ABC Fact Check hits Morrison’s negative gearing claims

ABC Fact Check has today taken apart Treasurer Scott Morrison’s oft-argued claim that the majority of people that utilise negative gearing are on “modest” incomes:

The claim

“In terms of how I have described my attitude towards negative gearing, I have always understood that for the vast majority of Australians who use negative gearing they are modest income earning Australians, nurses, teachers, police,” Treasurer Scott Morrison told the National Press Club in February.

“Two thirds of those who use negative gearing have a taxable income of $80,000 or less. Seventy per cent own just one property, and 70 per cent have a net rental loss of less than $10,000″…

The verdict

Mr Morrison’s claim is selective.

Australian Tax Office data shows that one in 10 Australians who files a tax return is negatively geared in terms of rental property.

Data provided by Mr Morrison’s office, based on Treasury calculations, showed 67 per cent of the people who use negative gearing have taxable incomes of $80,000 or less.

This was backed up by Fact Check’s analysis of ATO statistics.

However, as 82 per cent of all taxpayers have taxable incomes below $80,000, it is not surprising that most of the negative gearers fall into this category.

As this category represents only 67 per cent of negative gearers, it is clear that these taxpayers use negative gearing proportionately less than taxpayers with higher income.

Put another way, only 8 per cent of people with taxable incomes less than $80,000 use negative gearing, compared with more than double that proportion among people with taxable incomes above $80,000.

Similarly, people with taxable incomes over $80,000 receive 42 per cent of the negative gearing benefit, but they only represent 33 per cent of all negative gearers.

Finally, those with a total income of $52,000 a year or less — an income more in line with the definition of modest as a “moderate” or median income and where the negative gearing benefit has not been subtracted — represent 59 per cent of all taxpayers, but only 40 per cent of negatively geared taxpayers.

Only 4 per cent of these people use negative gearing…

Miranda Stewart, from the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the Australian National University told Fact Check it wasn’t surprising the majority of negative gearers had taxable incomes below $80,000 because the majority of taxpayers were in that bracket.

“The numbers of negative gearers may be high below $80,000 but the proportions of them in each tax bracket gets higher as taxable income rises,” Professor Stewart said…

Professor Stewart said the large number of taxpayers with negative taxable incomes who were negatively gearing showed that it was a strategy being used as a tax shelter…

Of course, as noted by the RBA, “the ATO figures do not capture the fact that many negatively geared properties are owned by people with low taxable income but high ‘actual income'”. And when actual income is examined, the top 40% of households by income hold nearly 80% of the outstanding investor mortgage debt:

ScreenHunter_8353 Jul. 15 16.50

Bottom line: Morrison is dead wrong to claim that negative gearing is utilised by “modest income earning Australians”.

[email protected]

Unconventional Economist
Latest posts by Unconventional Economist (see all)

Comments

  1. Morrison is dead right that negative gearing is utilised by “modest income earning Australians”, but it’s benefit and use is skewed somewhat toward those on higher incomes, which I would expect for just about any investment related tax deduction.

    “In terms of how I have described my attitude towards negative gearing, I have always understood that for the vast majority of Australians who use negative gearing they are modest income earning Australians, nurses, teachers, police,”

    Nurse income range: $44-$78k
    Teacher income range: $44-$100k
    Police income range: $40-$125k

    Based on salaries here: http://www.payscale.com/research/AU

    So would the vast majority of those negatively gearing fall within a range of $40-125k? Likely IMO.

      • Don’t bother arguing with Bullion Baron. He doesn’t like to look at the actual data. Just cause there are some nurses, teachers, etc that use NG does not make them “modest” earners.

      • It all really comes down to the subjective interpretation of Morrison’s comments. A ‘fact check’ on such wording is bound for failure.

        Where do you draw the line on a modest income? Does that align with my view? How can you do a fact check on something we could both reasonably disagree about?

        The fact is that there are hundreds of thousands of Australians on modest incomes using negative gearing (even if you don’t agree it’s the vast majority). It’s removal will impact their ability to do so. In my view that is the point Morrison is making and it is a reasonable one (even though I think NG should go).

      • Who’s policy is getting rid of Negative Gearing? I have heard Labors policy, which protects all the poor Nurses and Teachers bad investments, and also allows them to further invest in new houses, along with strippers and uber drivers. Negative gearing is here to stay, for anyone.

        What is your point?

