+

Answer Overview

Response rates from 1.1k 6000 voters.

46%
Yes
54%
No
32%
Yes
45%
No
10%
Yes, this concession disproportionately benefits the rich
10%
No, but limit to one house per person
4%
Yes, the government will save over $4 billion per year in lost taxes

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 1.1k 6000 voters.

Chart
Line chart with 7 lines.
The chart has 1 X axis displaying values. Range: to .
The chart has 2 Y axes displaying values and values.
End of interactive chart.

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 1.1k 6000 voters.

Chart
Line chart with 8 lines.
The chart has 1 X axis displaying values. Range: to .
The chart has 2 Y axes displaying values and values.
End of interactive chart.

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from 6000 voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @4TC4JQ6from New South Wales  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @B2JR3RVanswered…2mos2MO

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

 @9K8TZN2answered…1yr1Y

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…1yr1Y

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

 @92SZ42Janswered…3yrs3Y

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

 @8XDTV6Nanswered…3yrs3Y

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