Thundergun

@nerfedwarlock @SimonCotter62 Not sure what this proves?

@deebs_1234 @SimonCotter62 afr.com/policy/economy…

Young first home buyers can no longer negative gear. But those if us who do can continue. Please tell me how the govt is assisting first home buyers

@nerfedwarlock @SimonCotter62 Right but that implies that the person would sell and buy another property, so the net result is the same and it isn't adding stock anyway. If someone needs to sell for life reasons I can't imagine it would make a difference.

@deebs_1234 @SimonCotter62 As Negative Gearing is now Grandfathered on those existing properties. Therefore they will be reluctant to release those properties back to the market and remove their NG benefits. If you read the investors forums or posts. They are going to diamond hand.

@IdiotObserver1 @Deetray @MickamiousG I don't think that's remotely accurate, that's changing how tax works fundamentally, can you show me where it says that?

@deebs_1234 @Deetray @MickamiousG You are now to be taxed on revenue not profit when it comes to rentals. Most people haven't read the proposed changes.

This is Australia and how investing now works if you choose to buy an investment property. Buy a property, rent it out. Pay Stamp Duty, Pay Land Tax. Pay Rates to councils. Maintain the property. Sell property sometime down the line. Maybe have made a profit. You can no longer claim a tax deduction via negative gearing on an existing property… So You Took the risk. & Now you need to Pay Government Tax Again. So you paid at time of purchase, you then pay tax again at time of sale, Government out no effort in other than to keep taxing you throughout the duration of your ownership, and somehow this is fair?? This is Australia.

@IdiotObserver1 @Deetray @MickamiousG @IdiotObserver1 I think you need to look up how negative gearing works, I'm not having a go, but based off your example it's clear your confused as to what it is.

@IdiotObserver1 @Deetray @MickamiousG I don't get how that is taxing someone on money they haven't made, in that circumstance that person would pay no tax? They just wouldn't get a tax break on unrelated income, which is the case with everything else. Housing was the only exception.

@nerfedwarlock @SimonCotter62 I don't get this argument that investors are more likely to hold. Surely this only counts for those selling and buying another property? In which case they aren't adding to stock anyway right? I'm not being confronting here, I'm genuinely curious as to the logic.

@deebs_1234 @SimonCotter62 Negative gearing was causing too much competition. I agree. However carving out just the new home market is going to make it really tough for FHB. As investors will hold already purchased property. Treasury said these policies will build 35K LESS homes. So 👎

@IdiotObserver1 @Deetray @MickamiousG We're talking about negative gearing here, how is that taxing people on money they haven't made? Also I negatively gear a property, if it was removed, I wouldn't be able to just raise the rent as it wouldn't lease.

@deebs_1234 @Deetray @MickamiousG Why do you support taxing people on money they haven't made and increasing rent prices across the board given your support for these new policies.

@nerfedwarlock @SimonCotter62 That's basically admitting that negative gearing was causing too much competition on the existing housing market, and by removing it you are removing that competition which should effect pricing. Also sounds like developers are incentised to build more homes given that demand.

@SimonCotter62 They have just made the new home market the most competitive place in Australia and it was the only place where First home buyers had the edge over investors… not anymore. Good job Albo.

@IdiotObserver1 @Deetray @MickamiousG That's a different argument though, that's a general argument against tax, which is fine if you want to have that. But given taxes are a thing, the argument here is they aren't being applied evenly when it comes to negative gearing.

Not taking something from someone doesn't mean it's a discount. You wouldn't see it as a discount if someone stole thousands of dollars from you but left $10. Idk perhaps you are stupid and would see that as a $10 handout. In general why do you support theft and why do you support taxing people on money they haven't made as is now the case because you can't negatively gear? (If you don't understand I'll explain further).

@Pooymax @ErichTheFish @MickamiousG You can still deduct expenses, it's just that its only deducted from the rental income. Same goes for any income stream.

@ErichTheFish @MickamiousG Cancelling negative gearing means you cannot deduct your property expenses from your total income, however for employment or business income, you will be able to deduct your expenses.

@OzzAyyy @MickamiousG Well maybe with less demand it will be easier for those people to buy. I think that's the point.