        Are you worried that Adelaide isn’t going to Boom? It definitely is, don’t worry, it’s the next big thing.

      • +1 Median should be used to smash “modest” in retort. Modest compared to what? What Mr Morrison was earning at the PCA?

        Also,

        “Seventy per cent own just one property…”

        Slight of hand. Does he mean JUST one investment property? FFS doesn’t anyone point out that these poor battlers are already way ahead with only one investment property! What about a whole generation locked out of the housing market due to perverse incentives like these with ZERO residential and ZERO investment properties!! It is blatantly apparent just how out of touch these guys are and which generation and which voters these guys and the Australian media are talking to with assumptions like that. Australian young wake up!

      • Every aspect of this is pedantry, from the ‘Fact Check’ on Morrison’s comment, to Leith’s article above, to my comment on it, to your comment on mine. Welcome to the club HnH.

      • Ronin8317MEMBER

        A big problem with social stratification is people only meet others from other social class. If all your friends/relatives are on 100K plus income, you end up thinking they are the ‘middle class’, and how every ‘mom and pop’ have a investment property.

      • “If you’re doing well, you should be embarrassed if you’re doing nothing to try to ease that gap. Whether it’s spending time with organizations, giving money, or both, it’s a responsibility that cannot be denied. If you deny it, shame on you.”
        – Gregg Popovich recently on wealth disparity, and 49 million Americans on food stamps.

        A modest wage would be about a SD below median, where you expect people who nothing other to give than selling their labour.

        Considering median is about $62k, ‘modest’ would probably start with a ‘4’.

        Outside of housing, living expenses are very affordable, even now where every price in Australia is inflated.

        A weeks food for one person can easily be obtained for around $30-40 p.w. Petrol on contemporary cars (considering our 70 litre petrol Commdores come with around $21 of tax to fill it, thus we ‘don’t want them’) is what? $40-60 p.w.

        If shelter didn’t incur a cost, living would be what ?? $600 p.w. $30k a year to be quite comfortable.

        We’ve created an utterly despicable game of last to enter the property market wins, and last to enter has been determined by their date of birth… a ‘virtue’ of chronology.

        Policy is that all in excess of reasonable living expenses needs a welfare grant to subsidise the cost of capital for the game of property acquisition. A policy that expends huge amounts of the federal budget….

        And doesn’t do a thing to alleviate suffering of the poor, ala Gregg Popovich above.

        Now bleating about those on a the above defined ‘modest wage’ ….many in our society earn $100k for a job that is essentially a typists job, shuffling copies of compliance documents…. or perhaps micromanaging the performance of those that do…..

        Someone who could buy 100,000 litres of Milk at a retail level… one million litres at farm gate prices

        Someone who could buy 200 tonnes of carrots…

        150 tonnes of potatos…

        ‘modest wage’ for shuffling paper. Yes, they need a subsidy for sure……

      • @RP some good points. And yes, even more evidence that those who own a house outright have relatively modest costs so whilst we should definitely give the poor old ‘true’ pensioner some welfare to cover those life expenses at least, we should otherwise get the mansion occupying thieves off welfare!

        I don’t think Australia is cheap by international standards but that aside, could it be that relative declines in the prices of essential and household items that you have mentioned have lead to a natural inflation in house prices? As the RBA has said, we (or maybe BB’s) have all shown a ‘preference’ for high house prices by allocation of their excess funds to this asset and not leisure. If not for this could we all be working the 15hr week now? I’m ignoring the influence of banksters profit incentive from an expanding debt machine and associated marketing/ social engineering behemoth from MS media but could we be in fact be the engineers of our own dark fate?

      • “I don’t think Australia is cheap by international standards but that aside, could it be that relative declines in the prices of essential and household items that you have mentioned have lead to a natural inflation in house prices?”

        Well it’s the same argument as ‘low interest rates’.

        Do we elect to pay $65 for a Hyundai i20 because interest rates are low?

        Do we elect to pay $35 for a big mac meal?

        We’re not ‘electing’ to pay more more houses.

        We’re observing prices go up, and getting on that train because it seems inevitable it will continue to go up.

        Not buy low and sell high, but buy extremely higher and (hope to) sell at higher yet again.

        “If not for this could we all be working the 15hr week now?”

        The view on ‘increased living standards’ should only measured by less hours worked, necessary to acquire the same thing.

        When we increase producivity, we either get more of the same product to market, thus reducing price, or peel workers off to produce the same amount.

