Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia
On your logic, it’s not fair that I have to pay tax to support aged pensions when some of them live in million dollar houses.
|
We should be supporting those who can't help themselves - really simple philosophy
Maybe as I am closer to that retirement age than you, but fortunately the family home is exempt from the assets investigation when you apply for the age pension HOWEVER, your furniture, your car, maybe a caravan, all other assets EXCEPT the physical house. Yo
u must also remember that most 'old' people bought or built their homes LONG before there was a housing boom, so why should they be punished because housing prices went through the roof - you thinking is flawed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia
And why should I pay for negative gearing (a cost to the budget of $4.5 billion per year)? That benefits baby boomers and Gen Y a whole lot more than Gen Z and Millenials. It’s fair because all that keeps our economy ticking along. Take any of it away and it’s craps the bed.
|
I am a fan of getting rid of negative gearing for existing houses, however they should keep it in place for new homes. Do you actually understand how it works? You can 'negative gear' shares as well, did you know that?
Building is a huge boost for the economy the flow-on effect is huge, swapping existing houses between investors does nothing for the economy but a lot for the investors
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia
China can get rid of their middle class welfare too. AThe US as well. Then Australia will be really better off when their economy collapses.
Like I said, you can take it away, have fun waiting in line at Centrelink.
|
what is the point of that argument, it is pointless