Unpopular Opinions on Housing, Petrol and Cost of Living

The 2022 budget has been nothing but a blatant attempt to ignore the real problems for another 6 months or so. I'm not an economist but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion lol. So here's my brainstorm of ideas that make more sense to me.

Scrap negative gearing - housing is a necessity and treating it as an investment is shortsighted and a disservice to future generations especially if you're not at the least a mega-millionaire and can afford to purchase all of your kids and their kids a roof to live under. Also, less money tied up to mortgages means more money to spend or to actually invest into business etc
Scrap home buyer grant (but not without scrapping negative gearing first) - not a real solution just an attempt to shift the problem to another day.
Reduce or even scrap capital gains tax from non-housing related investments

Forget about cutting fuel excise and instead provide grants and scrap GST and LCT for electric cars. Maybe even proved interest-free loans for EVs like ACT.
Invest in more EV friendly infrastructure and renewable energy that wouldn't be affected whenever dictators in other countries wake up and choose violence.
Provide incentives/grants/tax benefits to install solar and battery storage for homes and small businesses - this would also reduce cost of energy

These are some of the things I think about a lot - am I wrong?


  • +58

    Sounds good. A tax refund or $250 will pay for a night out or a few bills or a big grocery shop if the cupboard and freezer are bare. It’s going to do nothing about the cost of housing

    • +11

      But one need to be receiving centerlink payments for that, what about those middle-low income earners who dont get centerlink,
      no $250 for them (like me)

      • +7

        I think I just figured the solution.
        If only all the politicians in parliament was half as ethical or concerned about their fellow citizens well-being as the people here. And if they (all parties) joined together to brainstorm the solution, just like the people here are doing. They could craft something that works. We would have the answer, set goals, and governing bodies all done by the end of this year. It would be a group effort by all the big and small political parties, and no points for any single politician or their career. And we could just stop talking about it, and actually be solving it.

        So maybe the most efficient way to fix this… is perhaps not to fix the system directly, but fix the people who are in control of the system. And therein lies the hart of the problem, and perhaps the limitations with "democracy".

        • -7

          Rather than pay people a baby bonus we could give them a tax break. On the other hand we could pay people to get tubal ligation or vasectomy. That way we encourage people who can afford to raise children to procreate but dissuade those who can't.

          • +11

            @Scrooge McDuck: I'm pretty sure there's a word for encouraging the sterilisation of poor people, but I can't quite put my tongue on it…

            Would do a lot more by making childcare free, similar to public schools, so that working parents are able to spend more time working

            • -6


              I'm pretty sure there's a word for encouraging the sterilisation of poor people, but I can't quite put my tongue on it…

              Sensible, responsible, humane.

            • +7


              so that working parents are able to spend more time working

              The issue that needs working on is not that parents don't work enough.
              It's that parents can't afford to parent enough.

              If it wasn't necessary, in a lot of cases, for both parents to work then there would be no need for the childcare industry and government handouts.

              Why do people see the answer as get people spending more time working rather parents spending more time parenting?

              • @Grunntt: Do you think it should be a case that both parents work part-time?
                Or maybe work less days, longer shifts, split times?

                For example:
                Parent 1: M-T-W, 10am-8pm, 30hrs total
                Parent A: T-F-S, 6am-4pm, 30hrs total
                Both Parents: 60hrs total, decent coverage of contact and looking after kids, house, affairs…

                • +3


                  Do you think it should be a case that both parents work part-time?
                  Or maybe work less days, longer shifts, split times?

                  No. My point was that there should not be the need for both parents to have to choose between parenting and having enough money to survive on.
                  For some reason now, that its' good for 'the economy' is the be all and end all rather than for the good of society.
                  How did the values get so twisted?

                  • @Grunntt: I suspect the status quo changed when both parents decided to work whilst leaving their child to be raised with the child's grandparents and/or relatives, child care etc

                    Soon more people went down this path and it soon became the norm.