        Those excess workers then produce something new, and finds its way into the market.

        In real terms, any ordinary product beig brought to market i unfettered terms, should always be lower inflation.

        If it’s not, its either due to increase scarcity, or manipulation.

        One of MeltFund’s insights when he visited us, quite brilliant actually, was that history has shown that for some reason, human’s aren’t good at having land re-calibrate for increases in productivity, it stays and everything else calibrates downwards.

        In other words, all products are subject to peeling off ordinary return and assigning it to land.

        It’s why we need a land tax.

    • This semantic nonsense is redundant (and a red herring).
      NG is not being abolished.

      • +100

        Negative gearing is specifically the ability to offset specific losses against unrelated income – usually wages.

        The ALP are not abolishing it as many hundreds of thousands of Australians will be permitted to continue the practice with any investments they currently own (and buy up to the deadline).

        Furthermore, anyone who wants to continue to do so will be permitted to do so in relation to investments in new property.

        The only thing modest about this debate is the modest nature of the reforms proposed by the ALP which at best will reduce some of the upward pressure on prices.

        Anyone who thinks that these modest reforms alone will result in anything more than a slower increase in nominal prices has not been living in Australia for the last 20 years when stable or rising house prices was made the core of our method for managing the overall level of economic activity.

    • Correct.

      In any case, the ‘income’ aspect of the anti negative gearing case is irrelevant. It wasnt addressed by Labor’s proposed policy, nor should it be. People of all incomes should be free to invest if they have the means to do so. What should have been addressed are limits on the tax advantages of doing same.

      Labor’s policy appears to celebrate, indeed reinforce the ability of the wealthy to continue to negatively gear property whilst circumventing similar ability within the dominant groups noted above.

      • “indeed reinforce the ability of the wealthy to continue to negatively gear property”

        Or you could look at as encouraging people to diversity their investments. You know, into ones that don’t make ongoing losses? That way they’d have some investment income to offset against their property losses.

        Nah, let’s keep the “celebrate the rich” line going. Seems to be working so far.

      • They are more than welcome to invest but they shouldn’t be getting their due taxes paid by other Australians just because they’re paying a mortgage, which is exactly what is happening.

        If it’s not a worthwhile investment unless I’m paying you, then it’s not a worthwhile investment, full stop.

      • “…Labor’s policy appears to celebrate, indeed reinforce the ability of the wealthy to continue to negatively gear property…”

        Poppycock

        Hundreds of thousands of mums and dads will continue to be able to claim their IP losses on their existing property investments against their wage income.

        Even the most humble Mum and Dad will be able to continue to do so for investments in new properties.

        A small studio apartment in a new Meriton development is a guaranteed way to get a foot on the property ladder and nothing will change in that department.

        Plus those mum and dad’s investing for the long term should be more than happy to carrying forward losses, on any additional existing property investments, after the changes, against the guaranteed gains they will make on the ever rising prices for existing houses.

        Modest reforms that only the hysterical oppose.

      • Your quote – “People of all incomes should be free to invest if they have the means to do so. What should have been addressed are limits on the tax advantages of doing same.” “Labor’s policy appears to celebrate, indeed reinforce the ability of the wealthy to continue to negatively gear property whilst circumventing similar ability within the dominant groups noted above.”

        You keep going on around this notion above as if it were the key issue in this debate. You acknowledge on the one hand the distortions created by negative gearing, the bubble in the property market, the risks and information asymmetry (not isolated to property). And yet.. And yet, you are vociferously arguing to maintain policy that continues to encourage those least equipped to take risk. On the basis of … what again ? Equity ? Seriously, your argument does not make ANY sense. Investment opportunity is always biased to those most capable of taking and absorbing risk. You are really just arguing for government to prop up a Ponzi. Because … ‘Mums and Dad’s’ haven’t saved or don’t know how to invest elsewhere. That is a ludicrous proposition.

      • Green

        Labor’s policy

        a) favours the wealthy irt established residential
        b) does not address the multiple property maximum losses tax advantage every prog think tank has argued
        c) removes an entire asset class from the NG investment platform
        d) timing of policy peak debt peak property prices represents real risk
        e) falling property prices result in tighter credit allocation
        f) falling property prices potentially cascade into rush to exit
        g) interest only loans now sizeable proportion of investment loans very exposed to any mrkt decline
        h) new builds not proved popular NG desitnations historically
        i) if property prices decline and the above happens, new builds even less attractive
        j) leading to investment in new builds largely confined to sophisticated wealthy investors. If you’re lucky.

