I see your comparison of landlords to the hotel business as valid, good point.
If someone buys an investment property, and doesn't rent it out, can one still utilise negative gearing? Surely we would agree in this case there is no societal benefit, and the government is just indirectly transferring a subsidy to a speculator?
Can we also agree that if property prices start to fall, there will be screaming and crying from hundreds who don't "get" macroeconomics, and within the sobbing will be demands for the government to take action to help them. Which will of course just be a subsidy to irresponsible debtors. And given the fear of any Australian government to hurt the property market in any way, hard to imagine they won't do something. This Australian property "system" almost makes one want the Victorian-era policy for people who default on debts doesn't it? ;)
