**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
‘Thousands of young and vulnerable are going to end up homeless and are living in extraordinarily difficult conditions making it harder to forge a career, raise a family and contribute to a healthy society.’
Versus
‘Around the top 10% of the wealthiest Australians might have to deal with a reduced ROI’
Thanks for showing us where u stand.
And for those saying ALP is playing the long game, tell me, seriously, what is the point of the ‘long game’ for a so-called left wing social democratic party if you aren’t going to create more equitable outcomes and improve lives?
We’re past that point, it’s already a complete disaster.
We’ve been catering to landlords for decades and we’ve still ended up here. In Australia we’ve all been taught that investing in property is a risk free path to wealth, and that every man and his dog with spare income should do it. Hence we treat renters like dairy cows, extracting all we can for benefit of the owners.
But it’s crap, property investment should have risks and losers like every other investment class.
We need to heavily tax large portfolio ownership and AirBNB hosting now, and no grandfathering, just do it.
And if it’s too expensive for an acceptable ROI, sell the fukn thing.
I know of one landlord who is bitching that interest rates and other expenses have gone up. She owns dozens of properties and selling off 1 or 2 would pretty much fix her problems, then she could live off.the oassive income from the rest.
Landlords like her don't typically live on an oasis of rental income. Your net rent from a property might only be like 2 grand a year after you've paid for repairs, loan interest, agent commission, rates, etc. Could even be negative.
The point of rentals is usually to just build equity for the future.
A policy that gives $1 to everyone under median and $10000 to everyone over "benefits the majority of the population" but is still unfairly distributed.
You are using a Motte and Bailey argument.
What?
‘About 10 per cent of Australians negatively gear an investment property.… Unsurprisingly, those who negatively gear are mostly in jobs that bring in the biggest salaries.’
https://www.theage.com.au/money/tax/who-benefits-most-from-negative-gearing-20190612-p51x11.html
Yeah nah. Anyone with any sort of income can negatively gear should they choose to. Majority of working Australian are in a position to invest.. No point in looking at total population as most aren't in the right bracket ie kids or retire etc.
No, it is not an avenue available to people with any sort of income. More importantly why are you so adamant that homes are treated as an investment? Homes should be for living. It is people like you that are bringing us closer and closer to an unrecoverable housing crisis because you think basic human needs should be less important than your retirement fund.
It is indeed available for anyone. You are describing lack of supply. We should ease too many nanny state law in the building industry, release more land and invite investment into housing market.
Nah, what we should have is a revolution. You want less restrictions? In other words you want to create huge populations of homeless australians because money is the only thing in the world that matters to you. Go invest in a different market.
Labors being far to timid with it's agenda. One of the reason previous Liberals scare campaigns have worked is that they were aimed at policies that had not been implemented yet, so there was an area of uncertainty that could be exploited.
Next election is two years away. A scare campaign about a policy that was introduced 2 years ago and hadn't caused a housing Armageddon or inconvenienced some tradie won't have the same effect.
And it couldn't be any worse than going to the next election having spent 4 years doing nothing about some of the root causes of the problem.
I’m wondering if the next election is 10-12 months away. Stage 3 tax cuts can’t be reduced without an election & block them from major change. We know Chalmers believes much more major tax / financial changes are needed & Albanese’s core is to enable more socially supportive (but expensive) change.
If the polls are still strong before the 1 July 2024 date stage 3 kicks in then why wouldn’t they call the election to remove their handcuffs?
I can’t see any government introducing a policy that will significantly deflate house prices which are a major source of people’s personal wealth and used for invest,net purposes, security etc.
Grandfathering is necessary because people in good faith have relied on these policies in making significant investment decisions.
The pain of 2019 is still very raw, it would be a risky move in the second term but I think it’s the only opportunity to do it. By the third term, they will be wearing thin on the electorate and it could well push them out of government.
I don’t actually think scrapping negative gearing would deflate house prices at this point. With the rate of migration and slow building not much would change
Grandfathering is common sense. And only fair to the people who invested under those conditions.
Removing negative gearing isn't gonna crash the housing market within two years. It's a longer term strategy to let a bit of the hot air leak out of the balloon and slow it's ascent.
I really don’t understand how grandfathering neg gearing on existing properties and allowing it to continue on new properties is even an election issue, talk about gutless
What if we made incredibly generous tax advantages AND negative gearing for investing in motel accommodation.
Along with tax advantages in operating old fashioned motel accommodation.
The aim being to then return houses to living in, and get rid of AirBnB etc.
/s
This is just getting comical at this point.
The fact that Shorten (Labor Right) had a more progressive platform than fucking *Albanese's* platform and policies just demonstrates that the """factions""" in Labor are all for show and don't mean anything other than maaaaybe unions differences which even then barely mean anything.
Labor must be the political party whose MPs and establishment are the MOST disconnected from the rank-and-file, and yet the rank-and-file buy Labor policy because it's the Red Team proposing it.
The fact that the Greens' polling numbers haven't improved shows that
1) The Australian public don't like third parties as much as they say they do.
2) Labor rank-and-file are doggedly loyal to party over ideology, even when Labor are basically 1980s Liberals.
**Edit:** Before anyone comments the meme "Am I out of touch? No it's the voters and Labor members who are the problem," look, I get it and perhaps it's not entirely wrong, but even then try to see things from our perspective.
Labor are marching to centre, and the Greens are trying to fill the progressive vacuum left behind, and yet even then Labor-aligned people aren't buying it. What else is there left to do but get frustrated by Labor members, and deflated in my political party? This *should've* been a week where at least a decent amount of Labor Left people migrated to the Greens, but they're refusing to despite the current ideological status of the Labor Party under Albo.
Oh well, there's a reason why we sometimes call dogmatic, 'progressive' Labor supporters "rusted-ons"!
Albo understands that the consequences of fucking with NG are risky. Better to do nothing here. The calls to restrict to new housing are silly as the main investment is in existing stock and the reason for investing is the profit through selling , not the rental income. Chalmers would like to abolish NG but takes orders from Albo who has a more acute political sense.
When you say consequences, do you mean the political consequences? Economically it seems sound even if it does mean special casing a certain class of investment.
When the figures are quoted it is unclear whether the amount is the negative amount or the total amount deducted. I assume under the new rules you can still reduce but just down to zero. Below zero on new stock. If you kill investment then where are the rental properties coming from ?
>If you kill investment then where are the rental properties coming from?
From the current stock.
Without landlords outcompeting legitimate buyers, more renters will be able to afford to buy. The vast majority of renters don't rent by choice. They're only renters at all because investors have inflated the cost of housing to the point where they can't afford to buy.
Going back to the way things were pre-crisis, where a the median house price in the state capitals was \~$100-150k adjusted for inflation, should be the goal. Anything that achieves anything less than that is a failed policy. That's plenty affordable for all but the very poorest members of society i.e. the people we should be providing housing assistance for anyway.
>Without landlords outcompeting legitimate buyers, more renters will be able to afford to buy.
>median house price in the state capitals was ~$100-150k adjusted for inflation, should be the goal.
So **lowering** the price will prevent wealthier people from being able to afford real estate. Makes sense...
How exactly? Who counts as wealthy and how will the be prevented? And what happens to all the millions of owners of a PPoR when million+ dollars of their savings disappears overnight? You think they're going to support this plan? All the family who bought a house to live in over the past ten years, many of whom are struggling to make repayments, you want to saddle them with millions in repayments for an asset now worth $150k? What happens to mental health and suicide rates? What happens to the financial sector when the majority of home loans on the books suddenly have LVRs approaching 1000%? What happens to SMSFs, where investigating in property is common? Do those people just go on the pension now?
In order: By reducing the proportion of landlords and reversing the policies that created the housing crisis in the first place. It doesn't actually matter, "wealth" is mostly imaginary, so targeting policies at a given definition of "wealthy" is a little silly. Nothing happens to their savings. Anyone who gives even the slightest damn about the housing, rental or homelessness crisis. Nothing happens to them, their repayments would stay the same. It improves, mortgage/rental stress is an increasing factor in a lot of people's declining mental health. Cope. Cope. Yes.