        Better at this stage, tighter lending regs banks/APRA.

        What Party wants to be the one that deliberately crashed property with the aim of affordable housing. A nationwide disaster.

    • How many of these modest income earning negative gearing teachers/nurses/police are married to not-so-modest income earning white collar workers who help fund these investments?

    • billygoatMEMBER

      How is 40k – 120k a salary range – ridiculous parameter. A few in mgmt maybe but average nurse not close plus there went that many of them these days – mostly PSA or some other such acronym for bed pan cleaner, bum wiper. Most nursing homes don’t require nursing staff as such or even a doctor. They just ship them off to hospital in ambulance so doctor on duty can look them over, medicate & return to nursing home.

      • billygoatMEMBER

        Hospital & aged care money is all about the facade or visitors entrance – check out Anzac village in collsroy plateau cafe for family & visitors. Bulk of dollars direct to construction/building rent seeking industry but they do have a pretty fountain for grand kids to run around.

  2. Josh MoorreesMEMBER

    how does no one seem to make the link that this is taxable income which is by definition net of rental losses? seems like a pretty basic point for a journo who has done their own tax return.

  3. ABC in my mind is now a socialist pig. Its now a bastion for the Green Left. I wouldn’t trust anything they fact check…

      • How? How does the ABC represent broader Australia (with the exception of Landline!)???

        Have a look at Q&A. Stocked audiences – pre released questions. Even ABC 24 is sliding… even Offsiders refuse to cover rugby union unless pushed!

        No – its not inane. If I was Morrison, I would scrap both the ABC and SBS tomorrow. Both look after vested interests. Which don’t happen to be mine. And if I had a station that looked solely after my ideas, and you paid for it, i wouldn’t mind if objected and it were cut.

        In Australia we are going to have to embrace creative destruction. Find our essence again. The ABC has to go. Its beyond redemption. It no longer represents either Australia and Australian views.

      • How should they represent ‘broader Australia’ exactly? Government funded versions of ‘The Block’ and ‘My Kitchen Rules’ on repeat?

        Andrew Bolt gets a new light entertainment project where he visits kebab shops and complains about Halal certification?

        Maurice Newman gets invited around to climate skeptics houses where they cook for him in ‘Wingnuts coming for dinner’

        A lower North Shore family makes the agonising decision about whether to park the Audi or the BMW outside the garage in a more broadly applicable ‘Struggle Street’

        I mean really.

      • Gee RT your fascist streak is really starting to show – everything – is socialism… if not conforming to your ridged interpretation[s….

        Skippy…. yet you don’t seem to understand how obvious it is to others… guess thats what happens when some believe the creator has their back…

      • “And if I had a station that looked solely after my ideas, and you paid for it, i wouldn’t mind if objected and it were cut.”

        Can I object to any government spending that looks after someone other than myself?

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        How? How does the ABC represent broader Australia (with the exception of Landline!)???

        Very well.

        Hilarious that you pick out “Landline” as representative of “broader Australia” when it’s probably of interest only to the low end of a single digit percentage of the population.

        No – its not inane. If I was Morrison, I would scrap both the ABC and SBS tomorrow.

        Of course. Only news approved by and positive about the leadership should be broadcast, right, Mein Fuhrer ?

      • “How does the ABC represent broader Australia”

        “(with the exception of Landline!)???”

        “cover rugby union ”

        Hah!

    • The deeply conservative/Thatcherist baby boomer demographic doesn’t have a monopoly on media yet. I can see how that is a problem for you RT.

    • RT, read the entire report, contortions are epic. Essentially, ABC FactCheck does agree (as did The ConversationFactCheck) but then proceeds itself to ‘selectively’ utilise data to undermine Morrison. Extraordinary stuff.

      And as I say above, irrelevant – Labor has released a policy that clearly favours the top end of town!

      • “Labor has released a policy that clearly favours the top end of town!”

        Labor has released a policy that favours investment diversification. Which is a good thing both for individuals and for the country collectively. Or should be continue to encourage people to invest solely in loss-making investments?

    • And this is why Trump is doing so well, he can lead.
      Exit polling from super Tuesday indicated that Republican primary voters are split on their ideal candidate’s background: 50% said they want the next president to come from outside the political establishment
      Where is our DT.?

