Peter Dutton can’t be afraid to be ambitious with important policies

Having watched the last three debates it is clear there is little apparent difference between the two main parties. Just plenty of motherhood statements without any contrast and certainly no detail. Bold policies, even if initially unpopular, are needed. Love him or hate him, Donald Trump delivered very strong speeches outlining major changes that he would implement. Certainly some groups were offended and other minority pressure groups were outraged but the mainstream were obviously convinced. Peter Dutton and the Coalition need to present much more strongly and not be afraid of offending some groups. We know that productivity is falling and we know that the path to prosperity is increased productivity so why aren’t the conservatives pressing this argument and arguing for immediate improvements.

Michael Bosher, Turramurra, NSW

Peta Credlin asks what we have done to deserve another three years of this bad government (“What have we done to deserve Labor”, 24/4). The Liberals haven’t presented the voters with a clear option. They haven’t fiercely highlighted the broken promises and the debacles. It seems Labor has kept Energy Minister Chris Bowen out of the campaign and the Liberals have let it do it. It’s been a soft-boiled campaign from the Liberals and a very disappointing one. More offers on the table than a Sunday smorgasbord and very confusing. When the Libs regain their mojo, they’ll deserve to win.

Paul Everingham, Hamilton, Qld

‘Obscene’ teal money

The re-election money pit for the teal member for Goldstein, Zoe Daniel, seems like a bottomless (“Simon says ‘save Zoe’ with big donation”, 24/4) one. Despite acknowledging that her federal election campaign “still has money in the bank”, the hand has gone out to the political action group, Climate 200, for another $50,000, reportedly taking its donations to the teal MP to more than half a million dollars. The numbers are obscene to most people, especially those who can’t afford a house and those who do not reflect the public representation of the teals.

Tim Sauer, Brighton East, Vic

Market choking

While the proposed tax on unrealised profits may unintentionally drive funds out of SMSFs and into property, we shouldn’t overlook other potential changes. Talk of scrapping negative gearing might be easy to justify now, with interest rates still relatively low. But ditching the 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax could backfire. It may discourage investors from selling, tightening up an already strained housing supply. If we really want to get property moving, we should look at scrapping both capital gains tax on housing and stamp duty. That would make the market more fluid, with more properties changing hands. To make up the shortfall, bring in a broadbased land tax – applied to all property, including owner-occupied homes. Such a change seems a fairer, more efficient way to raise revenue without choking the housing market.

John Kempler, Rose Bay, NSW

Dishonest Greens

The Greens are being dishonest. The following points need to be clarified for voters. First, the Greens state the Howard government in the 1990s introduced a 50 per cent reduction in applicable capital gains. Labor introduced the Capital Gains Tax in 1985, to be adjusted for inflation. After a decade the Liberals “simplified” it with a flat 50 per cent reduction for assets held longer than 12 months. While this is better for those holding the assets for just a few years, it results in an increasingly larger tax on those assets held long-term, including inheritances. Any capital loss can only be claimed against future capital gains and only for as long as that taxpayer is alive.

Second, it’s only fair that all the various genuine expenses can be claimed against the overall income from all sources of an individual taxpayer. Negative gearing is where those expenses for assets are greater than the income from such assets. If a taxpayer’s overall expenses are greater than the overall income then the net loss cannot be claimed from the ATO. Investors need to earn positive income or they will go elsewhere, and one effect would be to constrict rental availabilities.

Hugh Hyland, Spearwood, WA

‘Sloan Approval Law’

Judith Sloan never fails to get to the heart of the matter (“Shallow retail politics puts policy nous to the sword”, 23/4). Her proposals are sensible and considered. With the ALP addicted to high spending and high borrowing, it’s put “electoral needs” ahead of those of Australians who’ll have to repay profligate spending. How do we overcome political addiction to spending and the voters’ addiction to getting handouts. Two possibilities. Appoint Judith as Treasury secretary or require the current Treasurer to pass any proposal by Judith for OK or veto. This could be enshrined in law, the Sloan Approval Law.

Lee Smith, Kenmore, Qld