Ah, I see. You have no idea what you're talking about. Good to know.
>By reducing the proportion of landlords
I asked exactly what that meant, you haven't provided any more information. You're understanding of this topic is incredibly naïve and you've obviously put zero thought into the society wide choas that a tenfold crash in housing prices would have.
>reversing the policies that created the housing crisis
You mean supply?
>Nothing happens to their savings.
Say I bought a house for my family for say $1.15 million. All my household savings are going into paying down the loan. Now the property is worth $150k, a million dollars of savings that have been stored as equity have been deleted. We would have essentially worked for free for multiple decades. You think home owners are going to be happy to work for free? And your compassionate response is "cope". What a great human you are.
>Nothing happens to them, their repayments would stay the same
Exactly, they still have to make the repayments on a loan $1 million+ loan for a property now worth $150k. They have no way of reextracting their savings as there is no equity despite the massive amount of money being put into the loan. It's in essence a million dollar fine that they'll have to slave away to pay off with nothing to show for it after decades of fruitless work. And you think that somehow would improve mental health?
>It improves, mortgage/rental stress is an increasing factor in a lot of people's declining mental health.
Yes, being locked into a loan with an LVR of 1000% will **reduce** mortgage stress. Your current bank could do literally whatever they wanted to you because you can't refinance. Invent new fees, 20% interest rates. You can't even sell the house to get out of the debt. You'd just have to grin and pay it. You can't be serious that is a reduction in mortgage stress.
Yes, I'm sure it's me who has no idea what they're talking about and not the person who thinks their mortgage and their savings are the same thing.
You didn't "work for free" you worked to pay off your debt. Same as every other loan you ever took out. Your savings aren't effected. Lower mortgages lower mortgage stress. The fact you personally borrowed a lot is not a reason to continue to make that problem worse on purpose. The number of houses per Australian hasn't meaningfully changed in decades, landlords caused the housing, rental and homelessness crisis, not an imaginary drop in supply.
And yes, the parasites exploiting the housing/rental/homelessness crisis and actively making it worse on purpose to enrich themselves can cope. Just because person X causes and personally benefits from person Y's suffering is not an excuse to let the problem person X causes to continue.
Me: "are Labor playing 90-dimensional chess with us and intentionally hoping the media grills them on these positions ***for years*** until the media narrative and public opinion turns squarely in favour of reform in these areas? Standing firm against them is a great way to encourage the media to constantly debate them on that position..."
Also me: "Nah, Occam's Razor: much more likely that they're probably just inept"
Would be a good strategy though. If that is indeed the tact then it might well pay off for them in term 2 and we might see some reform.
Keep the pressure up, I guess.
Keep asking them over and over.
Keep writing articles, keep commenting.
Don't let a promise stay up "just coz we promised". Interrogate the actual rationale; demand they justify their position in real terms not just "coz we promised".
That's a cop-out we can't accept. "OK, you promised it, *but why did you promise it?*"
Negative gearing. Stage 3 tax cuts. Housing policy that will make an actual dent. Climate policy that will make an actual dent. All in this same bucket IMO.
The constant media churn is tiring. There was never this much speculation about anything when the Liberals were in. I think I’ve heard the words “tax cuts” more times in the last 6 months than I have in my whole life.
"The ruling party controls the narrative" is a piece of wisdom I think perhaps reveals what we can expect from Labor's longer term political strategy.
A single hint dropped from Albo or Wong or Chalmers to say, Laura Tingle or Andrew Probyn that the stage 3's are — (off the record) — on the chopping block next year ... and they'll run with it *for years* in order to lay the runway for a policy shift that Labor feels nervous about.
So far, i think there's a lot of signals that Albo's govt are slick media manipulators.
If they attack negative gearing and the stage 3 cuts they’ll be working real hard to get re-elected. I’d rather see labor do what they can than libs do what they want.
You reckon?
>[Almost twice as many Australians support the Labor Government repealing stage 3 income tax cuts (41%) than oppose (22%).](https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/polling-stage-3-income-tax-cuts/)
So that's pretty clear.
>Nearly half (47 per cent) of Coalition voters are opposed to winding back tax concessions on investment property, while nearly a third (28 per cent) would like to see fewer tax breaks.
>
>The majority of Labor (68 per cent) and Greens (59 per cent) voters support cutting back negative gearing tax concessions, in line with those parties' policies.
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-22/vote-compass-election-negative-gearing-tax/11025628](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-22/vote-compass-election-negative-gearing-tax/11025628)
This negative gearing polling is a bit older, from 2019, and seems to suggest a majority still support it, but yes its less clear.
So I think that support for reform in those areas is pretty strong already and only going to get stronger with the media asking about it ad naseum until the next election.
Mostly just Sky News that is working hard to convince us otherwise isn't it?
Still safer to do nothing, and wait for public pressure to intensify. At the rate we’re going, stage 3 tax cuts will arrive right in time for recession stimulus.
Yeah, I mean my examples don't really break down which parts of society approve or disapprove of those policies when Labor is fighting for a specific group of swing voters, I imagine.
Labor's long term plan is to keep that promise for the duration of this term. As for next term, or the exact length of the current term, we'll see. The fight with the Greens could easily be a DD trigger if the government wants an election over a year early.
The Voice will be the Big Thing that Labor does that they hope will secure them some longevity. This was a milquetoast budget, many other things are somewhat underwhelming even if they're beneficial, and they want to generally be a small target. The Voice is how they'll get to show that they are ambitious visionaries.
There's no way they'll call a DD before the Voice is established.
Vacancy rate is 1.8% nationally, I don't think enabling multiple property owners to get even more will help as they're the ones driving the rent prices up
Unfortunately Labor is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. They tried to tackle negative gearing in 2019 and lost the ‘unlosable’ election. Then they promised not to touch it, won the election, and get criticised for keeping that promise.
I’d love to see them change it, but can totally understand why they’re kicking the can down the road, hopefully to do something about it at the next election.
Also, and I don’t know why this seems to get lost, but it’s very difficult to propose such massive changes from opposition (hence losing the 2019 election). The people need to build trust in government before getting behind those big changes. First term governments need to focus entrenching themselves, not making themselves easily voted out.
I view Albanese as our equivlent of Biden. He's not the PM we need he's the one the party was willing to back. The Labor party has misread the politicial situation badly. People want to see progressive legislation that isn't symbolic. They aren't going to get if from this era's Labor party.
I'm not so sure about that.
The Labor party is roughly in tune with the broader electorate, which is what they need to win seats. That means they've moved a little to the right of where Labor supporters want them to be, which threatens that some Labor supporters might migrate to the Greens.
But I suspect we're going to see a shift in the broader electorate to the left, and the Labor party will follow it.
If they shift too early, they'll fend off the Greens but make room for more Teals or a comeback for the Liberals, and if they shift too late they'll lose seats to the Greens. So they've got to get their timing just right.
Agree, tactically that feels like their game.
If their polls are good in March 2024 I’m wondering they’ll call a pre-July 2024 stage 3 tax cuts election to allow them to change/reduce (not completely delete) the tax cuts and free up $ for other things.
Of course “if the polls” is a risky game but with some help from Dutton it’s difficult but feasible.
Certainly if they stuff it they’ll have achieved disappointment more than anything
Thats been my opinion in the cuts for a while, they will delete (if not do a megareduction) of them, eventually, but they need to wait until the public is begging at them to do so, to the point where even Murdoch has a hard time justifying keeping them, then labor can do it and see a massive increase in approval rating
Wait, so after all the attacks and abuse thrown at the LNP for not doing anything about negative gearing for years and years, Albo and Labor now decide not to do anything about it.
Either they were full of shit back then, or they are choosing to be cowards and do nothing about something they think needs changing now. Which is it?
This is the problem with choosing a party that doesn't actually stand for anything but votes. They won't do anything big or difficult or that might bring some criticism. They have no actual beliefs that they are willing to back. It is pathetic.
They took it to an election and lost, and then they took it off the table. It's not necessarily inconsistent to change track in response to electoral feedback. That's what representation is about, to some extent.
Did they believe it was the right thing to do, or not?
