Property parasites swarm election

After nine years of debunking their lies, it seems MB is going to have its work cut out over the next five weeks. Form the AFR:

More evidence has emerged that the level of negative gearing for new property is already much higher than Labor assumed when predicting how much extra revenue it will collect from its tax crackdown.

The new evidence also comes as the Coalition leapt on Treasury costings of Labor’s negative gearing and capital gains tax discount crackdown, which showed the expected revenue would be much lower at $31.5 billion over the next 10 years instead of Labor’s expectation of $35.1 billion.

The Property Council of Australia has provided data, collated months prior to Labor’s assumptions being called into question…

That depends how you define the word “evidence”. There is none that counters the PBO’s costings. Just the word of the deeply biased industry lobby. Sadly, the AFR didn’t bother to question it.

Moreover, even if the Coalition is right and the Budget savings will be $31.5 billion, these are still massive and far more than those achieved under the Coalition – a big fat zero.

At The Australian we have a better measure of what’s going on:

Real estate agents across the ­nation have declared war on Bill Shorten’s negative gearing overhaul and will mount a four-week campaign using customer databases to target buyers, sellers, landholders and tenants in key marginals seats.

The Real Estate Institute of Australia, which represents about 95 per cent of the 36,000 businesses that employ about 120,000 ­people, is leading the push to coincide with the election campaign.

The industry-backed campaign will harness social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to promote key attack lines against the Labor ­policy, arguing that it will reduce property prices in a cooling market, fail to raise the forecast revenue and pose a danger to the Australian economy.

Brace for a tsunami of fake news, in other words. Willingly, neh thrillingly, reproduced by a fake media.

Comments

  1. The AFR had dialed the propaganda level up to 11 spouting out all sorts of tripe.

    Finally had a chance to read the middle income 49% tax article and they’re suggesting 9% wages growth for people on 130k between now and 2022. WTF?

    • When the deadline is 2022, you can claim what you like without fear of being hung out to dry. The world will have changed in that time anyway rendering any prior forecast null and void anyway. It’s a free shot at goal.

    • proofreadersMEMBER

      Yep – the tsunami of leaners that are the NG/CGT specufestors and the franking credit refund “pensioners” (and their mouthpieces) will stop at nothing to preserve John Howard’s greatest gifts that keep on giving.

    • I’d be interested in understanding what the real voting impact here is. People who get tax refunds in excess of tax paid (wealthy self-funded retirees or high-earning tax payers wives) are in the minority and I would expect that they live in solid LNP electorates.

      If the impact of this is that self-funded retirees with houses in Brighton or Toorak don’t vote Labor – then so be it. I do feel a bit for them. They may have to be reduced to one overseas holiday / year.

  2. I wonder how many people who read the AFR (and believe it) would ever vote for a party other than the LNP. If I subscribe to the AFR and vote LNP and read articles like this, it just enforces my confirmation bias.

    It is interesting however that the Australian presents more nuance in recognising that it is real estate agents talking their own book. No-one likes a real estate agent – do they?

    • Yeah, agreed. It’s an echo box for privilege for sure. But it’s also meant to be reputable, so plenty of people will give more weight to its material than a competing source, so the misinformation spreads.

      Not good.

    • It could backfire. No one likes or trusts RE agents. Most will figure it’s a vested interest campaign.

      Separately, it will be nice having mail outs across the country pointing out that there are further downsides to a market that is already crashing. Hopefully it will paralyse buyers further – and stop the ridiculous idea that people should rush to buy “before negative gearing ends”.

      • Spot on Arrow. The louder the protest the better the policy. If given a choice between saving a pedo and anyone involved in RE i will go the kiddy fiddler any day. Total and utter faaaarkwits.

  3. To be fair to the parasites, they’ve made an awfully handsome living doing fvck all productive for the domestic economy and being socially useless. Why would you want to give that up?

    Mind you, you can include the Super Industry in this lot as well. Heaps of people sucking the lifeblood out of the economy and spending it on Gucci flip flops and expensive European motors.

    • While I personally agree with what you’re saying, I also recognize that this belief (world view of what is righteous and by comparison what’s therefore sinful or just plain parasitic) is completely inconsistent with modern Australian mores.
      Bringing social mores into the equation shifts the whole discussion from rational balanced money flow based Economics discussion into the realm of Behavioral Economics, it’s worth remembering that this Rational Money based Economics is only a tool intended to help with optimizing our Behavioral Economic needs. If the tool fails (as it clearly does during QE when external capital is created at zero cost and loaned into our system for profit) than we will revert to other methods to optimize our Behavioral needs.
      In the end it’s all herd behavior, every single change reflects the needs of the herd and will, in one way or another be used by the herd to determine exactly which members receive preferential treatment and which members are forced to the edge where they’ll either prove they can outrun the predictors or they’ll become the prey. This is classic herd behavior, and nothing but herd behavior.
      The only remaining question is: Is this behavior beneficial to the herd? I’d say the answer depends on where you see the bounds of your herd and how your herd interacts with other maybe larger more powerful herds…who gets the safe middle ground and who is forced towards the dangerous edges?

      • I agree. (What I think) you are saying is that monetary policy directs behaviour and you are right. However, if you’re asking me to be sympathetic then I’m struggling. Most of these 120k people have been earning money they wouldn’t otherwise have earned in other fields. When money comes as easily as it has done to the real estate crew your instinct should tell you you are in the presence of something fundamentally unsustainable. Party on, by all means but be ready for the aftermath.

        If not, well, natural selection and all that

  4. Real estate agents across the ­nation have declared war on Bill Shorten’s negative gearing overhaul and will mount a four-week campaign using customer databases to target buyers, sellers, landholders and tenants in key marginals seats.

    Because RE agents are such trusted figures in the community that people will take voting advice from them. Well, thinking about it, the sad reality is that a lot of people probably will. 🙁

  5. For the first time in many, many years I would consider putting Labor as one of my preferences after Sustainable and others because of their neg gearing policies, except for the fact that they intend to keep up the huge immigration rate.

  6. “Just the word of the deeply biased industry lobby.”

    Where else would you get the data other than from those in the property industry which handle and process it?

    I hope it wasn’t Macro Business in the ear of the Labor’s economic advisers which resulted in them using the misleading numbers to come up with their policy.

    It feels like you are skirting responsibility for many mistruths that have been spread on this site over recent years.

    The big budget savings from Labor’s plan will come from the changes to the CGT discount, not negative gearing, and much of the savings will come from assets which are not property.

    • C’mon Joseph you are better than this. PBO is considered an independent non-partisan institution as is Grattan which has quoted similar breakdowns. It seem entirely reasonable to ask the ‘property lobby to furnish evidence of their claims. Don’t you think? Especially as they have a vested interest in discrediting the PBO figures, given it waters down the supposed benefits of winding back the policy. You expect any intelligent person to take them on their word? Even if they did furnish data from their magical databases, it would need to be properly audited for reasons aforementioned…

      You’re an odd fellow Skewes but there is some potential there if you stop trying to troll everyone all the time.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now