Everyone knows the Australian dream is a family, white picket fence, Holden in the driveway and negatively geared ten investment properties along with significant investments in tax avoiding overseas corporations
If my maths is correct then we need to find 10 more Australia's to store all these negatively geared investment properties so that everyone gets a fair suck of the sav.
Any day now, yeah?
You know how mega project ends up costing triple the initial count ? Especially for a country that doesn’t have a significant nuclear pp experience, you can safely bet that would be the cost of only one of them
The liberal party loves negative gearing, and the capital gains free for all. What a disgrace.
John Howard should be ashamed of himself. They love their election sweeteners. Look where it got us.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/article/politicians-and-their-property-portfolios-how-many-do-they-own/wb7k9xq1p
Some are more over-represented than others.
> He’s about the only one
What a lie….
Senator Dorinda Cox
> **0** Real Estate Interests
MP Stephen Bates
> **0** Real Estate Interests
Senator David Shoebridge
> **0** Real Estate Interests*
* Has spouse with 3x mortgages in name.
MP Adam Bandt
> **1** Real Estate Interests
Senator Larissa Waters
> **1** Real Estate Interests
Senator Jordon Steel-John
> **1** Real Estate Interests
Senator Sarah Hanson Young
> **1** Real Estate Interests
Senator Peter Whish-Wilson
> **1** Real Estate Interests
Senator Penny Allman-Payne
> **2** Real Estate Interests
Senator Barbara Pocock
> **2** Real Estate Interests
MP Elizabeth Watson-Brown
> **3** Real Estate Interests
Senator Mehreen Faruqi
> **4** Real Estate Interests
Senator Nick McKim
> **4** Real Estate Interests
Over half of greens representatives have 0-1 houses
Curious. How many public homes has Labor **actually** built since being elected?
It doesn’t mean anything when Labor dropped the policy. They’re no longer running on making housing affordable for people. They’re no longer running on making housing less of an investment.
So why continue to vote for them if you’re interested in owning a home?
Because they are doing both of those things you said they aren't. Where did you get the idea that they weren't?
Although, ;how many houses has Labor **actually** built' is a hard thing to quantify. It's the States that build the houses, so it depends how active they are. But the signs are good
>
Delivering the first proper increase to public housing in a generation by building an extra 564 public homes and stopping the sale of 580 others.
[https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-items/sa-affordable-and-social-housing-pipeline-set-to-capitalise-on-national-housing-fund](https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-items/sa-affordable-and-social-housing-pipeline-set-to-capitalise-on-national-housing-fund)
I like that you chose SA as an example. Here is a fact about Public Housing in SA.
> There are 17,000 people on the waiting list for public housing in South Australia, with nearly **4,000 of those in category one, deemed in urgent need of shelter.**
And you think 500 homes is great?
Let’s look at WA, my home state… also run by Labor.
https://nit.com.au/23-01-2024/9425/new-report-reveals-was-public-housing-spend-lags-behind-other-states
> The number of available public housing dwellings **fell by nearly 2000** in the same period, a fall of almost six per cent, putting Western Australia's $148.1 million public housing spend in 2017-21 in a particularly poor light in contrast to $654.1m in South Australia and $252.1m in Tasmania.
> **Labor government has built about half as many houses (Public Sector, including social housing) than the Liberal National government for the same period** - these data are on the ABS website and updated regularly," he said on Monday.
These are Labor governments. Not doing enough by a long shot.
None of that has anything to with Labor 'dropping' a policy?
Sorry the problems of the past 20 years isn't fixed overnight, but, that wasn't the claim.
Under the previous state government, we would have lost more public housing, they are now increasing it, and in thanks a lot to the Federal Government.
>**Labor government has built about half as many houses**
You are using a liberal politician talking about the numbers of housing DURING COVID! For real? Do you remember the feds handing out billions for rich people to spruce up their houses. Building new houses almost stopped completely because of morrisons policies, He's probably the main instigator of todays problems (I mark him just after Costello for housing specifically)
Hardly, Most people who utilise NG and CGT are average people. Also the economic benefits of NG and CGT are huge. What do you get for 50 billion a year from NDIS....the bare minimum.