      • Is it that useful if he ‘leads’ and still loses to an incredibly flawed Hillary Clinton?

      • Eddit, he wont lose. Hillary could wind up campaigning n from jail.
        Just like Emperor Hadrian, we are having a wall !

      • You can still get ~3.25 at most bookies for Trump as the next president. May as well load up.

      • WW…

        Trump has no clue to what he would do in the WH let alone how to deal with the DC beltway, its just good reality TV.

        Skippy…. at some point he might be taken out….

      • You can’t stump President Trump.

        The DC belt way won’t be there in 2 years. He’ll reform the GoP and in two years time, most of the Republicans put back in will be Trump endorsees, just like Teddy Roosevelt dd.

      • Sorry RP but you don’t seem to know who Trump is, his history, but like his fan base, project your needs and desires onto him…

        Skippy…. the guy makes Bush Jr look like a rocket scientist… although both have an affinity for BKs… to wealth and fame…

  4. “Bottom line: Morrison is dead wrong to claim that negative gearing is utilised by “modest income earning Australians”.”
    DEAD WRONG!
    You state here:
    “Finally, those with a total income of $52,000 a year or less — an income more in line with the definition of modest as a “moderate” or median income and where the negative gearing benefit has not been subtracted — represent 59 per cent of all taxpayers, but only 40 per cent of negatively geared taxpayers.”

    So it IS utilized by modest income Australians.
    Look, I’m not necessarily a fan of negative gearing, but do wonder why that particular asset class is carved out. But let’s cut the sensationalist crap. As a top 1% earner (maybe higher) who does not utiilse negative gearing, I feel I can comment on this.

    • “Look, I’m not necessarily a fan of negative gearing, but do wonder why that particular asset class is carved out.”

      That’s easy to answer. It’s because property is the only investment where you can (a) easily borrow enough so that your interest payments and costs are higher than your income from that investment and (b) where you can continually claim a tax loss without having a credible plan to return to profit (other than wait for rents to rise).

      “As a top 1% earner (maybe higher) who does not utiilse negative gearing, I feel I can comment on this.”

      As the same, so do I.

      • Do you also feel that an entire article attempting to demonstrate the statement is incorrect is sensationalist? The article actually proves the point that the lower end of moderate, perhaps lower, DOES utilize NG!

      • Which is why I said above the article actually agrees with Morrison…but doesn’t want to 😉

      • “Do you also feel that an entire article attempting to demonstrate the statement is incorrect is sensationalist?”

        Not when it’s responding to our Treasurer’s repeated claims and the argument comes down to the semantics of how you parse his statements. No one (at least here on MB) is going to be convinced one way or the other on the issue but I think it’s worth pointing out the alternate point of view.

        Of course there are some lower income earners who use negative gearing and of course the greater benefits go to higher-income earners as they pay a higher rate of tax.

        I really couldn’t care who’s using it. It’s bad policy to encourage investments that make continual ongoing losses until rental inflation turns them positive. It’s also bad policy to continue to encourage real estate speculation in a country which has some of the highest house prices and corresponding private debt in the world.

    • I’d consider $52k low income – particularly when a single parent two kids pockets $55k on welfare.

      • If you think that’s bad 3d1k, run the numbers for your average pensioner.

        $184,000 welfare bucks easy with the 2.2M home exempt.

      • Using the maximum amount payable in your example there is like saying that single mothers are worth billions based on Gina Rinehart.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Data is not the plural of anecdote, no matter how much comically partisan trolls like Michael Smith and Researchtime wish it was.

        Even a cursory glance at the table provided makes it obvious a large amount of that money isn’t going into the “pocket” of the claimant. Eg: Rent assistance, JETCCFA.

      • Not to mention childcare subsidies to help her get back to work…which is presumably what 3d and Smith want.

      • Pedants arise!

        I’ll put it another way. This individual incurs an annual cost to the taxpayer of $55k. Not debating the rights or wrongs.

      • “This individual incurs an annual cost to the taxpayer of $55k.”

        Rubbish. Neither you nor Hockey could know that without illegally accessing her Human Services account. It was an “estimation” from the office of our previous Treasurer…who was a complete failure at his job and yet is looking better and better every day.

        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/joe-hockeys-welfare-mum-may-not-exist/news-story/0dcc083b74a495df24ff06bf42de67d1

        The Treasurer’s office estimated she would receive $54,417 in government payments including the parenting payment, both forms of family tax benefit, several supplements, rent assistance and education supplements.

