pixel
DIY Trader
- Joined
- 3 February 2010
- Posts
- 5,359
- Reactions
- 345
It's not a matter of whether the government spent taxpayers' money wisely. Governments rarely do. Let the taxpayers make it clear to their pollies that they feel shafted.As I said, that cash could have been used in a better way, for a longer lasting program, the program has ended but millions of dollars will still have to be paid out for the next decade.
Given that it would have been cheaper just to give installations away for free, and still get all the same benefits, how can you not see it's a terrible deal for tax payers.
But if I'm offered a contract that guarantees me a set price for selling power into the grid, I do my sums based on that offer. If I come out ahead, I'll take it, otherwise I leave it. But if the counterparty stuffed up and pays me more than it's worth, I won't reject it or feel guilty accepting it. It is not as if I had forced them to stuff up.
As far as my comparison to negative gearing goes, and I can also include halving the CGT after 12 months, I see those issues on exactly the same level: Nobody in their right mind will buy a rental property expecting it to be a long-term losing business. What you call an "actual tax loss" may well apply in the short-term view for the initial years of ownership. Over time though, appreciation will ensure that the investment is profitable, or nobody would buy rental properties and accept the hassle and red tape that comes with it - not to mention the chance of finding a rotten tenant that wrecks the place and then does a runner. The Government wanted to boost the Building Industry, so they gave tax money away in order to get more taxes from builders, rental agents, and other sources.