They say they are not biassed but I think they are.

Renewables don't work when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing and the Labor plan by their own admission will need gas well into the future and the Labor plan will need coal forever.

Grattan claims to be independent. It's not. It's a creature of Labor and it's ideologically against nuclear.

imagine having magic rocks that literally make free energy and deciding not to use them because one time in russia they blew up.

intellectually dishonest HACKS - get real

Your podcast is clearly anti nuclear We cant run a first world economy an standard of living on unreliable green tech, Australia has nuclear technicians currently working in England an other overseas regions, We built the Lucas heights power plant,an currently run the opal medical reactor, An nuclear should be considered as a viable solution to meet our carbon emissions targets considering we have 50 plus percent of the world's uranium, An nuclear waste can be re processed for use in next generation candu reactors Or nuclear batteries Or the medical industry JUST A MOUTH PEICE FOR THE UNITED NATIONS AN THE DE CARBONISATION AGENDA THIS PODCAST IS

I THOUGHT NDIS WAS FOR SEVERE MOBILITY ISSUES..NOT FOR MENTAL HEALTH WHICH IS ON MEDICARE

they tried renewables at Brocken Hill how did that work out LOL

Oh boy, I've just about had enough of this climate change nonsense. Come away from the front of your TV sets. Take the blinkers off your eyes and look around you people. The sky hasn't fallen down. The sea levels haven't risen. The polar ice is still there and the Great Barrier Reef is thriving. You are being played by people that are smarter than you.Time to find something else to be scared of, you fools.

The Gratton institute just parrots the Labor line. Think tanks only make sense when they question assumptions and challenge the status quo.

The staement should read: 'We will do everything to combat climate change the fossil fuel, car and other big industry allows us to do.' In other words: nothing.

Your point system doesn’t make any sense. A highly skilled expert over the age of ~34 with 10 years of experience has literally no chance of getting a visa. It favors young individuals with 2 years of experience and no significant skills, who are unlikely to find a job in Australia. That’s absurd. A 27-year-old IT worker with 2 years of experience, without any essential skills, or certifications will score more points than a highly skilled IT expert with industry-recognized certifications, 10 years of experience, and a proven track record at a FAANG company.

Your point system doesn’t make any sense. A highly skilled expert over the age of ~34 with 10 years of experience has literally no chance of getting a visa. It favors young individuals with 2 years of experience and no significant skills, who are unlikely to find a job in Australia. That’s absurd. A 27-year-old IT worker with 2 years of experience, without any essential skills, or certifications will score more points than a highly skilled IT expert with industry-recognized certifications, 10 years of experience, and a proven track record at a FAANG company.

Oh yeah, like how your new CEO was hired into a senior government role she wasn't qualified for at NSW Treasury, which by the way is run by a convicted heroin trafficker who happens to be married to a sitting Labor Cabinet Member. Which elements of legal training did she draw upon to do the macroeconomic forecasting in Macroeconomy Division? What a joke.

Brilliant. Let's tax the very people that work hard to acquire assets and strive to become self-sufficient. Let's encourage bludger and reliance on the age pension 👏

Poor, poor multimillionaire land barons... how will they ever survive having to pay taxes like the rest of us? If they sell, they may have to get a job, rather than be a parasite on a renters, making them pay the mortgage plus a cut for the baron.

How about transparency? You have to write in for the tax charter from ATO. They have reduced it to 20 pages but the review is 382 pages. The ATO have done it this way as they have manipulated the wording in policies for their OWN interpretation

How about reasonable limits? Like annual and aggregate lifetime caps on negative gearing and capital gain tax concessions.

I don’t understand why you talk about forecasts and modelling when there are historical examples of what *actually* happens when negative gearing and cap gains are removed. Why are you so hell-bent on relying on your modelling of the future when there is historical precedence that you could refer to?

Why is the discussion always about negative gearing being removed as the saviour of the housing crisis? What about the fact that everyone who already lives here and anyone moving to Australia all want to live near the capital cities because that's where the work is. We are one of the biggest countries on the planet but for some reason we just shoehorn everyone into the same 3 cities pushing developments further and further away from the centre. Make more cities, create more supply. You shouldn't HAVE TO live near Melbourne and Sydney or risk a 2hour commute to work.

