Rechtub, we should halt exports of steaming coal and use it for power generation.
This will give us time to build a fleet of nuclear power stations which
are not affordable in the time scale we otherwise would be forced into.

At present the cost of a nuclear build is almost unaffordable.
While our AAA credit rating is under threat, to start borrowing to build
a large number of nuclear power stations, would I suspect be at high interest rates.
I do not believe we can finance a shift to nuclear power except just
one at a time.

That is why research into other base load capable power sources is needed.

The solar & wind people keep on about it being capable of base load
but to do that requires a monumental upgrade to a national grid with
major east west connections to take advantage of time differences.
That would also perhaps make tidal in Nth WA viable.
Catch22, probably cost more than several nuclear power stations.
Noting the trouble Tasmania is in the VHV transmission lines would
have to be doubled or trippled.

Are we too late to start such projects ?

Hasbeen, you misunderstood my meaning. I believe we should use our
coal, keeping enough for other than energy usage, until it becomes
uneconomic for steaming purposes.

The ERoEI of coal has fallen quite dramatically from 80 to about 30.
Ours might be a bit better, but it is chewing up a lot of land.
World wide coal will stop being used because the seams are getting
expensive to mine. Note how Peabody is in bankruptcy. I believe that
they were the world's largest coal miner.

The world's energy prospects, except nuclear, are not very good and
too many believe the common statements, "Oh there is enough for X hundred years !"

There would be if you could afford it !

Luc, negative gearing does subsidize rents because it is all part of the mix of return on investment, the very motivator for investing.

Most investors look for at least a 10% return on their investment property, higher in good times, lower in tough times.

You achieve this with net income, capital growth and tax offsets. Removing any of these, or altering them as is Labor's plan could have a serious upward effect on rents.

Investors wont invest if the returns are too low, or the risks are too high, or a mix of both. Its plain simple common sense.

BTW, if not for Ng investors could not use the increased equity in one property to buy another, hence this would increase the demand for existing housing, hence increase rents on existing housing due to demand outstripping supply. So yes, negative gearing definitely subsidizes rents simply by the additional homes it provides.

This is not to say I agree with this logic, but since when is logic a part of governmental planning.

As for top end super, why would anyone invest in super at 30%, when they can pay the company tax of 27.5% (decreasing) then enjoy the benefits here and now.

What governments should be doing is encouraging the top end to save through super, then close the loophole whereby they spend their super then go on the pension.

Changes to super significantly impact on the wealthier. There's too much focus on the rise in the 80K tax threshold and not enough on the overall picture.

On corporate tax, if we swap a zero tax arrangement for international corporates for they setting up their headquarters here, we'd end up with the same tax take as currently (i.e. zero, mwhich I don't see changing much despite the budget). Headquarters jobs would incur income tax here and the flow-on effects into support services would also be great. Beat Singapore and Ireland at their own games.

Butch, NG does not translate into a concessional tax rate that subsidizes rents. It offers the convenience of not having to set up a company to invest.. It facilitates investment, it doesn't subsidize it. Take away that facility on older houses, and individual taxpayers will not invest in them to the current degree. This, together with the CGT change, will completely kill this investment.

Labor is painting NG as a rort, and anyone not across the detail laps it up. Same with the CGT concession, not many grasp that it's nominal gain, not the real gain that is taxed. Hobart house prices have risen 2.3% since 2008, well behind inflation, yet a 2008 investment in a house would draw tax on that 2.3% gain if sold today. Risk is involved in investment, which should all be borne by the investor, not by Gov't providing CGT concessions. Bring back indexation of the cost base.

Luc, your're splitting hairs. NG keeps rents affordable and in do so can be classed as subsidizing rents, because take it away from older homes, all you have are new ones to choose from which of cause will command higher rents than older homes which are used to land bank.

The 4-Corners program began with property spruikers telling punters about the wonders of negative gearing and how the Gov't helps to pay off for your investment, butch. They're BS artists, intent on flogging their product. What they say influences people to buy but doesn't mean they're right.

To some extent you are saying the same, IMO.

The rent you charge is set by the market of supply and demand. If you are saying that the supply side is affected by whether or not NG exists, I'll grant you that. But that doesn't mean NG "subsidizes" rents. That word has connotations that Joe Public misconstrues, and it's what Labor makes it's political advantage.

Imagine all property investment had to be thru' a company to get loss write-downs. Not many PAYE taxpayers would ascribe and rental housing investment would be way down. NG solves what would otherwise be a public housing crisis.