Hold onto your wallets - it's the 2016 Budget & Election season!

A couple of years ago, I almost sold my former family home in Perth. Then I sat down and calculated how much CGT I would have to pay and I immediately took the house off the market. My estate can pay for this after I'm dead. CGT, which is nothing other than a tax on inflation, is an unfair tax. I would like us to follow the lead of countries like Germany, where a rental property that has been held for more than 10 years, is free of CGT. Alternatively, considering that many Australians have purchased real estate as an alternative to super, the sale of property should be CGT free for people over the age of 65. This would put them on par with people who have invested in real estate in their self managed super funds and sell their property once their super fund is in pension mode. As to negative gearing, will it reduce property prices? If it does, it won't have a long-term effect as demand for properties to purchase or to rent, will push demand and prices up again. Also, if negative gearing is abolished in any type or form, the losses will be carried forward until the property is making a gain and the losses are offset against the gain, or the property is sold. The only thing that will change in the longer term will be an increase in accounting costs to keep track of prior year losses, and will thus increase the losses and also over time, reduce any tax gains for the government. As an alternative to abolishing negative gearing on rental properties, how about abolishing setting off losses incurred by one business within a conglomerate, against the overall profits of the conglomerate? Case in point - Woolworths failed Masters stores, which was reported at $1 billion over six months! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-26/woolworths-reports-almost-$1-billion-loss/7202004 At a company tax rate of 30% the tax savings from offsetting $1billion against other profits amounts to $300million! So how much does Labor hope to save from negative gearing? 

Seems to me that, unfortunately, our current day politicians have forgotten why "compulsory" superannuation was introduced. They continue to fiddle with taxation of super contributions and consequently reduce the amount one can contribute to ons' retirement .... eventually under their though bubbles the pressure on the public purse will not abate and Ye future taxpayer will still be required to pay for Aged Pensions. The object of Keatings plan as to eventually remove the need for Aged Pensions, or at least substantially reduce dependency. Same applies to negative gearing ... changing the rules here will not only reduc investment in housing, but also increase dependency upon the public purse via pensions. It's a damn shame that the "modern day" politician/rule maker cannot think outside the box and to look beyond the next 4 years. Maybe Superannuation rules for politicians were amended to be precisely the same as thos applied to "non politicians/public servants" ??? 

Actually it is LABOR party, the only thing they labour at is spending our hard earned, Labor party Senators who wear Red Undies on their heads and carry on like boofheads about the Governor General. 

Anomymous from SA Merrill, Jan and Susan are absolutely spot on. We cannot afford a Labour Government. 

I think it's time the federal governments of all persuasions woke up to the fact that the so called baby boomers are a very powerful group of voters. 

The budget is critical to the political environment, your dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. Movements on Superannuation is overdue, squalling dollars off income at a lesser rate of tax is limiting government income which we all benefit from, setting a fixed amount to add to super would be more realistic. Negative gearing is part of normal business processes, however, a maximum amount needs to be set and only on one property investment, giving mum and dad investors reasonableness. Self funded retires need to have some concessions over age of 60, indexed as life extends on average. GST should be lifted gradually over 10 years at 2.5% per 5 years.this will give time to effect pricing rents, and other products except staple food items fresh and non production items. 

Spot on Susan. If we let Labour back in we will be paying for it for years to come John from Qld 

Absolutely agree with Jan & Merrill. What a short memory people have Keith. Labour took us through the hugest boom in the mining industry - a time when we should have added billions to create a healthy surplus - instead they took us ever deeper into debt with their recklessness. They are responsible for the mess that we're currently in. God help us all if they get back in. Your kids will never see the light of day then. 

Jan & Merrill, labor does what it does to provide infrastructure to the community. A surplus, unless spent,won't educate your kids or fix roads or provide police. Cheers Keith Jessop. 

The most annoying issue is - whilst working you are encouraged to contribute more to your Superannuation for a comfortable retirement. After doing this and going without - at times during your working life - now the rules will change to penalise you - if you are a self funded retiree. I have worked since 15 years of age and recently retired at 65. Where is the equality/sense in saving for your retirement - having never received any assistance from the Government?