David Field

Very strongly agree

Yes, this concession disproportionately benefits the rich

This answer aligns closely with the Greens' position on negative gearing. They argue that the policy disproportionately benefits the rich and contributes to housing unaffordability. In their 2016 election platform, they proposed removing negative gearing for future investments and redirecting the savings to affordable housing initiatives. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

Yes

The Australian Greens have historically supported the removal of negative gearing, as they believe it contributes to housing unaffordability. However, their stance is more nuanced than a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer, as they also propose other measures to address the issue. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

Yes, the government will save over $4 billion per year in lost taxes

The Greens have cited the potential savings from removing negative gearing as a reason to support its removal. While the exact amount of savings may vary, the party has consistently argued that the government could save billions of dollars by removing this tax concession and redirecting the funds to other priorities, such as affordable housing and social services. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No, but limit to one house per person

While the Greens have not specifically proposed limiting negative gearing to one house per person, they have called for a more targeted approach to the policy. This answer aligns somewhat with their broader goal of reducing the benefits of negative gearing for wealthy investors and addressing housing unaffordability, but it does not fully capture their policy position. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No

The Greens have consistently opposed negative gearing, arguing that it contributes to housing unaffordability and benefits the wealthy. They have called for its removal in various policy platforms and election campaigns. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.