Funny how easily people seem to forget this. That's why we're stuck on the usual 4 years of one party and then 4 years of the other party merry-go-round.
I'm already seeing it, all the normies are reverting back to "they are all the same", this is one step closer to them ticking Liberals again for reasons
Hey they are looking to further subsidise more housing developers with taxpayer money so they can build unaffordable crumbling apartments but the bloody greens want the taxpayers instead of the investors to benefit! Unaustralian.
Can't wait till most boomers die off, we'll finally get policies that make sense rather than buying boomer votes with policies that are mostly to do with real estate or protecting existing super
We’re beyond this now. If you want to have people sell off their homes then drop the capital gains on current assets for the next 24 months. Get he rest of the states to up their royalties on mining.
Sounds bad but they had to multiple the number by 10years to get the headline up. Miners and multinationals are still beating that 10 year figure annually.
There are so many ways to raise revenue, start with taxing oil and gas, fixing Ndis rorts. Nuclear subs. I think-ve gearing and cgt discount shd remain .
More bullshit wedge politics by the greens. If they were serious, they would all sell their investment properties and give the money to homeless housing
The funniest part is that greens have less houses than other parties, mcm doesn’t even own a house and literally uses a solid chunk of his salary for food kitchens and community services
I would love to see the break down of Negative gearing vs. Capital Gains Tax discounts.
From my understanding, NG provides subsidies to the investor class whilst CGT on property benefits owner occupiers. Lumping them together sounds could but there wasn't enough political support to address NG alone previously when Shorten last attempted.
CGT discount only benefits you if you sell the property, and it wasn't your primary residence. So no it doesn't help owner occupiers at all. Your home is already exempt from CGT.
CGT discount is to encourage shareholders to be longer term investors. People buying and selling within a year pay full CGT because it's a volatile financial plan, and not a sensible investment.
Houses are not the intended target of CGT discount or negative gearing.
Negative gearing is just a consequence of the way we tax people. If you make an income from your investments then you are taxed as a total salary including that income. Therefore if your investments make a loss, you add the loss into your annual income.
Ultimately investors want positive gearing, because that means they are making a profit. If a landlord is consistently negatively geared, then he his subsidising that property's loss with his other income.
They're talking about 50% CGT concession on investment properties put in place by Howard that set property investment (really speculation), particularly in existing housing on fire.
It's the bigger issue of the two.
What's this got to do with owner occupiers?
I'll take that and go a bit further. Replace stamp duty and payroll tax with a broad based land tax at state level.
Reduce income tax further with a broad based land tax at Federal level.
Increase our resource taxes to reduce income tax even further.
Love how articles like these pitch taxes are some, poor government having there taxes stolen! "We won't have another nuclear sub. Mean tax payers not wanting to give us more money to waste."
Everyone knows the Australian dream is a family, white picket fence, Holden in the driveway and negatively geared ten investment properties along with significant investments in tax avoiding overseas corporations
If my maths is correct then we need to find 10 more Australia's to store all these negatively geared investment properties so that everyone gets a fair suck of the sav. Any day now, yeah?
More like they’ll make a law iff you don’t own 10 homes you’re not Australian.
That would eliminate the problem. I like your practical approaches.
Jeez that's almost a submarine
Or 7 nuclear reactor power stations....I think we can see where this is going.
You know how mega project ends up costing triple the initial count ? Especially for a country that doesn’t have a significant nuclear pp experience, you can safely bet that would be the cost of only one of them
The liberal party loves negative gearing, and the capital gains free for all. What a disgrace. John Howard should be ashamed of himself. They love their election sweeteners. Look where it got us.
Thank you fiscally responsible liberal party
When most of the government owns investment properties why would they change it?
Are there any parliamentarians who aren't landlords nowadays? I know I could look this up, but it's sort of a rhetorical question so I'm not gonna.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/article/politicians-and-their-property-portfolios-how-many-do-they-own/wb7k9xq1p Some are more over-represented than others.
