Pretty sure we have some property investors on here.
But my take with the negative gearing is that it basically gives the investors the same sort of deals as most other businesses.
If you take a loss it is claimable against your other income.
I dont really see it as a huge issue.
No I dont have investment properties.
My parent used to own 3 but none of them was negative geared.
Welfare is a big problem. It takes somewhere around 1/3 of government spending.
I dont want to see the aged pensioners affected.
What I would like to see is the benefits for people with kids reduced.
I worked with a bloke on a job years ago. We were on 720 take home a week which was very good coin for 1996.
He was losing money going to work. He had 5 kids at home and could bring in 740 a week on welfare.
I think that is ridiculous.
Most other jobs in related work were taking home around 600 to 650 a week at the time.
To make a career out of living on welfare is immoral in my mind.
Another friend of mine was a social security investigator in the late 80s.
He told me there were many families in the area where the 3rd generation was on welfare.
None of them had ever worked a day in their lives.
When Austar Foxtel came, the highest number of rooftops with satellite dishes was in the high unemployment commission areas.
My parents both worked good jobs. But they could never justify the expense of satellite TV.
Bit those who suck of the public tit seemed to have no such dramas.
View Garage
