No it should have read. Gluten free turkish bread with sun dried tomatoes and chutney followed by a long black in a groovy inner city cafe. Only seminars we go to are "How to trek the Andes" or how to improve your sailing tactics.
Here you are indicating property is lucrative, which is to say it provides a better than average (outperform) return on other investment classes. Does that not suggest tax breaks should be removed, and it should be left to stand on its own two feet?
I don't understand the apparent contradiction. If removing negative gearing will simply relegate property to 'average' status, what's the problem? Why does it need to be bolstered by government policy to make it appeal to chutney loving investors, and grant them such windfall profits they feel compelled to bang on about it on property forums.
Either property is lucrative and can be taken down a peg, is nothing special in terms of ROI and should be left alone, or is poor and needs a shot in the arm from government - which is it?
