Better-paid people get more tax saving than the lower-paid who pay little or no tax. Well, they would, wouldn't they? They pay a lot more tax to begin with and have a bigger incentive to reduce it. After all, we all try not to pay more tax than we have to. You do, I do. And we all think that the rich (i.e. people with more money than we have) should pay more tax so that we can pay less. However, to stoke this potential resentment and present that as rational policy is to promote envy pretending to be economics.

To call negative gearing and capital gains tax reductions concessions and to talk of them costing the government so many billions is absurd. It has always been considered normal practice for investment expenses to be offset against tax. Otherwise, most enterprises would never get off the ground.

Do we want a society where everyone gets paid the same and nobody sees the point of working?

For the record, I neither negatively gear nor claim on any capital gains.

Alan N. Cowan, Yarralumla

Malcolm Turnbull is correct. What is wrong with the tax benefits of investment properties mainly going to the top 10 per cent?

It's always been this way in recorded history. The benefits of any society always flow to the elites. It's the natural human condition.

There have to be leaders and followers. If you're born to be a leader, you expect the trappings of wealth.

If you're not happy with this economic state of affairs, borrow a couple of million dollars and set up a company in the Cayman Islands. Outbid a dozen first home buyers at auction and join us elites at the yacht club in Rushcutters Bay.

Robert Bruce, Fadden

In the absence of any economic analysis to support his case, Malcolm Turnbull argues that "common sense" justifies the retention of negative gearing ("Malcolm Turnbull grilled on ABC's 7.30 over negative gearing 'common sense' claim", canberratimes.com.au, April 27).

My common sense tells me that it is wrong to encourage investment in property at the expense of productive investment, particularly when capital is scarce. It tells me that a tax concession that inflates housing prices will freeze an increasing number of Australians out of home ownership. But mostly, my common sense says that there is something wrong when properties bought by the top 10per cent of income earners are subsidised through the taxes of low-income earners.

Mr Turnbull's common sense does not have a lot in common with mine.

Tony Judge, Woolgoolga, NSW

Politicians like nothing better than standing in front of the cameras announcing a gigantic project that will affect the nation for decades. And so it came to pass that Malcolm Turnbull told us that spending $2000 for every Australian on12 submarines "would guarantee the jobs of our children and grandchildren for decades to come".

Its cost dwarfs the measly $12 billion we are spending on the 58 Joint Strike Fighters, that on current rates of progress will be delivered several decades after they become obsolete. Defence geeks are, like the Prime Minister, hyperventilating about the shiny new subs which, like the F-111s from another election campaign, will chew up a lot of dollars in fuel and maintenance costs, but fire few shots in anger.

Most objectionable, though, is that some commentators claim that the sub project rivals in significance the Snowy Mountains Scheme, which has provided carbon-neutral electricity for half a century, and will continue to do so well into the future.

It has enhanced our agricultural production and enriched our engineering capability. For the record, it cost $820 million that, even allowing for inflation, makes it much cheaper than the subs.

I suspect that long after the Barracuda subs have been melted down into razor blades and Turnbull and Payne are footnotes in history, Australians will be still benefiting from a visionary infrastructure project, the Snowy Mountains Scheme.

Mike Reddy, Curtin

My wife has a drastically low-mileage Peugeot 308, with a preposterously tiny, basically gloves-only, glove box (sic), and a battery, buried inaccessibly (except by Peugeot-trained technicians) beneath clever French technology, requiring periodically, as must surely have been anticipated by the sesame engineers, fussy microsurgery to replace, so, as a taxpayer, I fervently hope that our French subs don't have glove boxes, and that their doubtlessly more heavy-duty batteries last longer than the ones in my wife's car.

A. Whiddett, Yarralumla

Bill Deane (Letters, April 26) attributes that sublime work of feminist art, Eskimo Nell, to A.P. Herbert.

Has Mr Deane any evidence for this? I think he is confusing Eskimo Nell with that short, witty ballad beginning, "The portions of a woman ... ", which was certainly written by Herbert – he is on record as explaining how the ballad came to be written.

Eskimo Nell contains the words, "If you've ever seen the pistons/On the mighty C.P.R." How many English literary figures do you think would think of the C.P.R. when searching for a simile? It's the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I think Eskimo Nell was written by a Canadian, despite the reference to Berkely Square: in like manner, the English are not as familiar with the term "Great Divide" as North Americans are.

Nell herself is certainly Canadian: she convincingly humiliates Dick, an American, and Pete, a Mexican, which sounds like a Canadian poet tome, particularly as the work is a pastiche of Robert Service poetry.

John Shaw, Duffy

In seeking to compare Canberra with Manchester, Glasgow, Perth and Adelaide, David Cooke ("Oval plan great opportunity", Times2, April 22, p1) was in truth comparing apples with oranges. Neither in size, nor public transport infrastructure, nor public patronage for sport, nor living density can Canberra, much less Manuka, be compared with those cities.

Last year, 30,000 people in total attended three games at Manuka. Melbourne, with nearly 5 million people and nine city clubs, attracted 3.5 million to two stadiums, excluding finals, over 91 games; Adelaide, 1 million at one stadium in 44 games; and Perth 800,000 at one stadium in 36 games.

Manuka is utilised to full capacity for about 30 hours annually with three AFL and two international cricket games.

To suggest that it is necessary to acquire, somewhat furtively, heritage-protected parkland, and build apartments for 1000 people, retail and other amenities to improve that patronage is both fanciful and disingenuous.

Has our expert seen the empty shops in nearby Kingston. Public patronage for sport in Canberra is falling.

By all means improve the ground and facilities. I love AFL and cricket but I love the space and aesthetic of the oval and surrounds much more.

John Buxton, Red Hill

Interesting but strange letter from Greg Cornwall (Letters, April 28) , who usually has a long and good memory of many Canberra "deals" as he was an ACT Liberal member of two of our legislatures, both before and after self-government.

If I recall correctly the Canberra South Bowling Club in Griffith had a significant debt and the first Brumbies CEO paid off the debt using funds provided as a developmental grant by the Carnell Liberal government. Again if I recall correctly this was the lever which eventually led to the Brumbies taking over the club ... and the rest is history!

Kevin Gill, Colombo, Sri Lanka

N. Bailey's near sycophantic drooling over the quality of the Brumbies coaching staff directed by Stephen Larkham (Letters, April 27) cannot go unremarked. As someone who attends the Brumbies games for the entertainment value of first-grade sporting competition, my knowledge of rugby union does nevertheless tell me that there needs to be two teams of 15 on the paddock at the same time, for a game to proceed.

Last Sunday's event against the Crusaders bordered on high farce. I'd suggest that instead of carrying on over Larkham or CEO Michael Jones, N. Bailey would be better off advancing an option for Brumbies supporters to be offered a major discount on entry tickets for the next Brumbies game.

Michael Doyle, Fraser

Is light rail advocate David Apps, of Perth, (Letters, April 22) the same David Apps, of Wanneroo, WA (Letters, December 2, 2015, who complained about "the negativity that is displayed by some members of the ACT public")?

If so, the time has come for him and all the other sentimentalists and voices for vested interests to address the well-documented arguments against the development of light rail in Canberra. For reference here are some points to address: (1) the capacity of the proposed Gungahlin light rail service is less than that of the existing bus services; (2) the number of light rail patrons who will have to stand during peak hour journeys is unacceptable; (3) current ACTION patrons will incur increased journey times because of the abandonment of express services and enforced mode shifts; (4) without grade separation the light rail operation will cause a degree of traffic congestion that cannot be compensated by increased light rail capacity and mode shift to public transport; (5) investment in bus-ways has a greater demonstrated cost benefit and an even greater potential benefit in the context of driverless vehicle fleets; (6) without grade separation the speed of the Gungahlin light rail link will be at best 29km/h – this is not the rapid transit that is required for an urban area the size of Canberra.

A. Smith, Farrer

Again, good editorials in The Canberra Times, two especially; each targeting separate issues, both spinning off the same set of fundamentals ("Fighting homelessness must be on agenda", April 17, p17, and "Stanhope's close tabs on AMC", Times2, April 26, p2): of homelessness increase in the former, escalating prison incarceration the latter.

There may be many reasons for being homeless but the cost of housing (and concomitant cost of renting) can't be dismissed. And the increasing number of inmates in the AMC could be related to a sense of hopelessness, exacerbated by the prospect of never catching up with the fallout from the ever-increasing value of a residence of any sort: a dividing of society into "them and us"?

John Howard urged us to gauge how well his economic track was trending by the increasing value of our houses. That trend continues under governments of whatever label, and ever faster. Based on human numbers alone, the need for more accommodation (and physical and intellectual infrastructure) increased by about 400,000 last year, some 1.8 per cent (another 2 per cent should be tacked onto that for asset upkeep). Increasing our numbers boosts economic activity, which might be good for a particular cause, but in our case it is an end in itself.

