While a federal government budget rarely pleases everyone, the draft announced on Tuesday splits the 'for' and 'against' lobbies in no uncertain terms.

There are those for keeping the status quo regarding Capital Gains Tax and negative gearing benefits, and those wanting change.

The changes proposed by treasurer Jim Chalmers do not remove the incentives to invest completely, but substantially reduce them, including the ability to negative gear existing properties, with the aim to reduce competition in that section of the real estate market to assist new home buyers.

It's a change which has long been called for by sectors of society but vigorously defended by those who have benefited from it to gain extra wealth, including many politicians at state and federal level.

The opposition said the proposals would take away the incentive for people to build wealth, saying his party "will reward aspiration instead of punishing people for trying to get ahead".

It's debatable people will cease to aspire to improve their lot if the changes go ahead, as they did long before incentives were increased a few decades back - the changes only mean the country (all taxpayers) will not be so generous helping those who can afford such investments to buy them.

While Opposition leader Angus Taylor's detailed response had not gone to air prior to this publication going to print, he did outline a few other proposals, including linking immigration to the number of new homes built, and restricting welfare payments to citizens only.

It appears Mr Taylor is further seeking to stem the flow of support from his party to One Nation by adopting similar policies.