        The Department of Human Services has said in a written answer to the Senate estimates committee that “the department did not provide the figures” and was “unable to confirm if the calculations are accurate”.

        “This is because the assumptions underpinning the figures and the individual circumstances, on which they are based, are not available and these facts may vary the outcomes,” the department said.

        “The department cannot advise of how many individuals are within the circumstances described by the media as the information requested is not readily available and cannot be provided on the grounds that to attempt to provide this information would involve an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources.”

      • “Even a cursory glance at the table provided makes it obvious a large amount of that money isn’t going into the “pocket” of the claimant. Eg: Rent assistance, JETCCFA.”

        Gawd…

        A PAYG earner on $70,500 and no deductibles will take home around $54,631… roughly equal to what 3″d1k is talking about.

        He pays rent to a landlord out of his after tax income… his earnings aren’t being “pocketed’ by himself either. What he is doing is living a living style concomitant to what $54,631 of PAYG would provide…Just as $54,417 of welfare money would.

        In a scenario between my hypothetical worker on $70,500 and the welfare case study…

        One exerts himself, one was born with a uterus.

        Perhaps we both look at this comparison and think “There’s only one person here that act in a virtuous manner”, but I’d hazard that we pick different people.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        One exerts himself, one was born with a uterus.

        So the obvious solution is to shoot all the single mothers and leave their babies to starve in the street. They’d only grow up to be leaners as well.

        Right ?

        Do single unemployed fathers with a couple of kids get left unsupported in your world as well ? Or do they deserve more because they’ve got different plumbing ?

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        This individual incurs cost to the taxpayer circa $55k.

        Who cares ? The plural of anecdote is not data.

      • “So the obvious solution is to shoot all the single mothers and leave their babies to starve in the street. They’d only grow up to be leaners as well.”

        Yes, that’s exactly what I meant…..

        “Right ?

        Do single unemployed fathers with a couple of kids get left unsupported in your world as well ? Or do they deserve more because they’ve got different plumbing ?”

        i) Where did I assert they deserve ‘no support’
        ii) Only your kind is focused on gender and harks for differing treatment based on gender.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Only your kind is focused on gender and harks for differing treatment based on gender.

        LOL. Not even a screen above you wrote:

        “One exerts himself, one was born with a uterus.”

        I don’t think I’ve ever advocated gender be a factor in policymaking.

      • “Only your kind is focused on gender and harks for differing treatment based on gender.

        LOL. Not even a screen above you wrote:

        “One exerts himself, one was born with a uterus.””

        Yes, that is a comparison between someone’s activity, versus someone’s non-activity, yet they seem to have the same rewards in life.

        That’s a neutral observation, and one would have to question that is one belives in equality, or even equitable treatment.

        Seeing the disparity, once would ask why it exists, considering one is a non-acheiver. Much observation concludes these types of gratuities do not exist for men.

        Thus, what we are left with is female privilege.

        The type that ensconces itself because of… your kind.

        “I don’t think I’ve ever advocated gender be a factor in policymaking.”

        Politics is downstream from culture. You identity, your personal culture advocates privilege based on gender.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Yes, that is a comparison between someone’s activity, versus someone’s non-activity, yet they seem to have the same rewards in life.

        Really ? Because the way it’s written it’s between someone who works and someone with a uterus.

        Seeing the disparity, once would ask why it exists, considering one is a non-acheiver. Much observation concludes these types of gratuities do not exist for men.

        Some would probably say it’s because men are usually not the ones left with children to look after.

        Thus, what we are left with is female privilege.

        Can you identify which of those privileges would not be available to a single father with two children ?

        Politics is downstream from culture. You identity, your personal culture advocates privilege based on gender.

        You are the only one bringing up gender as a deciding issue.

  5. drsmithyMEMBER

    Sounds like Mr Morrison has all the evidence he needs, and a sound argument, to cap maximum NG losses at $10k. That would clearly leave “the vast majority” untouched.

    • Frighteningly capable, Andrew Hastie. A God on his side and a history of ‘neutralising’ infidels in Afghanistan.

      More light reading from The West: Perth home owners brace for more pain

      Quotable quote: “We’re pretty much at the bottom,” Mr Barnett told Fairfax radio in Perth on Wednesday.

  6. If he had been shouting in German this morning I could have sworn that it was Hitler on a rant.