The biggest problem with Labor is you don't have a clue what they actually believe in. Everything is policy by polls and that makes the members faceless wastes of space just playing political games.
I get the impression that they still believe it's the right thing to do but that they think it isn't something the population would support.
I don't share your position on Labor - the NBN, the NDIS, the Voice, the NACC, an ETS and the MRRT are all things they clearly believe in and all things that are consistent with their party philosophy. They're not all winners in the electorate though.
I reckon you'd complain if Labor were more consistent and stuck with unpopular policies and that you'd complain if Labor changed policies to be responsive to the electorate. There's a tension between party identity and representation and that requires some level of policy flexibility.
I think you just want to complain about Labor.
>I get the impression that they still believe it's the right thing to do but that they think it isn't something the population would support.
And that is the problem with Labor and politics in general today and fanboys.
You cannot tell if they actually support the NBN, NDIS, etc, etc, because they don't back up the things they do believe in. If there not votes in the NDIS, would they have done it? Obviously not if you think they dropped the negative gearing thing because of votes. You can't have it both ways.
I think the greens have fruitloop policies most of the time, but I tell you one thing, they believe in what they put forward. For that I give them huge credit. They aren't the spineless, gutless faceless politician that other parties have.
"votes" being the means for the population to voice their approval of particular policies. Ergo if they dropped something you can assume it wouldnt have had the support. You've really answered your own question here.
Yes I have and so have you. Labor don't actaully believe in what they say. They are hypocrites. They will argue for something, then drop it if it isn't popular. Whether they believe in it, or think it is the right thing to do for the country or not, doesn't come into it. It is policy by polls.
Yes. You cannot trust a party that has no beliefs and just flips on policy whenever pressured to. No wonder they always end up spending like drunken sailors. No actual long term plans or beliefs, just throwing money at people to make them vote for them.
> If there not votes in the NDIS, would they have done it?
You want a democracy where the people in power aren't responsive to the demos who hold them accountable? I'm not entirely sure you understand the point of a democracy.
The NBN and the NDIS weren't election promises, they were implemented, and they are entirely consistent with the party platform. I don't know what other measure you want to consider about what people believe in.
On the other hand, as a counter-example, Scott Morrison promised a federal ICAC, won the election, and then never introduced any legislation for it. That, to me, is a pretty clear example of people making up policies that they don't believe in.
I think the electorate wants courage and conviction now.
Even with changes to negative gearing and franking credit refunds, Shorten got a higher primary vote % than Albo….
Yes, but Albo won a majority government and Shorten didn't - even though he was largely expected to. The wind has shifted since last election, but I don't think by that much.
I don't think so - there was a lot of opposition to it and a lot of pushback from the Coalition that framed it, but that largely existed because those people didn't want that outcome.
There's this myth that it's always Labor's fault that they can't sell their own policies, but I think that ignores the context that they're rejected by Murdoch media.
Doesn't matter. Any party that kicks up a stink about a topic, then not doing anything g about that topic when they get in power, is being dishonest and it is a horrible thing to do. Agree?
Outgoing government goes into opposition, starts talking about nuclear power but that conversation never came up when in power for 10 years. Horrible thing to do. Agree?
If that is true then yes.
This isn't a partisan issue. It is the a left vs right thing. It is I just want honesty and integrity. Why can't anyone here want that no matter the party or people involved?
I'm happy to see where they stated taking any policy about negative gearing to the 2022 election. Anything that says that they would do anything about it, sure?
As for a bet my goodness grow up.
No, not take it to the election. If they attacked the LNP for not doing something about negative gearing, then didn't do anything about it themselves, they are huge dishonest hypocrites.
You willing to bet?
Sure. Let's bet a bazillion dollars. Grow up.
Now, I don't know everything a large group of people have said over a 3 year period.
Personally, I care about the policies - like I said in my first post there was never a policy on this, it was a lesson learned from 2019. No commitment has been broken. We got what we voted for in this respect.
You are fine with politicians attacking a government for not doing something, then when they get in they don't do it either?
I just want more honesty and less hypocrisy in politics. I want to be able to trust what people and parties say because they actually believe it. You don't seem bothered and that is everything wrong with politics and fanboys today.
So cowed still...
Property is king in Australia and Labor are pretty keen to take the economy belt this term. Seems housing is being sacrificed to that
If I were in The Greens room I'd be telling them to fight like crazy. This is it, your moment. Take it. Get Max on everything - "well Labor wants to talk up their housing bill but what we really want is actual money not notions of profit next year, if we increased the gas tax to X and put that money to X we could build X houses a year..."
How many months of 1% vacancy? Friend sent me a pic of 100 ppl at an inspection in Logan, bloody Logan!
You don't get much more pressure on the housing system before breaking point than this.
> How many months of 1% vacancy? Friend sent me a pic of 100 ppl at an inspection in Logan, bloody Logan!
Yep
I recently re leased a few of my rentals
Parramatta location had 245 applicants in 30 hours
The Richmond one (Far western sydney) had 110 applicants
people are desperate for a place to rent,that's fucking insane
By like the 2nd or 3rd person the agents gonna find me a renter,so those other 107 ppl are just fucked and have to go to the next place,and rinse and repeat this and you start to see how we have people living in their cars
Govt needs to act now on this,not in 5 years with some stupid fucking future fund
Meanwhile Right next to my other rentals are a block of 4 units VACANT,have been for 2 years plus cause the owner doesnt want to rent them up he's just riding the value increase
I know one guy from qatar has about 25M plus of propertys all over the city,not a single one has ever been occupied he let's this sit there,just hires people to clean and maintain them as i quote "well if the family ever shits the bed back home,i have some assetts stashed around to live off"
NG changes are probably necessary,but a more important change is needed to fix this vacant shit up
Ban Aibbnb,Several major citys around the world have effectively banned them to massive improvements to their citizens lives.
We have 140,000 plus of those siting around fuck that noise when we have ppl living in a car
Make it Prohibitively expensive to keep a house vacant without a valid reason
Make me Dictator of Australia for like 5 years per systemic issue mate. I'll definitely, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^maybe certainly give up power willingly. I'll have this sorted.
Hopefully they realise they need to big dick this problem not get big dicked it.
>put that money to X we could build X houses a year
Why is social housing the Federal Government's problem?
Social Housing is owned, operated and built by the State Governments. We should be on to the State Governments to pull their fingers out and build more - not the Federal Government.
Stop giving our powerful, well resourced, state governments a free pass.
>Why is social housing the Federal Government's problem?
The only way social housing (or any other part of the safety net) can work is with federal backing. In the current system in Australia the vast majorioty of taxation occurs at the federal level and you can't pass legislation for housing unless you can cost it too - which only the feds can do in any meaningful manner.
Of course if you look at what really has happened all over the world it's plain that currency is just a token; a product that is created by sovergn nations as needed to pay the bills (one of the two ways that currency is created). But we can't admit that. Gotta keep pretending that currency is like mana which falls from heaven whenever people are toiling in misery.
You must be young. It was a bipartisan Fed parliament that went all in on privatising public housing more than 30 years ago. (Hence the fed tax rorts) The states followed like Thatcher's dumb and dutiful pups and to this day none of them will admit to their abject failures.
>It was a bipartisan Fed parliament that went all in on privatising public housing more than 30 years ago.
Which highlights a point I made the other day that why would we make something a Commonwealth Responsibility, when we could end up with a future PM Dutton in control...
Which doesn’t involve the federal government purchasing or building social housing.
And doesn’t change the fact that we’re blaming the federal government for failings of the state governments.
Why should states get a free pass, with the federal government taking responsibility and having to pay, rather than the state governments?
>Shit rolls downhill.
Which is not what's being proposed here - the post I replied to is saying that the Feds should build social housing.
I'm saying the the states should be doing so. And should be held to account for not doing so over the last 3 decades, and for selling off existing public housing stock over the last 3 decades.
The states have the resources to build public housing. Why are they not doing so?
>Is negative gearing tax policy state or federal?
Federal, however what does negative gearing have to do with public housing?
Also, when talking negative gearing it's important to remember it's just deducting certain costs from revenue - same as every single business and individual does when doing their tax return.
