Labor's spokesman on negative gearing, has been shown to have 3 investment properties valued in the $ms, which also happen to be negatively geared.

Moreover, these were only uncovered when he was asked why he didn't live in Batman. When asked why he didn't live in his $2.3m house, he said it was being renovated, but there were tenants in it. Asked if it was negatively geared, he couldn't remember (it is). Asked why it wasn't on the role of assets, he said he was so busy he didn't remember. Later it turned up that he had other houses that also didn't appear, one of which he uses whilst in Canberra and charges the commonwealth $270 p.d. for living out allowance.

What was Shorten's response? A slap on the wrist.

At least now Labor's Negative gearing policy is in tatters.

"At least now Labor's Negative gearing policy is in tatters."

How so?

Just because some Labor bozo does gets caught out not declaring and also doing a Hockey and using his travel allowance to pay off his wife's mortgage, it doesn't negate the argument against negative gearing.

I mean it's not as if pollies don't have bad memories.

From 20120...

"LABOR has questioned whether Tony Abbott could manage the Australian economy after he failed to declare a new $710,000 mortgage on his family home.

The Opposition Leader took out the mortgage after losing his ministerial salary when the Howard government was ousted, to help cover living costs including private school fees for two of his three daughters.

But he failed to declare it until about two weeks ago - almost two years after taking out the loan.

Small Business Minister Craig Emerson told 2UE radio this morning he thought the failure to declare was “probably a genuine oversight, but it's a bloody big oversight”"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/politics/failure-to-declare-mortgage-has-tony-abbott-under-new-loan-stress/story-e6frgczf-1225883125818

Yes well, what can I say.

If you renovate a property, while either rented, or intended to be rented, the repairs/improvements are all tax deductable, albeit in differing ways, but they are still deductable.

So you buy a home, renovate while renting, then move in latter having written some of the debts off. Very clever, but not how a minister against a system should act.

Economic mismanagement from Labour/Greens was on total display from 2007 -2013. One does not need another dishonest Labour politician to prove this.

Feney said NG costs each taxpayer $310 p.a.

He's stupid or lying. Provided the basic taxation principle exists that operating losses are deductible, be it from paid work or future profits, taxpayers are unaffected.

There is no "concession" amount and there is no "subsidizing" in negative gearing. These are lies of arithmetic and deceit.

If Poirot and Labor want to remove the taxation principle, just bl00dy well come out and say it and we can get on with a proper civil war instead of this class war concocted to pit the 50% nett recipients (welfare minus tax) against the 50% net contributors.

Poirot,

I'm glad you characterised the Labor Cabinet MP leading the charge against NEW negative gearing as a bozo. However, you forgot that this bozo is also terrible liar, first lying that his house was being renovated, then that he couldn't remember whether it was negatively geared, then forgetting that he had 2 other properties hidden in a tax avoiding trust.

This bozo is going to lose his seat and possibly Labor the election.

Labor's policy is looking sick. What could be next or worse? Labor's minister for women a rapist?

SM,

The point being that the vast majority of negative gearing largesse goes to top income earners.

Over 50% of the dividend is swallowed up by the top 10%.

So I couldn't give a toss whether it's a Labor guy or not. It's just one more example of those in the top earning bracket using NG as a tax minimising rort to enrich themselves - even to the point of "overlooking" their investments when required to declare them.

The Economist called it a "crazy" scheme.

But, of course, what would they know....

Poirot: "negative gearing largesse", "the dividend", "tax minimising rort"?

You haven't the understanding (or the desire to understand?) anything that has been explained to you, Poirot. You are a political hack, dancing about on the surface of this issue to your political master's tune, a true class warrior.

A "crazy" scheme? It's been a part of Australian tax law for over a century. It has helped people of modest means into financial independence from government, without taking anything from government. You won't or don't get that.

There is no "concession" on the tax that must ultimately be paid, there is no subsidy by the taxpayer. Even The Economist can't seem to acknowledge that point or argue against it in coming to its oh so well considered opinion. If NG is crazy, then we've been crazy for a long, long time.

You still haven't explained why it is only Sydney and Melbourne property that have gone completely gangbusters since the GFC. Why hasn't the mad craze spread everywhere. Why do you whine about prices where they have risen but don't care that real values have fallen elsewhere? Why is it only NG that is centred upon by The Economist and no consideration of low interest rates, CGT concessions, immigration and supply and demand, and the desire of people to live where they wish? Why does it paint the entire Australian property market as a monolith rather than parts? It hasn't done its homework, that's why,and nor have you.

Luciferas,

While we're lobbing ad homs - you can have this one right back...

"You haven't the understanding (or the desire to understand?) anything that has been explained to you, Poirot. You are a political hack, dancing about on the surface of this issue to your political master's tune, a true class warrior."

You have a hide.

While you and I have debated this issue, I have posted information supporting my side from economic commentators with far more expertise than you.

They happen to disagree with you - so what?

You can "explain" all you like - it doesn't mean I have to take your partisan blather as anything other than partisan blather.

And the leader of the Greens with 4 houses no doubt negative geared. They know not what the word hypocrisy means. No wonder they hate people who work for a living.

"While you and I have debated this issue.."

Debated? Don't flatter yourself.

Luciferase,

OMG! - I bow before your superior economic persona.

After all, we are discussing this on a backwater "opinion" site. I posted a few articles from actual economists - articles that supported my view.....Egad!

And Luciferase, as is his wont, decides to hurl ad hom because his view only represents his take on things.

How dare anyone employ articles from actual economists to challenge an opinion put up on a run-of-the-mill opinion site and its expert economic analyst....aka Luciferase.

Poirot. I don't give a toss, frankly, whether changes are made to NG. I still have choices that I can exercise based on my own situation and summations. I do feel sad that NG will be unavailable to people of modest means, as it was to me, to become independent of welfare in retirement, if Labor is elected.

I just won't have this political BS surrounding it all. I want focus on the facts, the truth. I won't have NG being the prime and only suspect responsible for what has happened in in Sydney and Melbourne. Tell it to the guy invested in Hobart.

In '85 Labor pushed it too far, quarantining investment losses, so of course it had to relent after two years after having completely overcooked the goose. I don't think Labor will be doing that this time, I hope, if elected.

I'd hoped for a real debate, not denial of irrefutable facts with a Party message thrown in. Forgive my excessive expectations of someone I mistakenly thought could hack it.

P,

It is not largesse, if someone makes an investment on something that will later make a profit (and pay tax on), then the sum of his earnings decreases.

Stopping this is a tax on housing, and no matter how many left whinge economists you quote every time that NG has been restricted in the past has led to a lowering in house prices and an increase in rental prices, which typically affects those on lower incomes more.

If you are OK with that then fine, but just don't pretend that it won't happen.