It's on - July 2

You are all over the place here AT. Slow down diddums.

Anyway, you stated your self proclaimed new found eliteness loud and clear. I certainly didn't make it up, you wrote it

Pensions won't be gone, the age of entitlements are just increased. If you own your home and car in retirement, that should be good enough shouldn't it? What do you expect for people to have in retirement? I'm confused. Many retirees are downsizing from family homes and buy a caravan and a nice 4x4 and are hitting the roads travelling all parts of the country. A great life to have in retirement.

The family home should be affordable through the ages, it doesn't have to change and why should it? Oh, I know....to create wealth...lol! There is only so much money in the world, all it does is just shift around. As for your other silly comment about young people buying units..young people can't even afford a unit in the city, that's the problem. The negative gearers have those sown up as well.

What are your ravings about working? Our only hope as a species...rah rah rah...LMFAO! Stop being wrist flapping mad AT. You are being a little too weirdly pessimistic. "Stay ahead of our own annihilation"

We need to get rid of welfare alright, why don't we start at the negative gearing wealth creation tax bludgers. How much money do people need AT? Really how much....don't talk crap a gain, because you've been caught up this welfare creation crap.

The ALP needs small business to flourish, it's a load of crap. I'm not concerned about unions either. It's just another liberal line to politick. Unions are great and have kept our societies from falling in a heap.

More contradictions here than u can poke a stick at.

Get off your silly little welfare creation mindset. It's just plain stupid.

 

The negative gearing policy from the ALP is all horse sh!t. They have no intention of implementing such a disastrous economic policy. They know this. It is a cheap grab for votes, knowing full well that they have an escape clause called " rising rental affordability". Don't believe Blinky Bill, this is a trash note to be binned if they take office.

It is all about gaining low socio economic votes. It is an endemic chip on the shoulder that Australians are born with, begrudging successful people, tall poppy syndrome, whatever you wish to call it. And Labor are unashamedly grabbing that demographic.

As for young people not being able to afford a unit in the city....... oh diddums! why not buy further out where they can afford. Or here's an idea, instead of wanting what their parents have worked forty odd years to gain, start where they started and just perhaps they will end where they have ended.

I am sick of hearing the whining of young people saying how hard they have it and blaming others for their dilemma. Instead of galavanting all over the world and spending countless thousands on gaming and bloody downloads, try doing what the rest of us have done...save hard and sacrifice. The choice is theirs, but don't cry about the consequences.

And if someone retires with two or three rental properties as income, then that is as much their right as someone practising their own religion, or marrying someone of the same gender. We should be encouraging people to be less dependent on government pensions rather than forcing them to take them up.

 

Negative gearing has nothing to do with Tall Poppy Syndrome.

It undermines the taxation system at a point when we have a revenue problem and it inflates prices arbitrarily by incentivising investment in property

 

Rubbish slippery. Where is the evidence that rental prices increase as a consequence of abolishing NG? The liberal 3 words slogans suggest this but that's where it ends. I don't want your personal reasoned explanation, I'd like to see your statistical evidence. Rental prices dropped in all cities except Sydney and Perth in the mid 80's as a consequence of abolishing NG. Of course they'll carry their negative gearing policy through. They've been hammered from pillar to post over the carbon price, so not sure they'll let these promises slip unlike literally every promise Abbott made.
Of course it's about bloody winning votes. Are you trying to tell me that liberals don't make decisions to get votes. I mean, what the hell! It just happens that this one seems to be the right decision for sustainabilities sake.

Forget the tall poppy syndrome, there is a real issue that could be explained as the short poppy syndrome. Grubs who want to take advantage of the nations most vulnerable and want to write them off as bludgers is plain outright elitist in attitude. People aren't the same and people are only equipped for certain jobs etc etc.

