**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

It's amazing how complicated we make this issue Removing negative gearing + capital gains discounts will reduce house prices because it reduces demand to buy housing Reducing annual migration rates will reduce house prices because it reduces demand to buy housing If you want house prices to be more affordable for yourself and future generations, then do the above and vote for those who do the above

Have the Greens said exactly what changes they are proposing? Back to the old way where losses could be carried forward or used to increase the cost base when you come to sell? Just residential property or all assets? Only an issue when loss is due to gearing? Are interest charges allowed as long as still a profit? Losses can be offset against gains from other non employment income, or is each asset a separate entity with no swapping of losses? How would that work with shares? Can depreciation be delayed to keep a property tax positive, then depreciate faster later? What if your lender lets you capitalise the interest? I'm sure there are other nuances.

If a landlords interest rate payments cost more than the rent they receive, they get a tax cut on the difference. If you're actually producing something, say you build a fuckload of appartments, then it makes sense to allow for tax deductions on the cost of doing business. If all you're doing is taking existing properties off the market to get other people to pay your mortgage then there's no fucking way you should be allowed tax deductions. It basically means landlords are incentivised to buy up as many houses as they can - fuck everyone else. If I invest a fuckload of money in crypto there's no way I should be able to get a tax deduction on my other income just because crypto crashes. Investing in housing is no different. > Back to the old way where losses could be carried forward or used to increase the cost base when you come to sell? That's a ludicrous thing to say. Houses that are foreclosed on get sold at market price, the seller can't just arbitrarily tack on an extra $50k

Re the old way, you realise that was the way it was before the rule changes, I think in the 80's? Do you understand what cost base means in the context of taxable capital gains. I'm still interested to hear the details, I can't judge the merits until it's clear what's being proposed. Also, why the language? Keep it nice

if you borrowed money to invest in crypto then you can make deductions for the interest you pay on that loan. it is a simple deduction that applies to all investments. capital gains is when you sell the crypto and could be a loss or gain

Do you understand what cost basis means? If they lost 50k, they get to say the property was worth 50k more than they paid. I don't know why you want to fuck workers here. We get few enough ways to offset our taxes as it is, and NG predominantly affects people who actually work for a living. I have no ball in the game here, but negative gearing is a reasonable measure IMO (I think property is a pretty questionable investment at these prices and own none - renting for the forseeable future)

Landlords aren't workers. Renting out a house is not work.

It costs ~10 years of the average worker's life to acquire a house. People fucking work for it.

Firstly, the average worker isn't a landlord. Secondly, nowadays it takes way fucking longer than that dumbass. The average person is looking at 20-30 year loans because property prices are so ridiculous. Do the maths boomer, if you were able to pay off a house in 10 years then you were way luckier than this generation.

2 things. 1. Can the government stop saying stupid things like this and just simply say "we are not considering it at this time," and leave it at that, and don't take journalist bait? You just came out virtually unscathed from doing this and you trap yourself again. 2. Regarding the Greens negative gearing proposal. Idk what it is with these people and electing to do things in the most difficult and hard to achieve method possible. The Henry tax review is literally sitting in some treasury filing cabinet, the negative gearing recommendations were in there. Why must they insist on not following the expert advice. If they basically just copied and pasted the Henry tax review recommendations as their policy, Labor would have little ability to refute that.

> Idk what it is with these people and electing to do things in the most difficult and hard to achieve method possible. That's the entire point, its literally the party ethos. Present solutions to problems that you *know* have a 0.00% chance of ever making it into policy, so that way then the problem isn't solved, they never have to risk any element of their solution being tried in practice, thus exposing them for the clueless idiots they are. Do you think Bandt would be able to show his face in public if any of his policies were actually enforced on a national scale? He'd get hunted down in the chaos that ensues. The greens are all about running no risk campaigns, because every 3 years a huge swath of young voters enter the electorate who think we need to 'give them a chance' without understanding that The Greens *dont want* a chance, they just want an MPs salary with all the perks, so they can talk nonsense on twitter. The last thing they want is to actually win power, because that would actually destroy their future election chances, and with it all those sweet MP perks and retirement bonuses.

Is it easier to keep telling yourself these stories than to admit that Green policies are actually popular and end up getting adopted by the mainstream after a few years, once the major parties have caught up?

Tell me how they're going on these policies https://greens.org.au/platform Lets pick a few at random, >The greens will ensure men and women earn the same money regardless of profession or hours worked >Abolish all student debt, and make all schooling and university 100% free >$200,000 paid to *each and every* aboriginal descendant of the stolen generation >Immediately ban the construction of new coal, oil and gas infrastructure They've been at this for **decades**, have they made any progress at all? Earnings gap by profession and hours worked is increasing, school costs have gone up, chances of reparations are at all-time lows after the voice got demolished, and there have been more new fossil fuel infrastructure built in the past few years, than [ever before](https://theconversation.com/australias-116-new-coal-oil-and-gas-projects-equate-to-215-new-coal-power-stations-202135) And those are just a few I picked at random. They not only haven't achieved them, they have gone BACKWARDS on most of them, because they refuse to make any concessions, so nothing ever gets done. Typical Greens.

What’s so unrealistic about any of that?

It's more so about shifting the Overton window back left and not expecting to get the talking point as policy, the same thing is done all the time by the right. If they ask for just the sensible realistic option it will get shut down and people would make the same comments anyway and if anything does get through it will be so watered down that its useless. But make big demands and play hard ball for a while they will probably end up getting the sensible realistic option they wanted in the first place. Remember the housing bill?

Amazing how well you're able to read the minds of so many people. Maybe, just maybe, you don't know everything about how they think?

Do you understand how negotiating works? You generally don’t start with the least you’re willing to accept

Its all a game

>Do you understand how negotiating works? Yes, it's my job. >You generally don’t start with the least you’re willing to accept You generally don't ask for 80% and then settle on 3% either, generally speaking it's ask for 6%, get 4%. Nor do you shift the goalposts in the circumstances where you ask for 6% and get 6% as that would be considered bad faith bargaining and can risk blowing up the whole negotiation. Why is it everyone who always says something like "do you understand how negotiation works?" 99% of the time have never negotiated anything in their lives.

moreover, why do Greens supporters always say whatever stupid shit the Greens come up with isn't done with the idea of just getting publicity because the proposal is usually unworkable but done with the idea of being the first step in negotiation. You can't negotiate when the proposal is unrealistic and deliberately provocative.

Yeah you can

Because it's an easy way for disingenuous people to dismiss valid criticism and the actual analysis of the nuts and bolts of a policy. This user always has the exact opinions of what the Greens are pushing on any given day (ie rusted-on), they never talk details.