                    Just like how double incomes are buying properties which has left single incomers behind.

                    • +1

                      @pogichinoy: You seem to be repeating the common understanding that the effect is actually the cause rather than the way it was.

                      • +1

                        @Grunntt: People need to understand that the status quo changes over time, and those that do not adapt, are left behind.

                        It would be interesting to see how a mandate would be forced upon double income households to help the single income households.

                        • +5

                          @pogichinoy: Having a joint tax return would help single income households as it would reduce their taxes. Sadly, it does not exist in Australia.

                          • @Mistredo: Can you elaborate? What do you mean by having a joint tax return if you're single income?

                            • +4

                              @cookie2: In some countries (the US and many EU countries), you can do a joint tax return if you are married to someone who has no income or low income and reduce your taxes. Not in Australia.

                              • @Mistredo: Huh, didn't know, thanks for sharing. Seems like a fair system too.

          • -1

            @Scrooge McDuck: Ohhhhhh I've thought that so many times! Give the ferals 5k to get vasectomy. Lot's of problems solved.

  • +47

    Scrap negative gearing

    Nope. not going to happen. You know the number of politicians that have properties and the boomers that vote for them?

    These are some of the things I think about a lot - am I wrong?

    you're not wrong, it's just not going to happen. Just like Amazon, Google, Tesla being taxed properly across the globe and billionaires not being a thing while people live paycheck to paycheck.

    • +22

      Ah look I'm not going to hold my breath but someday we need to banish boomers from imposing their out of touch ideologies on us. I guess we are starting to see some changes like with the great resignation but I also see a lot of Millenials who just accept whatever the boomers say.

      • +1

        That my friend, is called a revolution

      • +2

        Why all this hate for the great mass of boomers who are somehow inflicting this on the poor?
        How about do some real research and see how these decisions were made .
        Politicians are happy to see intergenerational rage that keeps the blame away from them.
        (politicians are not primarily boomers before someone jumps in and tries to claim that as a justification).

    • +11

      You know its not just 'boomers' that own IP right?

      • +51

        I kept reading that as "intellectual property" rather than "investment properties" and was thoroughly confused. +1

        • +5

          GenX which grew up with MTV, SNES, and GameBoy have been pretty quiet since the whole Boomers vs Millennials hit mainstream. I feel like they might get targeted by the growing GenZ population in a couple more years. History rhymes after all.

          • -6

            @Kangal: arent gen X the parents of Gen z ? do gen x have strong feelings about anything other than getting stoned and skateboarding/surfing?
            depending where you grew up, maybe a little more eco friendly ideologies ? (or just continuing greenwashing turds?)

    • +4

      Nope. not going to happen

      Didn't the ALP take this to the 2019 election?

      • +27

        They did and it cost them the election from the fear mongering that ensued.

          • +4


            Scraping neg gearing has huge negative consequences to a large percentage of population

            Didn't they promise to grandfather existing investments and only scrap it for new ones? This would only inconvenience some future plans, but nothing else.

            • @MrTweek: Note I am not negatively geared. My property is positively geared, So doesn't particularly hurt me one way or the other, BUT the reality is grandfathering will NOT help. The issue is a negatively geared property will have been purchased on the idea of asset growth, if the idea is to stop housing growth then whether it is grandfathered or not it will be devastating to those that are negatively geared and most of that will be felt by the average mum and dad that have purchased a negatively geared IP in the hopes of improving their financial position.

              • -1

                @gromit: Good. Crash the housing market. Send double homeowners bankrupt. Give everyone else a chance at owning property.

                • -2

                  @bomberswarm2: won't just be double home owners, will be anyone with a mortgage.

                  • +1

                    @gromit: Also banks won't be lending out credit like it's candy.

                    No one who is your average wage earner will be able to buy. We'd most likely hoping to keep our jobs since a housing market crash will crash the economy.

