It would make house prices increase by more than the maximum amount people could withdraw
It would cost the government $1 trillion in the long run
It would leave people with $200k less in retirement savings
It would significantly affect the returns on all superannuation as funds would need to keep more cash reserves uninvested so it is available for withdrawal
Spud’s goal isn’t to make life better for the average Australian. All the listed negatives are positives for the LNP - make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. Luckily, he’s thick as shit and the average Australian can see what a terrible idea it is to spend your future.
I think we need a video on why it would be a good idea, because I can’t think of one (at least for the general public). I mean it is a good idea from the perspective of people with multiple properties and mortgages even on their own home because it will keep prices high
How about we ban owning multiple properties, remove any incentives for property as an investment, enforce quality building standards, and use government funds to build affordable housing.
People will just go back to what they did before negative gearing: Make businesses and move their properties into that. “Oh, your business made a loss paying more interest than it brought in as rent, I guess you can write that off as a loss and not pay tax on your income”.
The result is the same, but it’s more work for the ATO.
My old boss still had his holiday home under the business, because it’s how he did it before Negative Gearing was a thing.
Make it so that interest on money borrowed against residential real estate can’t be declared as a business loss then. That’ll also make speculating housing investment funds a bad idea
Sorry, I was being a bit tongue in cheek there. The economy will continue to be shit for people who struggle to afford home ownership whether or not they can use superannuation to help get their foot in the door.
Sure, but by the time those solutions are in place, another generation of people will have been denied the chance to own property, which has generational consequences on economic and educational outcomes for those families.
The answer is short term relief combined with long term change. Denial of short term relief because of hypothetical long term strategies that aren’t going to be implemented helps no one.
Super is not the short term relief you are looking for though… More people floating around with more money would just push up the prices even more, offsetting any benefit from withdrawing super.
Now if we started talking about increasing supply perhaps, that would be a different story.
That’s just a stupid comment. You could take the 1 trillion dollars it would cost the Australia government and spend it on any number of things to make ownership easier.
You could take the 1 trillion dollars it would cost the Australia government and spend it on any number of things to make ownership easier.
That’s true. The issue is, they’re not going to implement any of those ideas…
So people who can’t enter the housing market remain fucked over, because the imperfect ideas that might actually get off the ground get set aside in favour of better ideas that will never see the light of day.
Add comment