With the arguments for why don’t I get the same benefits for savings account and share profits?

Which bodies finance The Grattan Institute? The Grattan Institute is supposed to be non-aligned. If so, do all its contributions come from small, limited donations. Large donations would risk non alignment.

Landlords and housing investors need to shut up. Make tax incentives for investing in BUISNESSES, not an unproductive box like a HOUSE.

Introduce a phase out over 4 year period to allow time for people to adjust.

It's easy to say your model won't significantly impact the housing crisis, but has your model been tested and validated? Does your model predict the crisis that eventuated in economies like NZ and Ireland where they removed negative gearing?

YES!

Get an investor on.. ..

Negative gearing and capital gains tax must be grandfathered. If not, most investors will need to sell up. If not going to grandfather capital gains tax, they should let investors get a valuation and only pay the new tax rate on future growth from the valuation report.

Where the facts though? I just heard opinions. Most new investment properties are negatively geared at start. Then over time they become positively geared and of course that positively geared income gets taxed at normal rate for many, many years into the future. So it not all bad for govt coffers. It like an incentive to a new business. Regardless you take it away and investors leave market you will without doubt decrease number of rentals available so not sure where all our hundreds of thousands of new migrants the govt keeps letting in are meant to live. So it just a political football but will not improve housing numbers but instead increase rents 100% if it is removed.

We need more housing, particularly for renters. if you really hate renters, keep making property investment harder and more expensive. I sold my properties and took the capital overseas. Well done. Less houses built and more people can't find rentals. I used to rent affordable properties in inner city areas, now I get a better return to do nothing. The renters I had to ask to leave were very upset, but you don;t really care do you? It is ideological i guess. With no skin left in the game i don't really care, just feel sorry for the victims of your extremist policies. renters.

Why should expenses in a business or other investment be tax deductable, but not on an investment property? You have totally overlooked the fact that come retirement, the people who invested in property are more likely to be self funded and not a burden on the government pension system. This is just Socialism by proxy and will just result in less people investing in property, and the problems that brings ie: less rental properties available, but will also result in more people being on a pension. Which is a bigger burden on a pension system already in trouble with an aging population. It will also result in more people being poor .. just what a socialist wants. How about identifying and removing wasteful government expenditure and make government more efficient?! God forbid that politicians take a pay or entitlement cut. Most of whom go on to very lucrative paying jobs after politics whilst still getting a pension and all the entitlements that they still get after leaving politics. None or which are means tested. This whole topic is just about removing the middle class in favour of having only two classes, the rich and influential and the poor or proletariat. On a side note, part of the reasons rents are so high is Land Tax. Of course it varies from state to state and situation to situation, but on average Land Tax in NSW equates to about $80+ per week per property. Here are some fact: 71.48% of investors hold 1 investment property. 18.86% of investors hold 2 investment properties. 5.81% of investors own 3 investment properties. 2.11% of investors own 4 investment properties. 0.87% of investors own 5 investment properties and 0.89% (or 19,920) of investors hold 6 or more investment properties.

Let’s all lose $1 to get $30c back from ATO. Sounds like a great investment strategy. Neg gearing helps with timing of when to offset the running costs. I can’t see how removing it will make property cheaper and affordable, if anything will reduce investment into new housing, reducing supply and getting houses more expensive

The government should introduce more attractive multiple tax savings products to encourage investment beyond negative gearing. For example, infrastructure bonds could offer incentives such as a 10% tax offset on investments of $10,000 (providing a $1,000 tax benefit), with the investment locked in for the first ten years and tradable thereafter. These bonds should also provide a competitive dividend yield to attract investors. Funds raised through these bonds could then be used to finance infrastructure development. another example tax incentive on ELSS (equity linked share scheme) locked for first ten years like tax incenteive in indian tax system or investing in ETF

The government should introduce more attractive savings products to encourage investment beyond negative gearing. For example, infrastructure bonds could offer incentives such as a 10% tax offset on investments of $10,000 (providing a $1,000 tax benefit), with the investment locked in for the first ten years and tradable thereafter. These bonds should also provide a competitive dividend yield to attract investors. Funds raised through these bonds could then be used to finance infrastructure development.