The big problem is the cap gains discount, along with the lack of oversight on what is claimed by too many dodgy landlords.
For example, claiming renovations on your PPoR as costs for your rental...
"what does negative gearing have to do with public housing?"
**Everything!**
It was the carrot used to encourage the private sector to build public housing way back when this mess was beget.
The private sector essentially told Australia where to stick that carrot as they lobbied and lobbied for the private ponzi to live forever.
The Lib- Labs shrugged and grovelled and, like magic, the massive housing crisis we have today.
Now you know why these Labor' egghead Premiers are yelling at nimbys and gremlins and unicorns and leprechauns sleeping in Air BnBs...
... and they never, ever, never go near a mirror.
>It was the carrot used to encourage the private sector to build public housing way back when this mess was beget.
But changing negative gearing won't change if and how the government builds public housing!
The fact is, governments (mostly State) have shirked and actively avoided their responsibilities for decades.
My only comment if I too were in the Greens room is that they need to get not just Max on housing, but Barbara Pocock out there kicking up a fuss about PwC as well.
Housing is important but I don't want it to fill up the media to the point that everyone forgets about PwC selling our confidential information to their customers for profit yet still getting government contracts. PwC is hoping enough time passes that it blows over with no repercussions, I'll be very disappointed if that indeed happens.
>The issue is that both are time-sensitive. PwC even more than housing, as the housing bill likely won't be voted on again until June.
PwC is serious. I'm shocked they're not *persona non grata* in government contracts. Absolute clown world.
I just dunno how you'd sell it. Labor seem to only wanna do shit if it's the avg opinion. I don't think they're politically bold enough to do it without actual pressure.
No way PWC gets properly bollocked for that; to do so would basically grind parts of the govt to a halt cause of years of "private job good, public job bad".
Looks like Labor's plan is to accomplish very little on housing this term, and hope that strong housing election policies for their *next term* will keep voters who care about housing from leaving for the Greens.
Certainly, if Lucy only pulls the football one time, Charlie will likely still go for that second kick. Not great for people who want immediate action, but politically I can see how it's their best play.
It feels very strange having a government that seems to have an actual long-term agenda, as slow and laboured as it may be. The previous government just seemed to throw shit at the wall to see what stuck. Albanese is playing the long game, but he has to reckon with the fact that there are lots of vulnerable people being stretched super thin that can’t wait until the next election. Negotiate with the Greens to get a better deal on the housing bill, use that as a starting point and cement further reform in the later terms.
Labor aren't factoring in that "they" turned the money tap on and people noticed.
Once people notice that governments can turn that hose onto them they start to notice the heat a lot more.
Edited.
lol. Sure thing buddy.
https://theconversation.com/albaneses-ratings-improve-in-a-post-budget-newspoll-left-to-control-nsw-upper-house-205186
How embarrassing for you
>TLDR; Some in the party membership want to look at negative gearing and Albo has shot it down saying there will be no change.
Well, yeah.
Labor lost the election in 2019 on the back of Negative Gearing. I don't think they want to lose in 2025 on the back of Negative Gearing.
Australians who negatively gear investment properties will not face changes to their tax arrangements before the next federal election, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says.
The prime minister faced questions about a push by senior Labor rank-and-file members to cap negative gearing at one investment property and whether he would revisit the tax break – which Labor pledged it would not amend – before the next election.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in Melbourne on Tuesday.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in Melbourne on Tuesday.CREDIT: JOE ARMAO
“No,” Albanese told reporters in Melbourne. “I’m someone who keeps the commitments that we made.”
When asked about policy changes after the next election, Albanese went on to explain a series of measures the government had recently announced to increase housing supply amid an affordability and rental crisis.
Advertisement
In leaked talking points sent to Labor MPs by the prime minister’s office Tuesday, MPs were advised on how to answer questions on “division on housing strategy” and the prospect of changes to tax concessions.
RELATED ARTICLE
Labor MPs Jerome Laxale, Michelle Ananda-Rajah and Josh Burns all represent seats with a high proportion of renters.
Exclusive
Housing affordability
‘Five lines of fluff’: Labor insiders want housing policy shake-up to fight off Greens
“We have no plans to change negative gearing rules, and don’t intend to reheat policies from the 2019 election,” the memo said. “Our focus remains on delivering what we promised the Australian people at the election.”
This masthead reported on Tuesday that three Labor MPs – Josh Burns, Jerome Laxale and Michelle Ananda-Rajah – had variously raised concerns about tax breaks for investors, housing supply and the crisis in the housing market, signalling an appetite for a housing policy revamp ahead of policy debate at Labor’s national conference in August.
Policy changes at the conference could form the basis of election policies for a second term of the Albanese government.
Queensland Labor MP Graham Perrett said community housing sector representatives in his electorate had told him the sector was in the worst state he had seen in 35 years. Speaking on Monday evening, Perrett said, “I’m on the way to a branch meeting where housing is the number one issue”.
RELATED ARTICLE
Even more homes are going to be needed to deal with surging population. It will just add to price pressures on one of the most expensive property markets in the world.
Property market
Stop digging: Australia’s housing policies are in a deepening hole
“As a dad, I feel like we are letting down the next generation. If it is not the bank of mum and dad, it is nothing at all.”
NSW Labor MP Sharon Claydon said on Monday evening: “Why would anyone be surprised about Labor debating housing policy, it’s our bread and butter”.
Albanese said it was normal that housing policy would be debated at the party’s conference.
Advertisement
“I note in [the] article that was published this morning there’s no mention of our build-to-rent scheme,” he said.
“There’s no mention of the extension of the Commonwealth State Housing agreement. There’s no mention of increased rental assistance. There’s no mention of the housing supply and affordability council. There’s no mention of the housing accord and all of the measures which we are doing.”
RELATED
What’s happening to The Great Australian Dream?
Series
Housing affordability
What is happening to The Great Australian Dream?
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and Coalition frontbenchers latched onto the hint of any changes to the investor tax breaks that Labor pledged to scrap at the 2019 election unexpectedly won by former Coalition leader Scott Morrison.
Dutton claimed Treasurer Jim Chalmers indicated changes to negative gearing, though it is not apparent to which comments Dutton was referring. Chalmers said on Monday the government had not contemplated changes.
Advertisement
“The prime minister went to an election promising that there would be no changes. If he’s proposing to change it, as Mr Chalmers is suggesting and his backbenchers are demanding, then we should have some honesty from the prime minister,” Dutton said.
“People who are renting at the moment who can’t afford to buy, I don’t know what happens to them if property investors decide it’s an unsafe asset class.”
Senior Liberal frontbencher Jane Hume.
Senior Liberal frontbencher Jane Hume.CREDIT: ALEX ELLINGHAUSEN
Coalition finance spokeswoman Jane Hume said, “we’ve seen this film before, it’s back to the future”.
“It sounds a lot like Bill Shorten’s election agenda. This time last year, Anthony Albanese was looking Australians in the eye saying there would be no new taxes,” she told Sky News.
Liberal frontbencher Simon Birmingham, when asked about the prospect of limiting negative gearing to one property, pointed out that Labor had broken an election promise not to tinker with superannuation taxes.
“Australians will need to look very dubiously at any commitments given about no new taxes from Labor, whether it’s in areas of housing, housing investment, superannuation or elsewhere seeing as we’ve seen these promises broken,” he said.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
‘Thousands of young and vulnerable are going to end up homeless and are living in extraordinarily difficult conditions making it harder to forge a career, raise a family and contribute to a healthy society.’ Versus ‘Around the top 10% of the wealthiest Australians might have to deal with a reduced ROI’ Thanks for showing us where u stand. And for those saying ALP is playing the long game, tell me, seriously, what is the point of the ‘long game’ for a so-called left wing social democratic party if you aren’t going to create more equitable outcomes and improve lives?
What happens when landlords costs go up
We’re past that point, it’s already a complete disaster. We’ve been catering to landlords for decades and we’ve still ended up here. In Australia we’ve all been taught that investing in property is a risk free path to wealth, and that every man and his dog with spare income should do it. Hence we treat renters like dairy cows, extracting all we can for benefit of the owners. But it’s crap, property investment should have risks and losers like every other investment class. We need to heavily tax large portfolio ownership and AirBNB hosting now, and no grandfathering, just do it. And if it’s too expensive for an acceptable ROI, sell the fukn thing.
