+

Answer Overview

Response rates from 1.8k Melbourne voters.

53%
Yes
47%
No
42%
Yes
39%
No
8%
Yes, this concession disproportionately benefits the rich
8%
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 1.8k Melbourne voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 1.8k Melbourne voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Melbourne 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

 @9G37XJTanswered…1yr1Y

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

 @9K8TZN2answered…9mos9MO

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).

 @932V8HSanswered…3yrs3Y

Limits should be placed on big business's with smaller businesses allowed to continue as current.

 @92VJR5Panswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, rental losses should be quarantined and offset against future rental gains.

 @92SZ42Janswered…3yrs3Y

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

 @92N7QDBanswered…3yrs3Y

People have a right to build a property portfolio but with a limit of properties

 @Edward918answered…3yrs3Y

Create a complex policy which balances negative gearing with the soaring house prices. Investigate investment from different market players and how different policies would effect their investment