The term intergenerational inequality sounds catchy, but is it entirely logical and problematic?

Since Federation, the older generations usually generated any wealth we had, and the younger ones took a while to accumulate any wealth. Sure, properties were cheaper after the Second World War and remained affordable up until about 20 years ago, but there are other factors at play here too. The old supply and demand is always a factor. It’s the same with rents. If demand exceeds supply, you will get higher house prices and high rents. If there is a glut of properties on the market, house prices will fall. The same applies to rent.

When my old colleague, planning minister Bill Wood, allowed a glut of new properties to flood the market in about 1992, the price of houses and rent went down. It took a lot of tweaking around the edges to get the balance right and, I’m pleased to say, we managed this by 1996 after we became the next government in March 1995.

I think Opposition Leader Angus Taylor is on a winner with his push, echoing One Nation, for lower immigration to ensure the supply of new properties keeps pace with demand.

Labor has always wanted to get rid of negative gearing. I can understand their point of view, but does it work?

Even on their figures, it seems they’re only expecting a modest number of young Australians to benefit — 75,000 over a number of years.

Indeed, changes to negative gearing rules (which are grandfathered at any rate) and capital gains tax will probably act as a disincentive for younger people.

It’s a bit like dropping the company tax rate. It seems like a bad idea except, when that occurred in every Western country, there was more investment as a result, which benefited everyone.

I am reminded that in the mid-1980s, one of our best treasurers, Paul Keating, put a brake on negative gearing only to remove it a couple of years later as it had not worked. I remain to be convinced that anything has really changed.

I saw reports that some of the most disillusioned with the government’s broken promises on GST and capital gains tax were our not insignificant and very financially savvy Indian and Chinese communities. I wonder how that will pan out in the 2028 election.

I recall that, again in about 1985, Paul Keating tried to tax Army Reserve pay. This had the effect of seeing a large number of senior NCOs (sergeants and warrant officers) leave, as well as a lot of captains and majors — those crucial ranks no army can do without.

At the time, I was a captain stationed at Ingleburn and, as I was also a Crown Prosecutor in the DPP, I often had to drive my own car to Ingleburn because of my civilian work commitments.

The Tax Office allowed me a generous kilometre rate and, as the round trip was about 500 kilometres, the tax deduction more than compensated for the tax.

Keating scrapped the tax after one year.

I wish the government well on this, but history shows moves like this don’t always work and are often counterproductive.