Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsEconomy10yrs ago

Should the government ban negative gearing?

Negative gearing is the practice of using losses on property investments to reduce taxable income. In 2013, approximately 1.3 million Australians used the concession. Data shows that high income earners write off much larger percentages of their taxes than those who earn lower wages. In 2012, surgeons wrote off $4,161 of their taxes using negative gearing while teachers wrote off $327. Proponents, including Malcolm Turnbull, argue that the practice has been part of Australian tax law since 1915 and is not a tax break since the real estate investor is taking a loss to their assets. Opponents argue that the policy disproportionately benefits Australians in high-paying occupations, not those of average incomes, since they are much more likely to own investment properties.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 25.2k Australia voters.

51%
Yes
49%
No
40%
Yes
40%
No
8%
Yes, this concession disproportionately benefits the rich
9%
No, but limit to one house per person
3%
Yes, the government will save over $4 billion per year in lost taxes

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 25.2k Australia voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 25.2k Australia voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

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

 @4TC4JQ6from New South Wales  answered…6yrs6Y

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

 @B2JR3RVanswered…1yr1Y

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

 @9K8TZN2answered…2yrs2Y

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).

 @BD3YV87answered…3wks3W

No, but have a cap to prevent extreme wealth inequality

 @BCXPZK5answered…4wks4W

This goes back to income tax which is illegitimate.

 @BCX575Danswered…4wks4W

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

 @BCL53GManswered…1mo1MO

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

 @BBZG4BQanswered…2mos2MO

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.

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Negative Gearing” news articles, updated frequently.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

Active 4mos ago

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...…2yrs2Y

Do you support the government calling for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza?

Yes

▲  1.4k5 replies5 disagree