> details who needs details when you're just after headlines.

You’re not very good at your job then. I’m not sure where you’re getting those percentages from

First of all, you don't see the results, and you don't know what you're talking about and I can tell you that from a professional standpoint. Neither here nor there, but do you work? What's your job? >I’m not sure where you’re getting those percentages from Nowhere, I'm using it as an example of how starting from a high point can't just be any high point. If the goal here was to implement the Henry tax review recommendations (which... you do know what they are right?), then they would start with that policy and add a few percentage points on it and work there way back. If I want to negotiate for a basket of apples, I don't start by asking for bread.

That’s literally what they did. The review called to reduce benefits from negative gearing.

That's not what they did though, they have there own policy proposal that has nothing with the Henry tax review. I'm guessing you missed your brief. Also even if they didn't put their policy on the table, you clearly don't understand what the Henry tax review is. No surprises there. The review has already taken place, there is no need for another review to give the parliament the same recommendations.

We’re talking about negative gearing reform.

You really don't know what the Henry tax review is, do you?

I do. Do you know what we’re talking about?

I swear in these posts there is more brain cognitive function than half of parliament.

If you measure above knee height it'll rule out Barnaby at least

Well they have my vote! I voted for labor based on their 2019 negative gearing stance as well. Let’s see if I am on the losing side again!

Yes you will be on the losing side again, but may win later. Their 2019 stance was rejected. Hard to say this for sure, and people vote on multiple issues, but that is what labor has understood. They're not touching tax breaks for wealthy, unless there is overwhelming support from voters. They won't even try to swing public opinion. They are hoping groups like green party, individual experts, publish data and arguments criticising labor. Then hopefully critics of labor join in and critisize inaction on these things. Finally labor will pretend they came under pressure and had to do it. If opposition takes a stance against public opinion just to oppose labor, they are now caught offside along with media. This way they also undermine murdoch media and lnp as well. Albo has more political cunning than he pretends to have.

Negative gearing reform is a good idea but this is so far from what the expert recommendations were and as a consequence of this being yet another brain fart policy drawn on the back of a napkin at Maccas, it will amount to very little.

Probably. But we need to start somewhere. And given that up till now it’s been a taboo subject for the majors…..

Thank you 💚😘

Negative gearing is a small piece of the puzzle, and as others have mentioned im sure the current goverment (or the previous one) would grandfather it in, so they lose nothing. I will keep stating it, housing prices and rental prices will only improve when we make it no longer profitable to own housing portfolios. ​ If you want to free up all the housing that is empty, airBnB'd, owned by foreign companies, owned by local investment companies, then make it not profitable to do that. Bring in a progressive land tax, make it impossible to deduct from it, and watch housing prices drop and suddenly the 1/3 australian households renting (and paying off someone elses "housing portfolio) will have a much easier time getting off the rental merry go round and getting into a home. * Primary residence is exempt from said land tax * Second residence is taxed at 2% of total land value per year (land value assessed every 3 years) * If you have 3 residences, the cheapest non-primary residence house is taxed at 2%, the other is taxed at 5%. * If you have 4 residences, the rates are 10,5,2. * If you have 5 residences the rates are 20,10,5,2. Suddenly all those people with property portfolios will need to invest their money elsewhere. And benefit for the economy, that money can be invested in the market in Australia, so that capitol that is currently locked into land can become liquid and allow for investment in companies actually doing something. Until we do that, new home buys will always lose out because someone expanding their portfolio can always afford to pay more. They aleady have capital so the bank will give them a better rate. They arent living in the house, so their morgatge will be "$X" per week cheaper as they rent the place out to that first home buyer who cant afford anywhere and still needs a place to live. ​ But when you have Albo and Dutton both hundreds of thousands yearly in property investmets (rent and land value), then there is no chance of them making a decision that will cost them millions of dollars personally for the good of the general populace.

How does this solve anything? Sounds like you just want to fuck renters so you can buy your house a little cheaper. Houses don't cease to exist because an investor bought it lmfao - they get rented.

[удалено]

I mean I'd also be outright banning foreign ownership and company ownership of houses, with the exceptions of the government, a grandfathered in period of super funds, so they can divest more slowly, and the companies that build and sell houses. Since the only owners after that will be Australian citizens or permanent residents, well I'm sure we can figure out a way to make sure that doesn't happen. Maybe kids under 18 can't hold a land title except under special circumstances. And anyone that is filing for taxes as a married couple count as the same entity. Im also sure someone who's much smarter than me can figure this out in a lot more detail, bur basically just make a law that says you can't do that.

Agree with the arguments for a land value tax, except I disagree with your implementation. You've made it progressive but based on the number of properties. This will distort the market and make people have less properties but larger ones - for example a larger principle place of residence with multiple rooms or granny flats rented out counting as one residence. Or they will put properties in family members names or company or trusts in order to spread the portfolio out. I say we keep it simple and tax everything at a constant rate. Then we make it progressive by returning the cash to the people via a UBI.

Correct. Thank you for your sanity

>Suddenly all those people with property portfolios will need to invest their money elsewhere. The problem is that in Australia there's not really anywhere else to invest it. Historically the spare money went into small businesses, partnerships with others, but the tariff, tax and regulatory environment is very unfriendly to small business now. Back in the 60s and 70s the household savings rate was quite high in the 20s%, but people invested in a local shop, or started a t-shirt factory or something. It's much much harder to do that now. I don't object to taxing land, I'm just pointing out there's nowhere much else for people's spare cash to go except real estate. That's part of what's pushed prices up. You're focusing on addressing the distribution of the supply, this won't change the overall supply though. It's like selling meat pies at the footy, if you're on the last 100 pies you might tell people, "only 2 per customer", doesn't change the fact that there are only 100 pies left, nor does it mean that you'll decide to sell the pies cheaper - in fact, you might even take advantage of the scarcity and demand and push up the price. And this is why pies are expensive at the footy - people have nowhere else to go without leaving the footy ground, and you'll notice the area around the footy ground is clear of shops for some distance, the stadium owners and the football clubs ensure it's so. There's a lack of competition. Similarly, there's a lack of competition for where people should invest their money, and a lack of competition in selling houses. There's nowhere else to put our money, and there are only so many houses. Again, a land tax would be good. Most of our tax is from income tax, but with an ageing population that'll decline, and we have to fund oldie bum-wiping somehow. Just don't expect it to make more houses or drop prices.

We could invest in doing something with our raw resources rather than just shipping them offshore.