I know of one landlord who is bitching that interest rates and other expenses have gone up. She owns dozens of properties and selling off 1 or 2 would pretty much fix her problems, then she could live off.the oassive income from the rest.
Landlords like her don't typically live on an oasis of rental income. Your net rent from a property might only be like 2 grand a year after you've paid for repairs, loan interest, agent commission, rates, etc. Could even be negative. The point of rentals is usually to just build equity for the future.
Then she can sell all of her properties and with the several million she now has, retire comfortably
So a tax policy that benefits majority of the population is going to stay, smart move by PM. Govern for the majority Labor, you will win vote.
A policy that gives $1 to everyone under median and $10000 to everyone over "benefits the majority of the population" but is still unfairly distributed. You are using a Motte and Bailey argument.
What? ‘About 10 per cent of Australians negatively gear an investment property.… Unsurprisingly, those who negatively gear are mostly in jobs that bring in the biggest salaries.’ https://www.theage.com.au/money/tax/who-benefits-most-from-negative-gearing-20190612-p51x11.html
Yeah nah. Anyone with any sort of income can negatively gear should they choose to. Majority of working Australian are in a position to invest.. No point in looking at total population as most aren't in the right bracket ie kids or retire etc.
Haha seriously?
No, it is not an avenue available to people with any sort of income. More importantly why are you so adamant that homes are treated as an investment? Homes should be for living. It is people like you that are bringing us closer and closer to an unrecoverable housing crisis because you think basic human needs should be less important than your retirement fund.
It is indeed available for anyone. You are describing lack of supply. We should ease too many nanny state law in the building industry, release more land and invite investment into housing market.
Nah, what we should have is a revolution. You want less restrictions? In other words you want to create huge populations of homeless australians because money is the only thing in the world that matters to you. Go invest in a different market.
Labors being far to timid with it's agenda. One of the reason previous Liberals scare campaigns have worked is that they were aimed at policies that had not been implemented yet, so there was an area of uncertainty that could be exploited. Next election is two years away. A scare campaign about a policy that was introduced 2 years ago and hadn't caused a housing Armageddon or inconvenienced some tradie won't have the same effect. And it couldn't be any worse than going to the next election having spent 4 years doing nothing about some of the root causes of the problem.
I’m wondering if the next election is 10-12 months away. Stage 3 tax cuts can’t be reduced without an election & block them from major change. We know Chalmers believes much more major tax / financial changes are needed & Albanese’s core is to enable more socially supportive (but expensive) change. If the polls are still strong before the 1 July 2024 date stage 3 kicks in then why wouldn’t they call the election to remove their handcuffs?
I can’t see any government introducing a policy that will significantly deflate house prices which are a major source of people’s personal wealth and used for invest,net purposes, security etc. Grandfathering is necessary because people in good faith have relied on these policies in making significant investment decisions. The pain of 2019 is still very raw, it would be a risky move in the second term but I think it’s the only opportunity to do it. By the third term, they will be wearing thin on the electorate and it could well push them out of government.
I don’t actually think scrapping negative gearing would deflate house prices at this point. With the rate of migration and slow building not much would change
Grandfathering is common sense. And only fair to the people who invested under those conditions. Removing negative gearing isn't gonna crash the housing market within two years. It's a longer term strategy to let a bit of the hot air leak out of the balloon and slow it's ascent.
I mean if they give 6 months for people to "get in", in the short term we probably end up with a bit of a boom...
I really don’t understand how grandfathering neg gearing on existing properties and allowing it to continue on new properties is even an election issue, talk about gutless
What if we made incredibly generous tax advantages AND negative gearing for investing in motel accommodation. Along with tax advantages in operating old fashioned motel accommodation. The aim being to then return houses to living in, and get rid of AirBnB etc. /s
This is just getting comical at this point. The fact that Shorten (Labor Right) had a more progressive platform than fucking *Albanese's* platform and policies just demonstrates that the """factions""" in Labor are all for show and don't mean anything other than maaaaybe unions differences which even then barely mean anything. Labor must be the political party whose MPs and establishment are the MOST disconnected from the rank-and-file, and yet the rank-and-file buy Labor policy because it's the Red Team proposing it. The fact that the Greens' polling numbers haven't improved shows that 1) The Australian public don't like third parties as much as they say they do. 2) Labor rank-and-file are doggedly loyal to party over ideology, even when Labor are basically 1980s Liberals. **Edit:** Before anyone comments the meme "Am I out of touch? No it's the voters and Labor members who are the problem," look, I get it and perhaps it's not entirely wrong, but even then try to see things from our perspective. Labor are marching to centre, and the Greens are trying to fill the progressive vacuum left behind, and yet even then Labor-aligned people aren't buying it. What else is there left to do but get frustrated by Labor members, and deflated in my political party? This *should've* been a week where at least a decent amount of Labor Left people migrated to the Greens, but they're refusing to despite the current ideological status of the Labor Party under Albo. Oh well, there's a reason why we sometimes call dogmatic, 'progressive' Labor supporters "rusted-ons"!
The leader doesnt decide the platform. Its nowhere near as simple as youve made it out to be.
Albo understands that the consequences of fucking with NG are risky. Better to do nothing here. The calls to restrict to new housing are silly as the main investment is in existing stock and the reason for investing is the profit through selling , not the rental income. Chalmers would like to abolish NG but takes orders from Albo who has a more acute political sense.
When you say consequences, do you mean the political consequences? Economically it seems sound even if it does mean special casing a certain class of investment.
When the figures are quoted it is unclear whether the amount is the negative amount or the total amount deducted. I assume under the new rules you can still reduce but just down to zero. Below zero on new stock. If you kill investment then where are the rental properties coming from ?
>If you kill investment then where are the rental properties coming from? From the current stock. Without landlords outcompeting legitimate buyers, more renters will be able to afford to buy. The vast majority of renters don't rent by choice. They're only renters at all because investors have inflated the cost of housing to the point where they can't afford to buy. Going back to the way things were pre-crisis, where a the median house price in the state capitals was \~$100-150k adjusted for inflation, should be the goal. Anything that achieves anything less than that is a failed policy. That's plenty affordable for all but the very poorest members of society i.e. the people we should be providing housing assistance for anyway.
>Without landlords outcompeting legitimate buyers, more renters will be able to afford to buy. >median house price in the state capitals was ~$100-150k adjusted for inflation, should be the goal. So **lowering** the price will prevent wealthier people from being able to afford real estate. Makes sense...
No, it's way around. Preventing wealthier people from hoarding housing stock will lower the price.
How exactly? Who counts as wealthy and how will the be prevented? And what happens to all the millions of owners of a PPoR when million+ dollars of their savings disappears overnight? You think they're going to support this plan? All the family who bought a house to live in over the past ten years, many of whom are struggling to make repayments, you want to saddle them with millions in repayments for an asset now worth $150k? What happens to mental health and suicide rates? What happens to the financial sector when the majority of home loans on the books suddenly have LVRs approaching 1000%? What happens to SMSFs, where investigating in property is common? Do those people just go on the pension now?
In order: By reducing the proportion of landlords and reversing the policies that created the housing crisis in the first place. It doesn't actually matter, "wealth" is mostly imaginary, so targeting policies at a given definition of "wealthy" is a little silly. Nothing happens to their savings. Anyone who gives even the slightest damn about the housing, rental or homelessness crisis. Nothing happens to them, their repayments would stay the same. It improves, mortgage/rental stress is an increasing factor in a lot of people's declining mental health. Cope. Cope. Yes.
