Search results

Just as I thought: Confronted with the fact that you're re-presenting your own personal political agenda as simply rational tax policy, you resort to character aspersions. Utterly shameless!

Really? Following Isaiah Berlin, I would have said one agenda pursues equality of opportunity, while the other agenda pursues equality of outcomes, with each deriving from quite contradictory concepts of personal freedom indeed. Just explainin'.

I assure you I was paying attention: Just checking for dissimulation, that's all, because of the no-less weird dichotomy among advocates of the removal of NG that "It's in the interests of a fairer taxation system" vs "It's in the interests of a fairer distribution of housing".

I agree, our taxation system needs a complete overhaul. But this is my whole problem with what you appear to be suggesting. Start with property investors by refusing them and them alone the opportunity to employ negative gearing, in the name of equity? Give me a break!

But businesses are allowed to negatively gear in exactly the same way, just as business income receives more favourable tax treatment than personal exertion income (in that it can claim operating expenses against income where individuals can't). Would you undo this favourable tax treatment too?

Why is it such poor tax policy? How do you justify your implication that investment earning activities and personal-exertion earning activities (wages/salaries) should be each taxed according to different principles?

Would you advocate this as sensible for all investment classes or only property, and if so, why only for property?

Singaporean NIMBYs must be an extremely upset bunch of people. :D

I'm not sure that floor plates in skyscrapers actually are land, even if you do put a bit of soil on top of the building and call it a garden. As for the economics making it 'worthwhile', isn't this a direct consequence of the absence of additional god-given land to accomodate a growing...

Ummm . . . God's not making any more land?