                    • +1

                      @pogichinoy: exactly, anyone that thinks a housing crash will be good for them to finally get in the market is delusional, if they can't afford now, banks won't touch them in a falling market.

              • -1

                @gromit: That's not what grandfathering means.

                The idea is that everyone who already owns an investment property can continue to do negative gearing. But any property that is purchased AFTER the rule comes into place will not be eligible to negative gearing.

                It won't have an immediate effect on the market, but is a rather smooth long term transition to slowly reduce the problem over time without pissing of existing investors.

                • +1

                  @MrTweek: It is delusional to think it won't have an almost immediate effect on the market for both house prices and increased rental rates.

                  PS: I don't know what the right answer is to this issue, but we know from history that just dropping it/grand fathering it is not the answer.

        • +7

          lol yeah it was my point. Lib/Lab ArE thE sAmE but only Labor had the guts to ask yo, is this actually fair?

        • +8

          It's a shame they lost. Hard hitting but necessary changes that would end this whole hype of property investment as some cash cow vs a place to live. The very fact even if grandfathered it still relies on capital price rises outstripping running costs and inflation show it's practically a ponzi scheme.

          The only "acceptable" policies being the stupid grant ones that deliberately dump more money onto the fire …

          • @dufflover: It's the same everywhere around the Western world tho.

            ie residential property is treated as an investment vehicle.

            • @pogichinoy:

              residential property is treated as an investment vehicle.

              the way to fix that is to make it a more risky investment.
              stimulate more new housing builds so the current stock doesn't raise in value so quickly.
              encourage growth of employment in regional centres so the population has less gravity towards the cities.

              I wonder if negative gearing gains could be tracked and paid back when the investment is eventually sold for capital gain.

              • @Antikythera: Agree with everything.

                A lot of the cost is to do with the LGA council and costs of infrastructure. Unfortunately labour here is quite high so I don't know how we can reduce costs to build a new suburb, run power, gas, and water, etc However we can reduce the red tape in the legal documents for transferring ownership titles, processing development applications, etc

                Oh and of course, abolish stamp duty.

              • @Antikythera: It kind of is.

                Any negative gearing which is a product of a depreciation schedule will reduce the cost base of the property, and as such will increase the tax you pay at the time of sale (which has a 50% cgt discount).

    • +22

      You could always just grandfather the existing homes that are negatively geared.

      This works for everyone, the ‘boomers’ who have their negatively geared properties don’t miss out - so there is no loss to them.

      But, for the first home buyer, they no longer have to compete against the cashed up boomer who can handle the loss. So house prices go down.

      Who looses in this scenario, the property investor who no longer gets infinite capital gain on their properties (but they do keep ng)


      The person who now looses the opportunity to purchase a property to ng, but profits from the capita gain. These people can then invest their money in other vehicles like the share market, stating a new business themselves etc.

      Straight away, property becomes more affordable

      • +15

        I remember the labor party dropped this policy because they thought the voters were against it and it lost the previous election for them. (Turns out it was because the pensioners were scared of losing their franking credits via a scare campaign from the LNP.)

        Polling actually suggests that a majority of Australians are for the scrapping of negative gearing, it was more damage control from the Labor policy makers. Having said that this election (given the large swings from state elections) now would be a good time for Labor to go to the election with it.

      • +1

        Most neg gearing is not with boomers, it is gen x. Grandfathering doesn't help them as they are left with an asset that isn't growing, neg gearing only works on a rising value. So rents have to go up to compensate or they need to sell and take a loss. I am sure this will be negged as people just don't like reality, in the end someone pays and it is hardly surprising the people you wanted to pay voted against it.

        • +5

          Negative gearing benefits the rich far more than everyday Australians, analysis shows

          "As soon as you start thinking about where most of the benefits in dollar numbers and in percentage terms are actually going, the answer is overwhelmingly that they are going to doctors and lawyers, not nurses and cleaners."