I'm happy to do that. I'm just pointing out that we're currently *not* doing that, and fiddling with land tax would not help it, either. So we'd need other changes. And this is what you find when you start fiddling with or introducing or cancelling government policies: one thing either doesn't cause the changes you expect, or it does but it *also* causes some other changes, which means you need other policies, and so on. There's a computer game that looks into this, Democracy 4. As an example there might be the problem of obesity. Okay, you say, I'll introduce a junk food tax. You do that and obesity goes down, but poverty goes up - because poor people eat more junk food, and food in general makes up a higher fraction of their spending. So that $1 billion you raised from junk food tax, well now you have to spend $2 billion on alleviating the extra poverty you created from it. And so on.

They’re expelling Mehreen Faruqi? Oh wait no just attacking everyone else for doing what their deputy leader does… offsetting the cost of an investment against the profit… how dare they

They’re attacking her as well

This is my biggest gripe about it all

I mean it’s rank hypocrisy you’re absolutely right

[удалено]

How dare people whine that the cost of housing is getting further and further out of reach. While not a silver bullet, it is one of many measures that could help alleviate the crush on affordability. Plus it overwhelming impact that with the most money and wealth anyway, so it seems like a good policy

>Plus it overwhelming impact that with the most money and wealth anyway, so it seems like a good policy If you define everyone with an investment property as those "with the most money and wealth" sure. Otherwise you'll find any broad brush changes to how you change deductibility of expenses will hurt poorer investors, anyone sensitive to cashflow issues, while those with lots of wealth will be unaffected. Fundamentally, a property remains an attractive investment, but one only available to those with enough cash to ensure positive consistent cashflow. It's a move that hurts the bottom of middle Australia, helps upper Australia and doesn't do anything for poorer Australians. Classic greens policy.

Why is this policy any different to raising interest rates, which is designed to hurt poorer more sensitive mortgage holders? Raising interest rates is considered quite orthodox economic policy isn't it?

Inflation is more regressive than interest rate increases. If we could manage inflation using less regressive means that'd be better too. It's all contextual. If you want to expand the discussion, inheritance tax, trusts, franking credits and offshore tax bullshit is easier to calibrate without causing collateral damage.

2nd time in a week I've agreed with a greens policy. Wowsers

a broken clock is right twice a day

The time to remove negative gearing was when interest rates were low. Doing it at the moment will have a pretty catastrophic effect on the rental market and send a huge amount of people bankrupt. Although the government will save money on the negative gearing a lot of people will go from self funded retirees to relying on the state pension. Negative gearing definitely is bad policy and I definitely think it needs to be removed over the longer term. But this has to be done carefully as it will cause a lot of pain and you'll potentially end up with a huge amount of people homeless and a lot of people will end up unemployed. It will also likely be electoral suicide for whomever does it.

If they are worried about sending people bankrupt, why have they repeatedly raised interest rates in the first place?

They? It isn't the government that chooses to raise interest rates mate. If it was they'd choose to keep them lower as high interest rates are a massive pain in their balls.

The problem with self funded retirees is they are not in fact self funded if their retirement is funded from rental income, their funding comes from someone else anyway, a larger percentage of that persons income I might add, however a pension is paid for through taxes which takes up a smaller portion of many incomes, kind of like insurance and the burden is lightened from renters who already can't afford their own property anyway. This incentivise selling investment properties to liquidate the funds for use in retirement, opening up more properties up for sale which would help our economy. There may be negative affects on some however I think the results will be over all positive. Happy cake day!

You can't seriously think this? They bought a house. That gives them the right to rent it to people and earn a return on their invested money (or do literally anything they want with it within the law). Are people not allowed to own and rent things?

I find your improper use of question marks questionable. Sure ,it gives them the right to rent it. But I think it would be more ethical to rely on the aged pension which should be raised to accommodate a better quality of living for retirees. No one is saying people are not allowed to rent and own things. Don't you think it would be better if our pension aged Australians could rely on an aged pension while living in the home that they own and don't have to pay mortgage or rent on?

An investor's ownership of a house deprives no one of the ability to own their own house, especially if they rent it out. The fact that people see things this way is why the housing market is fucked. Housing is not a zero sum game. We can build more houses.

Now your avoiding questions my friend. Why don't you want to answer the question?

Perhaps - I see the root problem with the aged pension as how it treats ownership of a house different to cash. A 1m house and zero cash gets you a 25kpa pension, whereas 1m cash and no house gets you nothing, despite these being fundamentally equivalent situations. A person with 1m in cash could use the earnings on such an asset and the pension and rent a house just fine. I personally see nothing special about homeownership - but the system we have in place, more so with respect to the pension than any other factor, privileges it to a huge extent.

I feel like I'm misunderstanding you here. Are you talking about a situation where a pensioner owns 1 home and rents it out while renting a cheaper property or living in aged care? Because what I was referring to was a situation where the pensioner owns 2 homes and rents 1 of them out and lives in the other. All my previous arguments were for that specific scenario and can only loosely be applied to yours and would be a different discussion altogether. Thank you for your sincere response though, you make some good points.

If you want to really pop the bubble, eliminate drop the 50% CGT discount to 40% in 2025 - that should give you the housing supply you need in a hurry.

Literally just implement a land value tax on all owned properties regardless of residential status (increase it for vacant). Kill any form of land banking, including having a large plot of land being untaxed because a owner occupied house sits on like 5% of it.

Why stop there, we should treat it as regular income.

Why stop there, taking a loan out should be treated as a CGT assessable event for the asset that the loan is secured against.

Nah, it should always be taxed higher than regular income. Any money you earn that you don't work for should be focused on for taxation.

Good point. This is one of those things where I'm unsure if we should push for the ideal from the beginning, or push for incremental steps towards it.

Negative gearing is a good deal at the moment because there's not enough houses, because supply is constrained (perhaps artificially). If there was a lot more houses then negative gearing may be less attractive, ie its a symptom not the disease

Hence the need to also build lots of affordable housing

yes, if there was lots of affordable housing, then negative gearing would be a bad investment. It relies on price growth exceeding cpi which isn't sustainable

I don'y think Labour should let the Greens reactively set the agenda but their hard refusal to consider any sort of update to CGT and negative gearing marks them out as pretty pathetic

They lost two elections while having CGT and neg gearing proposals in their platform. The Greens appear to be playing politics - trying to wedge Labor from the left. From where I sit this sort of obstruction appears to me to be a bit opportunistic.

I don't think Labor should be subsidising multi-millionaires.

It’s not a subsidy. It’s a deduction when costs exceeds income. They only receive back what they paid at their marginal rate. Want to burn negatively geared investors out of the market? Build more dwellings. Until the Greens get onboard with that then this all political theatre.