@MickamiousG Investing in real estate is no longer profitable at all. So good luck for anyone looking for a rental in the future

@omsdcd @womevoice @elonmusk She's a mythical figure, there is no history. And she's never physically described other than being beautiful.

@womevoice @elonmusk Beauty has nothing to do with it — but history does — you racist twat

A glaringly obvious double-standard

@tompanos You said yourself, when an investor sells, that property goes to an owner occupier and leaves the rental pool. What you've left out is another renter also leaves the pool of people looking to rent. So the effect is exactly the same isn't it?

Anyone who thinks restricting negative gearing won’t hit investors is ignoring the obvious — it cuts borrowing power, slows demand, and squeezes the rental market all at once. #negativegearing #propertymarket

@goodfoodgal Ahh yes because you posting on X about it is making all the difference.

CONVERSATION yesterday with a friend: Me: “this fuel crisis is a worry. It’s going faster than I predicted. It’s unbelievable we are in this predicament”. Friend: “I don’t think about any of that stuff. I just keep my head down.” “Oh. Ok.” “Yeah… I don’t want to worry about any of that. ” “Well…You may have to soon.” You see Australia - it’s not just the politicians’ fault. Many Aussies just don’t care. As long as mummy & daddy government look after them.

@CryptoSy2 @PeterDiamandis @dkhos Not to mention once all cars are autonomous, they can talk to each other, no more traffic lights, traffic jams etc humans literally could not drive in that environment.

@PeterDiamandis @dkhos When autonomous EVs become 100x safer than humans, they will become a public safety concern. Governments will outlaw human driving. Due to public safety, it will be a binary debate, and it is inevitable.

Uber CEO @dkhos mentioned something very important: Our society will not be ALL autonomous vehicles or all human. It's hybrid. AV fleets in some cities, human drivers in others. The binary debate is dead.

@PacificSimGP @SloanThomas8 @h2av8tor @elonmusk Truth social is in the same boat as bluesky, not banned, so clearly no other reason than just targeting platforms that are actually being used by teens.

@SloanThomas8 @h2av8tor @elonmusk I'm not being dishonest if I didn't know that Bluesky restricted under 16 by their own accord. And that still doesn't make my statement any less true that Bluesky was NOT on the restricted list for Australian under 16s

Nope

@KobieThatcher @veggie8mite There could literally be only one person in a suburb who wasn't born in Australia and this map would list their country. What you've posted shows absolutely nothing to do with your point.

@veggie8mite I know. I left it in the screenshot so that people could see. That doesn't make this any more acceptable.

This is not the same Australia that I grew up in 🇦🇺 We are losing our country.

@SirBylHolte @BrigantiPhil @grok Not saying he is or isn't. But you said even if there was proof you wouldn't care? How does that not concern you? You are so obsessed with someone that even if you discovered they were a pedo, you could just cast it aside?

@deebs_1234 @BrigantiPhil @grok Show me proof of Trump’s sexual activities with children.

Hey @grok, given that we now have full control of the DOJ, why has Hillary Clinton still not been arrested for destroying subpoenaed emails? Is it somehow OK for politicians to do things that are illegal for we the people to do?

@SirBylHolte @BrigantiPhil @grok "Is it somehow OK for politicians to do things that are illegal for we the people to do?" 5 seconds later... "Even if Trump were a pedophile, he's still the president, why should I care?"

@BrigantiPhil @grok Even if Trump were a pedophile, he's still the president. And I'm 100% certain he wouldn't be the first pedophile president, after what Ashley Biden said about her father. So tell me why i should give even half a fuck about who the president has sex with if i never cared before.

@PeejayDilly @isik5 @Finding_53 @joerogan

@isik5 @Finding_53 @joerogan I know exactly where to find them, as a medical professional with actual integrity unlike you, a mur-der-r. I have about 20,000 medical science studies in my home. You have no double blind placebo controlled vaccine studies. Yes, let's be honest: YOU ARE A LIAR AND A FRAUD

“Dissolving Illusions” is a really great book. I probably would have never thought about exploring the real history of vaccines if we hadn’t gone through the insane Covid gaslighting of the last 5 years, but after Dr. Humphries’ book I’ll never look at it the same way again. She’s a very brave and brilliant woman. @DrSuzanneH7