          Data shows the average tax benefit that surgeons received from negatively geared property was $4161 in 2012-13, followed by anaesthetists ($3353), lawyers ($1788), mining engineers ($1336) and finance managers ($1247).

          But cleaners only received an average tax benefit of $41, while sales assistants ($42), hairdressers ($167), nurses ($254) and teachers ($327) fared little better

          • @ThithLord: And that doesn't contradict what I said. How many doctors lawyers anaesthetists and mining engineers do you think there are in aus? A hint the combined total is less than the number of nurses or teachers. Yes rich that will do better out of it, but the ones that will hurt the most from its removal are not the rich.

          • +6

            @ThithLord: I mean this is what a progressive tax system does, the medium salary of a surgeon in aus is $167K and the high range is $316K.
            taxable income: $316,000
            Income tax payable: $112,867
            Medicare levy payable: $6,320

            A high school teacher is $73k with a high of $102k.
            taxable income: $102,000
            Income tax payable: $23,617
            Medicare levy payable: $2,040

            Any tax deduction is going to have a bigger impact when it gets claimed at the higher tax rate.

            The claim is that NG costs the country 13 billion. How much of that 13 billion is housing as opposed to shares should we pull NG from share purchases?
            That 13 billion will still be claimed once the property becomes positive geared as under no NG scenario the losses get carried forward until they can be offset against gains.

            The real shame is the multinationals like Exon Mobile (https://www.michaelwest.com.au/exxonmobil-australia-pty-ltd-…) and others

            4 year total income $33,170,960,652
            4 year taxable income $0
            Margin 0.00%
            4 year tax payable $0
            Tax Rate 0.00%

            really puts some wage slave claiming a couple thousand on their IP into perspective.

          • -1

            @ThithLord: And doctors invested what, a hundred thousand dollars in their education and many years to become doctors… cleaners and hairdressers lol, they may as well write an article complaining that 14 year olds don’t earn as much as 50 year olds.

            What a ridiculous news article from smh. Just like their one today saying millions of taxpayers will be $1500 worse off next FY because the ‘TEMPORARY’ LMITO is being removed… and like when they said the wealthy are getting a tax cut because a TEMPORARY emergency tax on the wealthy was removed.

            They like their ‘facts’ to be sprinkled with outrage, to make problems out of nothing.

            • @Benno007: Yeah facts are facts.

              I.e. in a couple of years time anyone earning over $200k will be 9k a year better off (in perpetuity) while low and middle income earners will be worse off due to the removal of their paltry temporary offset

      • +3

        Do people not understand that negative gearing and capital gains applies to much more than just investment properties?

        Suggesting a carve out of property only could have some rather interesting and probably unintended consequences.

        Anyone like to spell out how this could work because I only see people critical of the 'boomers' without much, if any, understanding of financial markets/investing/taxation etc.

    • +17

      Indexed captial tax on people who own more than 2 properties. i.e. 1% on the 3rd property. 2% on 4th properties so on and so forth.

      • -4

        The cost will be pushed on to the tenants.

        • +11

          Not how the rental market works.

          Do the tenants get a rent decrease when the landlord pays off the loan or goes down a tax bracket? They're not directly related.

          Whether such a proposal would result in a difference in supply would have to be modelled

          • +1

            @BobLim: Well, probably not visible from Melbourne but in Canberra, a decent 3br house rent is like 700-800 per week. Just across the border in Queanbeyan, a similar if not better house is like 500-600 per week. Where do you think the $200 per week coming from? You've guessed it - ACT has a land tax that fleeces at least $5-6k per annum from landlords and that all gets passed on to tenants. Due to that tax, not many investors are left in the territory, so rents will only go up. Why is it that, renters can't pay you to say? Well, with a <0.5% vacancy rate nobody gives a rat's ass about what they can and cannot, there is not enough stock.

            • +5

              @ZloyKrys: That has nothing to do with it. The jobs are all in Canberra. The lower cost in Queanbeyan is because of having to drive every day or take very long public transport.