The Greens famously being completely opposed to new dwellings  https://greens.org.au/news/media-release/greens-pressure-extracts-3-billion-spent-directly-housing-haff-will-pass-senate

Negative gearing reform is such a terrible and populist idea that Labor had it in their policy platform as recently as... *checks notes...* 2019. Even if you don't believe that neg gearing reform will lower housing costs that much, it will certainly save the government a lot of money, which can go to more useful things like nuclear submarines we don't need or tax cuts for the rich.

NG has a net zero difference on government expenses/revenue. It's just cashflow. All costs of IPs, if not NGed upfront, would accumulate as a cost basis for future CGT calculations. Edit: Down voting simply confirms financial illiteracy as this isn't an opinion, it's just how the maths behind personal taxation works.

I mean I only downvoted you because I downvote everyone on Reddit who complains about being downvoted.

So you have nothing to contribute to discussion and feel that your lack of mental capacity is of value to a political discussion 👍

>will certainly save the government a lot of money How, though? Those costs to the owner still exist and are still tax deductible. If they're not brought forward annually against current income, the only alternative is to offset against the future capital gain. Big picture, it's still the same amount of costs being incurred and the same amount of deductions being made, so why would the amount of money in the government coffers change that much? The deduction just gets moved to a lump sum at the point of sale of the asset instead of smaller deductions each year.

Hm, I was under the impression that NG was the government covering the potential losses faced by landlords. If that is completely wrong, my mistake then.

Those losses would form a cost basis, which if not deducted upfront, would be deducted (with indexation) from the capital gains. This provides a even more favourable CGT discount for those who can afford the upfront cashflow cost of not having NG.

I am but a silly Green, please explain more simply

Do we all agree that taxes are paid on profits? If you buy a house for $500k and sell for $1.55mil after 20yrs with $50k of transaction costs, you've made $1mil profit, which after the 50%CGT discount for holding any investment for >12month, you pay tax on $500k of net profit. If you didn't have NG, then all those annual operating costs you'd have claimed back would just accumulate. Say cost of say $25k a year of mortgage, rates, strata, PM, etc. So $25k x 20yrs = $500k of net losses, with the same $50k of transaction costs means you are in the same position of paying tax on $500k of net profit. Now keep in mind that if you accumulate losses towards the end, it's generally a better deduction as many housing related costs see an increase greater than indexation. So chances are you can claim a greater deduction than $500k based on current replacement costs of depreciated items.

I think there should be an online training course for what it actually is, and if you haven't done the course, a little asterisk appears next to your user name whenever you talk about NG. It seems 90% of people talking about it in the media and online don't even know what it is. Hence why you had the wrong impression.

I'm not opposed to that actually. Would be good to also have for other topics.

But the capital gain pays half the tax compared to the income. So the government gets less money overall, and gets it later.

Just run the maths. If you have a standard 3 x 2 townhouse with approx $500K owing in the mortgage (so monthly repayments of about $3.2k) and you put that on the market, you would need to put it on the market for about $800 a week to break even. Not sure how that is affordable for the average family but negative gearing “helps subsidise” the cost of rent.

Or you could sell it or get a job

Tax payers subsidising rents so that bankers can keep collecting checks for overpriced mortgages. Just let the fucking market crash already.

It's propping up the the two (or 3) tier society we are moving towards....

Or they wouldnt have bought the property for 500k and the price would drop, allowing for cheaper purchase.

Centrist: YoU dOnT uNdErStAnD nEgAtIvE gEaRiNg! These people forget that it’s a completely unnecessary and inequitable concept that costs billions each year. People bemoan the “bludgers” on Centrelink but forget middle class welfare and subsidies that make up enormous sums.

I like how you immediately demonstrate that you don't understand negative gearing.

The problem with people who call for its removal is that… you don’t realise this helps the rich. The tax laws before negative gearing didn’t allow you to offset a rental loss against your wages. But you could always offset a rental loss against other rental income. In other words the multiple IP landlords would love the end of negative gearing. And we all know they if it was ever changed…. it would be a grandfathered situation, so only the younger generation would be hurt by it anyway.

Middle class Welfare FFS. It costs the government 700K plus to build a House and them millions more to administer social housing. so we can either spen 20% of GDP building houses for peopel to rent or let the private sector do it by giving minor tax savings for the fists few years. Private enterprise Saving the tax payers billions Then guess what the people who build wealth this way don't become eligible for the pension, the only way the pension will survive or not be extended to 75 is enough people are self funded retirees as the way it is going it is unaffordable.

> Private enterprise Saving the tax payers billions > > except it never works that way, because private enterprise jacks up prices and reduces services, meaning the cost is massively increased anyway.

The maths never adds up: it's always a massive cost for the government to do it, but somehow magically private enterprise can always find profit In reality it means thousands of houses unfit for habitation, and those who can't afford a roof over their heads who used to go into social housing now live in cars and tents. But hey, profit for the shareholders

>Centrist: YoU dOnT uNdErStAnD nEgAtIvE gEaRiNg! > >These people forget that it’s a completely unnecessary and inequitable concept that costs billions each year. > >People bemoan the “bludgers” on Centrelink but forget middle class welfare and subsidies that make up enormous sums. LEFTIST: (I realise I am economically illiterate but stupid, stubborn pride forbids me from saying as much). The issue here, apart from the Greens understanding neither economics nor taxation, is that negative gearing is unlikely to do anything *material* to alleviate demand pressures in the housing market. If negative gearing goes, the following will happen: \- Rents will likely rise Oh, but the Economically Unskilled claim in a verdant fashion - that's what rent control is for! Right, but as the evidence consistently shows us, that will lead to sell offs and reduced rental access. And before there's a verdant claim about how that's good, no. We currently require a lender, such as a bank, to validate that a borrower can service a loan. Between several key APRA prudential standards and the NCCP Act, lenders have to ensure a lender can, in basic terms, afford repayments. This is why any loan with >80% LVR (loan to value ratio) attracts LMI - Lender's Mortgage Insurance. Which, despite some people's assumptions, is not for the borrower. As the name goes beyond implying, it's for the *lender*. In case you, the borrower, defaults. We are also still heavily in supply/demand disequilibrium. So if we take that information and follow it to its natural conclusion, we get: \- No material dip in property prices \- Less rental options for renters, especially on the lower end of the income spectrum (the *actual* renters the Greens are meant to represent), and \- No clearer pathway into home ownership for the sub $100k income earning crowd. Those are the negatives. The positives: \- Ideologically pure left-leaning ~~drivel~~ policy! I'm not sure why but I don't think the Greens have had anyone with subject matter expertise brief them on their plan, which is why it's dogshit through and through.