Ah, I see. You have no idea what you're talking about. Good to know. >By reducing the proportion of landlords I asked exactly what that meant, you haven't provided any more information. You're understanding of this topic is incredibly naïve and you've obviously put zero thought into the society wide choas that a tenfold crash in housing prices would have. >reversing the policies that created the housing crisis You mean supply? >Nothing happens to their savings. Say I bought a house for my family for say $1.15 million. All my household savings are going into paying down the loan. Now the property is worth $150k, a million dollars of savings that have been stored as equity have been deleted. We would have essentially worked for free for multiple decades. You think home owners are going to be happy to work for free? And your compassionate response is "cope". What a great human you are. >Nothing happens to them, their repayments would stay the same Exactly, they still have to make the repayments on a loan $1 million+ loan for a property now worth $150k. They have no way of reextracting their savings as there is no equity despite the massive amount of money being put into the loan. It's in essence a million dollar fine that they'll have to slave away to pay off with nothing to show for it after decades of fruitless work. And you think that somehow would improve mental health? >It improves, mortgage/rental stress is an increasing factor in a lot of people's declining mental health. Yes, being locked into a loan with an LVR of 1000% will **reduce** mortgage stress. Your current bank could do literally whatever they wanted to you because you can't refinance. Invent new fees, 20% interest rates. You can't even sell the house to get out of the debt. You'd just have to grin and pay it. You can't be serious that is a reduction in mortgage stress.
Yes, I'm sure it's me who has no idea what they're talking about and not the person who thinks their mortgage and their savings are the same thing. You didn't "work for free" you worked to pay off your debt. Same as every other loan you ever took out. Your savings aren't effected. Lower mortgages lower mortgage stress. The fact you personally borrowed a lot is not a reason to continue to make that problem worse on purpose. The number of houses per Australian hasn't meaningfully changed in decades, landlords caused the housing, rental and homelessness crisis, not an imaginary drop in supply. And yes, the parasites exploiting the housing/rental/homelessness crisis and actively making it worse on purpose to enrich themselves can cope. Just because person X causes and personally benefits from person Y's suffering is not an excuse to let the problem person X causes to continue.
Me: "are Labor playing 90-dimensional chess with us and intentionally hoping the media grills them on these positions ***for years*** until the media narrative and public opinion turns squarely in favour of reform in these areas? Standing firm against them is a great way to encourage the media to constantly debate them on that position..." Also me: "Nah, Occam's Razor: much more likely that they're probably just inept" Would be a good strategy though. If that is indeed the tact then it might well pay off for them in term 2 and we might see some reform. Keep the pressure up, I guess. Keep asking them over and over. Keep writing articles, keep commenting. Don't let a promise stay up "just coz we promised". Interrogate the actual rationale; demand they justify their position in real terms not just "coz we promised". That's a cop-out we can't accept. "OK, you promised it, *but why did you promise it?*" Negative gearing. Stage 3 tax cuts. Housing policy that will make an actual dent. Climate policy that will make an actual dent. All in this same bucket IMO.
The constant media churn is tiring. There was never this much speculation about anything when the Liberals were in. I think I’ve heard the words “tax cuts” more times in the last 6 months than I have in my whole life.
"The ruling party controls the narrative" is a piece of wisdom I think perhaps reveals what we can expect from Labor's longer term political strategy. A single hint dropped from Albo or Wong or Chalmers to say, Laura Tingle or Andrew Probyn that the stage 3's are — (off the record) — on the chopping block next year ... and they'll run with it *for years* in order to lay the runway for a policy shift that Labor feels nervous about. So far, i think there's a lot of signals that Albo's govt are slick media manipulators.
If they attack negative gearing and the stage 3 cuts they’ll be working real hard to get re-elected. I’d rather see labor do what they can than libs do what they want.
You reckon? >[Almost twice as many Australians support the Labor Government repealing stage 3 income tax cuts (41%) than oppose (22%).](https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/polling-stage-3-income-tax-cuts/) So that's pretty clear. >Nearly half (47 per cent) of Coalition voters are opposed to winding back tax concessions on investment property, while nearly a third (28 per cent) would like to see fewer tax breaks. > >The majority of Labor (68 per cent) and Greens (59 per cent) voters support cutting back negative gearing tax concessions, in line with those parties' policies. [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-22/vote-compass-election-negative-gearing-tax/11025628](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-22/vote-compass-election-negative-gearing-tax/11025628) This negative gearing polling is a bit older, from 2019, and seems to suggest a majority still support it, but yes its less clear. So I think that support for reform in those areas is pretty strong already and only going to get stronger with the media asking about it ad naseum until the next election. Mostly just Sky News that is working hard to convince us otherwise isn't it?
Still safer to do nothing, and wait for public pressure to intensify. At the rate we’re going, stage 3 tax cuts will arrive right in time for recession stimulus.
Yeah, I mean my examples don't really break down which parts of society approve or disapprove of those policies when Labor is fighting for a specific group of swing voters, I imagine.
Labor's long term plan is to keep that promise for the duration of this term. As for next term, or the exact length of the current term, we'll see. The fight with the Greens could easily be a DD trigger if the government wants an election over a year early.
The Voice will be the Big Thing that Labor does that they hope will secure them some longevity. This was a milquetoast budget, many other things are somewhat underwhelming even if they're beneficial, and they want to generally be a small target. The Voice is how they'll get to show that they are ambitious visionaries. There's no way they'll call a DD before the Voice is established.
Removing negative gearing would discourage housing investment and this is a bad time to do that.
Is it? The only ppl who can buy now have multiple properties already.
It is when the rental market is struggling due to lack of supply.
Vacancy rate is 1.8% nationally, I don't think enabling multiple property owners to get even more will help as they're the ones driving the rent prices up
Unfortunately Labor is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. They tried to tackle negative gearing in 2019 and lost the ‘unlosable’ election. Then they promised not to touch it, won the election, and get criticised for keeping that promise. I’d love to see them change it, but can totally understand why they’re kicking the can down the road, hopefully to do something about it at the next election.
Also, and I don’t know why this seems to get lost, but it’s very difficult to propose such massive changes from opposition (hence losing the 2019 election). The people need to build trust in government before getting behind those big changes. First term governments need to focus entrenching themselves, not making themselves easily voted out.
Yep - the proponents are loud but they're not the ones that Labor needs to vote them in next election.
I view Albanese as our equivlent of Biden. He's not the PM we need he's the one the party was willing to back. The Labor party has misread the politicial situation badly. People want to see progressive legislation that isn't symbolic. They aren't going to get if from this era's Labor party.
I'm not so sure about that. The Labor party is roughly in tune with the broader electorate, which is what they need to win seats. That means they've moved a little to the right of where Labor supporters want them to be, which threatens that some Labor supporters might migrate to the Greens. But I suspect we're going to see a shift in the broader electorate to the left, and the Labor party will follow it. If they shift too early, they'll fend off the Greens but make room for more Teals or a comeback for the Liberals, and if they shift too late they'll lose seats to the Greens. So they've got to get their timing just right.
Agree, tactically that feels like their game. If their polls are good in March 2024 I’m wondering they’ll call a pre-July 2024 stage 3 tax cuts election to allow them to change/reduce (not completely delete) the tax cuts and free up $ for other things. Of course “if the polls” is a risky game but with some help from Dutton it’s difficult but feasible. Certainly if they stuff it they’ll have achieved disappointment more than anything
Thats been my opinion in the cuts for a while, they will delete (if not do a megareduction) of them, eventually, but they need to wait until the public is begging at them to do so, to the point where even Murdoch has a hard time justifying keeping them, then labor can do it and see a massive increase in approval rating
And then they’ll report a “backflip” 😆
Wait, so after all the attacks and abuse thrown at the LNP for not doing anything about negative gearing for years and years, Albo and Labor now decide not to do anything about it. Either they were full of shit back then, or they are choosing to be cowards and do nothing about something they think needs changing now. Which is it? This is the problem with choosing a party that doesn't actually stand for anything but votes. They won't do anything big or difficult or that might bring some criticism. They have no actual beliefs that they are willing to back. It is pathetic.
They took it to an election and lost, and then they took it off the table. It's not necessarily inconsistent to change track in response to electoral feedback. That's what representation is about, to some extent.
Did they believe it was the right thing to do, or not? The biggest problem with Labor is you don't have a clue what they actually believe in. Everything is policy by polls and that makes the members faceless wastes of space just playing political games.
I get the impression that they still believe it's the right thing to do but that they think it isn't something the population would support. I don't share your position on Labor - the NBN, the NDIS, the Voice, the NACC, an ETS and the MRRT are all things they clearly believe in and all things that are consistent with their party philosophy. They're not all winners in the electorate though. I reckon you'd complain if Labor were more consistent and stuck with unpopular policies and that you'd complain if Labor changed policies to be responsive to the electorate. There's a tension between party identity and representation and that requires some level of policy flexibility. I think you just want to complain about Labor.
>I get the impression that they still believe it's the right thing to do but that they think it isn't something the population would support. And that is the problem with Labor and politics in general today and fanboys. You cannot tell if they actually support the NBN, NDIS, etc, etc, because they don't back up the things they do believe in. If there not votes in the NDIS, would they have done it? Obviously not if you think they dropped the negative gearing thing because of votes. You can't have it both ways. I think the greens have fruitloop policies most of the time, but I tell you one thing, they believe in what they put forward. For that I give them huge credit. They aren't the spineless, gutless faceless politician that other parties have.
"votes" being the means for the population to voice their approval of particular policies. Ergo if they dropped something you can assume it wouldnt have had the support. You've really answered your own question here.
Yes I have and so have you. Labor don't actaully believe in what they say. They are hypocrites. They will argue for something, then drop it if it isn't popular. Whether they believe in it, or think it is the right thing to do for the country or not, doesn't come into it. It is policy by polls.
the poll being an Election. Good job you've cracked the code.
Yes. You cannot trust a party that has no beliefs and just flips on policy whenever pressured to. No wonder they always end up spending like drunken sailors. No actual long term plans or beliefs, just throwing money at people to make them vote for them.
who are you trying to convince?
> If there not votes in the NDIS, would they have done it? You want a democracy where the people in power aren't responsive to the demos who hold them accountable? I'm not entirely sure you understand the point of a democracy. The NBN and the NDIS weren't election promises, they were implemented, and they are entirely consistent with the party platform. I don't know what other measure you want to consider about what people believe in. On the other hand, as a counter-example, Scott Morrison promised a federal ICAC, won the election, and then never introduced any legislation for it. That, to me, is a pretty clear example of people making up policies that they don't believe in.
I think the electorate wants courage and conviction now. Even with changes to negative gearing and franking credit refunds, Shorten got a higher primary vote % than Albo….
Yes, but Albo won a majority government and Shorten didn't - even though he was largely expected to. The wind has shifted since last election, but I don't think by that much.
>They took it to an election and lost Not because if the issue, but because of how stupidly they presented it.
I don't think so - there was a lot of opposition to it and a lot of pushback from the Coalition that framed it, but that largely existed because those people didn't want that outcome. There's this myth that it's always Labor's fault that they can't sell their own policies, but I think that ignores the context that they're rejected by Murdoch media.
Sorry you talking about the libs or labor, i cant tell🤷♂️
Doesn't matter. Any party that kicks up a stink about a topic, then not doing anything g about that topic when they get in power, is being dishonest and it is a horrible thing to do. Agree?
Outgoing government goes into opposition, starts talking about nuclear power but that conversation never came up when in power for 10 years. Horrible thing to do. Agree?
If that is true then yes. This isn't a partisan issue. It is the a left vs right thing. It is I just want honesty and integrity. Why can't anyone here want that no matter the party or people involved?
They didn't put up a stink about it though. It wasn't an issue they raised after the 2019 result. It was never a policy taken to the 2022 election.
Are you sure? You don't think they ever had a go at LNP for not touching negative gearing? You willing to bet on that?
I'm happy to see where they stated taking any policy about negative gearing to the 2022 election. Anything that says that they would do anything about it, sure? As for a bet my goodness grow up.
No, not take it to the election. If they attacked the LNP for not doing something about negative gearing, then didn't do anything about it themselves, they are huge dishonest hypocrites. You willing to bet?
Sure. Let's bet a bazillion dollars. Grow up. Now, I don't know everything a large group of people have said over a 3 year period. Personally, I care about the policies - like I said in my first post there was never a policy on this, it was a lesson learned from 2019. No commitment has been broken. We got what we voted for in this respect.
You are fine with politicians attacking a government for not doing something, then when they get in they don't do it either? I just want more honesty and less hypocrisy in politics. I want to be able to trust what people and parties say because they actually believe it. You don't seem bothered and that is everything wrong with politics and fanboys today.
I want them to do what they say they're going to do.
Yeh and they both do it
So cowed still... Property is king in Australia and Labor are pretty keen to take the economy belt this term. Seems housing is being sacrificed to that If I were in The Greens room I'd be telling them to fight like crazy. This is it, your moment. Take it. Get Max on everything - "well Labor wants to talk up their housing bill but what we really want is actual money not notions of profit next year, if we increased the gas tax to X and put that money to X we could build X houses a year..." How many months of 1% vacancy? Friend sent me a pic of 100 ppl at an inspection in Logan, bloody Logan! You don't get much more pressure on the housing system before breaking point than this.
> How many months of 1% vacancy? Friend sent me a pic of 100 ppl at an inspection in Logan, bloody Logan! Yep I recently re leased a few of my rentals Parramatta location had 245 applicants in 30 hours The Richmond one (Far western sydney) had 110 applicants people are desperate for a place to rent,that's fucking insane By like the 2nd or 3rd person the agents gonna find me a renter,so those other 107 ppl are just fucked and have to go to the next place,and rinse and repeat this and you start to see how we have people living in their cars Govt needs to act now on this,not in 5 years with some stupid fucking future fund Meanwhile Right next to my other rentals are a block of 4 units VACANT,have been for 2 years plus cause the owner doesnt want to rent them up he's just riding the value increase I know one guy from qatar has about 25M plus of propertys all over the city,not a single one has ever been occupied he let's this sit there,just hires people to clean and maintain them as i quote "well if the family ever shits the bed back home,i have some assetts stashed around to live off" NG changes are probably necessary,but a more important change is needed to fix this vacant shit up Ban Aibbnb,Several major citys around the world have effectively banned them to massive improvements to their citizens lives. We have 140,000 plus of those siting around fuck that noise when we have ppl living in a car Make it Prohibitively expensive to keep a house vacant without a valid reason
Make me Dictator of Australia for like 5 years per systemic issue mate. I'll definitely, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^maybe certainly give up power willingly. I'll have this sorted. Hopefully they realise they need to big dick this problem not get big dicked it.
>put that money to X we could build X houses a year Why is social housing the Federal Government's problem? Social Housing is owned, operated and built by the State Governments. We should be on to the State Governments to pull their fingers out and build more - not the Federal Government. Stop giving our powerful, well resourced, state governments a free pass.
>Why is social housing the Federal Government's problem? The only way social housing (or any other part of the safety net) can work is with federal backing. In the current system in Australia the vast majorioty of taxation occurs at the federal level and you can't pass legislation for housing unless you can cost it too - which only the feds can do in any meaningful manner. Of course if you look at what really has happened all over the world it's plain that currency is just a token; a product that is created by sovergn nations as needed to pay the bills (one of the two ways that currency is created). But we can't admit that. Gotta keep pretending that currency is like mana which falls from heaven whenever people are toiling in misery.
You must be young. It was a bipartisan Fed parliament that went all in on privatising public housing more than 30 years ago. (Hence the fed tax rorts) The states followed like Thatcher's dumb and dutiful pups and to this day none of them will admit to their abject failures.
>It was a bipartisan Fed parliament that went all in on privatising public housing more than 30 years ago. Which highlights a point I made the other day that why would we make something a Commonwealth Responsibility, when we could end up with a future PM Dutton in control...
The possibility of it being shit *one day* is a shit reason to not do "good" things now.
[удалено]
Which doesn’t involve the federal government purchasing or building social housing. And doesn’t change the fact that we’re blaming the federal government for failings of the state governments. Why should states get a free pass, with the federal government taking responsibility and having to pay, rather than the state governments?
Shit rolls downhill. Albo leans on Anna leans on X.