          • @BobLim: What you have just said has nothing to do with a tax across all properties, you are talking about an individual owner.

            With a tax or cost that hits all properties evenly the cost will be passed on because everyone incurs the same cost. In your example when one single landlord's sutuation changes, the competitive landscape doesn't change at all.

            If you removed land tax, rents would drop because all the landowners would be competitng for tenants against each other.

            It's not quite that simple because the ratio of home ownership and investment ownership would probably change as well, but generally a cost for all is passed on to the consumer.

            • +1


              With a tax or cost that hits all properties evenly

              That's not what was proposed. @kfcfatfat said extra taxes for the third property onwards, i.e. disincentivising a minority of landlords (as does land tax).

              No idea how reliable these stats are, but if we take it as read, it simply means that the ~636k landlords in this category have a higher cost base than the 1.57M with only one IP, and any prospective investors who may also compete.

              If the same person owns an entire town's rental stock, or there are effectively no vacancies, sure, they can pass on the increase, otherwise in the short term they may have to just wear the lower yield

            • +1

              @dave999: @dave999

              Not evenly. Indexed. 3rd property is 1%, 4th is 2%, 5th is 5%, 6th is 10% etc…….. annually

              So how high can you pass on to the renters?

              If rent is higher than mortgage repayment then they will just buy.

              If rental income is not worth while with the tax then investor will sell.

              • +2


                If rent is higher than mortgage repayment then they will just buy.

                Not without a significant deposit you won't.

          • @BobLim:

            Do the tenants get a rent decrease when the landlord pays off the loan

            Other than anecdotally do you know they do or don't?

            I only have one direct example of this.
            My neighbour has not had a rental increase in the last 6 years as the owner is approaching the point of having paid out their loan.
            They are now paying significantly under market rates so yes, it does sometimes happen.

            My own biases make me think this does not happen very often but I have not seen any actual data to support that opinion.

        • Nope @rektrading.

          With my proposal, first there will be a minor drop of house price becuase of investors selling some of their properties. This will help first home buyer to get in the market.

          The investors should not lose money (or little) from selling their properties, unless they bought multiple properties in the past two years.

          As for rental, if more people are able to buy a property then they are out of the rental market, hence decease demand in rental and drives the rental down.

      • This already exists, it is called land tax. It is 1.6% over $822,000 and 2.0% over $5,026,000 - in NSW at least.

        So it is basically exactly what you are proposing.

        • This is different to what I purposed. What I purposed is tax on third and more properties with no band. So if your third properties is valued at $400k, you need to pay $4k tax. if your fourth property is also valued at $400k, then you paid $8k tax. 1.6% over $822k hardly makes a impact to the problem.

          The benefits of my scheme are:

          1. Average mom and dad investor can own an extra property without being taxed.
          2. Discourage people to over invest in existing dwelling for rental income.
          3. Encourage investors to build new dwelling and sell instead, subsequently increase house availability.
          4. Encourage investors to diverse their investment.
      • Pretty much all states have a land tax, which once you own 2+ properties is likely going to kick in.

    • Man those politicians and boomers have to die some time…

    • +3

      If you cant neg gear a property you may need to raise rent to cover shortfall.

      You'll always be able to claim costs against the income it generates though

    • +12

      I disagree that EV's are a luxury item. It's a means of transportation that if supported appropriately will soon become the vehicle of choice going into the future. Supporting means making more charging stations available along highways and looking at ways to increase the mileage a car can travel before being recharged. As for the "but you burn fossil fuels to charge them" argument which is true to a degree, we should be looking at ways to incorporate renewable energy into households and businesses to charge them.

    • +24

      If you cant neg gear a property you may need to raise rent to cover shortfall.

      Or they could sell the property seeing that they can't afford to own it.

      But then you want to scrap CGT sounds like you want to screw over residential investors while people who invest in shares/crypto get loved.

