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.