Bubble really isn't the appropriate word anymore, we have now graduated to skywhale. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-09/is-it-a-bird-is-it-a-plane-no-its-a-skywhale/4679676 After feeding on the planton of 'the greater fool' ponzi economy, here she is offering her teats to the various politicallgirls and presstitutes around Canberra.
What an ugle piece of crap!1, and they try to pass it off as a piece of art. Who is the greater fool!!
No it is a scam first intended for an informed few, that has blown out in 'welfare taking' numbers, and will blow up as more and more suck from this teat. Loophole 'incentives' can never be implemented on a broad scale in the first instance, otherwise it would fall apart before it begun. Tax law and red-tape is complicated for a reason - to fund welfare handouts to the wealthy connected few. A true incentive would be to level the playing field, so young ones don't have to be the debt slave generation.
Indeed! i cant find negative gearing on the list of welfare payments on Centrelinks website. Might be because with every tax incentive you actually have to go out and do something productive like WORKING and EARNING money before you claim back cash which was initially outlayed to the government. Quite a bit different to sitting around on the couch all day in dirty undies whilst eating Cheetos and scribbling rubbish on the mandatory fortnightly dole form. To quote the big fella who once owned Channel 9
Exactly what are they trying to incentivise? Could be argued that centerlink payments are a tax incentive not to riot, or steal (not that many centerlump recipients could be bothered).
Quite simple actually. They are trying to incentivise the creation of new homes and dwellings and providing affordable accommodation and shelter to renters. Now Why should this matter? well a shortage of accomodation is a rather bleak scenario for non home owners as it would push rent prices up dramatically and those priced out of the market would have no where to go and thus need to apply for government funded housing. Which would mean more money the government and thus taxpayers have to spend on social welfare. The Government has reviewed the gearing incentive numerous times already and weighed up the potential cost of supplying public housing to the almost 30% of Australians renting compared to keeping the tax incentive and hence opted for the keeping cheaper option which is providing the tax rebate. Negative gearing has been around since 1987 so its impact on rental prices can be clearly seen on this graph showing yearly CPI increases in rent. Source:
