The government is warning young people that if Labor wins this year's election they will end up paying more rent.
I'm gonna take the next 30 seconds to remind you what negative gearing is. Hold tight.
Negative gearing is a tax break designed to encourage people to buy investment properties and rent them out.
It could mean they end up paying less tax than other people who earn the same salary as them.
Labor is promising to partially get rid of negative gearing.
If someone already owns an investment property, it won't be affected by Labor's policy.
We asked three experts whether Labor's negative gearing policy would actually increase your rent.
The TL;DR is that two of them thought rents would probably eventually increase and one thought they wouldn't.
And here's why.
Economists have a confusing habit of disagreeing with each other, but most agree on one thing when it comes to rents: the price you pay largely depends on supply and demand.
So what the Coalition is saying about Labor's policy is that it will decrease supply by discouraging people from buying investment properties to rent out.
The experts we spoke to agreed that the policy could mean fewer people buy investment properties.
Lawrence Uren, a senior lecturer at the University of Melbourne who has done modelling on what would happen if negative gearing were eliminated completely, described negative gearing as a policy that "encourages investment in housing".
"If Labor removed this policy there would typically be a reduction in people seeking to invest in housing, and that would typically reduce the supply and increase the rental price," he explained.
Decreased supply will probably increase your rent...
...but not by that much, and the increase would happen over time.
Uren said the policy would "take some time" to filter through to rents. The grandfathering part of the policy means current investors could continue to negatively gear.
Labor's policy could also potentially change the typical landlord.
Frank Gelber, director of BIS Oxford Economics, told BuzzFeed News that mum-and-dad investors have been investing at yields (i.e. rents) which are "much lower than commercial rates of return".
Negative gearing, and a capital gains tax discount for rental properties, which Labor also wants to wind back, make buying rental properties an attractive option for these individual investors.
So Labor's policy could "frighten off the small investor", Gelber said. That could mean commercial investors step in and demand higher rents. But again, this wouldn't happen quickly because there is currently a lot of supply, and the policy would be grandfathered.
Another important impact of the policy would be to stop house prices rising too quickly – which means current renters might be able to buy a house.
As well, investors might start investing in new properties instead of existing ones – increasing supply.
At the moment, Grudnoff said, investors "tend not to buy new properties." But because negative gearing will be limited to new properties, investors might switch to new properties.
"This might create more supply of housing," said Grudnoff. "If they build more housing that absolutely will have an impact on rental properties and that will push rents down."
Uren agreed that Labor's policy of only removing negative gearing on existing properties "might even be helpful", he said, because it could lead investors to invest in new housing, thus increasing supply.
In a separate policy, Labor is also planning to increase the supply of new affordable rental properties by spending $6.6 billion over a decade incentivising investors to build new properties and offer them for rent at below market rate.
But – bear with me – the negative gearing debate is not just about the cost of housing and renting. It's about our overall approach to the distribution of wealth.
In a way, everyone is right!
"The government says it will make renting more expensive and it will be bad for housing investment and that's true," said Uren.
"Labor says it's going to reduce house prices and typically allows them to raise revenue from people who are already doing well in society and that's also true."