I wrote to Rudd in 2007, and previously to Costello in 2006.
With the replies I received, I believe both sides of our Political System missed the point - I live in WA, which in 2006 had been in huge growth splurge.
Contents of emails to both Governments: " With the low unemployment and high salaries many people have turned to investing in the housing market, and with the tax concessions available have artificially increased the housing affordability for owner occupiers. I can see no social benefit in negative gearing an existing residential property in capital or regional cities. My suggestions: 1.Remove negative gearing tax deductions for all “established residential dwelling” purchases from now on. 2.Reduce negative gearing tax deductions for taxpayers that currently have “established residential dwelling” properties, by 33 per cent per annum (ie. After 2010 there will be no tax deduction on existing established residential dwellings). 3.Allow negative gearing on newly constructed residential dwellings for a defined period eg. 7 years, and limit to one per taxpayer. 4.Retain negative gearing on commercial properties. 5.Highlight country and regional towns that require residential property negative gearing to maintain social stability, and provide exemptions. 6.Increase land tax (State initiative) substantially for taxpayers with more than one residential dwelling, and return these funds for the development and release of new residential land and infrastructure creation.
I appreciate that this may seem like a tough stance and that there will be many lobby groups opposed to these types of suggestions, but they will be fundamentally greed driven. I agree that we should be able to invest in infrastructure, but feel that investing in residential property at the expense of the home owner is unproductive and unnecessary. I look forward your views on this subject.