Why don't they buy further out you ask.....think about it slippery. Potentially 4 hours travel round trip and $200 dollars a week on travel is enough for young people to buy something closer if that is where there job is. Just p!ss off negative gearers who are bludging off our tax dollars. You obviously think it's fine for real estate to simply be a wealth creation tool, which is simply silly greed. Buy a house but don't bloody rely on tax dollars to support your wealth creation plans.
I have no problem with somebody buying 10 houses just don't bludge off tax dollars to do it.

Of bloody course we want people to be less dependent on pension but how much support is enough is the bloody question. How much money is enough before tax dollars stop propping up people's supers.

Time to get real on these issues and disregard the 3 word slogans.

 

Ok then, why do we have a revenue problem? It can't just be because of negative gearing. I know why we have a revenue problem, it will be interesting to see if you actually do.

 

You are asking me for statistical evidence where is yours in regards to Sydney and Perth in the eighties?

My argument is that if you change negative gearing without changing the entire system surrounding it, you will have a catastrophic effect on both house prices and rental flow. It's not just the Libs spruiking it, it is common sense. I am not here to defend negative gearing, but I am calling into question the silly policy from the Labor party. To scrap the negative gearing policy off hand which is what Blinky is talking about, would send many people into economic hardship overnight. This is something that would at least take two terms of government to unravel. And don't think for one minute that it only affects the rich, there are a lot of mum and dad households that have one or two negatively geared houses as part of their retirement plans. It is irresponsible policy that has no real plan of implementation. They have merely thrown it out there as a means to an end, without any real thought of the consequences. I would of been interested in the policy if it had explaination on how it was going to be implemented, but reading through it, it was obvious it was a bogus policy that was designed to gain votes from the lower socio economic have nots.

Let's get to the point here. You have an issue with people investing in their future under the current system?

So let's change the system? OK. then what? Will this curb foreign ownership? Foreign ownership is the real driver of massive inner city price points, not negative gearing family trusts.

Can you please explain how abolishing NG will help sustainability? Sustainability in what?

It is common sense that rents will rise. By abolishing NG, the price of holding said property goes up. If the landlord can not claim that loss, they have to be able to cover it, and this equals rent hikes. The other option is to onsell the property, and this will lead to a massive glut of stock on market, driving prices down and stagnating new property development as in hand stock is more viable, thus sending the building industry into recession. It will create a massive domino effect.

I am not by any means saying "don't scrap negative gearing", but it has to be done in a much more responsible way than this policy. in fact it has to be done with a complete restructuring of the tax system, we can't continually keep chopping at the system and expect it to be anything more than a Frankenstein monster.

"You obviously think it's fine for real estate to simply be a wealth creation tool". TV it always has been since time began. Those who owned the castle ruled the land. history has also taught us that even under socialism this is the case.

"Time to get real on these issues and disregard the 3 word slogans. ".... I totally agree.

This is a debate about Negative gearing policy that the ALP have thrown out there to be discussed and that is what this thread is about. Not about , " what about what the Libs are doing". Bring me a Lib policy to debate and we will will debate it, because they too have plenty of sh!t policies to pull apart.

 

Soon there will be no need to discuss ng, as flat prices will fall dramatically, followed by house prices.

The time is over, where our nation earned money through mining/royalties in abundance.
Something J. Howard cannot take credit for, he was just there at the right time, but made very little out of it. The transition should have started there.

Here in WA developers are still building like crazy, I can see it on my way to or from Perth.

And guess what, despite all those positive figures from our federal government there are more and more people fighting for lesser jobs.

It is not rocket science, if within the next two years (which ever party is elected) the transformation hasn't somehow started, we will be in for a long downhill ride.
Regards

 

Yes Cats you are right. Tax reform in it's entirety should of started way back then, but remember that was the beginning of 'Popular Politics", and we have all brought into it over the years and now we are crying over what we as voters have created.

Don't let the government spin on unemployment fool you. It is currently being held together by a growth in part time jobs. That means less hours being worked.

