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.