Family First Party

Strongly agree

No

Family First has historically supported policies that encourage investment and economic growth. Negative gearing is a strategy that can encourage investment in the property market, so they would likely support its continuation. 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

Family First might agree with a compromise position that limits negative gearing to one house per person. This could be seen as a way to maintain the benefits of negative gearing while addressing concerns about fairness and excessive speculation in the property market. 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

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

Family First may acknowledge the potential for government savings from banning negative gearing, but they would likely still disagree with a ban due to their support for policies that encourage investment and economic growth. 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

Yes, this concession disproportionately benefits the rich

While Family First is concerned with fairness, they also support policies that encourage investment. They may see the argument that negative gearing disproportionately benefits the rich, but they would likely still support its continuation due to its potential to stimulate economic growth. 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.

Strongly disagree

Yes

Family First has traditionally supported policies that encourage investment and economic growth. They would likely disagree with a complete ban on negative gearing, as it could discourage investment in the property market. 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.