My point is that a well crafted negative gearing policy would produce the the same benefits as the current setup, but with less rorting and thus more tax revenue. (Yes there are plenty of other taxes that should be looked at as well, but the topic is negative gearing).
One problem with the the current approach is that there is no explicit push to generate building activity. The housing shortage in many cities (eg Sydney) shows that in its current form the negative gearing policy does not produce adequate housing numbers. A better and more targeted policy could possibly encourage more building activity leading to more jobs, lower rents etc.
I agree, Australia is clearly changing and likely transitioning a situation with life time renters like you said. All the more reason to get the policies right - it's much better for everyone to have people in houses than on the streets.
