negative gearing rorting the guts out of oz, page-40

Hi Longnow ,

I agree that there probably should be some changes to negative gearing but only as part of a complete tax reform . As has been mentioned , there are many sectors out there that should be changed.

I do however disagree with a few points.

You seem to think that all property investors are speculators . Who do you determine to be a speculator ? Over what period are you talking about ?

If you mean holding property for 20 years hoping that the price will go up , then maybe yes .

If property were never to increase in price ( more like a business ) then the investors would definitely be looking for higher returns than 3 or 4% . We both know what that would mean for rent prices .

NG doesn't provide housing stock . It would be nice if NG was creating new rental stock but unfortunately it would be in the wrong place . People want rentals near work and particularly near schools . Sure a little bit of redevelopment could happen in older areas but that would only up the costs and increase claims . You can build all the new stuff you like out in the sticks but it's not going to serve the vast majority of tenants .

" NG is economically preposterous, socially divisive, morally unfair and fiscally destructive. "

That's a bit excessive isn't it ? Why do you think ng was introduced in the first place ?

Given our rising welfare bill , as is highlighted in the next budget , can you imagine the cost if the govt still provided all the public housing ?