Search results

Thanks , that made no sense at all

afraid not: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/1301.0Main+Features1292012 see chart 10.6a - the line 'owner without a mortgage' is on a slippery slope. the 'renter - private landlord - is on an upward trend.

not that I am waiting for it to happen - we are looking to buy at the moment - never say never... with an aging population and ballooning health care and welfare costs, the government already has its hand in your pocket for your super (even if it is marginal now) and they will only be looking...

A credible argument, but would the welfare burden be as great if there were higher rates of home ownership to begin with? Just like the idea of house price growth that out paces inflation or changes in real wages, negative gearing as in incentive for speculative investment in existing housing...

yes, but its always a polarising debate!

Rubbish - this is one source and there are numerous others without vested interest to support this view http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/projects/p80647 Plenty of countries don't allow the same form of concessions as Australia does

tax bonanza doesn't mean that it is subsidised, it subsidises the investor not the person renting it, and it subsidises the loss only. you need to give me a reason why they wouldn't be cheap without it? if the government took it away tomorrow, the houses currently negative geared would still be...

negative gearing doesn't subsidise housing. the whole argument that it reduces the cost of housing is a farce. it doesn't stimulate construction of new stock, it stimulates speculative investment in existing stock. making it apply to new homes only I could agree with, or removing it and...