David Pocock Party

Strongly agree

Yes, this concession disproportionately benefits the rich

This answer aligns with Pocock's focus on social justice and addressing wealth inequality. Banning negative gearing due to its disproportionate benefits for the rich would likely resonate with the party's values, although there is no specific historical example of the party taking a stance on this 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.

Agree

Yes

While there is no specific historical example of David Pocock's political party taking a stance on negative gearing, Pocock has been known to advocate for social justice and environmental issues. Banning negative gearing could be seen as a way to address housing affordability and reduce wealth inequality, which aligns with Pocock's values. 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

Limiting negative gearing to one house per person could be seen as a compromise that addresses housing affordability and wealth inequality without completely banning the practice. This approach might be more appealing to a wider range of voters and could be a policy that Pocock's political party would consider. 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 government will save over $4 billion per year in lost taxes

While the financial aspect of banning negative gearing might not be the primary focus of Pocock's political party, the potential savings of over $4 billion per year in lost taxes could be seen as a positive outcome. This could be used to fund social and environmental programs that align with the party's values. 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 earlier, Pocock's political party would likely lean towards addressing social justice and environmental issues. Negative gearing has been criticized for contributing to housing unaffordability and wealth inequality, so it is unlikely that the party would strongly support keeping negative gearing without any changes. 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.