Negative gearing has been one of the most hotly contested election policy battlegrounds — but where does the public stand on tax breaks for investment property owners?

Data from the ABC's Vote Compass provides some insights.

But first, a quick recap on what negative gearing is: basically, it allows property investors who make a loss to reduce the tax they pay on their other income.

So if you earn $80,000 in income, but lose $10,000 on your property, you'll only be taxed on $70,000.

Alright, but what does the public think? Here's what Vote Compass tells us.

1. More people want to restrict or scrap negative gearing than keep it

Just over 40 per cent of Australians say landlords should continue to receive tax breaks on any property they own.

That's in line with the Coalition's policy; it wants to retain negative gearing and says Labor's plans to restrict the tax break to newly built property will prompt house prices to fall.

But one-third want the tax break scrapped, and 15 per cent opt for Labor's approach as their first choice.

"The option that most Australians stump for is the status quo: that all landlords continue to enjoy the benefits of negative gearing," explained Professor Simon Jackman, a University of Sydney political scientist.

"A close second though is that nobody gets the benefits of negative gearing, so Australian public opinion there seems to go in two directions: either keep it as it is or no-one gets this benefit at all."

The reasons for these divergent opinions become much more obvious when you look at who wants to keep negative gearing, who wants it scrapped, and who really doesn't know what all the fuss is about.

2. A lot of young people don't seem to know what it is

A quarter of people in the 18-34 bracket said they "don't know" who should be allowed the property tax break.

To give you some perspective on this, we often don't include "don't know" data in the Vote Compass result charts because the numbers are so low.

A younger person who does know how negative gearing works is 25-year-old property investor Stephanie Brennan, who owns seven properties, one of which is negatively geared.

"Negative gearing is a really effective way to minimise your tax and offset obviously the money that you're losing on an investment property," she said.

"If it were to be removed we would see the devaluing of property, particularly in the existing market, and I think that will burden a lot of people."

3. Older people mostly want to get rid of it

More people in the oldest age bracket, over 55, chose the option of getting rid of negative gearing entirely, with 41 per cent answering "no-one, this tax break should be scrapped".

"There's an interesting wrinkle in the data there of respondents 55 years and older," Professor Jackman said.

"That struck me as a little surprising given I would have thought people in that age bracket are probably the most likely to be availing themselves to the tax benefits of negative gearing."

4. The middle age bracket wants to keep negative gearing

The age group most in favour of universal negative gearing is the middle-age bracket, with half of those aged 35-54 in favour of the tax break.

These findings, and other findings based on the age of the respondent, make sense when you compare it with Tax Office numbers used in a Reserve Bank submission last year.

They show that the same age bracket has the highest percentage of investment properties, and they're highly likely to be negatively geared.

5. Richer people want to keep it too

As the age data shows us, the people who use negative gearing the most are more likely to want to keep the tax break in tact, and those who do not use it are happy to dispose of it.

So perhaps no surprises here that wealthier people want to keep negative gearing.

Although Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has argued most negative gearers are Aussie "mum and dad investors", the ABC's analysis of negative gearing data found that while reasonable percentages of salaried lower earners (like registered nurses) used negative gearing, general managers, chief executives and executive directors claimed the largest pool of tax breaks for their investment properties (more than $800 million).

6. Labor voters are not that hot for Labor policy

It's not the first time we've seen this in the Vote Compass data, but voters who have indicated they plan to vote for Labor this election are not peachy keen on their chosen party's policy of restricting negative gearing to newly built investment properties.

Professor Jackman said: "Just 21 per cent of Labor Party supporters are expressing a preference for the stated policy of their party.

"The policy that Labor party supporters are most likely to support is that nobody gets negative gearing at all."

This is not quite a dichotomy; many of those voters would still favour Labor's policy over the Coalition's, because overall Labor voters want negative gearing limited.

Coalition supporters are the group most in favour of keeping the negative gearing program in tact, in line with Liberal and National party policies.

These findings are based on 16,812 respondents who participated in Vote Compass from May 11 to June 13, 2016. The data has been weighted to ensure the sample reflects the Australian population. [Read the Vote Compass data FAQ]