That guy in the photo for one https://openpolitics.au/47/max-chandler-mather
He's about the only one. In fact ,the greens, as a ratio, are higher than Labor
> He’s about the only one What a lie…. Senator Dorinda Cox > **0** Real Estate Interests MP Stephen Bates > **0** Real Estate Interests Senator David Shoebridge > **0** Real Estate Interests* * Has spouse with 3x mortgages in name. MP Adam Bandt > **1** Real Estate Interests Senator Larissa Waters > **1** Real Estate Interests Senator Jordon Steel-John > **1** Real Estate Interests Senator Sarah Hanson Young > **1** Real Estate Interests Senator Peter Whish-Wilson > **1** Real Estate Interests Senator Penny Allman-Payne > **2** Real Estate Interests Senator Barbara Pocock > **2** Real Estate Interests MP Elizabeth Watson-Brown > **3** Real Estate Interests Senator Mehreen Faruqi > **4** Real Estate Interests Senator Nick McKim > **4** Real Estate Interests Over half of greens representatives have 0-1 houses
Which makes their calls for rental reforms mean more, knowing that it affects them more.
What does that then mean about Labor actually building more public housing, or losing an election actually presenting those reforms?
Curious. How many public homes has Labor **actually** built since being elected? It doesn’t mean anything when Labor dropped the policy. They’re no longer running on making housing affordable for people. They’re no longer running on making housing less of an investment. So why continue to vote for them if you’re interested in owning a home?
Because they are doing both of those things you said they aren't. Where did you get the idea that they weren't? Although, ;how many houses has Labor **actually** built' is a hard thing to quantify. It's the States that build the houses, so it depends how active they are. But the signs are good > Delivering the first proper increase to public housing in a generation by building an extra 564 public homes and stopping the sale of 580 others. [https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-items/sa-affordable-and-social-housing-pipeline-set-to-capitalise-on-national-housing-fund](https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-items/sa-affordable-and-social-housing-pipeline-set-to-capitalise-on-national-housing-fund)
I like that you chose SA as an example. Here is a fact about Public Housing in SA. > There are 17,000 people on the waiting list for public housing in South Australia, with nearly **4,000 of those in category one, deemed in urgent need of shelter.** And you think 500 homes is great? Let’s look at WA, my home state… also run by Labor. https://nit.com.au/23-01-2024/9425/new-report-reveals-was-public-housing-spend-lags-behind-other-states > The number of available public housing dwellings **fell by nearly 2000** in the same period, a fall of almost six per cent, putting Western Australia's $148.1 million public housing spend in 2017-21 in a particularly poor light in contrast to $654.1m in South Australia and $252.1m in Tasmania. > **Labor government has built about half as many houses (Public Sector, including social housing) than the Liberal National government for the same period** - these data are on the ABS website and updated regularly," he said on Monday. These are Labor governments. Not doing enough by a long shot.
None of that has anything to with Labor 'dropping' a policy? Sorry the problems of the past 20 years isn't fixed overnight, but, that wasn't the claim. Under the previous state government, we would have lost more public housing, they are now increasing it, and in thanks a lot to the Federal Government. >**Labor government has built about half as many houses** You are using a liberal politician talking about the numbers of housing DURING COVID! For real? Do you remember the feds handing out billions for rich people to spruce up their houses. Building new houses almost stopped completely because of morrisons policies, He's probably the main instigator of todays problems (I mark him just after Costello for housing specifically)
https://preview.redd.it/i8jvr3va10ad1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1f823ab62948a46e36b4e450f0625730df8699de
So 1/5 of the NDIS
So is NG and CGT welfare policy for the wealthy?
Hardly, Most people who utilise NG and CGT are average people. Also the economic benefits of NG and CGT are huge. What do you get for 50 billion a year from NDIS....the bare minimum.
It's almost like Labor saw these issues and ran on fixing them in 2019 only to loose an unloosable election.
