Housing now an investor’s playground   :(
2026-02-20
greens.org.au
New analysis today by ACOSS shows property investors are buying almost twice as many homes as first-home buyers, thanks to government tax breaks.

The analysis shows that the average property investor loan is around $100,000 larger than the average loan taken out by a first-home buyer, which guarantees investors a leg up at auctions.

The Greens say Labor’s tax breaks are directly responsible for investor advantage and have effectively created an investor playground that leaves first-home buyers behind.

Lines attributable to Greens spokesperson for finance, housing and homelessness Senator Barbara Pocock:

“Australia’s housing market has become an investor’s playground.

“Every time you crunch the numbers it gets worse and worse and that’s because of Labor.

“It’s no wonder that property investors bought twice as many homes as first-home buyers in the most recent December 2025 quarter.

“Labor’s tax breaks are directly responsible for investor advantage, giving first-home buyers no chance at auctions.

“It’s shameful that in the midst of a housing crisis, property investors get to treat the housing market like a game of monopoly, while first-home buyers and renters sigh in disbelief.

“The CGT discount and negative gearing are pushing up house prices, leaving renters and first-home buyers behind.

“Labor cares more about rewarding property investors with tax breaks than it does about building good quality homes at prices people can actually afford to rent or buy.

“The government must scrap the tax breaks for wealthy property investors. Labor has an opportunity to fix the housing crisis — but if they keep dodging real reform, they’ll lock a whole generation out of ever owning a home.”

THAT, my son is the entire game - to create a new class of over-heeled with all benefits and a set of classes below struggling to get by.  NOTHING has changed about the tax concessions all ways, nothing has changed about the banks' infinite preference for a 'business plan' that never goes broke since it cannot get sick or divorced or injured at work or becoe uemployed or in an accident or suffer any other catastrophe while literally living on the bread-line one pay away from disaster, instead of lending for HOMES to people who can scarcely keep up with rent and thus can't compete with the vultures for a HOME.

The fact that 'investors' pay a higher rate of interest means that those who are not vultures find it even harder to compete because they have to pay higher rent, and still pay the costs that prevent them BUYING their own Home.

THIS IS DELIBERATE POLICY, AND ACCOMPANIED WITH MASS IMMIGRATION HAS THE CLEAR AIM OF REDUCING THE PEASANTRY UNDER THE DESPOTISM OF NEO-POVERTY SO AS TO FACILITATE THE RISE OF THE NEO-FEUDAL LORDS AND LADIES, many of whom come from cultures you wouldn't spit on.

Let them eat cake... if you haven't woken up to that by now, you never will - and the most complicit party is the beloved New Labor that stole the last election from the people and looks likely to do it again in Victoria despite One Nation having a larger share of first preference votes.

You all know by now that forced preferential voting removes from the voter the inalienable right to dictate who they vote for - and you reckon this is a democracy.

Short of a major revolution of the REAL people - not the brain-dead inbreds out there with their intifada and jihad stupidity - there is no real hope for Australia - only looming disaster.

As Orwell said - 'the only hope lies with the proles' - most of whom are asleep at the wheel.... trapped in a cage and desperate .... that's the way to keep them!!

"now"

Did this "investigation" proceed beyond the doors of the Greens media department?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-13/enviornment-and-corruption-concerns-raised-over-planning-laws/105875992

“ The former Supreme Court judge said it was "deceitful" to suggest the laws related only to housing.

"Over the last 20 years, we have seen in NSW numerous examples of very serious corrupt conduct involving developers and others, interacting improperly with government ministers or senior officials to corruptly line their pockets," he said.”

I wonder if his referring to  “Seriously corrupt “ Glady government or Kristina  “ mean girl “ Keneally “most corrupt government since the rum rebellion “or perhaps both?

Does  One Nation have a housing policy?

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2026 at 11:43am:

Did this "investigation" proceed beyond the doors of the Greens media department?

Well,  Menzies had a nation of home owners, NOT renters, in mind - in a scenario of stable housing prices.