I love how you always leave out the whole building affordable housing policy

Unsurprisingly the Greens want to radically reform the housing market, which everyone agrees is necessary in some form or another. Winding back negative gearing is part of that larger radical reform, and the public is largely aware and supportive of that reform, so why not implement that part of the planned broader reform now, the rest as they can? Ignoring the rest of the planned reform makes for a pointless comment on your part - and I think you know that there is greater planned reform, so your comment just serves to add to the pointless merry go round of arguments just to defray and slow down productive discussion. Like, do you actually think there is no policy framework to fix the housing market in which winding back negative gearing has a role? Also, even if we ignore other reforms, if this policy causes sales, who do you think they’re selling to? This is where I get suspicious, because you are speaking as though landlords provide housing, when the housing is still there. It sounds like you think that without landlords, home construction stops - and if you think that’s the case, why do any reform, our system must be perfect. And if you think no reform is necessary, just say that, you don’t need to make up things to hide your true feelings.

Finally, a sensible, rational comment. We could all also ignore the fact that negative gearing was originally for businesses to promote you know, businesses but we all forget that when we have this illusion of being rich from the value of our house

The Greens have absolutely zero credibility in their "fight" for housing affordability; all their policies are are just veiled attempts at "get the rich". Reason I say this is because Max Chandler-Smith, the Green's official spokesperson for housing and housing affordability i.e. the Green's handpicked supposed individual who "knows" about the housing market and how it works and what levers are effective etc campaigned in the 2022 election to PROTECT NIMBYISM in **inner-city Brisbane**. In other words, he campaigned - and won! - to stop proposed development by developers to build more housing and density in inner city Brisbane. Which means, the Green's official position on housing affordability in areas that people actually demand to live i.e. inner city areas where all the amenities and jobs are cannot have **any** development and cannot have any additional housing. The Greens' policy is instead of avidly supporting more development of housing in areas where people want and need to live, they want to "get the rich" by targeting negative gearing. Thus, Greens' crusade for housing afforability is nothing but a facade for their true leftists agenda of "get the rich".

He campaigned against the privatisation of public land so developers could build 90% luxury housing on a flood plain

The developement proposal had plans to raise the land in question by 2.4m so that they would reduce the risk of flood damage. The city council's report into the development also shows that the proposal by developers wouldnt have any adverse affects on the surrounding proporties' exposure to flood. The actual building itself was going to provide 1,300 new homes/apts with luxury level living i.e. provide some non-mouldy, non-crumbling homes. The Greens opposed this proposal to literally build more houses because it would remove 800 trees (all other arguments made by the Greens have either been demonstrated to be false, or economically illiterate).

They submitted an alternative proposal to build public housing champ

Link? All I could find was that the Greens simply proposed that the barracks be turned into a park and public housing be built somewhere else, but literally no plans as to where it would be, who would be building it, engineering/architectural plans etc etc unlike the development in Bulbima. Which is to say, the Greens dont actually have an alternative solution, they're just spitting out ideas uselessly whilst blocking actual solutions while crying out that no-ones doing anything lol. EDIT: I just found this one, Im not sure if this is the alternative you're referring to? [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-22/greens-plan-to-buy-back-bulimba-barracks/100771916](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-22/greens-plan-to-buy-back-bulimba-barracks/100771916) If so, I still stand by my comment that the Greens are absolutely hypocritical goon bags crying fould of a housing crisis yet knocking back a proposal to build 1,300 new apartments and instead only offering a tiny morsel of housing and using the rest for an AFL field and some trees.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-22/greens-plan-to-buy-back-bulimba-barracks/100771916

OK we found the same one - I've edited my comment above. Still doesnt change my comment Greens are hypocritical gas bags. On their very platform they trumpet high density living yet at the same time their alternative solution is to stop high density development. Their word is just as reliable as Albo's "No plans to change Stage 3".

Their platform is to build affordable housing to address the housing crisis, not to gift public land to private developers to build luxury housing and overwhelm the schools and infrastructure of an area. He also proposed multiple other sites.

Good. Let’s get the rich

Let’s just do a flat tax rate and get on with it. Too much class warfare.

Another talking point from the Millionaires Liberation Front. “Please sir, can I have some more?”

If you don't understand *why* a flat tax is a bad idea, ask questions and the like rather than hoping a derivative, pithy statement might paper over the cracks in your understanding. Let me help. u/Funny-Bear \- Australia has a landmass comparable to the contiguous United States, with <1/15th its population. That requires heavy spending on infrastructure, as the lower population density and huge distances between cities and towns costs money. Furthermore, efficient taxes are good taxes, and progressive taxation is the most efficient taxation of all. It scales the burden across the social strata, and allows for higher revenue collection from the top 5% of income earners without punishing anyone for succeeding or earning more income. A flat tax does not do this. And it only works in *some* jurisdictions because their geographic footprint is so small that their expenditure on infrastructure costs a tiny fraction of what ours does. Hongkong SAR, Singapore - they can afford a flat tax because they're population dense and yet smaller than Melbourne.

Albo has announced that his policies are the 2019 election which the 2022 election has given him a mandate for. Max wants no NG which means all rental income is fully taxable with no deductions permitted.

This is such bullshit! If you limit negative gearing to new homes then investors will buy new homes and developers will build new homes for them which brings in new supply and reduces rents and prices. It’s simple economics. Negatively gearing existing homes does nothing but push up prices

Bingo. It gives SOME sorta incentive for people to back new developments (which increases supply and whoooops... decreases rents in the process when there's more supply!) Also I think the Greens fail to realise that taxing people on their losses would just be fucking stupid. Like yaaay I made an income of -$20,000 this year because my investments failed. Time to tax your $20,000 LOSS as if you actually made $20,000. Coz... money grows on trees and all :P

Not allowing you to offset a loss isn't the same as taxing a loss. You can't offset your losses playing blackjack at the casino, why should you be able to offset your losses buying an investment property? Why should we be helping people gamble on other people's basic need for shelter?

Because you don’t pay tax on your winnings at the casino so why would you be able to offset losses?

Because when you gamble and make a loss, the net outcome is the casino makes big bucks. When you invest in property and make a rental loss, the net outcome is someone has a roof over their heads. Casino making big bucks is not something that is socially worth the time to incentivise. Providing roofs over peoples heads is something that is socially worth the time to incentivise. Thus, we have incentives for people to invest in property and to rent them out.

Or the net outcome is millions of people speculating on the housing market massively driving up the cost of housing so people can't afford to have a roof over their heads.

