Abbott started the ten year plan. As the case b/s baffles brains. And the people believed him, for a short while. What forward projection figures does the libs have. 2025-02030.

The NBN is in a mess, and a fraction of the speed we need. A mis mash of different design will make it plagued with problems. Another reason to keep us further behind, we are being run as a minor country

Mikk, where do you think the houses come from for millions of renters. Investors.

So if you want investors to continue investing, and you want houses to retain value (a must), then rents will skyrocket.

Now once this is achieved, what have we really achieved through the changes to NG and CGT?

Ask treasury butch they reckon it's a good idea. NG is a false economy if there was something better to invest in that is where the investment will go.

The market will find its own values, without NG. NG is a drain not an advantage. Times have moved on.

ok, there are some people who think Negative gearing is for the rich, no, anyone can do it. In fact the vast majority of NG properties are owned by mums and dads earning less than $80k a year.

So, why would you invest in residential property? Not for the rent (yield is a gross 4%, after tax and expenses is about 2.5%, same as inflation) You invest for capital growth and tax advantages.

So, take away tax advantages (neg gearing), to make investing into property attractive something else has to happen, that is rents rise to compensate loss of tax benefits.

If Labor believes house will drop in value (capital loss) why would anyone invest?

But Labor said it would keep NG for new homes? Well, when does a new home become an old home? 2, 5, years or when it is sold? Either way, no one in their right mind would buy an residential investment property knowing in a few years time its value has dropped. (They invest for capital growth, not capital loss)

So, Mums and dads will NOT buy investment properties if the only return is rent, or if they do they will increase rents to compensate on no growth or tax benefits. Demand will exceed supply and rents will skyrocket.

One in 6 people are employed directly or indirectly in the building industry (its our largest employer) If there is no tax incentives to hold residential property, there is going to be a lot of unemployed labourers.

The government loves neg gearing (Greens, Labor and Libs) as each house built employs 300 people (carpenter, brick layer, sparky etc) all paying income tax and GST.
The more money is circulated the more tax is collected and better the economy.

So, stop neg gearing and rents go up, unemployment goes up, less GST revenue and more homeless people and more people cant afford to buy a home.

Good Policy? NOT

Ask treasury you say 579.

Well, Wayne Swan asked treasury and treasury said he and his party would return to surplus. He mentioned this dozens if not hundreds of times yet we did not return to surplus.

So tell me 579, what has changed in treasury to give us new found confidence in what they say?

Do you know something I don't about changes in treasury, if so, perhaps you can share it with us.

Kirby, most of the rich are not your average PAYG earners in the first place, they are company directors, and like myself draw a wage and, more and more company directors are moving away from property ownership in their personal names.

So negative gearing is still going to occur, its just that the likes of trusts will be holding and servicing the debt, and claiming the losses and this is not considered negative gearing.

As for the CGT tax hike, this will simply mean less investors will sell their properties which in turn will tighten the market and as you rightly say, who is going to buy a new house, knowing fewer buyers will want it once its lived in.

A trust cannot claim the losses as a trust does not have an identity or a TFN.