this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
25 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

3588 readers
121 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
25
How Albanese could tweak negative gearing to save money and build more new homes (theconversation.com)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Could do, but likely won't. The voters punished Labor when shorten mentioned policies that maybe might have started making houses more affordable.

Personally i think CGT discounts should never have been a thing. Negative gearing should only have been for new builds and with a time limit of say 10 years.

Short of a time traveling assassination of John Howard I don't think we can easily unfuck the last few decades of bad policy.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Negative gearing will never be removed.

It's nothing to do with the voters.The politicians are the landlords

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/article/politicians-and-their-property-portfolios-how-many-do-they-own/wb7k9xq1p

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

We literally just had politicians vote against their own self interest by reducing stage 3 tax cuts.

It’s possible they will do the same for negative gearing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Politicians didn't need the tax cuts.

They already gave themselves a 4% pay rise, their biggest increase in a decade

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Aren't their wage increases determined by an independent group/board ?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

And the President of that is a former CEO of Australia’s largest commercial property services firm, and former National President of the Property Council of Australia.

C'mon, you know how this works

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Ayup. Get them scared enough and self preservation will override the greed

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I don't see how they can't just put a cap on negative gearing, say 40k p/year. That would surely satisfy the "mum and dad" investors that everyone gets up in arms about. Might even be worth setting it for a set age bracket e.g. for 60+ year olds there is no cap. I feel this is probably warranted as that generation was told to invest in housing for their retirement, younger generations now have super

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I was very confused at first, since this is how I know Albanese:

https://www.albanesecandy.com/