The property investment debate has reared its head again, and frankly, it’s about time. The Parliamentary Budget Office recently dropped some numbers that have got everyone talking: 80% of capital gains tax discount benefits flow to the top 10% of earners, while 60% of negative gearing benefits go to the top 20%. When you put it like that, it’s pretty stark, isn’t it?

What’s fascinating is watching the responses unfold online. There’s this persistent narrative that any changes to negative gearing would devastate mum-and-dad investors, but the reality seems far more nuanced. One user made an excellent point about how properties naturally become more positively geared over time, meaning established investors with multiple properties would largely be unaffected by changes. It’s really the high-income earners buying expensive coastal properties with terrible rental yields who’d feel the pinch – and honestly, that doesn’t sound like such a tragedy.

The housing debate took an interesting turn this week when a property investor with 26 properties tried to blame immigration for Australia’s housing affordability crisis. The irony wasn’t lost on anyone, but it highlighted a deeper conversation we need to have about property distribution in our country.

Living in the inner suburbs, I’ve watched perfectly good houses sit empty for months or even years, while desperate renters compete for increasingly scarce rentals. Within a kilometer of my home, I can count at least ten vacant properties - some waiting for redevelopment, others seemingly forgotten by their investors. It’s a pattern repeated across Melbourne, where approximately 50,000 properties are tied up in short-term rentals like Airbnb.