"Abolishing negative gearing, reforming capital gains tax, and banning foreign buyers from purchasing residential property while encouraging them to invest in commercial property could help balance the housing market. Providing tax incentives for first-home buyers on their mortgage interest payments for the first ten years (similar to the U.S. housing policy) would promote home ownership, reduce demand for rental properties, and lessen the burden on taxpayers in the form of rental assistance. Additionally, 80% of newly released land should be allocated to first-home buyers.

Please tell everybody exactly how giving TAX incentives to INVESTORS buying ESTABLISHED HOMES adds ONE single NEW HOME to the supply of side of the CRISIS?????????Honestly disrespectful to families just wanting to BUY one single 'roof over their heads.' Shameful PONZI POLITICS. Bring on 2025🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘🏘

Grattan are nasty little socialists. Apart from all the other reasons as to how your analysis is biased, the elephant in the room is that your policies would seriously reduce the rental housing stock in Australia and send rents soaring. Also quite funny that the female interviewer is as thick as two short planks.

Australian housing market and the Australian economy as a whole (apart from digging rocks out of the ground) is a ponzi scheme. Denial is a strong emotion.

Unlike most wealthy countries, Australia's economy lacks both diversification and sophistication. Australia's primary exports are in low complexity categories such as mining and agriculture. 😂

No negative gearing gor first home buyers but for rich people with multiple houses. Insane. 🤡 🌎

A lot of this debate forgets that investors use their own savings and income to invest. Tax has already been paid on this money. Increasing Capital Gains Tax by reducing the discount effectively increases the tax on the money that was originally saved. If the government chooses to abandon the provision of rental housing and outsources it to the private sector - reducing tax incentives will logically make things worse not better.

Listening to this while preparing my 2023-24FY taxes and calculating how much I'll negative gear across my portfolio

Do you honestly think that just because an ex rental hits the market that a renter can all of a sudden afford to buy it? At play is the "politics of envy"- a narrative from people with no vision or experience - just a nagging feeling that someone is better off than they are and need to be stopped! Your research has clearly neglected the following: The NZ market has had NG scrapped and due to its impact on rent are now going about bringing it back. Have people forgotten what happened here in the 80s under the Keating Govt with NG scrapped, only to see it re-instated within two years? Ireland also abolished NG some years ago only to end up today with a far worse rental crisis than here in Aus. NG was introduced way back in the 1930s when Australia faced a severe housing shortage with the aim to have people invest and generate an increase in the number of rental properties because the Govt's contribution in this space has been historically minuscule and nothing has changed as Govt's contribution is currently a paltry 10% or so. Then let the Govt deal with the millions of renters should you get rid of NG and CGT discount.

this guy crapping on about how little would change in property prices or investor behaviour, but then arguing that home ownership would significantly increase, this makes no sense

Only a small number of people buy houses for Negative Gearing, trying to genralise that we all do is stupid. I have 2 investment properties that were positive gearing for many years until the Goverrnmen raised the interest rates. Both my investment properties I built myself and the reason was to prepare for my retirement with my wife. We are not landlords because we want to get rich but because we don't want to rely on the governments help when we retire. All you people who try to make out we are evil are just plain stupid. I worked 3 jobs to buy my first home and provide for my family. Here's an idea, get off your couches and do something about your situation, being a professional victim seems to be the only thing this generation is good at.

Cry for first home buyers when divorced people are often young, of breedable age and needing a home too. Once housing is seen as not the best option for investors, they jump out, going to something else. Bcoin or precious metals, or manufacturing , which is what we need, proper jobs, the Gov has no idea how to fix it. Just jam in more foreigners till that doesn't work. Then bleak days ahead ! The pollies taking their huge pensions somewhere overseas , somewhere to escape the sound of protesting crowds of Aussies who saw the pollies f^ck their country !!!!

Well done! Gambling has become very normal in Australia. A different angle needs to be taken if theres to be real change here.

Thanks for your important work on this Grattan institute- the 1:3 support worker to person ratio the ndis is pushing is so scary and sad. We cannot let Australians with disabilities be institutionalised like this, and as you’ve shown, there’s much better options out there. Choice and control are key

Great report and comments on the current longstanding issues of group homes with little change on the support model over years.

The gender pay gap is around 12% without overtime. which is what is stated in the video. So your argument not right.