Negative gearing has been one of the most hotly contested policy areas of the election campaign — and Vote Compass data suggests it's also dividing Australian voters.

Key points: A clear majority of Labor and Greens voters want to cut back investment property concessions like negative gearing

A clear majority of Labor and Greens voters want to cut back investment property concessions like negative gearing However, 47 per cent of Coalition voters oppose any move towards fewer property tax breaks

However, 47 per cent of Coalition voters oppose any move towards fewer property tax breaks The idea of tax cuts for wealthy Australians is not popular, even among wealthier voters

If elected, the Labor Party plans to limit negative gearing to new housing and halve the capital gains discount from 2020. The changes would not apply to any investments made before that date.

The Coalition has condemned the policy as economically risky, and targeted it in a swathe of attack ads.

Almost half of voters agree there should be fewer tax breaks on investment properties, Vote Compass finds, but 20 per cent are neutral and 29 per cent disagree.

Views on negative gearing split by party

Nearly half (47 per cent) of Coalition voters are opposed to winding back tax concessions on investment property, while nearly a third (28 per cent) would like to see fewer tax breaks.

The majority of Labor (68 per cent) and Greens (59 per cent) voters support cutting back negative gearing tax concessions, in line with those parties' policies.

For One Nation supporters, 38 per cent do not want to cut back the concessions, while 36 per cent agree there is a need for change.

People aged over 55 are most supportive of winding back investment property tax breaks, with 52 per cent in agreement, compared with 45 per cent of those aged 35 to 54 and 46 per cent of those aged under 35. Notably, 9 per cent of people under the age of 35 answered 'don't know'.

Shaun Ratcliff, lecturer in political science at the University of Sydney, and a member of the Vote Compass academic panel, says younger voters, although potentially affected by the negative gearing policy, are not necessarily aware of it.

"A lot may still be living at home with their parents," he said. "They might start thinking about it as they move out of home, start paying tax and renting.

"Then they might have stronger views on landlords and whether they should be getting tax breaks."

Voters across the income spectrum are more inclined to support winding back investment property tax concessions than to oppose them.

Few support tax cuts for the wealthy

Vote Compass finds that only 9 per cent of voters think wealthier Australians should pay less tax, compared to 61 per cent who think they should pay more.

A majority favour more taxes for the wealthy regardless of age, education and whether they live in metro or regional areas.

Unsurprisingly, people earning less than $52,000 per year want to see the wealthy taxed more but that is also the case for those earning more than $130,000 per year.

Moving up the income scale, it is only once you hit respondents earning more than $260,000 per year that the proportion who want to tax the wealthy more (32 per cent) falls below those who want tax rates on the wealthy to stay the same (42 per cent).

Even among those high-income earners, only 25 per cent think the wealthy should pay less tax.

Dr Ratcliff says those responses reflect the fact that most voters, even those in higher-income brackets, do not always think of themselves as wealthy.

"It's quite conceivable that someone with a household income of $250,000 to $300,000 might not consider themselves as rich," he said.

La Trobe University associate professor Andrea Carson, also a member of the Vote Compass advisory panel, says the results suggest Australians are relatively egalitarian and "want an economy where the tax burden is shared across the population, including the wealthy paying their share".

The Coalition announced in the 2018 budget that they would remove the 37 per cent tax bracket in 2024, creating a middle tax bracket of 32.5 per cent for all those earning between $41,000 and $200,000. The change has already been legislated.

Despite the Vote Compass results, Dr Ratcliff said the Coalition's policy would not harm it politically in the short term.

"There are no losers in the short term but in the long term, it will either create a structural deficit or services and spending will be lower and a government at some point will have to deal with the revenue shifts," he said.

What should I read next?

About the data