NOTE: Video sponsored by the ACTU
Key points
- It would make house prices increase by more than the maximum amount people could withdraw
- It would cost the government $1 trillion in the long run
- It would leave people with $200k less in retirement savings
- It would significantly affect the returns on all superannuation as funds would need to keep more cash reserves uninvested so it is available for withdrawal
How about we ban owning multiple properties, remove any incentives for property as an investment, enforce quality building standards, and use government funds to build affordable housing.
Having multiple is fine, just remove negative gearing and investment incentives along with actually enforced building standards
People will just go back to what they did before negative gearing: Make businesses and move their properties into that. “Oh, your business made a loss paying more interest than it brought in as rent, I guess you can write that off as a loss and not pay tax on your income”.
The result is the same, but it’s more work for the ATO.
My old boss still had his holiday home under the business, because it’s how he did it before Negative Gearing was a thing.Make it so that interest on money borrowed against residential real estate can’t be declared as a business loss then. That’ll also make speculating housing investment funds a bad idea
If that were the case we wouldn’t have aeen a sharp uptick in investment at the same time NG was introduced.
You’re always gonna have people finding ways around things, the point is to make it hard enough your average schmoe bails on the attempt
Same thing would probably happen with property limits then
I think politicians should be banned from owning multiple properties. It’s a huge conflict of interest.
Absolutely. Great idea.
deleted by creator
So people remain excluded from property ownership, but hey, at least the economy will be ok
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the economy going to even more shit than it is be worse for property ownership?
Sorry, I was being a bit tongue in cheek there. The economy will continue to be shit for people who struggle to afford home ownership whether or not they can use superannuation to help get their foot in the door.
deleted by creator
Sure, but by the time those solutions are in place, another generation of people will have been denied the chance to own property, which has generational consequences on economic and educational outcomes for those families.
The answer is short term relief combined with long term change. Denial of short term relief because of hypothetical long term strategies that aren’t going to be implemented helps no one.
deleted by creator
That’s just a stupid comment. You could take the 1 trillion dollars it would cost the Australia government and spend it on any number of things to make ownership easier.
You could take the 1 trillion dollars it would cost the Australia government and spend it on any number of things to make ownership easier.
That’s true. The issue is, they’re not going to implement any of those ideas…
So people who can’t enter the housing market remain fucked over, because the imperfect ideas that might actually get off the ground get set aside in favour of better ideas that will never see the light of day.
Spud’s goal isn’t to make life better for the average Australian. All the listed negatives are positives for the LNP - make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. Luckily, he’s thick as shit and the average Australian can see what a terrible idea it is to spend your future.
No,no,no,no! You’ve all got it wrong! You’re all looking at it from entirely the wrong objective!
It’s a GREAT policy for property investors which will boost capital growth and provide excellent short term returns!
Oh wow I haven’t seen this dude in a good few years. He made the new south wales song about new south wales
deleted by creator
What
