Carrington Clarke

And there's a lot of interesting graphs in this.

It is very nerdy.

But they point out that really, if you've been invested in detached houses over the last 25 years,

You have made mint.

You have done exceedingly well because you've been able to, in those years where your rental income has been less than it's cost you to have that investment, you've been able to offset your other income.

So it's particularly good for high-income earners.

Reducing their taxable income.

Exactly.

And then you're able to get the discount on the capital gains.

Now, a lot of people have also managed to perhaps wait to sell that property until they hit retirement when the rest of their taxable income is lowest.

And so they're facing a much lower marginal tax rate.

I've been trying to think of what the analogy is here, because before we had the budget released, part of the argument from those who were opposing these potential, as they were, potential changes, was that this would potentially pull the ladder of opportunity away from younger people, even though this is being targeted as saying, well, this is going to help younger people, first home buyers, to not have to compete against cashed up people buying their second or third investment property.

but it means they won't be able to access those same arrangements, those same taxation arrangements.

What I would say is this doesn't pull the ladder of opportunity away because you can still use negative gearing to access on a new property, but it does mean that ladder's much shorter because you're not going to see those very high rates of return that we've seen in detached housing

over a prolonged period, multiple decades now, here in Australia.

That shouldn't happen anymore.

So you're not going to be able to get the same returns that perhaps older generations did.

Is that fair?

Maybe not.

But is it fairer, that's what the government will be arguing, to make it easier now for first-home buyers to at least get the property they live in, their home?