Labor Deletes Negative Gearing Policy

Chris Bowen and the Labor Party were caught out last week relying on dodgy assumptions as the basis for their Housing Tax that will send house values down and the cost of rent up.

Today it has been revealed that these assumptions were deleted from the official Labor policy document on the ALP website overnight.

Labor’s Housing Tax would reduce the value of your home, push up rents and harm the economy.

Not only has Chris Bowen has been exposed for using inaccurate figures to justify his Housing Tax, he has now been caught out trying to cover his tracks.

He didn’t even have the decency to front up to the Australian people and explain the error at the heart of one of Labor’s key policies – instead choosing to delete it under the cover of darkness.

The error that Labor has deleted from the document relates to a significant underestimation of the extent of investment in newly-built housing and therefore an overstatement of the revenue that might be raised by its plan to end negative gearing on established housing.

An archived version of Labor’s original policy reveals the dodgy assumptions that were deleted:

“The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that 93 per cent of new investment loans go to people purchasing existing housing stock. This means that the vast bulk of investment does not increase supply or boost jobs. All it does is increase demand and the price of the existing homes, allowing investors to use tax subsidies to outbid owner occupiers and first home buyers from existing properties.”

This was rebuffed by the ABS which said: “If you wanted to have those numbers you wouldn’t be able to get them from our statistics -because we don’t collect them.”

Despite around 1.3 million Australian investors who use negative gearing being hit by Labor’s policy, Bill Shorten has dodged questions on why the bulk of the policy has been deleted from Labor’s website:

QUESTION: Can I ask on those 90 excluded pages about our capital gains and negative gearing changes, you say there’s new assumptions so they need updating, how did the assumptions change the costings on those two programs, and assuming they’re not affected, would you release the 90 pages so we can have a look?

BILL SHORTEN: Listen, I think the original question comes from a story I read in the Financial Review, and it was followed up by a question here. We said and I went and checked when I saw the story, how come this page is down? They said they’re updating it. I can’t add any more at this point.

It is simply unacceptable to the 58,000 teachers, 42,000 nurses and 19,000 police and emergency service personnel who negatively gear that Bill Shorten has no answers for them on his so called signature policy. Every Australian that owns a home or rents a home deserves an answer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *