Dear rehctub,

I'm not sure how you manage to hold positions which fly in the face of facts and commonsense.

For instance removing negative gearing from existing housing is suppose to decimate the building sector how?

How about you take a step back and reassess your take on these things? A fresh perspective might find you ending up with a different set of priorities.

For me the government giving up on manufacturing in this country has been unforgivable. Germany recently put a billion dollars toward electric cars. We could have done the same in this country and shifted so many established car component businesses into the new economy. Instead the coalition threw the towel in.

While manufacturing was certainly stagnating what it needed was forward thinking rather than slash and burn neo-capitalist ideologues wrecking the place. i don't class Malcolm as one of them but the coalition as a whole most certainly is. This is where anger should be directed in my opinion

Dea Steel, I will come back to your negative gearing question.

As for manufacturing, do you have any comparisons in the number of vehicles produced between Germany and Australia?

The problem with our car industry is that our wages and conditions for relatively low skilled floor workers are ridiculous, especially the conditions side.

Secondly, I have heard we were subsidizing the industry to the tune of $50,000 per worker, which at the time was far more than many workers in regular jobs were paid, so do you think this was sustainable?

Thirdly, thanks to RUDD/GILLARD we had no money.

As for electric cars, having the cars is one thing, selling them to the people is a whole new deal.

NG
I will continue this as a separate post.

Steel, you asked me why I feel negative gearing remove on old homes will decimate the industry, here are my thoughts.

Firstly, in order to NG a home, it must have a large debt to value ration, usually at least 80%.

Given the median house price has now broken into the 600's in Brisbane, in order to buy a $600K home as an investment, rent it out for $30,000 and not have it geared, the deposit required will be about half, or $300,000.

That's not going to happen.

So the alternative is to buy new.

While that may seem fine, what is the value of that new home once it's used? Remembering, if you wish to sell it to an investor they will need 50% deposit, and very few have that.

So given the fact that the only way to NG will be new, fewer will take the risk because there will be very few buyers out there the buy it a second time.

So, if one is forced to buy second hand with after tax dollars, they might as well use those dollars to pay down their existing, non tax deductable, mortgagee,

This will ultimately result in fewer homes being built due mainly to the unknown values once used.

rehctub,

"Thirdly, thanks to RUDD/GILLARD we had no money."

May I remind you what you said on the last page:

"As for labor's spending, there spending/borrowing was not the problem, its the lack of outcomes that has caused so much damage."

Make up your mind.

Here's how ABBOTT/TURNBULL have made things much much worse - with the added excitement of two dud Treasurers in a row.

"From the time of the last election:

Net debt was: $175 billion
Net debt now: $274 billion

Gross debt was: $273 billion
Gross debt now: $430 billion

Net debt to GDP was: 10%
Net debt to GDP now: 16.9%

Wages growth was: 2.6%
Wages growth now: 2.3%

Govt spending was: 24.1% of GDP
Govt spending now: 25.8% of GDP

Unemployment was: 5.6%
Unemployment now: 6.0%

What, prey tell, are the "outcomes" from that? Private business investment has collapsed. Company profits have fallen 11%. Private sector capital expenditure has fallen a thumping 26%.

If you're searching for an anti-business govt, don't look much further - we've got one at the moment.

Steel another trend that could we be effected is where people buy their first home, 'a stepping stone of sorts' which they latter rent out to buy their next, usually an upgrade.

The problem with this policy is that the older one can no longer be negatively geared, so the new one will be put on hold.

While I am the first to admit that my thoughts are only predictions, my concern is that given the building industry is one of the few going well at present, why would anyone want to risk that sector.

Poirot, how much of the libs spending is paying for labors debt?

rehctub,

How thick are you?

I mean, how many times do you have to be reminded that Australia's debt by world standards is very small...it was significantly smaller when Labor left office.

How many times do you have to be reminded that if the LNP had been in govt during the aftermath of the GFC and advised by people like yourself, we would have gone into recession and our debt would have been huge.

Mr Abbott and his cohorts got themselves elected touting the line of a debt and deficit disaster...which was complete and utter bollocks.

The fact that the Coalition have heaped on the debt since is obvious. Their "debt and deficit disaster" crap is nowhere to be seen these days...because they have moved us to a much worse position.

I realise from your narrative that you would have much preferred a GFC recession - that much is obvious.

Your complete failure to recognise the genius of an early and powerful stimulus as Australia's saviour during that time is evidence enough of your economic ignorance.

What have you got to say about the damage this govt has wrought on business confidence in Australia since the Coalition came to power.?