Try the political quiz

0 Reply

 @4TC4JQ6from New South Wales answered…3yrs3Y

Houses should be communally owned and used for human consumption and not profit

 @9K8TZN2New Liberalanswered…3wks3W

No, but implement a rate of diminishing returns to allow new beneficiaries into the market but limit and existing investors and place a hard cap (of 10 for example).

 @9G37XJTanswered…5mos5MO

The Government should provide compensation for house owners that are struggling to make payments to counter-act negative gearing.

 @9CFCXTWanswered…9mos9MO

Not everyone wants to own their own home and need rental properties. Perhaps instead of paying PWC 26 Billion the government should have provided economical and public housing

 @99VT2TTGreenanswered…12mos12MO

Ban negative gearing on existing properties; allow it on new builds and limit to two properties

 @98WZG7LLaboranswered…1yr1Y

No, but it should be regulated to reduce the number of tax cheats abusing negative gearing. negative gearing should only be allowed when it is a natural occurance i.e. A landlord providing affordable accomodation thus income may be less than mortgage and expenses.

 @984C83Nanswered…1yr1Y

Yes, as it disproportionately benefits the rich and removing it will save the government over $4 billion per year in lost taxes. Also, limit houses to one per person

 @8Y3CS9MGreenanswered…2yrs2Y

No, making property investment less attractive to high income earners might make housing more affordable for low income earners.

 @8XDTV6Nanswered…2yrs2Y

Just found out about what negative gearing is so I do not yet have an opinion on this

 @8TW6KVYIndependentanswered…3yrs3Y

Put a ceiling on how much any person can cumulatively claim through negative gearing eg $50k

 @8THSFT7answered…3yrs3Y

No but a flat tax rate would even the playing field. This is a misleading topic. Negative gearing a house is the same thing as salary sacrifice to super. Most people using negative gearing are not rich most a blue colar workers like fire fighters and teachers.

 @9353BBFanswered…2yrs2Y

Taxes should be tiered, and equivalent to the amount of income and assets one has, with close monitoring for tax evasion/system loopholes for the wealthy to exploit.

 @932V8HSanswered…2yrs2Y

Limits should be placed on big business's with smaller businesses allowed to continue as current.

 @92YJFZ4answered…2yrs2Y

No, only for non Australian residents. You should only be allowed to do this if you pay taxes in Australia. You should not be allowed to buy property from outside the country and rent it out at jacked up prices and the money go to a foreign economy. So yeah the boomers can keep their investments but not the big corporations and foreign billionaires

 @92N7QDBanswered…2yrs2Y

People have a right to build a property portfolio but with a limit of properties

 @Edward918answered…2yrs2Y

Create a complex policy which balances negative gearing with the soaring house prices. Investigate investment from different market players and how different policies would effect their investment

 @929L6KManswered…2yrs2Y

No, but limit it to new builds to ensure negative gearing promotes solutions to housing supply shortages and/or cap value of properties that can be claimed against to limit upward pressure on housing affordability

 @92983XSLiberalanswered…2yrs2Y

No, but limit the benefits to new properties so that the supply of housing increases

 @8ZS2CSXReasonanswered…2yrs2Y

I liked the ALP's policy for it to be on new structures only after it is enacted.

 @8ZRGZXZanswered…2yrs2Y

 @8ZLMKPHanswered…2yrs2Y

Negative gearing a rental house is ok. But if you own 10 rental houses then it is a business. Shoud be some tax imprecations

 @8ZCPDG4Independentanswered…2yrs2Y

No, but only allow it to be used to add to the quantity of available housing (i.e only new builds and not for existing properties)

 @8ZC8LCVGreenanswered…2yrs2Y

put a ceiling on how much a any person can claim through negative gearing

 @8YGVDX3Independentanswered…2yrs2Y

Only allow for new builds that add to the total housing pool (I.e. no home has been built on the site previously)

 @92VJR5PIndependentanswered…2yrs2Y

Yes, rental losses should be quarantined and offset against future rental gains.

 @92SZ42Janswered…2yrs2Y

People should be encouraged to have investment properties in order to ensure there is sufficient affordable housing.

 @8FVYF5Canswered…3yrs3Y

No but allow losses to be claimed against capital gains when the property is sold.

 @8PD5TBKanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but you shouldnt have to write your losses of against your income as there should not be an income tax.

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...