Mickey_Raider wrote:The Nickman wrote: ↑April 4, 2024, 9:07 pm
Or perhaps we just need more houses?
Yes we do. Unequivocally.
But why does that mean that demand side levers should be off the table if we have good basis to conclude pulling them will result in more equitable outcomes too?
Because what guys like you and gangrenous are proposing is that you fundamentally unbalance the tax system to punish people who have invested in property, mainly as a means to set themselves up for retirement.
Similar to the franking credits debate, you’re changing the rules for people who have largely invested thinking about their future and a source of income for when they stop working.
As an example, my wife and I have started investing with a plan to retire in 11 years (when I’m 55 and she’s 49), and there’s a government scheme that says if you invest for 10 years or more, then your profits are tax free. They’re doing this so people WILL invest, so they’re self sufficient in their retirement and less reliant on the pension.
So we’re investing quite heavily to ensure we have a nest egg to cover the gap until we can touch our super. If the likes of you and gangrenous in ten years time start hand-wringing and want that scheme rolled back you essentially cannonball our whole retirement into the sun.
That’s simply not fair. You can’t change the rules on people as they get towards their own retirements and “Robin Hood” policies that take from the haves to give to the have nots just simply isn’t fair policy in my book.
Except billionaires. We should legitimately eat them.