Yes, it will be interesting to see if anyone can expalin any benefits of fremoving negative gearing, as in my post it clearly shows there are only potential loosers and no winners.

The banks would become very very nervous to say the least, as we have a localised economy that runs on credit and much of that credit is secured by mums and dad housing. If they (the banks) start making margin calls all hell will break lose.

Why is it that people stop debating when there are facts involved that disprove their theories.

It would appear that most on this site would prefer to talk about garbage than real issues, with real facts. I think it's becoming a bit of a waste of time to be honest.

I'm going to invite Mr Saul Eslake to comment as he, being a highly respected economist, is also very anti negative gearing.

Let's see if he will contribute and hopefully see what he has to say.

Hi Saul, i have a theory aboutaffordable housing, more so that it's a bit of a myth  in that it's more related to the likes of Sydney, rather than the nation and would invite you for your coment on the following link.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7721

Let's see if I get a response.

Ask Saul?

Why would you doubt your own experience?

Where you ask an economist to count your money you will get a range of replies. But first, the question, 'What do you want the result to be? Because I have to factor in the limitations'.

You know yourself and what motivates you. That is enough.

Any objection for affordable housing comes from the far right Abbott brigade. If they oppose anything Turnbull must comply.
We need an election to reset the political scene.

Ok Doog, so do you think a couple, on modest incomes, should be able to afford a first home in the likes of Sydney?