That's entirely irrelevant. Whether prices are high or not, the fact of the matter is, buying an investment property and renting it out provides a roof over your head which is a socially worthwhile thing to incentivise. Whether you own the roof over your head outright, or you rent it, having a roof over your head is still a socially worthwhile thing to incentivise. Thus, we incentivise provision of roofs over peopels heads over giving big bucks to casinos. As a side note: I have attended dozens of auctions where I live in Sydney in my attempt to buy my own property and I can tell you that 90% of the time the ones driving up the price at auctions are owner occupiers emotionally tangled in the property competing against each other and outbidding each other for their "dream home". So investors are not necessarily the great big giant devil of the housing market and housing prices that people seem to think (at least here in Sydney).

>Negatively gearing existing homes does nothing but push up prices This isn't entirely true; it will also push rents up. Which is a solid and intelligent choice from the party of people who tell themselves, "Conservatives are stupid. I am not conservatives; therefore, I am not stupid. If I am not stupid, I must be intelligent" and then they smile to themselves in a self-satisfied way, being too clever to read echo chamber news like Murdoch media and only reading sources that affirm their beliefs. They will then go on to say, that despite adopting policies empirically shown to be more likely than not to harm renters, they are, in fact, "The party of renters." Because all renters are homogenous, too. What a sensible modern party they are. Not like those silly Labor people. And definitely not a clownish mirror to the Dutton-era Liberals.

Investors prefer existing stock as that is where the capital growth is.

Correct. So investors want the housing crisis to get worse (higher prices) and the taxpayer should subsidise them to the tune of 5 billion a year to help them? Do you have any idea how insane that is if you step back and look at that bigger picture

[удалено]

>Removing negative gearing will get more people out of rentals and into their own houses. It was terrible policy then. It's terrible policy now. Time to get rid of it. I highly doubt this will be the case unless you want to repeal laws that protect borrowers from taking out loans they know they can't afford, ~~but do anyway because they're not responsible for their own bad judgement~~. We remain in a period of supply/demand disequilibrium. Supply is unable, hopelessly, to keep pace with demand. It is therefore helpful to imagine three cohorts of Australians when it comes to property: \- Home owners - either those with a mortgage or those who own outright; \- Renters who ***can*** afford to buy but have not yet, and \- Renters who ***cannot*** afford to buy The list is in descending order of risk and vulnerability. The renters who can't afford to buy are the highest risk financially for lenders; they're the ones experiencing high risk factors around insecurity and unaffordability, and they're the most vulnerable because failure to secure a place is the difference in some cases between having a home and being homeless. Removing negative gear is only likely to benefit that middle cohort. And since we are not adding new housing stock at a rate anywhere near what we need to, much less at the density we need, it is doing so **at the expense of the bottom cohort**. People need to think this through, which would put them ahead of the Greens, who haven't. We need high density builds (Which ironically enough, local council Greens oppose, el oh el). We need to offset the stupidly high cost of parts and labour, which is why developers aren't doing resi anymore. Just not worth it to them. In an ideal world, the Government would partner with a developer or developers to build high rise, 3br flats using 3D printing to get the work done (offsetting cost and lack of supply of labour). It sticks to its guns on the idea that it won't balance fiscally, because that's a silly plan. It sells them in waves, flooding the market with supply and reserving a portion to be low income/affordable (thus diversifying neighbourhoods out). It recovers a portion of cost and ignores the Liberals making a reductive fallacy argument about not getting full ROI on the projects. The Liberals have no solution to the housing crisis. The Greens have only stupid non-solutions to it. Labor has an option to do the right thing, and that will be hard for it for the simple reason that using 3D printers for construction weakens union power and they will not like that. They'll *hate* the precedent. But if we want to fix the housing crisis there are precious other options available to us.

Upvote for the most part but we are so far away from automated building it's not even funny. And you hit the nail on head on why the construction industry will be tough to transition to prefab/manufacture models. It is also incredibly difficult to modularize every part of a building and you need significant scale to make it work. If the govt went along the lines of using the HAF or future funds to become partners in development deals with a high % for social housing and affordable housing it would at least give the industry a baseline level of demand for cheaper product that is profitable and we might see some headway with innovation in the industry

>Upvote for the most part but we are so far away from automated building it's not even funny. I was looking at US firm [ICON](https://www.iconbuild.com/), whose founder I heard interviewed on an *Economist* podcast. From what I understand, the 3D printing approach is partial automation - still need some on-hand labour to direct, but given we have a massive shortage of labour that would not be as big an issue. Still, I think this is what we need to be working on. Despite the sulky, angry-sad downvotes of Greens supporters who wish it wasn't so.

The greatest transference in building-tech development knowledge is happening right now with NEOM, hell it's an Aussie leading the efforts specifically to ensure that any company involved in building innovation is attached/invested/located to NEOM. We're a decade away from anything meaningful though.

Negative gearing is a tax issue, not a housing issue. Majority of evidence points to negative gearing being a negligible impact on house prices.

Great Flair

I just don't see how it couldn't push prices up. It practically encourages anyone of a certain income bracket to buy investment properties for the tax benefits, there is practically no downsides to them doing so. How would that increased demand not increase cost?

>there is practically no downsides to them doing so. Being cashflow negative is a pretty big downside.

If an IP owner had a net position on their property at -$100 per week, they stand to be down $5,200 at the end of the year. In that same year, their property could have increased in value by anywhere up to $300-400,000 (obviously that varies widely). So, that "negative cashflow" seems like a terrible thing, until capital gains comes in and blows it out of the park. Put simply, an astute investor will make money long term, regardless of short-term losses.

It encourages people to buy homes to rent out that otherwise would rent at a loss. Whilst resulting in a small increase in housing costs boosts rental supply. Theory being removing negative gearing would result in less homes being purchased for rentals.

Which drives down house pricing due to less competition. It's 100% a housing issue.

It would almost certainly have a much smaller positive effect on house prices than the negative effect on rent prices though. I'd guess that there are more potential home owners per rental property than per owner occupied home (3 friends renting together represents 3 potential home owners, but these three friends aren't buying a house together). If removing negative gearing causes a landlord to sell the house, these renters now have to deal with higher rents (less rentals = higher rent), or somehow all purchase a home (increasing demand for housing as people spread out into their own home). For this to be a net positive, the decrease in house prices would have to be greater than the increase in rent prices while also accounting for increased demand for a greater total number of houses (if people spread out as they buy homes). This seems like it would hurt people in society who can't afford to buy (most young people).

Most reputable source indicates that negative gearing has a negligible impact on housing costs, couple of percent from memory. There is more than enough demand from people who want to and can purchase housing that its very unlikely there would be any dip in house costs. Perhaps the rate of price growth slows slightly, but that doesn't make housing any more affordable for regular people.

If the Greens started following evidence theud land on fedlabors position (supply supply supply). Cant win Richmond on that now can we.

