If you need tax payers to subsidize your property investing to make it worthwhile, then there is something majorly wrong with the system.
Maybe to level the playing field, first home buyers should be allowed to negatively gear their first home, as it makes as much sense as any other negative gearing on established properties.
Hard to save sufficient when you are chasing a market where prices are increasing around $1,000 per week, and income growth is slow. Some can do it, others miss out to investors subsidized by tax payers.
So do you actually support the idea of us tax payers subsidizing investor losses on established homes through negative gearing?
