"to entice first home buyers into buying the BS spin that you bulls spruik about property"
so that's your point? why didn't you make it.
In fact, what you'll agree now that you've come completely around to the numbers i've posted, in absolutely stark contrast to the construction of your arguement to look at ONLY the investment or 'cost' (numbers i'm not disputing), that the government PROFITS out of enticing people into the property market.
And to prove my point here's where you say 'thin air' which is absolutely not the case.
"It's just unfortunate that those grants in Victoria ($2 Billion +) have now disappeared into thin air"
no they haven't, profits on that investment, measured in tax revenues to government is where the money is made.
You're whole arguement is trying to demonise property owners as tax payer burdon, where its the government that reaps the rewards off the back of property owners which in turn takes the heat off other tax rises elsewhere.
It's a very socialist arguement you're tyring to make here that housing should be for everybody at the detriment to critical tax revenues required to keep our economy going.
right or wrong, that's just how it is. sorry but the way you've constructed your arguement is false.
i'm all for a good discussion but forgive me for not going with the flow when it doesn't sit right.