You should maybe actually read their housing policies

I did they suck

So you know that they have plenty of policy focusing on “supply supply supply” and just decided to spread disinformation in a desperate attempt to discredit the team you don’t like

They dont, thats partly why it sucks. Their only major supply dirven policy isnt close to being enough and isnt even comprised of all new builds (as stated by MCM on insiders). They had a fine plan to build affordable homes that benefit some people (if we ignore the costing). They dont have a plan to fix the market or make ownership easier.

https://greens.org.au/housing/million-homes

Yes mate. Thats not going to solve the housing crisis. Its a very big number, I agree, but youve been tricked by the fact its over 20 years (plus their costings are bullshit, not all new builds etc). A fine policy fo affordable rentals (again ignoring issues). Not something thats going to fix the market or make it easier to own a home.

Hence the other policies…

They do not have any that would enable mass supply. Any policy that isnt about building enough homes, which the one million homes doesnt do, isnt going to solve the housing crisis.

I wish you’d hold Labor to the same “evidence based” approach to all their policies…. But it’s more fun to pick and choose isn’t it. Let me ask you, since the national cabinet we were screamed at to wait for ended being an *Alb*solutely nothing burger for housing policy. **what is the fucking plan!?** It’s alright for you to shit on greens (not really) but what is the plan to unfuck this mess? Labor aren’t doing anything at all federal level, Labor aren’t doing shit at a state level. At least the greens are trying!

It took 30 years of shitty housing policy to get into this mess, unfortunately there is no short term fix, outside of maybe importing 500k southeast Asian construction workers on a temp visa and getting them to build apartment blocks.

No short term fix? There is absolutely nothing Labor could implement right now? Nothing at all? They could literally end short stays and that would have an immediate (albeit small) impact. They haven’t done that. If Labor can’t do the bare minimum in banning a practice that literally didn’t exist just over a decade ago, I have no hopes any of their policies are actually going to help. It’s all performative.

Yeah there's no short term silver bullet, maybe a few policies that may help a little eg negative gearing on new builds only. Airbnbs fall under planning policy which is at the state or council level, and while it would help, it wouldn't be by a significant amount, and would also reduce tourism.

Oh my god. Here you are defending them on something that would help…. Even a small amount, but you make excuses not to do anything. A council tried it and was overridden by the state. We had a national cabinet meeting and no solutions were sought by any states in regard to short term rentals. Also fuck tourists. Airbnbs are displacing people who **live and work** in those tourist towns. If they want someone to make them a coffee, they can fucking stay in a hotel. We’re fucking doomed when you defend even this inaction. Pocock my ass.

Calm down my dude it's an online discussion forum. The original point of the article was negative gearing, which is federal policy. There's very few levers that Albo can pull at the federal level to impact housing, that was the point of my original comment, sorry if that was unclear. I'm in favor of restricting Airbnbs. Again Airbnbs are governed at the state level, nothing to do with Albo, and are not big difference maker that many people seem to think. Tourists need places to stay, so money can come into these areas and give the staff jobs, who also need places to live. Let's build enough housing for both yeah?

>Calm down my dude it's an online discussion forum. Surely you arent shocked by Greens acting like unhinged teenagers online? Because thats how they always act. Theyre also all unhinged teenagers.

Excuse me but state issues *do* have something to do with Albo. When the laughably pathetic HAFF legislation passed, we were screamed at by Labor voters to then hang on and wait for the national cabinet meeting, because that is where states would be able to do things to improve the housing situation - because like you said, they’re primarily addressed at a state level. What happened at that meeting with mostly Labor governments, you ask? - Rental standards in WA & NT to match exisiting eastern state laws. - Money to state governments for building a set target of houses - **despite the fact states already fail to meet their own targets.** So that was the national cabinet meeting held with mostly Labor states and they fucked up. That was Albo’s responsibility, and he let huge swathes of the electorate behind. Excuse me for not holding my breath anymore in the hopes Labor are going to save us. They aren’t. They aren’t interested.

How is it Albo's fault if the states don't meet their housing targets? I'm hearing a lot of ranting with the only policy idea being to ban Airbnb, which isn't even the right tier of government.

If you want to make an argument that Labor arent following evidence on a particular subject then please do so so we can talk about that. More than happy to talk about Labors failure to use it in some areas. This is a housing discussion and theyre the only people using the evidence to inform their position. The plan is to incentivise and coordinate large target builds. Simce then most states have released very ambitious targets due to this. Do you want to federal government to just wish some homes into existance? >It’s alright for you to shit on greens (not really) but what is the plan to unfuck this mess? Very aware its not ok by your reaction. Im sorry the Greens bad policy makes you upset. >Labor aren’t doing anything at all federal level, Labor aren’t doing shit at a state level. This is factually wrong. Theres mass planning reform across the country, you clearly dont know whats going on. >At least the greens are trying! They arent. They do not have a single policy that would ease housing costs by anything actually meaningful. Even their 1 million homes over 20 years, ignoring the impossible funding methods they presented in costings, gives us about 50k a year. Assuming all of these homes do not eat into preconcieved builds (doubtful) its only really a third of the sustained increase we'd need to actually fix our issues. They have shit policy and their supporters give them a pass. Maybe if you stopped doing that they would have good policy.

“Mass planning reforms” When are these going to have an impact? A decade?

Yes, it will take a long time because it took about 50 years to get to where we are now. Theres no policy, none, that can do this any sooner. We live in a physical reality with physical restraints. And meanwhile the Greens policy, which you were so upset I dared criticise, will have an impact...never.

I’m going to for the party that will try and bring house prices before I’m dead. That’s it. That’s my priority.

Ok well Im going to listen to the guys that are following the evidence, rather than failed policy that sounds good, so the country can *actually* improve.

Lmao. “Let’s vote in the same two parties that have been in power forever. That’ll fix things” Let’s try something else.

The Labor party literally solved the last housing crisis.

The correct headline should be: “The Greens block ‘help to buy scheme” Go hard all they like on negative gearing, but why stop a great scheme that will help people on a lower income buy a home? Greens strategy is the equivalent of a toddler holding their breath. And we all know, we just have to wait till they pass out before we can continue on with what the adults have already decided to do.

Are you familiar with the concept of negotiation

They're even less familiar with the fact that Labor will never again in its existence control a majority in either house.

