Post by katemac on May 1, 2013 10:26:22 GMT 10
It was refreshing to hear and see in the mainstream media this morning some discussion about the evil consequences of negative gearing on housing prices. As an impoverished renter who spends a huge amount of her wage on rent, and can't afford to buy, I could expand on that. But I'm more interested in some of the public's response to this. There were plenty of outraged people ringing in and texting, protesting that they are not upper class and not middle class for that matter, that they negative gear and this is a legitimate way for them to ensure sufficient superannuation so that they do not burden the system.
There are broader issues here. We need to debate whether the superannuation push is actually entrenching disadvantage while forcing the government to forgo tax that could be used to reduce it and ensure a basic, dignified standard for all our elderly. Superannuation is costing the government billions - I'm not talking about just the rich rorters here, I'm talking about the whole system - it may even be costing more in subsidy and lost revenue than the age pension costs! In other words, possibly we are subsidising middle class oldies more than poor oldies - or at least too much compared to poor elderly who struggle to survive, rather than live, on the age pension.
Given this, why should the government be subsidising people who want to increase their super by property investment? Why can't they just use the share market if they think their own super won't be enough? With the affordability issues that negative gearing gives rise to, the poor actually end up subsidising the middle classes to have a better life. Renters struggle to survive (let alone buy a primary residence) and the economy suffers because renters have no money left over for discretionary spending.
So I think the whole tenor of the debate is wrong. People ring up and say 'it's going to disadvantage me'. But shouldn't they be looking at spending PRIORITIES and the national interest as a whole, rather than whether they personally are affected? If we have to choose between giving someone a basic level of dignity, and subsidising someone's 'lifestyle', shouldn't we choose the former? It's these very basic values and priorities that appear to be getting lost in the debate - although it was great to hear ACOSS on the Jon Faine's program, and good to see Ross Gittins in The Age rapping middle class whingers on the knuckles.
There are broader issues here. We need to debate whether the superannuation push is actually entrenching disadvantage while forcing the government to forgo tax that could be used to reduce it and ensure a basic, dignified standard for all our elderly. Superannuation is costing the government billions - I'm not talking about just the rich rorters here, I'm talking about the whole system - it may even be costing more in subsidy and lost revenue than the age pension costs! In other words, possibly we are subsidising middle class oldies more than poor oldies - or at least too much compared to poor elderly who struggle to survive, rather than live, on the age pension.
Given this, why should the government be subsidising people who want to increase their super by property investment? Why can't they just use the share market if they think their own super won't be enough? With the affordability issues that negative gearing gives rise to, the poor actually end up subsidising the middle classes to have a better life. Renters struggle to survive (let alone buy a primary residence) and the economy suffers because renters have no money left over for discretionary spending.
So I think the whole tenor of the debate is wrong. People ring up and say 'it's going to disadvantage me'. But shouldn't they be looking at spending PRIORITIES and the national interest as a whole, rather than whether they personally are affected? If we have to choose between giving someone a basic level of dignity, and subsidising someone's 'lifestyle', shouldn't we choose the former? It's these very basic values and priorities that appear to be getting lost in the debate - although it was great to hear ACOSS on the Jon Faine's program, and good to see Ross Gittins in The Age rapping middle class whingers on the knuckles.