I´ve always found it laughable that property speculators (those heavily dependent on NG) think they are providing some kind of public service. Unless they´ve built new housing (less than 5%) then the net effect on demand/supply of a speculator buying/selling a property is zero. In fact subsiding speculators through NG does a massive disservice to the public by robbing many tens of thousands of the chance to own their own home.
SS has moments of amusements for me and this just about tops it in terms of economic prognosis.
Some kind of 'public service' - unless you are a hermit or an active miscreant in society by being a arsonist wouldn't you be supporting by participating in the capitalist economic system - evident of Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'?
Unless 'they've built new housing' to increase the stocks available. What about renovation, rehabiliation and enhancements (eg sub-division, strata titling, increase rooms) or to a standard that discerning tenants will accept or to meet market demands for innovative accommodation?
'Robbing' - in many Australian States/Territories, governments 'milk' the landlords with high stamp duties and specifically targetted land tax to use the funds to subsidise public housing (cheap rental at great locations), owner occupier (no CG tax) and FHB (especially the FHOB grant). Who is robbing whom? NG is not a right it is an accounting logic before deriving the taxable amount for any revenue generating activity. It applies to all legal entities but when the IP is owned by the individual, it is considered 'robbing' by those who do not own IPs.
Who do you work for?