      Why should property investors get all the preferential treatment, especially considering that rising property prices are counterproductive to a good economy? Also, all investments innately have a risk of returning a loss. Why should the rest of the society bare the brunt so property owners can forgo this risk?

      Im guessing you want to cash out some crypto.

      I don't invest in crypto. It's above my level of understanding

      EV's are a luxury item they should be taxed. No one needs a EV nor is a EV even suitable for everyone. Again would benefit the yuppies in the citys while screwing the people that live elseware.

      71% of Australians live in major cities. Regionalist policies that come at a cost to the majority is actually detrimental to the prosperity of a nation (I do agree that there are circumstances where a regionalist policy is needed but EV infrastructure isn't one). Also if good EV infrastructure is implemented even some people living "elseware" will benefit. EV can tow larger loads btw. Also, EV is a luxury the same way a Nissan Micra is a luxury, except one is more emission friendly and self-sufficient albeit at a much higher upfront cost.

      • You can claim losses on shares/crypto as well. I know people who claimed a masssive losses on crypto.

        So you invest in shares/ETF's then.

        any changes to neg gearing would need to be phased in or limits placed (eg after 2025 any new IP over 2 per person are exepmt from CGT) they did something similar in 2012 for international selling off aussie IP's (including expats)

        I think renters resume all landlords are scum.

        But a mum/pop invester with 1 extra property loosing money to keep a roof over your head is not the end of the world on the likely hood when they sell they may get a return on there investment.

        If it helps i own 1 IP 400k worth about breaking even (netural geared) give or take 1k its certinally not worth my time or effort and if I didn't have a good tennent it would be gone.

        Have crypto and ETF's

        An EV is 100% luxury item, no one has ever needed a EV however people have always needed cars.

        Just how much do you expect a EV to tow i dont think many would ever do over 750kg

        With the move from MWH, house prices and floods I believe more will move to reginal areas.

        It should not be the govts problem to fund your purchases gicing out millions in loans at 0% will tie up funds from other areas.

        While i do agree some perks are needed 0% loans is crazy

        • +4

          You do you know that an EV can be a car right? Saying you need a car but not EV is like saying you need bloodletting but not surgery that's sterile and with anaesthesia.

          So you don't want governments to fund for a stable future, but you also don't want to stop supporting your decision to purchase a property? How is that not tieing up funds from other areas?

          It boggles my mind that you are either unable or just unwilling to see the hypocrasies in what you just said.

        • +3

          I agree EV is a bit of luxury now however we need to scrap LCT, when it was introduced it's supposedly the tax that help protecting our car manufacturing industries now that's gone. it's a pure money grab in my opinion.

        • Specifically addressing towing - Don't fall for Scotty(from marketing)'s lies. The Polestar 2 had a braked tow capacity of 1500kg. Ioniq 5 & EV6 - 1600kg.

        • The losses claimed on shares is vastly different.

          If you purchase a new property, you can depreciate 2.5% per year. This means 10k+ per year you deduct from earnings without spending any $, and not even accounting for interest. Early on investment properties will lose money on paper, but provide cashflow.

          For shares you can't even deduct the trade cost of purchase until you sell the investment.

      • I don't invest in crypto. It's above my level of understanding

        Crypto investors get a 50% CGT discount for holding crypto for more than 12 months before they sell it.

        Some crypto investors I know changed from voting alp to lnp last election because apparently (according to them) this discount was going to be reduced.

    • Anyone who NEEDS negative gearing should not be investing. We as taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidising poor investment decisions.

      By no means am I saying you can’t claim expenses, but certainly not more than you make from the asset.

    • +12

      Still a better choice than the pro billionaire party.

      • +1

        Billionaires aren't the ones that are buying $1M homes in burbs. They're collecting $10M mansions with a waterfront.

        $1M is the playground for white-collars and tradies.

        • +4

          no they are not. they are buying the houses in the burbs to reduce supply and therefore to push up prices so they can sell their previously cheap burb houses for profit.

          • +2

            @altomic: It sounds like a good plan.

            I would do the same if I was into real estate.

          • +2


            no they are not. they are buying the houses in the burbs to reduce supply and therefore to push up prices so they can sell their previously cheap burb houses for profit.

            Any chance you could share the source for your assertions? I would genuinely like to read it.

        • billionaires are the ones bribing councillors and state govt officials to ensure that there's plenty of greenfields land to build McMansions on and continue the everlasting sprawl.

          the people who buy $1m homes are suckers who are getting done in by the grift.

          oh and really the $1m home comment should really be a $2m home nowadays. $1m wouldn't get you anything freestanding in Greater Sydney.

          • @jrowls: $1M homes today will be $2M in 10Y to 20Y.

            The only thing people need to do is buy and hodl. That's it.

          • @jrowls:

            $1m wouldn't get you anything freestanding in Greater Sydney.

            I just searched realestate.com and entered $500,000 - $850,000, house, southwest Sydney and ended up with 571 results.
            Western Sydney with same parameters gave 742 available.

            Why can you not buy anything freestanding in Sydney for under $1m?

            • @Grunntt: Have you had a closer look? I did the same search and found a lot of over 55s accom, new McMansions over an hour from the cbd via public transport or car (and these were all touching 1m anyway, probably over it once you include other fees etc), and ‘houses’ that should really be townhouses - zero setback and no yard is not a house.

              I’m not saying everyone should live in a house or that they should be affordable, but we have jumped the shark on 1m getting you a house that’s located somewhere accessible, has jobs, and is genuinely freestanding.

              • +1

                @jrowls: So, to support your unsupported assertion you went from

                $1m wouldn't get you anything freestanding in Greater Sydney.


                1m getting you a house that’s located somewhere accessible, has jobs, and is genuinely freestanding.
                over an hour from the cbd via public transport or car

                including your own definition of what a house actually is and what Greater Sydney actually encompasses

                houses’ that should really be townhouses - zero setback and no yard is not a house.

                The additional qualifiers are definitely not what you asserted originally.

                • @Grunntt: Should it really be surprising that a throwaway sentence needs caveating to be 100% irrefutable?

                  The caveats I provided above encompass “liveability”. I see no point including houses that don’t have liveability.

                  • @jrowls:

                    Should it really be surprising that a throwaway sentence needs caveating to be 100% irrefutable?

                    No, but throwaway statements need to be backed by some sort of facts otherwise it's just stoking resentment and anger towards others for no good reason.
                    It's not difficult to provide some information that backs up a statement as your followon posts show so why not put them in originally rather than just post an inaccurate generalisation?

                    The caveats I provided above encompass “liveability”. I see no point including houses that don’t have liveability.

                    Your caveats include parameters that contradict your first generalisation - eg nowhere in Greater Sydney but then must be within an hour of the CBD.

    • +11

      Economy is already wrecked from 9 looong years of LNP incompetence.

      • It can always get worse.

        People shouldn't try and 🔧 something that isn't broken.

        • +5

          Yeah true it's broken but it could be more broken. So you pretty much saying we should fix the problem asap or else we'll be in a lot of 💩

          • +2

            @bigpoppa: 20% of Australian households may think that it isn't broken. It would be in their best interest to vote against anything that will devalue their assets.

            January 24, 2021
            How many Australians own an investment property?
            Latest, Property InvestmentBy: Kate Forbes

            There are 2,207,905 property investors in Australia
            This means around 20% of Australian households hold an investment property and 80% don’t.

            I just link. I don't fact check.

            • @rektrading: How is something that benefits 20% at the detriment of some that make up 80% is any good? Don't just link, next time think.

              • +2

                @bigpoppa: I'm indifferent to negative gearing.

                People buy hard assets, it goes up in value and they make a profit. Good for them.

                Anything else is noise.

Login or Join to leave a comment