"If they take away negative gearing or provide less incentive to invest it could be nasty for renters"
Is this based on the theory that reduced incentive to property investment causes reduced supply (of landlords) and therefore an increase in rents? The evidence is all around (from the last decade) that this is a flawed model. In the last decade or so property has become very attractive to investors, for quite obvious reasons. I can't see it has put any downward pressure on rent, despite the oversupply of investors/landlords. I'm sorry if I've been too simplistic myself in this analysis, but rents have gone up primarily in response to increased cost of housing, which was fuelled by increased demand for property (being such an attractive investment).
I had figured taking away CGT concessions would cause investors to sell, as it would make the whole venture considerably less profitable (so you would exit part or all of your portfolio and look elsewhere)..
