Originally posted by hwd007
If anything the governments should give greater incentives for private property investment, rather than less. Many of us end up with average to poor performing property investments. This is the risk that the government does not want to take on themselves by providing more public housing funding. Its the individual investor that shoulders the risk and thus should be supported in every way possible by the government, to help minimise those risks.
Well, Australia the great land of 47% tax on income, 11% tax on consumption on whats left, then fuel taxes, payroll taxes, stamp duty, land tax ...and the list goes on and on. Lib or Lab this is socialism, capital is quicky returned back to a central all powerfull all knowing government for redistribution based not on performance but on need. Every 3 years we choose between socalist party A or socalist party B.
Because I am Australian do I have a right to a free house? And if so who should pay?
Peter Druker asked in one of his books that insitutions and laws need to serve society, ie are created for societies benefit. However over time the insitutions and laws may fade and cease to be effective.
30 years ago is a long time, is the continued support negative gearing in its current form the most effective way for society to provide the most housing to the most needing in the most cost efficient way?
What I am saying is that these days much of the rental housing stock these days exceeds the requirements for a basic "roof over our heads". Many rent the best and nicest houses because of personal perference; dishwashers, arsewashers, pools, Jaccuzi's, home theature rooms etc. Not that expressing a personal spending perference is bad, if someone wants to rent a luxury house from me then great! But as a taxpayer I DONT WANT TO SUBSIDIZE their choice to live in such conditions. IMO negative gearing must be reviewed against its reason for existence...to help private individuals provide low(er) cost housing to those who most need it.