Daves2017 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2026 at 11:56am:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-13/enviornment-and-corruption-concerns-raised-over-planning-laws/105875992 “ The former Supreme Court judge said it was "deceitful" to suggest the laws related only to housing. "Over the last 20 years, we have seen in NSW numerous examples of very serious corrupt conduct involving developers and others, interacting improperly with government ministers or senior officials to corruptly line their pockets," he said.” I wonder if his referring to  “Seriously corrupt “ Glady government or Kristina  “ mean girl “ Keneally “most corrupt government since the rum rebellion “or perhaps both? Does  One Nation have a housing policy?

Yes: get rid of the tax breaks for rent-seeking investors, and rebuild the nation's public housing stock, since private housing is now unaffordable for workers on the average wage.

Quote:

Yes: get rid of the tax breaks for rent-seeking investors

What tax breaks do housing investors get that other investors don't?

Do you think rent will get cheaper if you do this?

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 20^th, 2026 at 12:19pm:

Yes: get rid of the tax breaks for rent-seeking investors, and rebuild the nation's public housing stock, since private housing is now unaffordable for workers on the average wage.

Please give us all these "tax breaks", you know nothing to do with expenses or any of that rot. ::)

It's just another mindless Greens class warfare policy dressed up as something new. If it was actually implemented it would harm the most disadvantaged Australians, not help them.

you sure are obsessed with "the greens"

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2026 at 12:21pm:

Quote: Yes: get rid of the tax breaks for rent-seeking investors What tax breaks do housing investors get that other investors don't?

(google)

Housing investors in Australia access unique tax benefits, primarily through negative gearing, which allows them to offset rental losses (where expenses exceed income) against their salary or other income, reducing their overall tax liability. Key exclusive tax breaks include claiming building depreciation, structural improvements, and significant, non-cash tax deductions


Quote:

Do you think rent will get cheaper if you do this?

Not in the private housing market, no.

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2026 at 1:15pm:

It's just another mindless Greens class warfare policy dressed up as something new. If it was actually implemented it would harm the most disadvantaged Australians, not help them.

No.

The Greens want to rebuild public housing; they are aware that decades of Thatcherite 'small government'  Neoliberalism has destroyed the 'Oz Dream' caused by encouraging housing as an investment vehicle for rent-seekers, rather than by maintaining affordable housing to live in. 

It is all caused by the policies of successive Govts:

(1) mass uncontrolled immigration of millions of people when there was no proper housing for them.

(2) failure to train enough house builders.

(3) Capital gains tax advantages for investors + negative gearing.

(4) excessive red tape and charges when building houses.



That's what happens when you have a Uniparty -
a one party State with 2 branches: Labor and Liberal.
The phoney preferential voting system helps them win again and again.

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 20^th, 2026 at 3:07pm:

Housing investors in Australia access unique tax benefits, primarily through negative gearing, which allows them to offset rental losses (where expenses exceed income) against their salary or other income, reducing their overall tax liability.

So they can claim expenses against their investment. ;D ;D ;D ;D

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 20^th, 2026 at 3:07pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 20th, 2026 at 12:21pm: Quote: Yes: get rid of the tax breaks for rent-seeking investors What tax breaks do housing investors get that other investors don't? (google) Housing investors in Australia access unique tax benefits, primarily through negative gearing, which allows them to offset rental losses (where expenses exceed income) against their salary or other income, reducing their overall tax liability. Key exclusive tax breaks include claiming building depreciation, structural improvements, and significant, non-cash tax deductions [quote]Do you think rent will get cheaper if you do this?

Not in the private housing market, no. [/quote]

Do you actually think negative gearing is unique to housing investors? Or did you type 'google' to indicate you have no idea what you are on about and are googling it for the first time?

lee wrote on Feb 20^th, 2026 at 4:09pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 20th, 2026 at 3:07pm: Housing investors in Australia access unique tax benefits, primarily through negative gearing, which allows them to offset rental losses (where expenses exceed income) against their salary or other income, reducing their overall tax liability. So they can claim expenses against their investment. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Exactly: why should rent-seekers be able to claim expenses against their investment, to reduce their overall tax liability?

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 21^st, 2026 at 10:37am:

lee wrote on Feb 20th, 2026 at 4:09pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 20th, 2026 at 3:07pm: Housing investors in Australia access unique tax benefits, primarily through negative gearing, which allows them to offset rental losses (where expenses exceed income) against their salary or other income, reducing their overall tax liability. So they can claim expenses against their investment. ;D ;D ;D ;D Exactly: why should rent-seekers be able to claim expenses against their investment, to reduce their overall tax liability?