The result brings us planning driven by speculation, and a path towards a divided society and ever-decreasing social capital.

Colin Samundsett, Farrer

Jenny Goldie (Letters, April 27 and many others) goes on endlessly about overpopulation but she either ignores or just doesn't understand the importance of resources consumption per person. Australia rates disastrously in the RCPP stakes.

I am reliably informed that during a U3A presentation she delivered at Batemans Bay she suggested that amelioration of the world's overpopulation problem could begin with consideration of the situation on the African continent. Presumably she thinks some of the Africans overdo it a bit in the bedroom, without her giving a second thought to their on-the-ground circumstances. For many, their children are their superannuation.

Give us a break, Jenny. I am no Christian, nor for that matter religious at all, but at least I try to consider Matthew 7:3-5 before raving on about my personal perceived misbehaviour of others.

Clive Banson, Moruya, NSW

Jenny Goldie (Letters, April26) is correct in saying: "Underlying all our environmental problems is overpopulation."

Just see the beautifully assembled exhibition Bush Capital: the natural history of the ACT at the Canberra Museum and Gallery. It has art works portraying our native birds, animals, flowers and insects, but the text for exhibits reveals how depressingly vulnerable or rare many of these natives are because of habitat destruction.

Population growth and consumption are linked with habitat destruction and climate change, but very few politicians will discuss stabilising population growth in Australia or elsewhere. It's regarded as sacrosanct and arouses defensiveness and hostility. Many think technology will save the day.

Two previous ACT Commissioners for Sustainability and Environment refused to take on population growth as part of the ACT's State of the Environment report. One talked about not being able to stand at the ACT's borders holding back newcomers. Another said privately that it was a sensitive topic that offended the churches.

It is a brave Environment Commissioner who doesn't toe the government line.

Suggesting stabilising population growth as a policy in environmental conservation organisations is a challenge because some think population growth and conservation are separate issues.

Stabilising population in Australia doesn't mean withholding help from genuine refugees. It means reducing our migrant intake, while settling more refugees within a sustainable population framework and collaborating with overseas countries on family-planning programs, education, and reducing global consumption.

Judy Kelly, Aranda

MAKING A POINT

So, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull thinks that figures showing that the top 10 per cent of income earners enjoy 75 per cent of the benefits of negative gearing are "beside the point" ("Malcolm Turnbull grilled on ABC's 7.30 over negative gearing 'common sense' claim", canberra

times.com.au, April 27). Only a privileged lawyer politician would claim that it's "common sense" to argue that "the whole point" is "beside the point".

John Richardson, Wallagoot, NSW

SUBSIDISING TAX BREAKS

Treasurer Scott Morrison has been very keen to tell us how many midwives, police etc are taking advantage of negative gearing and associated tax breaks. Could he please give us the numbers who aren't? Because these are the ones subsidising the others.

Peter Edsor, Bungendore, NSW

BUILD A SUBWAY LINK

If the ACT government insists that we need a tram link between Gungahlin and the City and the purpose is to move people between those two centres, why don't we build a subway link? Construction would be far less disruptive, could be completed in far less time and the resulting cost savings could be used in other areas of our city, like hospitals and schools.

Micheal MacSitric, Reid

UNPAID ANZAC WORK

Woolworths claims that its managers are "voluntarily" putting buns in the oven outside paid work hours ("Coles cries foul play over Anzac Day chooks", BusinessDay, April 26, p8). I don't think they would have needed too much encouragement.

G. Burgess, Kaleen

BLIGHT ON THE SITE

The only increase in my taxpayer dollars I will agree to being spent on the Westside Container Village is to tear it down, immediately! Now that will improve the site ("Bid to improve look of Container Village", April 26, p4).

Heather Stewart, Weston

LET THE VICTIMS IN

It is a sad irony that Papua New Guinea, with its poor human rights record, should show Australia that it is abusing human rights by imprisoning innocent people. The least we can do now is show our humanity and bring the victims of this human rights debacle to settle in Australia.

Clare Conway, Ainslie

At last it's official: Australia's off-shore "detention centres" are illegal as well as immoral. Persecuting these innocent, vulnerable people is evil. Those responsible should be called to account.

R. Neville, Fraser

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.

Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).