That's not how it works, when you claim it will be political suicide, the burden of proof lies with you to back up that claim. It might just be your opinion/speculation, and nothing wrong with that - you can just say as much. I just thought you might have specific compelling reasons that the rest of us aren't privy to. If I claim removal of negative gearing will drop prices (and I don't..), I don't 'prove' this through the absence of evidence that prices would go up.
Seemingly impartial overseas observers are making similar comments as to the efficacy of negative gearing for its stated purpose. It's not just local bears having a whinge as some would believe. Bank of America chief economist, during discussion of Greens proposal, mentioned "more than 90 per cent of geared investment goes to established properties and overwhelmingly inflates its price rather than adding to the stock of property". The fact most countries don't have negative gearing, yet have more affordable housing, feels to be sufficient proof that it is not a mandatory component of a sound housing policy. Tweaked accordingly (quarantined to new construction, in addition to extra tax breaks), I think it could be effective. In it's current form, not so much.