We generally have a principle that you get taxed on your net profit/income. Not your turnover. Otherwise you have a situation where a person or business has a bad year with high turnover but no profit, and get sent bankrupt by the tax bill. The tax department is not there to destroy businesses. Not just out of a sense of fairness, but also because it would cause businesses to change their behaviour in a way that reduces their tax bill but harms the overall economy.

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2026 at 6:10pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 20th, 2026 at 3:07pm: freediver wrote on Feb 20th, 2026 at 12:21pm: Quote: Yes: get rid of the tax breaks for rent-seeking investors What tax breaks do housing investors get that other investors don't? (google) Housing investors in Australia access unique tax benefits, primarily through negative gearing, which allows them to offset rental losses (where expenses exceed income) against their salary or other income, reducing their overall tax liability. Key exclusive tax breaks include claiming building depreciation, structural improvements, and significant, non-cash tax deductions [quote]Do you think rent will get cheaper if you do this? Not in the private housing market, no.

Do you actually think negative gearing is unique to housing investors? [/quote]

No, but the topic is housing investment, and I have just shown you the exorbitant privilege accruing to Oz rent-seekers (aka as "investors") , which is distorting the housing market.

Housing investors in Australia access unique tax benefits, primarily through negative gearing, which allows them to offset rental losses (where expenses exceed income) against their salary or other income, reducing their overall tax liability.


Quote:

Or did you type 'google' to indicate you have no idea what you are on about and are googling it for the first time?

No, that's not why I "typed google" , but we can see  - unlike google -  YOU have no idea what you are talking about....  hence you can't critique the answer to your question about tax-advantaged investment.

At least lee had a shot - but he put his foot in his mouth, defending tax-advantaged 'investment' by rent-seekers.

Just like you simply ignored the fact Menzies, in the Keynesian deficit spending era,  ensured housing building costs and retainprices were affordable by average wage earners.

Keep demonstrating how your 'small government'/"other people's money" (ie 'taxpayer money' according to Thatcher) blind ideology cripples your brain.

Quote:

[quote]Do you actually think negative gearing is unique to housing investors?

No, but the topic is housing investment, and I have just shown you the exorbitant privilege accruing to Oz rent-seekers (aka as "investors") , which is distorting the housing market.[/quote]

This is what you posted:


Quote:

Housing investors in Australia access unique tax benefits

So what exactly are you trying to say? That you are copying and pasting with no understanding? You have not shown anything, other than an ability to contradict yourself.

What "unique tax benefits" do housing investors get? How is it "distorting" the market? Why is it a "privilege." Just because the Greens told you what to think?

Bobby. wrote on Feb 20^th, 2026 at 3:23pm:

It is all caused by the policies of successive Govts:

Correct.


Quote:

(1) mass uncontrolled immigration of millions of people when there was no proper housing for them.

So we need CONTROLLED immigration which increases the intake of builders - unless you want the Oz population to shrink:

(google)

Australia's population would likely shrink without immigration. With a fertility rate of roughly 1.6 to 1.7 babies per woman—well below the replacement rate of natural population growth (births minus deaths) is insufficient to maintain current levels


Quote:

(2) failure to train enough house builders.

Correct. Albo  is attempting to correct it, with free TAFE and incentives for building apprentices - which the 'small government' ideologues in the Coal-ition voted against.


Quote:

(3) Capital gains tax advantages for investors + negative gearing.

Correct...don't tell lee or FD, you can see their responses above.


Quote:

(4) excessive red tape and charges when building houses.

Yes,  red tape should be minimized, while ensuring standards are maintained; and government charges often arise because of misconstrued budgetary concerns.


Quote:

That's what happens when you have a Uniparty - a one party State with 2 branches: Labor and Liberal. The phoney preferential voting system helps them win again and again.

Partly correct: Labor at least offers some government investment (though woefully inaquate, eg the HAFF) , but is constrained by the same Thatcherite 'small government' BS as the Conservatives.

Thanks TGD,
we agree on everything.


Quote:

(4) excessive red tape and charges when building houses.

