Yes, and that is fair ideal, I was little gobsmacked that the example you gave for a decision was actually to take opportunity from the lesser and give tax advantage to the rich. As I said originally there is many things I agree with in the tax policy of the ALP, BUT as I point out many just continue to lengthen the growing gap of rich to poor... Their clear and unadulterated effort to change Capital gains tax while not touching the rich. clearly they don't want to upset the top end of town while continuing to force the lower end of town to pay for their ideals. Don't get me wrong, the Coalition are not better they just are not gouging the poor to pay for tax concession for the rich to do what they should already be doing... RE climate policy among the policies…
Nope. Ummm I know this is political forum and we should be discussing, critiquing and demonising policy good, bad or otherwise. but S**t buddy, if you got to watch that type of dribble all I can say is get a life. Obviously these things are just going to be party driven dribble to bash their opposition and promote their own agendas to the drones of their party who need the party to tell them what to do. Most do it for a nice cuppa (instant of course) and a cup cake so they won't starve to death waiting for their deity to tell them what limb they intend to cut off them this election... Anyway, since you did get the most important information out of it, 53m for female depression, I wonder just how true this will be??? Will it simply be eaten up by the party faithful in bureaucracy to make adds to tell us how great they are doing for the subject. I certainly do wonder about these issues, as no matter who is in government, ALP run out of money so they first thing they cut is mental health out of health budget and the Coalition cut health spending also cut mental health... SA they walk the streets as the previous governments handled their health budgets so poorly. But that is just a thought...
If Ima gonna open my mouth (which I do) I thinks it behooves me that I at least be as aware as I can be, yes? I can walk and chew gum as well, you know. *snip* *snip* Indeed, just fish 'n chips tossed to the pigeons
Maaaate! It is not who I will put first but who I am going to put last! United Australia Party Katter's Australian Party (KAP) The Greens FRASER ANNING'S CONSERVATIVE NATIONAL PARTY Liberal National Party of Queensland Australian Labor Party A bigger bunch of beggars you have yet to meet
The Greens and ALP? That's pleasantly surprising I must admit. I am astounded you are putting the Nationals and Shooters, Fishers and Farmers ahead of the ALP and Greens.
Sorry old mate That is the list of who is running off of the internet NOT who I am voting for Anning will be definitely last as I was tempted to send money to that kid to buy more eggs Palmer is next to last because he is almost as Bad as Trump and had stiffed the workers of Townsville something horrendous Katter next as he can’t find his own arse even if he used his hat The rest I will have to look at thier resumes and the LNP guys looks good, pity he is with the wrong party
Remember that film clip, from long ago, where a woman said she thought Bob Menzies was the go, because “ he’s good looking and speaks so nicely”.
Yeah LNP https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2019/guide/kenn/ How the hell did the ALP come up with a coal mining FIFO worker?
Killing negative gearing will do the opposite. It will have a massive impact on investment (in real estate), and that will have a massive impact on the rental market. The smaller pool of rental properties will therefore be obscenely expensive. How is it that this has to be explained? (generally I mean, not to you specifically). Odd. Anyone who cares about housing for the masses will be in full support of a healthy investor sector.
Here's more on negative gearing... appears Scott Morrison did want changes in 2016, clearly the selfish wealthy Liberals like Turnbull and Howard would oppose it for obvious reasons. As far as I'm concerned you do something measured now... or you do something a lot more drastic later. Inequality is real and growing no matter how many times Howard says it's not. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...nterest-overhauling-negative-gearing/11105830
Okay, since you ignored my earlier post I'll try again: Who will be providing all those rental properties once investors have left the property market?
Negative gearing has been around for a long time. But more importantly, are you not aware of the significant increase in 'long term renters' in the past generation? Far less of us rented beyond marriage a generation ago. Consequently there was nowhere near the same number of rental properties needed. If you have any interest at all in securing housing for long term renters, you would support property investors. They are the ones putting themselves on the line (and it's a risk to all but the very rich) to provide a stock of competitively priced rental properties. Take Investors out of the equation, and things will be VERY grim for long term renters. Many will end up homeless.
As I understand it they are not going to abolish negative gearing, just lower the amount of tax you can claim back, I think it was 50% down to 25% if I recall correctly. The housing market when negative gearing was introduced is a a completely different animal to the one we are dealing with today, as is the wealth distribution in the country. It therefore stands within reason that these measures that benefit the wealthy (effectively the government is subsidising these investments for the wealthy) should be adjusted accordingly, especially in view of many Australians struggling to keep their homes. Why subsidise investment homes for the rich, when there are single parents struggling to pay their children's school fees and keeping a roof over their head. At a minimal this money should contribute to the greater good of Australia, not the wealthy individual. Small changes now, so that you don't have to deal with a big crisis demanding big changes later
Australia before Bob Menzies,commonly rented their housing. 1985 . Multi property owners are the ones tying up properties which might have been bought by the first time buyers.
