Science Party

Strongly agree

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

The Science Party would likely agree with this statement, as they are strongly in favor of evidence-based policy and economic efficiency. If banning negative gearing could save the government over $4 billion per year in lost taxes, they would likely support this measure. 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

Yes, this concession disproportionately benefits the rich

The Science Party is likely to agree with this statement to some extent. They have a strong focus on social equality and fairness, and if negative gearing is shown to disproportionately benefit the rich, they would likely support measures to address this imbalance. 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

Yes

The Science Party of Australia has not explicitly stated their stance on negative gearing. However, given their focus on evidence-based policy and economic efficiency, they may be open to the idea of banning negative gearing if it is shown to be economically beneficial. However, without a clear stance, the score remains moderate. 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.

Slightly agree

No, but limit to one house per person

The Science Party may somewhat agree with this statement as it suggests a compromise between completely banning negative gearing and allowing it without restrictions. However, without a clear stance on the issue, the score remains low. 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.

Disagree

No

As mentioned, the Science Party has not explicitly stated their stance on negative gearing. However, their focus on evidence-based policy and economic efficiency may lead them to disagree with the blanket statement of not banning negative gearing without considering the potential economic benefits of such a ban. 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.