"To provide accommodation for the renters on this site amongst others.
What tax do the landlords pay that are not negative gearing?
What does it save govt not to have to provide these rentals?
Skewed reporting there Zero."
Firstly, negative gearing doesn't provide housing stock - the vast, vast majority (something like 90%) is existing stock, such is the laziness of the average property speculator.
Secondly, negative gearing doesn't reduce rent - we're not paying 4% of purchase price because of the kindness of landlords, that's the market rate, as much as people will pay. All NG does is push up the purchase price.
NG is providing bugger all new housing stock, so isn't helping the government, but it is costing the government billions is tax deductions, which have no nexus to the income they're used to reduce.
In fact, the effect of NG - to push up the purchase price, as loss-making becomes acceptable to people who call themselves investors (really just speculators), puts severe stress on owner occupiers, usually young couples who are looking at income multiples twice as high as their parents paid for their first home. It puts pressure on young people, meaning any tax cut or wage gains made are swallowed up by this bone-headed excuse for an economic sector.
NG is economically preposterous, socially divisive, morally unfair and fiscally destructive.
Not one person has ever given a good defence of NG, and those that try are invariably landlords themselves, simply expressing their sentiments of self-entitlement.
