Search results

If they did I would be living in 6 residences at once!

Meh. The changes to superannuation contribution tax rates isn't targeting the 'wealthy'. It's just targeting those middle class PAYG workers with high salaries that can't be split or made tax-effective. Once again Labor stuffs up again in the name of fairness.

An expectation is different from reality. Besides, the reason why people remain negatively geared is because they re-leverage the original property to purchase another one. If they didn't increase their borrowings for a different purpose I am sure that the original purpose would be a positively...

I disagree here. Governments (especially Labor) have demonstrated that they are incapable of investing in any infrastructure or construction without getting ripped off and taking taxpayers for a ride. Just look at the schools fiasco where it cost $800,000 to build one empty shed in the NT. The...

Well knowing the public service they probably costed it out and it's blown out beyond anything they ever imagined...

Ah the good ol' kathryn v jaycee debate. Keep it at while I get the popcorn...

But that's the thing tobe - people with high taxable incomes are not necessarily the 'rich' people. More likely than not they are a) PAYG workers or b) Self-employed workers with a bad structure/fall under the PSI rules. Those who are really wealthy use proper structuring to minimise the amount...

I can't see the link between negative gearing and building more dwellings. People construct new dwellings based on the feasibility of sale price minus costs. The tax effect is a very minor consideration.

That's simply not true. These days developers build a myraid of studio/1 bedroom apartments in the CBD which caters for the singles and childless couples. They make the most profit out of these type of shoeboxes because people pay more per sqm, the smaller the place is. How else would you cater...