This is the real area that these two idiot parties should be debating, job creation and how they are to do it. On one hand we have the liberals handing out tax cuts to business in the hope that jobs will be created through the private sector. This in turn allows the government to cut expenditure in order to promote economic growth, and in turn return closer to surplus at a much more expedient time frame. This is a gamble in itself. It all depends whether the private sector will use the increased revenue supplied by tax cuts to employ people. On the other hand Labor are stating that they are about jobs growth, although they have not stated how or where these jobs will come from. They also talk about education and health, so I will assume that the jobs they are talking about are coming in that area, which would mean that they come off the back of government expenditure. Perhaps this is the plan to get through this supposed transition period, and that is fine, if that is the plan. Unfortunately Shorten doesn't want to admit this as the bloody liberals and the stupid media would deride him as high spending. One thing is that if he admitted this, he wouldn't have to side step all this talk about a 30 billion dollar black hole in his budget, because that is where it will be spent, on government created employment. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. This too would be a big gamble, as the last thing any country wants is the fact that the government is the biggest employer, not to mention that the fact it would double the time of returning to this mythical creature called" surplus", if ever at all. Remember government does not produce income outside of revenue raising through taxes and levies. This means by government creating jobs, tax cuts and social expenditure would be severely compromised.

There is no right or wrong way here, both have inherent risks attached. I just wish they would bring this part of the election to the forefront, instead of arguing policies that are devoid of thought and are purely short term vote grabs that are to be discarded upon taking office.

Shorten is correct in wanting to help lower income, no doubt about it. A society is only as strong as its weakest members, But he has no plan on how he is going to do it. It is one thing saying it, another thing explaining how you are going to do it. Idealism is an commendable attribute, but you can not build an economy purely on idealism.

Turnbull is correct in trying to use the private sector to re align our economy, this would allow the government to pay down more debt, at a more expedient time frame. But, and it is a big but, the government rarely has control over the outcomes of private sector. Faith is also a commendable attribute, but again, you can not build an economy on faith alone.

 

The whole "I know why but I am not telling" makes you sound like a child.

I would argue that multiple factors led to the revenue problem we have. The chief factors among those being the fall in commodity prices and the tax cuts from the Howard era.

 

The revenue problem was around long before the fall in the commodity prices, they just made it worse. In time we will look back on the great commodity boom and realise that it caused more problems than it solved. However this another topic all together.

What tax cuts from the Howard era are you referring to?

 

Well you stated the impacts Slippery, and I was countering it with information I am aware of but was keen to see you support it with evidence, which I'd be happy to counter if can be countered. Anyway the impacts were in those 2 locations and not broad, which indicates no relationship with abolishing NG.

Investors are willing to pay exorbitant prices for properties with the assurance that they will be able to reduce their taxable income and wait on capital gains over long term. What it does is inflate prices much too quickly and at "unsustainable' levels. The biggest challenge is weaning us off our obsession with real estate wealth creation and the real issues of personal or international debt. It will bring our economy down with a huge thump if someone doesn't do anything about this crazy real estate price trajectory.

Both parties want to do something about NG but its a case of one waiting for the other so that they can fling mud. It Labor wins and abolishes NG, which is non retrospective the libs will not reintroduce.

I have absolutely no issue with people investing in their future but as stated real estate debt will be the demise of us if we don't control this silly path. Look at compound interest accounts or play the stock market. People will still invest in real estate due to capital gains potential but will slow down the crazy pay anything mentality.

How about flipping houses? Totally legitimate option of improving properties and selling for a profit.

I think you'll find that this is another furphy. Honestly I think you'll find it is a non issue in the larger scheme.

What else? Real estate prices.

Not sure what you are trying to say regarding the above. No no no Labor are not proposing to touch current investments. The construction industry will do well with the proposal to limit negative gearing to new homes. Both proposals will ensure minimal impact on existing real estate, and will be like a pin prick as opposed to out and out POP of a seriously bubbling real estate market where everyone will lose.

Changes have to be made slowly and this is just one step in changing the system. What other changes do you propose?

It served its purpose during those times of essential immigration, but the income to mortgage ratio is on a ridiculously dangerous trajectory.

