Labor need a new tax."

Lol!...nice try, otb, straight from the govt's play book.

Turnbull was asked on the 7.30 Report if he had any modelling to back up his claim. He waffled a bit and mentioned the BIS report (which was wasn't modelling Labor's proposal - and was described by Grattan as "manifestly ridiculous")...he then proceeded to waffle some more and said "it's common sense".

Magnificent Mal's "common sense" is his idea of modelling.

Here's an indication of what negative gearing in tandem with the changes to capital gains tax has done to house prices - taken from Waleed's explainer.

In 1960 the median cost of a house 1.6 x household income.

In 1985 the median cost was 2.25 x household income

In 1999 the Howard govt introduced the capital gains discount.

In 2016 the median cost of a house is 4.3 x household income.

...and that's with most houses these days receiving two incomes.

That'a a powerful cocktail.

The ANU's modelling says that limiting negative gearing to new builds will slow the growth of house prices - not make them fall. It would also increase new construction giving us more housing stock.

Even Turnbull's prop - the one year-old baby - could profiting from investing under that plan.

A few gramma slips there I see Poirot, its just a shame people who live in glass houses continue to throw stones, hey!

As for your figures showing housing affordability and the impact claimed that NG has caused, you might also want to consider a few more facts.

1. The child care sector has boomed in the past 20 years, allowing both couples to earn an income, meaning more can afford a home, meaning prices increase.

2. Lenders have loosened their borrowing criteria allowing more people access to funding, along with the ever popular interest only option. A house is like anything being traded on the open market, the more buyers, the higher the price.

3. First home buyers grant. When first introduced it was $7,000 and most properties increased by this amount, if not more almost overnight. It then increased to $14K then $21K, same same as 'common sense' would suggest, the more people with access to funding, the higher the price goes, its like a silent auction.

There are a few.

I do agree that the 50% reduction in CGT has played its part, because many used this to upgrade, or even cash out.

The bottom line is, to touch anything to do with the economy with a big stick approach right now is extremely risky and let's face it, labors past attempt at running the country was nothing short of dismal. And the history book show that. They caused so much damage, much of which is unrepairable, left us with huge debt and no money and, they left unfunded commitments all of which we cant fund without cutting something else.

They inherited a healthy beast, and left a Skelton behind