Should the government ban negative gearing?

No, negative gearing needs to be progressive. After a certain income level, the option of negative gearing needs to be removed.

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).

No, but limit it to purchases of newly-built properties.

Yes, this concession disproportionately benefits the rich and limits to one house per person especially in a housing crisis

Yes, but keep it in place for new builds to incentivise construction

Yes, but only to people worth over $10 million AUD.

Conductive a phased change over 5 years after giving 5 years notice to enable time for adjustment by investors

Yes, but not just on housing, on all investments. Perhaps the only concession should be losses from an agreed portfolio. So they can't book losses on property against taxable earnings elsewhere, only against the earnings from that specific investment.

Yes, it restricts housing availability and keeps our talent focused on property investment rather than innovation and entrepreneurship ultimately stifling economic growth

Yes, but have a grace period where capital gains tax is temporarily reduced to allow investors to sell

No, it should be gradually restricted to new builds and phased down for existing investors to reduce housing distortion without causing a sudden market shock.

This should be regulated and cap the amount of properties people can own. Must be a citizen of Australia

No, but limit borrowing if it is a second property

No, but have a cap to prevent extreme wealth inequality

This goes back to income tax which is illegitimate.

No, but limit to certain $$ value. For example, Negative gearing benefits for investments worth $2M in value. Anything over that value won't have the benefit.

No; taxes should be tiered, and equivalent to the amount of income and the current value of assets, including property investments, that one has, with close monitoring for tax evasion; system loopholes for the wealthy to exploit.

Part of a far bigger issue - basic right to housing - There's enough resources for everyone to retire without the need for gouging every dollar through tax savings - fix housing issues, negative gearing issue becomes null

No, an investment property is a business like any other and there are costs involved to receive an income. Often investors will lose money to begin with. Once the investment is sold, capital gains tax is applied. The majority of people using negative gearing are middle aged, middle income earners building investment similar to superannuation and providing housing for those who cannot afford top buy.

No, but either (1) asset purchased for income, so no CGT concession and losses capitalised into the cost base; or (2) asset purchased for capital gain, losses capitalised into the cost base

Paying interest on loans should not be recognised as a valid expense, thus cannot be used to offset other income anyway.

any stance that assumes legal tax concessions are somehow "loopholes" is dishonest and socialist in nature

Yes, at least temporarily as it was introduced to encourage investment - which is now contributing to housing affordability

No it shouldn’t be banned, but it needs to be regulated

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

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

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.

Yes but also abolish capital gains tax

no but add more restrictions and regulations

Abolish private property.

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

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.

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

Limit to new premises and half capital gains

Yes but abolish capital gains tax

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

Yes, but lower top tax rate to adjust.

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

No, but limit to interest earned

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.

Yes, but also stop Capital Gains Tax

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

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

yes but grandfather exsisting ones

I’m uneducated

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

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

No, but add limitations to multiple property owners

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

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

Dont understand

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)

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

Yes as long as they don't tax rental income in return.

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

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

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

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

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

No, limit it to only new builds

Have not done enough research

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

No, but limit to a specific dollar amount.

Abolish private housing

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

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