A good article.
Don Aitkin makes some significant and telling observations, though I fear Tony Abbott has a deal of work to do to overcome the 'negativity' assessment.
How he embarks on this, to project himself as truly positive and constructive in his interest for the nation, the electorate and the national economy, will be most interesting, though do it he must, to regain due respect for the Party, for the followers of Liberal/National ideals, and for the sake of the Federal political process - which has been much in turmoil and disarray.

However, contrary to Don's assessment, some would argue that Labor has done a good job, citing our low relative deficit, low unemployment, historically low interest rates, AAA rating and stable economy, despite impacts of the GFC.
It is now insufficient to contend that the Libs could have done it better, or to point the finger at Pink Batts, School Halls, the Carbon Tax and the MRRT, for the game has moved on.
The game is now the idiocy of the move to an ETS (which will do nothing to reduce emissions, or to promote investment in emissions-reduction), the idiocy of handing sole responsibility for environmental assessment to the States, the unacceptability of Labor's raid on Fringe Benefits (and unstated agenda to move also on Negative Gearing, Superannuation concessions and Capital Gains tax), Labor's pull-back on investment in renewable energy, the mishandling of immigration and border protection, the budget deficiencies in the Better Schools, NBN and NDIS programs, and the deficiencies in the Fair Work Act and its implementation.

Positive Tony will have to address all these concerns and more, but will also have to pull back on his overly grandiose plans for maternity leave. We need a slightly 'greener' Tony, and a more climate conscious and business-oriented Tony. We need some serious economic and business development policies, and a statement of clear vision for the nation, with sufficient detail and budgetary confirmation to convince the electorate of Lib/Nat credentials.
Reliance on past performance will not do the trick.
The electorate is waiting, and time is short.

Saltpetre

"..to move also on Negative Gearing,"

Actually, negative gearing is one "negative" that should be eliminated, as its main beneficiary is the rentier class and the practice also contributes to the housing price bubble.

"Actually, negative gearing is one "negative" that should be eliminated"

Mac,

I have, respectfully, to disagree with you on this. This provision has enabled many to acquire their first home, by buying modestly and renting out (to take advantage of the relevant tax deductions for mortgage interest, rates, maintenance and repairs), whilst renting themselves, also modestly. Getting in at the right time in this way has also enabled many to watch their capital investment grow, well beyond CPI, thereby creating their own nest-egg for their future retirement. It is thus also another form of salary-sacrifice superannuation investment.

Would you deprive average Aussies of this facility to both create new housing construction and prepare effectively for their retirement?

This provision has stimulated much new housing, unit and town house construction, and without which new construction would be much lower than it has been, with even greater impact on home prices, and even more homelessness.

Superannuation attracts certain tax concessions, and housing investment by the average Joe is legitimately another form of superannuation investment. Would you remove all incentive for average families to plan and prepare for their retirement, just as the government continues to tax the paltry interest on savings?

To rely on government to provide for your retirement is a fool's errand, but we certainly need government to do a great deal more to provide low-cost housing, and to stimulate the economy generally, but killing existing incentives is no way to achieve the necessary improvements.

Let's please be more positive, and a lot less negative, for we are, after all, the captain's of our own destiny.

Saltpetre,

I agree with the examples you've provided, however, the attitude to negative gearing is essentially a matter of ideology and I'm discussing the subject from a social democratic perspective. NG certainly benefits individuals, however it's effect on house prices and the availability of housing stock is another question entirely.

You might be interested in this link, the comments are informative as well--

http://theconversation.com/its-time-to-abolish-negative-gearing-9879

Thanks, Mac,

Interesting article, but fails to mention that once an investment becomes 'positively geared' normal income tax is payable on the net positive return, as with other 'positive' investments - like on bank interest or share dividends.
Of course the real property 'hogs' could then be expected to use the positive income and gained equity to purchase more property - negatively geared of course.
Perhaps one answer would be to limit the number of properties an individual can own and still take advantage of negative gearing; or, to place a limit on the total amount one can claim in negative gearing offsets in a lifetime?
The standard proposition of course, would be for any 'negative gearing' to be held over until it can be used to offset future 'positive gearing' - as operates with capital losses incurred on the sale of equities, which can only be used to offset 'gains' on other equity sales.

Some misleading info in that article: capital improvements are NOT tax deductible, and may only offset future capital gain on the sale of the particular property.
As for wage earners: more deductions should be permitted - like travel.

I have a reluctance to rock the boat, particularly if it is achieving positive outcomes. Hence, I'm averse to anyone fiddling with superannuation, Capital Gains Tax or negative gearing. We all need a reasonable degree of certainty, so my preference is for all propositions to be fully explored before any necessary 'phasing-in' of well-proven beneficial change.

I'm not sure what you mean by: "I'm discussing the subject from a social democratic perspective."

Could you mean that low-cost government housing should be provided for all low-income earners, as well as welfare recipients of course. Would be an alternative to 'rental assistance', but how far is 'social democracy' supposed to go?
In many countries few people own their homes, and in some most housing is provided by the State - with the quality based on profession or place in the regime.
Aus is certainly the lucky country, and we would do well to try to keep it that way.

Saltpetre,

Yes, the term "social democratic perspective" was referring to the claim that negative gearing increases the supply of affordable housing stock---I'm sceptical, NG might have the opposite effect, unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be much data on the subject.

"my preference is for all propositions to be fully explored before any necessary 'phasing-in' of well-proven beneficial change."

Agreed, and also, there's the obvious need to get the voters "on board", the potential for "negativity" (scare campaigns) is enormous.
In my opinion, the real cause of the current housing bubble is our very high rate of immigration, but that's a subject for another time.