The libs have let us down on many issues and Abbott was the culprit. It is sad that Australia fell for his silly slogans and I think if Turnbull thinks he can use them he will find out the hard way that Australia are more dubious this time around.

 

Pauline Hanson has a good policy. Start putting money back into educating Australian tradies again through TAFE.

Teach young Australians proper trade skills through TAFE and training courses, and Australia will have no need to import 457 visa workers.

Give young Australians the skills, education and pride they once had, before the ALP/Greens and LNP ripped the guts out of the TAFE and training system.

 

one month to go...my very busy and not interested in politics, husband strolled in the other day and asked me "who are we voting for" you should have seen his face when I told him "we're voting for the blonde"

(we're in Dunkley Peta Murphy)

 

That's why she is so backwards, irrelevant and out of touch in our current world. We need our young people trained for jobs of the future. The biggies that can be exported. Creative and innovative industries.

You may as well vote for goofey or daffey if you vote for Hanson. Most backward politician our country has produced.

 

Was it excitement, shock or confusion? I'm in suspense SW, don't leave me hangin.

 

definitely confusion..
latest polls show Labor ahead
http://e.infogr.am/_/0VQRVMKseVeSkSTxvNy9?src=embed


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-fairfax-ipsos-poll-puts-bill-shorten-ahead-of-malcolm-turnbull-for-first-time-20160603-gpb33x.html

 

I can settle now.

Yes poll. Turnbull should not have sold his soul to the extreme right, they were bound to lose under Abbott. Shows that people are voting on policy not 3 words.

 

yes Turnbull has been disappointing as PM but his campaigning is even worse, is he just boring or what's going on, no one seems interested.

 

Malcolm "watching paint dry" Turnbull. Shorten ain't no orator but he is certainly easier to listen to. Still 3 weeks to go!

 

Mmm... That does not say what you think it does... I am not sure this is the message you would like to give to the world about yourself. Maybe I am wrong, I would certainly hope not...

 

my apologies for the blonde discrimination... is the "world" aka garry17 happy now. Be sure not to smile your face will crack

 

Really, THAT is what you consider the comment you made portrays??? I simply made the point that the message YOU send out with that comment is NOT what you think and suddenly you are attacking me???

Ok, so you want adversarial comments...

Let us work backwards. YOUR assumption that I was discussing some sort of discrimination over you “blonde” comment reflects MORE about YOU than it does about anything else. So the rest of your comment clearly shows your ignorance and attempt at insult lowering expectations of how intellectual in-depth people can assume you to be. BY which I mean VERY SHALLOW.

Since you defend a comment YOU made with such attempt to insult demonstrates you reinforce the message in your first comment. So one might ask what do you think you were supporting with your original comment???

Now there is so much more that I could say about this small insignificant thoughtless comment but why bother. Obviously, you seem completely unware that this would portray the average Australian to be, well uneducated of the minimum basis of they launch attack before even understanding what they are attacking….

Let us move to the original comment.

Your comment sets out the tyrannical nature of your household. Obviously your husband needs you to set out what to think and how to act. YOU clearly think this is reasonable assertion, so again obviously you accept that others MUST create your opinions and beliefs for you. That would make you a drone to whatever others wish you to believe. One could go further and examine the process you accept such persuasion, but frankly why bother. It is obvious, with your clear lack of understanding what people are saying you will be unable to comprehend ANYTHING people say to you without a minder to translate such comments and knowing the ALP’s affinity to working Sundays and the Coalitions erosions of Sunday rates, an answer would not be forthcoming until Monday midday at best.

Your original comment has so many MORE interpretations that could be attributed, NONE of which are flattering.
SO, once again thank you for further insight into character and ability, perhaps your comments will be better thought out in future, I won’t hold my breath though.

 

You got all that from my post!!! ok well I think you either need to have more sex or you're seriously f@cked up

 

So you link intellect with sex??? Apparently you seem to be at a loss...

The funniest thing is, you accept the points raised and pursue insult to defend them…

 

I ignore it's different to accept but I really suggest you go and have a life now lol