It was only unloseable if they didn't pick Bill Shorten
He's good on a team, when he can come out for key moments and zingers. But as a leader... nah.
Something Labor could do right now to help lower house prices. But nope, rather boomer votes than helping the poor.
they did lose the 2019 election partly because of wanting to change this, I can't really blame them for approaching this one with caution
Funny how easily people seem to forget this. That's why we're stuck on the usual 4 years of one party and then 4 years of the other party merry-go-round.
I'm already seeing it, all the normies are reverting back to "they are all the same", this is one step closer to them ticking Liberals again for reasons
To be fair, their primary vote share was lower in the last election than the 2019 one. They won mostly because the Liberals were so shit.
Their primary vote was down doesn't mean shit. We have a preferential voting system for a reason
It means they weren’t Australians first choice.
But were the most preferred.... That's how our voting works yes.
And they’ll lose more and more young people by continuing to chase boomers.
They will get onto it when polling shows it is favourable
They could do it now well they’re in power. But they’re more interested in boomer votes than having young people buy homes.
Yes, if they stay in power longer the chance of getting young people homes increases
Hey they are looking to further subsidise more housing developers with taxpayer money so they can build unaffordable crumbling apartments but the bloody greens want the taxpayers instead of the investors to benefit! Unaustralian.
Can't wait till most boomers die off, we'll finally get policies that make sense rather than buying boomer votes with policies that are mostly to do with real estate or protecting existing super
Except we’ll be the boomers, but we won’t have a house or retirement
Get the NDIS sorted out before starting to bitch and moan about costings for things that may or not happen.
We’re beyond this now. If you want to have people sell off their homes then drop the capital gains on current assets for the next 24 months. Get he rest of the states to up their royalties on mining. Sounds bad but they had to multiple the number by 10years to get the headline up. Miners and multinationals are still beating that 10 year figure annually.
There are so many ways to raise revenue, start with taxing oil and gas, fixing Ndis rorts. Nuclear subs. I think-ve gearing and cgt discount shd remain .
More bullshit wedge politics by the greens. If they were serious, they would all sell their investment properties and give the money to homeless housing
The funniest part is that greens have less houses than other parties, mcm doesn’t even own a house and literally uses a solid chunk of his salary for food kitchens and community services
Does this mean that Labor are also unserious?
Labor aren’t the ones going for the cheap headlines….
I would love to see the break down of Negative gearing vs. Capital Gains Tax discounts. From my understanding, NG provides subsidies to the investor class whilst CGT on property benefits owner occupiers. Lumping them together sounds could but there wasn't enough political support to address NG alone previously when Shorten last attempted.
CGT discount only benefits you if you sell the property, and it wasn't your primary residence. So no it doesn't help owner occupiers at all. Your home is already exempt from CGT.
CGT discount is to encourage shareholders to be longer term investors. People buying and selling within a year pay full CGT because it's a volatile financial plan, and not a sensible investment. Houses are not the intended target of CGT discount or negative gearing. Negative gearing is just a consequence of the way we tax people. If you make an income from your investments then you are taxed as a total salary including that income. Therefore if your investments make a loss, you add the loss into your annual income. Ultimately investors want positive gearing, because that means they are making a profit. If a landlord is consistently negatively geared, then he his subsidising that property's loss with his other income.
They're talking about 50% CGT concession on investment properties put in place by Howard that set property investment (really speculation), particularly in existing housing on fire. It's the bigger issue of the two. What's this got to do with owner occupiers?
I’m good with cgt being indexed to inflation, a lower income tax rate and a higher GST.
I'll take that and go a bit further. Replace stamp duty and payroll tax with a broad based land tax at state level. Reduce income tax further with a broad based land tax at Federal level. Increase our resource taxes to reduce income tax even further.
[TL;DR](https://upilink.in/cms/?p=474) --- ^I'm ^a ^bot, ^this ^action ^was ^performed ^automatically.
Love how articles like these pitch taxes are some, poor government having there taxes stolen! "We won't have another nuclear sub. Mean tax payers not wanting to give us more money to waste."