I’d say a lot of them have downvoted based on what sounds like a fervent defence of something most of us are happy to see be taxed or removed.
None of what you say sounds like bad news to me. I’d say there’s probably a lot of others who think the same thing, and are behind this centrist workers party with this part of the budget.
I have no problem with other parts outside housing being reviewed and amended, but these tax concessions should never have been applied to housing in the first place. Labor is doing the right thing by removing them.
Labor were soft. Had it been ‘me’, the grandfathering would have been limited to five years and there would have been investment property ownership limits brought in by 2030 as well.
Why would anyone want the CGT discount removed from shares and other non-housing investments though? Those affect renters too. It’s just another tax grab on money that the government has no right to tax.
I’m fine with removing the discount on housing, but there’s no justifiable reason to remove it from everything else. If it’s about housing like they said, why does it apply to shares?
They’ve also done nothing to address the actual biggest issue - supply and demand. Nothing to increase supply, nothing to decrease demand.
How does CGT on shares and non housing investments affect renters?
Supply and demand are the confected excuses. We have plenty of available dwellings and the issue is access for low income earners (well any earner below middle class in some parts of the country) and that’s been created by these tax concessions and removal of public supply to those who don’t qualify for bank approval.
Like I said before, I’m happy with inquiry on shares and non housing investments. I don’t care if moneymakers want to make more money, just not on crucial services like housing, health and energy.
We don’t though, not in the areas that people want/need to live. Most people can’t just pack up their life and move 5 hours away because there are a lot more empty shitbox houses out in the sticks.
How does CGT on shares and non housing investments affect renters?
Are you asking me, or was that your attempt to explain how it does?
Yeah we do. That’s easily looked up and found as well. In the needed areas too. Some are left vacant by investors.
The problem is access.
Are you…
Well, kind of, because they don’t really. Housing policy isn’t dependent on taxing investments elsewhere. If it’s anything like you offered trying to explain racism don’t bother.
Show us then. Show me the thousands of vacant homes in inner city brisbane/melbourne/sydney.
Well, kind of, because they don’t really.
My point was that they don’t, yet the government removed the CGT discount on shares and non housing investments while saying it was to help with house prices. They lied, as they always do.
If it’s anything like you offered trying to explain racism don’t bother.
I’m assuming you’re the person that doesn’t understand that making fun of identity politics and their love of stereotypes isn’t racism?
I’d say a lot of them have downvoted based on what sounds like a fervent defence of something most of us are happy to see be taxed or removed.
None of what you say sounds like bad news to me. I’d say there’s probably a lot of others who think the same thing, and are behind this centrist workers party with this part of the budget.
I have no problem with other parts outside housing being reviewed and amended, but these tax concessions should never have been applied to housing in the first place. Labor is doing the right thing by removing them.
Labor were soft. Had it been ‘me’, the grandfathering would have been limited to five years and there would have been investment property ownership limits brought in by 2030 as well.
Why would anyone want the CGT discount removed from shares and other non-housing investments though? Those affect renters too. It’s just another tax grab on money that the government has no right to tax.
I’m fine with removing the discount on housing, but there’s no justifiable reason to remove it from everything else. If it’s about housing like they said, why does it apply to shares?
They’ve also done nothing to address the actual biggest issue - supply and demand. Nothing to increase supply, nothing to decrease demand.
How does CGT on shares and non housing investments affect renters?
Supply and demand are the confected excuses. We have plenty of available dwellings and the issue is access for low income earners (well any earner below middle class in some parts of the country) and that’s been created by these tax concessions and removal of public supply to those who don’t qualify for bank approval.
Like I said before, I’m happy with inquiry on shares and non housing investments. I don’t care if moneymakers want to make more money, just not on crucial services like housing, health and energy.
We don’t though, not in the areas that people want/need to live. Most people can’t just pack up their life and move 5 hours away because there are a lot more empty shitbox houses out in the sticks.
Are you asking me, or was that your attempt to explain how it does?
Yeah we do. That’s easily looked up and found as well. In the needed areas too. Some are left vacant by investors.
The problem is access.
Well, kind of, because they don’t really. Housing policy isn’t dependent on taxing investments elsewhere. If it’s anything like you offered trying to explain racism don’t bother.
Show us then. Show me the thousands of vacant homes in inner city brisbane/melbourne/sydney.
My point was that they don’t, yet the government removed the CGT discount on shares and non housing investments while saying it was to help with house prices. They lied, as they always do.
I’m assuming you’re the person that doesn’t understand that making fun of identity politics and their love of stereotypes isn’t racism?