Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[Ghost Patrol]

There's 1.1 million Australians with negatively geared properties. There's a lot of votes in that

That’s a lot of negativity, man.

 

[Gralin]

There are significantly more renters than landlords

The richest people benefit the most from negative gearing

Over half the rentals on the market are owned by landlords with multiple properties

Killing negative gearing would be good for the budget it costs billions

But doing it without rental caps would just lead to prices going up even more

Don't worry greedy landlords though, labor will never do it

 

[burge13]

You're the biggest bs far right liars on the site. You're known as Mr Climate denier so don't try and hide it.

See how many likes that post got of mine, im very popular. People log in and say "wow hes popular"

 

[Gralin]

I was talking to a couple of landlords the other week
They were talking about how all their properties had doubled in value and how they were raking in massive rent

15 properties between them, one of them was also doing multimillion dollar land deals on the side

But suddenly it was all we're poor and most investors are just mum and dad types

We don't set the rent the market does etc

Dead arse saying its a supply issue when they're constantly looking to snap up more places to charge a premium on

Charging more than my mortgage payments on places they owe less on too

It's just greed

 

[Seeds]

There's 1.1 million Australians with negatively geared properties. There's a lot of votes in that

But there is 8 million who would benefit from house price declines if we got rid of negative gearing.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

See how many likes that post got of mine, im very popular. People log in and say "wow hes popular"

It's not about being popular, I'm sure the polluters, tree loggers, Netanyahu , Maga nuts and Gina Rhinehart love you to.
You should think for yourself instead of trying to be loved.

 

[burge13]

It's not about being popular, I'm sure the polluters, tree loggers, Netanyahu , Maga nuts and Gina Rhinehart love you to.
You should think for yourself instead of trying to be loved.

Thinking for yourself has made you one of the biggest laughing stocks on this football website. You should consider a new tactic

 

[Gralin]

Time to move on Aristotle Pickett burge13

 

[Seeds]

I was talking to a couple of landlords the other week
They were talking about how all their properties had doubled in value and how they were raking in massive rent

15 properties between them, one of them was also doing multimillion dollar land deals on the side

But suddenly it was all we're poor and most investors are just mum and dad types

We don't set the rent the market does etc

Dead arse saying its a supply issue when they're constantly looking to snap up more places to charge a premium on

Charging more than my mortgage payments on places they owe less on too

It's just greed

We absolutely need to stop giving tax breaks to land lords. People getting rich off being landlords is terrible for society. Plus its better if more people can own there own home rather than rent.

But the housing problem overall is still a supply issue. Those landlords rent their homes out (most of them). They arent taking away supply from people who want to live in homes. They are only taking away supply from those who want to own their own home. If there were enough homes for people to live in then rents wouldnt be going up.

As for the greed point. If one person offers $800 per week and another offers 700 dollars a week are you proposing landlords should not take the higher offer? And if not who do they offer the $700 per week rent to? The one who offered 800 or the one who offered 700? Trying to maximise your revenue is fine (as long as its done legally and without providing a shonky product). The problem is that these high revenues shouldnt be available to them in the first place if housing supply was higher and housing comstruction costs were brought down.

Removing Negative gearing wont make a major difference in fixing the overall housing supply problem. Its contribution here will be in lowering the vacancy rate, which is helpful in the right direction but a small help. The main benefit of removing negative gearing is it lowers housing prices enabling more renters to buy their own homes and to stop living by the rules of landlords. Home owners are more economically secure in old age then renters and the mental health benefits of being in control of your own home is huge.

Another added benefit of removing megative gearing is it also may stop landlords from retiring early and living off the rent of others and instead force them to go work again and make a decent contribution to society for a change.

 

[Gralin]

We absolutely need to stop giving tax breaks to land lords. People getting rich off being landlords is terrible for society. Plus its better if more people can own there own home rather than rent.

But the housing problem overall is still a supply issue. Those landlords rent their homes out (most of them). They arent taking away supply from people who want to live in homes. They are only taking away supply from those who want to own their own home. If there were enough homes for people to live in then rents wouldnt be going up.

As for the greed point. If one person offers $800 per week and another offers 700 dollars a week are you proposing landlords should not take the higher offer? And if not who do they offer the $700 per week rent to? The one who offered 800 or the one who offered 700? Trying to maximise you revenue is fine (as long as its done legally and without providing a shonky product). The problem is that these high revenues shouldnt be available to them in the first place if housing supply was higher and housing comstruction costs were brought down.

Removing Negative gearing wont make a major difference in fixing the overall housing supply problem. Its contribution here will be in lowering the vacancy rate, which is helpful in the right direction but a small help. The main benefit of removing negative gearing is it lowers housing prices enabling more renters to buy their own homes and to stop living by the rules of landlords. Home owners are more economically secure in old age then renters and the mental health benefits of being in control of your own home is huge.

Another added benefit of removing megative gearing is it also may stop landlords from retiring early and living off the rent of others and instead force them to go work again and make a decent contribution to society for a change.

I'll be real with you seeds

I'm not interested in discussing this with you

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

There's 1.1 million Australians with negatively geared properties. There's a lot of votes in that

Only about 10,000 in each electorate on average.

