How Albanese could tweak negative gearing to save money and build more new homes (theconversation.com)

submitted 5 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 5 months ago

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 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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 5 months ago

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 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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 5 months ago

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

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 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 5 months ago

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

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 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 5 months ago

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

https://www.albanesecandy.com/

this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024

25 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

3429 readers

60 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
Politics, post it to Australian Politics
World News/Events, post it to World News
A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian

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:

When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment

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]