3 ms·

If you remove negative gearing for property investment in isolation, sure, agreed. But I think there are ways via taxation and other policy to effectively nulli

If you remove negative gearing for property investment in isolation, sure, agreed. But I think there are ways via taxation and other policy to effectively nullify any advantages to shifting to assets such as shares. I mean, the general problem you describe is that money creates means, to create more money. How do you solve this problem now that existing policies have resulted in a skewed distribution of existing money? Absolutely agree though that owner occupied houses should be massively incentivised compared to investment properties. IMO it's advantageous for society to have most people owning property. I think a good goal would be to have most people both owning property, and not being cash-poor at the same time.

Gustomaximus 11y ago
> But I think there are ways via taxation and other policy to effectively nullify any advantages to shifting to assets such as shares. Sure. But then you making increasing complicated rules when the land tax premium is simple. And generally the more complicated/specific the rule the more new loop holes are made. > I mean, the general problem you describe is that money creates means, to create more money. Not at all. The government should encourage people to save, invest and build wealth. I guess what my general problem is allowing unfettered business activity into essential areas of life, above the needs of the masses and especially where demand is inelastic. So I'd be inclined to keep strong regulation or government involvement in areas of; housing, health, education, agriculture (ie food), and telco if it became a problem to ensure this is available to the population at fair market rates not distorted by monopoly (or similar) or speculation.