Brothers Tom Dick and Harry each earn 50k and have no house. They each inherit 600k.
Tom buys a 600k house and lives in it. His tax position does not change.
Dick buys a 600k house but because he wants to save traveling time and reduce greenhouse emissions, he rents out the house for $400/wk and rents a unit close to his work for $400/wk. He is no better off but pays $160 a week more income tax than Tom.
Harry buy 600k worth of NAB shares, gets 20k in dividends and spends the 20k renting a place to live in. Cash-wise he is no better off than Tom or Dick but he also pays $160 a week more in income tax than Tom does. And CGT if he ever sells.
All these guys have the same earned income, same asset value and same cash income available, before tax. But two of them each pay $160 a week more tax than the third. Tom has an extra $160 every week to spend on whatever he likes.
Any expert who complains that Australians, as a whole, have too much invested in real estate, should be asked to explain why people who want to live like Dick or Harry are so disadvantaged if they do.
