<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?> <docID>329788</docID> <postdate>2024-09-26 09:38:51</postdate> <headline>PM not so positive on negative gearing changes</headline> <body><p><img class="size-full wp-image-329789" src="https://citynews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/20221110001728108614-original-resized.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="600" /></p> <caption>Anthony Albanese repeatedly said there are "no plans" to touch the negative gearing tax concession. (Bianca De Marchi/AAP PHOTOS)</caption> <p><span class="kicker-line">By <strong>Dominic Giannini</strong> in Canberra</span></p> <p><strong>The prime minister can't see the positives in negative gearing changes but is being attacked for using the same rhetoric before reneging on a pledge not to touch tax cuts.</strong></p> <p>Anthony Albanese is being pressured to reveal whether the federal government is planning any changes to negative gearing, which is where property investors can offset losses against other income.</p> <p>Asked on the national broadcaster whether he was considering a negative gearing and capital gains tax reform to take to the next election, he said, "no we're not".</p> <p>This government was focused on addressing supply through a range of investment options, he said.</p> <p>Across a slate of other breakfast TV interviews on Wednesday dominated by the issue, Mr Albanese was less definitive, repeatedly asserting there were "no plans" to touch the tax concession.</p> <p>He also cast doubt on whether negative gearing changes would be a positive thing for investment in housing supply, which he said remained the focus.</p> <p>"The problem is all of the analysis shows that a change to negative gearing will not assist supply," he told Sky News.</p> <p>The prime minister's language came under scrutiny after he and his ministers repeatedly asserted there were "no plans" to change the stage three tax cut package - a Labor election pledge - before announcing an overhaul.</p> <p>The opposition criticised the prime minister's "no plans" rhetoric, with housing spokesman Michael Sukkar calling it "verbal gymnastics" similar to that used before Labor changed the tax cuts.</p> <p>Mr Albanese defended changing the tax package to favour lower to middle-income earners, saying times had changed.</p> <p>The Greens seized on this to argue economic times had indeed changed, which was why negative gearing and capital gains reform was necessary.</p> <p>Housing was taxed enough and he ruled out support for a cap to the number of houses the concession applied to, Mr Sukkar said.</p> <p>The majority of people who negatively geared property only had a single investment, he said.</p> <p>"We support the current arrangements that Australian mums and dads rely on as a normal feature of the tax system," he told Sky News.</p> <p>"If someone is able to negatively gear their share portfolio, a mum or dad should not be denied the same opportunity with owning an investment property."</p> <p>Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor added: "I don't know how taxing mum and dad investors more is going to increase supply".</p> <p>The debate reignited after reports the Treasury was considering policy options for negative gearing.</p> <p>Mr Albanese said he didn't tell them to do it and it was a good thing the public service was being "creative" while Treasurer Jim Chalmers said his department "looks at all kinds of different policies from time to time".</p> <p>"Treasury don't need to be directed, they're not schoolchildren with teachers up the front of the class, telling them what to do," Mr Albanese said.</p> <p>"I want a public service that looks at ideas, that looks at policy."</p> </body>