In the lead up to an election in Australia, one party proposed getting rid of the generous negative gearing benefits given to property investors. The other party was committed to keeping them. So they tried a "Think of the children!" argument: they found a family where the "investor" was a young couple buying a house for their baby.
The media tore that to shreds: why should Australia care about a family buying a house for an infant when adults are struggling?
The party favouring keeping negative gearing won t
I think the only way we are going to make housing affordable is to ditch negative gearing.
I think the only way to do it is to stop allowing it for new aquisitions but keeping older ones. give existing people 5 years before its cut from them too.
Boomer (Score:-1)
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
In the lead up to an election in Australia, one party proposed getting rid of the generous negative gearing benefits given to property investors. The other party was committed to keeping them. So they tried a "Think of the children!" argument: they found a family where the "investor" was a young couple buying a house for their baby.
The media tore that to shreds: why should Australia care about a family buying a house for an infant when adults are struggling?
The party favouring keeping negative gearing won t
Re:Boomer (Score:2)
I think the only way we are going to make housing affordable is to ditch negative gearing.
I think the only way to do it is to stop allowing it for new aquisitions but keeping older ones. give existing people 5 years before its cut from them too.