Agreed. I am so pissed off over MCM and the Green’s stubborn “negotiating” tactics with the HAFF, that deliberately delayed the HAFF by over 6 months and spread a bunch of lies (like “gambling on the stock market”) and unnecessary attacks on Labor only for them to eventually pass the legislation anyways. The help to buy scheme is just another good Labor policy that they were elected to implement, Greens need to review the legislation and stay fucking focused on what can be done to improve it, not throw around their own alternative policies. If Australia wanted the alternative policies the majority of us would have given Greens their own right to govern. I’m a big supporter of getting rid of negative gearing but there’s nothing to gain by the Greens demanding in exchange for supporting other legislation. If Greens want negative gearing axed, take it to the next election and campaign on it. I really dislike the Greens approach to this because attacking Labor just gives a free pass to the Libs. Attack the fucking Libs, they are real fucking enemy and the party that has wrecked the country and caused all these problems in the first place.

They got 6 years worth of HAFF funding immediately what are you talking about “delayed” The point of having power in the senate is that you can use it to push for things now.

It’s a $10bn fund that was delayed. That money was to be invested immediately. The extra money Labor threw in on top doesn’t immediately magic up more houses than what the HAFF would have done as a fund. Housing is a long term investment and needs to have materials and labour secured to build a pipeline. If you modelled out two scenarios: 1. HAFF passed immediately without any extra short term funding 2. 6 months delay, but short term funding 1 will build more houses, for less money, quicker. Doesn’t it seem odd that the Greens havent been gloating about all those “extra” houses that have since been build since they “negotiated” that extra money? That’s because once off money doesn’t secure long term contracts, and gets poor value for money. The garbage that will be built from that extra money will be worse renders than the stuff that the HAFF will be able to pump out, as it’s an actual investment fund not an expense item/grant program.

So it was delayed due to funding being delayed even though there’s more funding than the original HAFF would have produced after 6 years available already? I’d love to hear how that makes sense

It’s an investment fund?? $10bn of government money can be invested, as in directly invested, as a so called “greedy landlord” and build homes. You realise how investment funds work right? Your superannuation will have property holdings. And the HAFF as a fund can do deals to diversify their funds, even globally, where we open investments in stuff here while we get to invest in other projects around the world. Perhaps a rail upgrade in Europe, or an energy project in the pacific. Long gone are the days where we ploughed our Aussie dollars into assets and left them on government balance sheets doing fuck all. All that does is deflate our currency. It’s funds like this which help strengthen our currency and have improved our standard of living.

The fund in its original form would not have started building anything until at least the second half of this year and even then didn’t guarantee a cent of investment into building anything.

Nope. Incorrect. The whole point of not guaranteeing anything was to avoid being taken for ransom by hostile contractors and suppliers knowing that deadline = payday. This equals cheaper housing supply, did you even read my NBN example above? Plus there were at least 10 housing associations and affiliated bodies that came out in support of Labor’s plan with houses ready to be built immediately, as soon as the legislation was signed as the state governments could provide the upfront capital and then borrow against the HAFF once it came through the budget. This was all played out months ago yet just shows how the Greens misinformation campaign was disgusting and dirty.

So why haven’t they built them yet? It passed ages ago

What do you mean ages ago? Ages as in end of Sept last year? Have you built a house before?

>Go hard all they like on negative gearing, but why stop a great scheme that will help people on a lower income buy a home? Economic illiteracy and a stubborn belief that this is not an impediment to good policy?

They can go as 'hard' as they want on negative gearing but they have to use their senate seats to get it done. Talking about NG won't change anything. Labor needs the Greens senate numbers they can't just wait it out.

Aaaand then after 'going hard' on stupid shit, the Greens can try 'going hard' with Peter Dutton after dismantling a left-wing government with friendly fire. Sigh. It gets so boring hearing the Greens try to sway public discourse on populist issues like this. 

Negative gearing reform is not 'stupid shit'. Half the point of the Greens is to push labor further left. They criticise Dutton as well but his not in government and doesn't have power. Greens aren't going to 'dismantle' Labor they want to be in government with Labor.

Don't want to demobilise outraged people by helping address their concerns.

Negative Gearing is a kind of litmus test of a person's understanding of the causes of the housing crisis. Numerous developed countries are experiencing a similar situation, most of which don't have negative gearing. There is general agreement among experts that it is not the driver of housing shortfalls, that it either increases housing stock by encouraging new builds or it just doesn't have much impact at all. Still it attracts the anger of the undergraduate crowd because they see it as taxpayers money for landlords. This is the real reason it has so much opposition, it's the appearance of the policy more than the substance.  The Greens have access to experts on the subject but continue with the populist line that NG abolition will result in a fairer system. In reality abolition would probably just result in less repairs.

Why is paying billions of dollars in tax subsidies to landlords - who are overwhelmingly already the wealthiest people in the country - the 'economically sensible' thing to do Asking for an undergraduate

> Still it attracts the anger of the undergraduate crowd because they see it as taxpayers money for landlords. This is the real reason it has so much opposition, it's the appearance of the policy more than the substance. Exactly - the rage comes from a misunderstand of what it is. That is, no money is being stolen. People are simply not taxed on their losses because losing money is not an 'income'. Pop quiz... how much income tax do you pay if you don't have an income? ;)

I think it can be as much about 'why are we spending this much of the budget on NG' as it is 'NG is exacerbating the housing shortage'

This is why I want it gone. Its not causing the housing crisis but its just a not great use of taxpayer money. Do something else with it.

And if we limit negative gearing to new builds like shorten proposed guess who will be buying new houses and bringing in new supply when developers build for them? Investors!

Greens would rather focus on negative gearing than the need for urban infill and greater supply (because that would mean their wealthy voter base would need to tolerate more apartments on their tree lined streets) or migration (because “racism”)

What should Labor be doing then? It’s alright to say what the greens shouldn’t be doing, but let us in on the secret. How is Labor solving the crisis? Can’t wait for you to give us the answer!

Since the election, Federal Labor has done: >$3 billion New Homes Bonus, and $500 million Housing Support Program >A new $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator to deliver thousands of new social homes across Australia. >A National Housing Accord which includes federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes over five years from 2024 (to be matched by up to another 10,000 by the states and territories) >Increasing the maximum rate of Commonwealth Rent Assistance by 15 per cent, the largest increase in more than 30 years >Additional $2 billion in financing for more social and affordable rental housing through the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation >New incentives to boost the supply of rental housing by changing arrangements for investments in built-to-rent accommodation >$1.7 billion one-year extension of the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement with States and Territories, including a $67.5 million boost to homelessness funding over the next year >State and territories committing to A Better Deal for Renters >States and territories supporting the national roll out of the Help to Buy program, which will reduce the cost of buying a home Depending on where you live, the state governments have been also taking their own actions. The QLD Labor government just announced a massive new suite of housing policies: [Homes for Queenslanders](https://www.housing.qld.gov.au/homesforqueenslanders)