 

[HairyO]

There's 1.1 million Australians with negatively geared properties. There's a lot of votes in that

Make any changes to the 2nd and beyond investment property. That drops the number to a few hundred thousand people.

Or just change it to 10 years for the CGT concessions on property and 5 years for all other forms of investment. Because 1 year is just simply a joke. And has always been a joke.

Politicians will hate it because they all have investment properties and share portfolios and family trusts and every other way of minimising tax.

 

[burge13]

Make any changes to the 2nd and beyond investment property. That drops the number to a few hundred thousand people.

Or just change it to 10 years for the CGT concessions on property and 5 years for all other forms of investment. Because 1 year is just simply a joke. And has always been a joke.

Politicians will hate it because they all have investment properties and share portfolios and family trusts and every other way of minimising tax.

This IMO. I'd say 3rd and onward but absolutely cap it rather than remove it

 

[burge13]

I'll be real with you seeds

I'm not interested in discussing this with you

They asked pretty reasonable questions and you now you 'just don't want to discuss it'

 

[HairyO]

This IMO. I'd say 3rd and onward but absolutely cap it rather than remove it

Id love to hear the sob campaign from people with multiple investment properties complaining about how hard it is for them.

Sell a ****ing property then, clown.

Why should other taxpayers subsidise you whrn you dont need it.

 

[Gralin]

They asked pretty reasonable questions and you now you 'just don't want to discuss it'

I generally have no interest engaging with seeds on any topic burge

But feel free to discuss it with them if you're interested

 

[burge13]

Id love to hear the sob campaign from people with multiple investment properties complaining about how hard it is for them.

Sell a ****ing property then, clown.

Why should other taxpayers subsidise you whrn you dont need it.

There are so many tax loopholes to the mega wealthy and multinationals. If people were really worried about that stuff they'd want FB/Google/banks etc paying real tax. Instead they parrot NG and franking credit crap

But also, yes. Someone with 10+ properties would be funny to hear them complain about NG changes or anything property related really. It's a ****ing simple supply/demand issue, attacking anything but that or its direct causes is dumb IMO

I intend on buying a rental soon so no changes, Albo.

 

[HairyO]

There are so many tax loopholes to the mega wealthy and multinationals. If people were really worried about that stuff they'd want FB/Google/banks etc paying real tax. Instead they parrot NG and franking credit crap

But also, yes. Someone with 10+ properties would be funny to hear them complain about NG changes or anything property related really. It's a ****ing simple supply/demand issue, attacking anything but that or its direct causes is dumb IMO

I intend on buying a rental soon so no changes, Albo.

You can do more than one thing.

Multinationals should pay tax on earnings in Australia.
Tax concessions like NG and CGT should be massively changed because they are simply a rort for rich people.

 

[burge13]

You can do more than one thing.

Multinationals should pay tax on earnings in Australia.
Tax concessions like NG and CGT should be massively changed because they are simply a rort for rich people.

Our government has proven time and time again, they can't but my point was more people complaining than the proposed changes themselves. They're complaining against something they 'could access' rather than the extreme loopholes they could never. Would make more sense and a bigger impact to address the latter

 

[Saint]

You can do more than one thing.

Multinationals should pay tax on earnings in Australia.
Tax concessions like NG and CGT should be massively changed because they are simply a rort for rich people.

The rort isn't the problem. The distortion of the housing market is the problem.

Housing should be a right, but it's becoming a privilege.

Same reason why GST wasn't put on fruit and veg. Some things you just shouldn't be allowed to mess with.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

Progressive ALP voters would have wanted him to do this all along.

It's only potential swinging voters (with negative geared property) who would care.

This was one of those things where the ALP was making promises that their core constituency didn't care about or want. Like when they said they wouldn't change the Stage 3 tax cuts. But then they did and everyone was happy with it.

Should we not care when our leaders lie?

 

[Bloods86]

Should we not care when our leaders lie?

We should.

We should also have a media that is objective and reports honestly, without partisan framing.

So parties can be completely upfront before elections, without deceptive scaremongering campaigns.

And politicians can change position based on new information and circumstances, without media and commentators going for sensationalism.

Until the latter happens, we've got bipartisan backflipping, where the outcome is the key thing to evaluate.

 

[Gralin]

We should.

We should also have a media that is objective and reports honestly, without partisan framing.

So parties can be completely upfront before elections, without deceptive scaremongering campaigns.

And politicians can change position based on new information and circumstances, without media and commentators going for sensationalism.

Until the latter happens, we've got bipartisan backflipping, where the outcome is the key thing to evaluate.

Media is just as captured by special interests as the politicians

There's a reason billionaires own the news and social media

 

[Gavin Excell]

Media is just as captured by special interests as the politicians

There's a reason billionaires own the news and social media

One of the headlines Herald Sun this morning spoke of Albo "crucifying" millions of Aussies with his NG plans

 

[Gralin]

One of the headlines Herald Sun this morning spoke of Albo "crucifying" millions of Aussies with his NG plans

Gotta love Murdoch math