Not at all. It's clearly established that negative gearing is...

Not at all.

It's clearly established that negative gearing is the practise of artificially reducing an individuals public tax liability to increase their personal wealth.

The individual makes money while the public loses out ... in fact, the public subsidises the individuals private wealth.

therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU GUYS to establish that, despite negative gearing using public wealth to increase private wealth, it is, due to complex flow on effects, an OVERALL net positive for society.

The Murray report DEMONSTRATES that overall, it is a net negative for society

meanwhile you guys are pissing and moaning about the conclusions while utterly failing to demonstrate the opposite.

you guys must show, with evidence, that it is a net positive for society.

otherwise, why the hell should the public purse subsidise private speculative investments?

the burden of proof is on you

champ