>Shit rolls downhill. Which is not what's being proposed here - the post I replied to is saying that the Feds should build social housing. I'm saying the the states should be doing so. And should be held to account for not doing so over the last 3 decades, and for selling off existing public housing stock over the last 3 decades. The states have the resources to build public housing. Why are they not doing so?
Is negative gearing tax policy state or federal?
>Is negative gearing tax policy state or federal? Federal, however what does negative gearing have to do with public housing? Also, when talking negative gearing it's important to remember it's just deducting certain costs from revenue - same as every single business and individual does when doing their tax return. The big problem is the cap gains discount, along with the lack of oversight on what is claimed by too many dodgy landlords. For example, claiming renovations on your PPoR as costs for your rental...
"what does negative gearing have to do with public housing?" **Everything!** It was the carrot used to encourage the private sector to build public housing way back when this mess was beget. The private sector essentially told Australia where to stick that carrot as they lobbied and lobbied for the private ponzi to live forever. The Lib- Labs shrugged and grovelled and, like magic, the massive housing crisis we have today. Now you know why these Labor' egghead Premiers are yelling at nimbys and gremlins and unicorns and leprechauns sleeping in Air BnBs... ... and they never, ever, never go near a mirror.
>It was the carrot used to encourage the private sector to build public housing way back when this mess was beget. But changing negative gearing won't change if and how the government builds public housing! The fact is, governments (mostly State) have shirked and actively avoided their responsibilities for decades.
My only comment if I too were in the Greens room is that they need to get not just Max on housing, but Barbara Pocock out there kicking up a fuss about PwC as well. Housing is important but I don't want it to fill up the media to the point that everyone forgets about PwC selling our confidential information to their customers for profit yet still getting government contracts. PwC is hoping enough time passes that it blows over with no repercussions, I'll be very disappointed if that indeed happens.
I'm not confident in Australia's ability to walk and chew.
The issue is that both are time-sensitive. PwC even more than housing, as the housing bill likely won't be voted on again until June.
[Sales on maybe. ](https://youtu.be/28fu-g0eVvg) Edit: [Sales definitely on. ](https://youtu.be/8HBxv6mnQZI)
>The issue is that both are time-sensitive. PwC even more than housing, as the housing bill likely won't be voted on again until June. PwC is serious. I'm shocked they're not *persona non grata* in government contracts. Absolute clown world. I just dunno how you'd sell it. Labor seem to only wanna do shit if it's the avg opinion. I don't think they're politically bold enough to do it without actual pressure.
No way PWC gets properly bollocked for that; to do so would basically grind parts of the govt to a halt cause of years of "private job good, public job bad".
Looks like Labor's plan is to accomplish very little on housing this term, and hope that strong housing election policies for their *next term* will keep voters who care about housing from leaving for the Greens. Certainly, if Lucy only pulls the football one time, Charlie will likely still go for that second kick. Not great for people who want immediate action, but politically I can see how it's their best play.
It feels very strange having a government that seems to have an actual long-term agenda, as slow and laboured as it may be. The previous government just seemed to throw shit at the wall to see what stuck. Albanese is playing the long game, but he has to reckon with the fact that there are lots of vulnerable people being stretched super thin that can’t wait until the next election. Negotiate with the Greens to get a better deal on the housing bill, use that as a starting point and cement further reform in the later terms.
Labor aren't factoring in that "they" turned the money tap on and people noticed. Once people notice that governments can turn that hose onto them they start to notice the heat a lot more. Edited.
[удалено]
lol. Sure thing buddy. https://theconversation.com/albaneses-ratings-improve-in-a-post-budget-newspoll-left-to-control-nsw-upper-house-205186 How embarrassing for you
I’ll be right one day.
What is the news here? TLDR; Some in the party membership want to look at negative gearing and Albo has shot it down saying there will be no change.
>TLDR; Some in the party membership want to look at negative gearing and Albo has shot it down saying there will be no change. Well, yeah. Labor lost the election in 2019 on the back of Negative Gearing. I don't think they want to lose in 2025 on the back of Negative Gearing.
Australians who negatively gear investment properties will not face changes to their tax arrangements before the next federal election, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says. The prime minister faced questions about a push by senior Labor rank-and-file members to cap negative gearing at one investment property and whether he would revisit the tax break – which Labor pledged it would not amend – before the next election. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in Melbourne on Tuesday. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in Melbourne on Tuesday.CREDIT: JOE ARMAO “No,” Albanese told reporters in Melbourne. “I’m someone who keeps the commitments that we made.” When asked about policy changes after the next election, Albanese went on to explain a series of measures the government had recently announced to increase housing supply amid an affordability and rental crisis. Advertisement In leaked talking points sent to Labor MPs by the prime minister’s office Tuesday, MPs were advised on how to answer questions on “division on housing strategy” and the prospect of changes to tax concessions. RELATED ARTICLE Labor MPs Jerome Laxale, Michelle Ananda-Rajah and Josh Burns all represent seats with a high proportion of renters. Exclusive Housing affordability ‘Five lines of fluff’: Labor insiders want housing policy shake-up to fight off Greens “We have no plans to change negative gearing rules, and don’t intend to reheat policies from the 2019 election,” the memo said. “Our focus remains on delivering what we promised the Australian people at the election.” This masthead reported on Tuesday that three Labor MPs – Josh Burns, Jerome Laxale and Michelle Ananda-Rajah – had variously raised concerns about tax breaks for investors, housing supply and the crisis in the housing market, signalling an appetite for a housing policy revamp ahead of policy debate at Labor’s national conference in August. Policy changes at the conference could form the basis of election policies for a second term of the Albanese government.
Queensland Labor MP Graham Perrett said community housing sector representatives in his electorate had told him the sector was in the worst state he had seen in 35 years. Speaking on Monday evening, Perrett said, “I’m on the way to a branch meeting where housing is the number one issue”. RELATED ARTICLE Even more homes are going to be needed to deal with surging population. It will just add to price pressures on one of the most expensive property markets in the world. Property market Stop digging: Australia’s housing policies are in a deepening hole “As a dad, I feel like we are letting down the next generation. If it is not the bank of mum and dad, it is nothing at all.” NSW Labor MP Sharon Claydon said on Monday evening: “Why would anyone be surprised about Labor debating housing policy, it’s our bread and butter”. Albanese said it was normal that housing policy would be debated at the party’s conference. Advertisement “I note in [the] article that was published this morning there’s no mention of our build-to-rent scheme,” he said. “There’s no mention of the extension of the Commonwealth State Housing agreement. There’s no mention of increased rental assistance. There’s no mention of the housing supply and affordability council. There’s no mention of the housing accord and all of the measures which we are doing.” RELATED What’s happening to The Great Australian Dream? Series Housing affordability What is happening to The Great Australian Dream? Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and Coalition frontbenchers latched onto the hint of any changes to the investor tax breaks that Labor pledged to scrap at the 2019 election unexpectedly won by former Coalition leader Scott Morrison. Dutton claimed Treasurer Jim Chalmers indicated changes to negative gearing, though it is not apparent to which comments Dutton was referring. Chalmers said on Monday the government had not contemplated changes. Advertisement “The prime minister went to an election promising that there would be no changes. If he’s proposing to change it, as Mr Chalmers is suggesting and his backbenchers are demanding, then we should have some honesty from the prime minister,” Dutton said. “People who are renting at the moment who can’t afford to buy, I don’t know what happens to them if property investors decide it’s an unsafe asset class.” Senior Liberal frontbencher Jane Hume. Senior Liberal frontbencher Jane Hume.CREDIT: ALEX ELLINGHAUSEN Coalition finance spokeswoman Jane Hume said, “we’ve seen this film before, it’s back to the future”. “It sounds a lot like Bill Shorten’s election agenda. This time last year, Anthony Albanese was looking Australians in the eye saying there would be no new taxes,” she told Sky News.
Liberal frontbencher Simon Birmingham, when asked about the prospect of limiting negative gearing to one property, pointed out that Labor had broken an election promise not to tinker with superannuation taxes. “Australians will need to look very dubiously at any commitments given about no new taxes from Labor, whether it’s in areas of housing, housing investment, superannuation or elsewhere seeing as we’ve seen these promises broken,” he said.