I partly remember a story from about 5 years ago.
A man divided his property into two and the person who bought it
built another house on his part of it.
The cost of getting utilities connected was astronomical:
electricity, water, gas, sewerage, drainage -
from the easements in the street.

Just getting the electricity hooked up was about $15,000 -
and a large part of it was red tape from the council -
it was the same for all the other utilities etc.
The council sees you as a cash cow when you try to build anything -
milking you of every last penny with fees.
The contractors charged through the nose too.
Everyone was out to make mega bucks.

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2026 at 11:03am:

Quote: [quote]Do you actually think negative gearing is unique to housing investors? No, but the topic is housing investment, and I have just shown you the exorbitant privilege accruing to Oz rent-seekers (aka as "investors") , which is distorting the housing market.

This is what you posted:


Quote:

Housing investors in Australia access unique tax benefits

So what exactly are you trying to say? [/quote]

Housing investors ie rent seekers, NOT first home buyers who want a place to live in for life, rather than as a money making investment -  in Australia access unique tax benefits.

How difficult is that to understand (other than by a blind, crippled-brain 'small government' ideologue?)


Quote:

That you are copying and pasting with no understanding? You have not shown anything, other than an ability to contradict yourself.

You already said that, without explaining the "error" in the google quote.


Quote:

What "unique tax benefits" do housing investors get?

....primarily through negative gearing, which allows them to offset rental losses (where expenses exceed income) against their salary or other income, reducing their overall tax liability.

Simple plain english; these benefits combined with CGT discount  are rarely available outside Oz.


Quote:

How is it "distorting" the market?

By incentivizing  rent-seeking "investors", rather than 1st home buyers who don't want to become rent seekers,  but want an add affordable  house to live in, into the market.


Quote:

Why is it a "privilege." Just because the Greens told you what to think?

No -  because the above arguments  are irrefutable, except by self-interested "freedom" ideologues who are happy to see an increase in the rent-seeking class in Oz, therby condemning more Aussies to the status of renter-serfs for life  (in the absence of affordable rents in public housing).   

Quote:

primarily through negative gearing

You just said that negative gearing is not unique to housing investors. Would you like to try again?

What "unique tax benefits" do housing investors get?

Landlord upset in Victoria :

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Gz0C197DUTM

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 21^st, 2026 at 10:37am:

Exactly: why should rent-seekers be able to claim expenses against their investment, to reduce their overall tax liability?

So you disagree with every other government.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 21^st, 2026 at 11:47am:

these benefits combined with CGT discount  are rarely available outside Oz.

Perhaps you can share any "intelligence" you may have. The CGT discount is in place of phantom gains. due to inflation. If you sell something and then buy again you have to pay the new "market price", not the previous price before inflation. ::)

The USA taxes capital gains at significantly lower rates than Australia.

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2026 at 1:33pm:

The USA taxes capital gains at significantly lower rates than Australia.

Google AI:


Australian resident individual investors who have held an investment property for over 12 months are generally entitled to a 50% Capital Gains Tax (CGT) discount. This concession reduces the net capital gain by half, meaning only 50% of the profit is added to your taxable income and taxed at your marginal rate.

Key Aspects of the CGT Discount for Property:
Eligibility: You must be an Australian resident for tax purposes, an individual, or a trust (companies are generally not eligible).


12-Month Rule: The property must be held for more than 12 months, excluding the dates of acquisition and sale.


Calculation: If you sell an investment property for a $200,000 gain, you only report $100,000 as taxable income.


Cost Base Reduction: The gain is calculated as the sale price minus the "cost base" (purchase price + buying/selling costs).
Foreign Residents: If you were a foreign resident for any part of the ownership period, the 50% discount may be reduced or not applicable.


Partial Main Residence: If your investment property was once your main residence, you may be entitled to a partial exemption, with the remaining gain potentially eligible for the 50% discount.

lee wrote on Feb 21^st, 2026 at 1:16pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 21st, 2026 at 11:47am: these benefits combined with CGT discount  are rarely available outside Oz. Perhaps you can share any "intelligence" you may have. The CGT discount is in place of phantom gains. due to inflation. If you sell something and then buy again you have to pay the new "market price", not the previous price before inflation. ::)

yes - bad if you are buying back in.

Yeah  but look at all the homing all this investment is producing!!!!  All these new homes appearing by magic every day!!