G Kelly, I proudly voted for Abbott, but I would not vote for his PPL scheme, simply because it is unaffordable for us, and benefits only a percentage of the population. I am tipping it will not pass as law.

A better idea in my view would be to allow would be parents to contribute additional dollars into their super,based on their incomes, at 15% tax and, when needed withdraw it as such.

If they don't have the children, then they owe the tax, to be paid/paid off at a later date.

Like many things, having children is a choice, and At least this way those who chose to have children, will not burden the tax payer other than the few dollars in lost taxes.

Now for unexpected pregnancies, perhaps they could have a use now, pay later scheme as Well.

Either way, we have to get away from the tax payer paying people for personal choices, because let's face it, our taxes are dwindling, not growing to meet demands.

BTW, I bought Testra at $2.88, so I'm happy.

geoffreykelley,

Land tax
I was meaning to say that the critics of 'negative gearing' do not mention land tax, as they don't mention many other things.

You did mention it and sorry if my comment appeared to be directed at your comment.

.....What can be added is that governments have regularly tweaked investment property to take away any possibility of a return commensurate with the high risks of that form of investment.

On the beach, I would suggest that other than gov bonds, or money in the bank, (both low returns) residential property would be the number three in safe investments, unless of cause your expectations are too high.

As for governments taking away the cream, as I think you're implying, what about the first home owners grant.

I doubt there has been any government action that has led to a larger winfal for investors than this one.

It's just a pity that, like most gov shemes, it has been wasted to some degree, well in my opinion anyway.

rehctub, "I would suggest that other than gov bonds, or money in the bank, (both low returns) residential property would be the number three in safe investments, unless of cause your expectations are too high"

I disagree with you.

As one bit of evidence, I have yet to meet a 'professional' property manager or her REA boss who has a comprehensive list of risks, let alone effective treatments of those risks. They contract themselves out of any accountability too.

It is very different from what our grandparents imagined property investment to be, and they were probably over-optimistic and dismissive of the actual risks back then.

It is the rare individual who understands and has any hope of selecting and managing rental property. They know enough to invest in commercial property instead.

Just forgetting other risks and thinking about the tenants. there is a growing horde of clever 'professional' tenants - educated and savvy in the use of tenancy advocates and tribunals- out there whose modus operandi is to use the very tenant focussed regulations to clip the owners for many thousands of dollars. Now I am not going to add to the prolific information out there to educate any of the quick witted rogues who may read this, but it is a profitable hobby and lifestyle for some and they are not always the unwashed Bogans, but well-educated, unprincipled and immoral people (a growing problem in modern Oz).

GK your self confidence is wasted.
Facts not the usual negativity see Abbott about as popular in the polls as he is and staying there.
Because you disagree is not evidence I am wrong or you right.
For sure the concerns about ah um Abbott are from his own side too.
JUSTIFY if you dare Abbott,s largest to women earning $150.,000 a year,
While cutting health education and much more.
Try JUSTIFYING his intention to ham string the ABC as a REWARD to that merchant of filth Rupert Murdock.
Australia deserves far better than Murdock a known do any thing for headlines man, including becoming an American, then helping install a government and telling us what his reward will be.
This coming scandal will emerge as sure as the sun rises.

onthebeach, when my grand parents were at their prime, the only investing they did was in the family home.

It was more the immigrants who invested in property other than the family home, houses, farms and commercial and their predecessors are now reaping the benefits.

How many farmers today could Aford to go off and buy that 100,000 ac at $800 per ac.

As for commercial, I have had many chances to invest in this median, some I regret not pursuing, but most I am glad I didn't.

My concern rose about fifteen to twenty years ago when our governments seemed reluctant to intervene in the two big retailers quest for total market domination, domination that has proven to be the demise of many centers, not to mention family owned businesses.

I always thought that once they had secured fuel and liquor the rest would follow. Unfortunately I was right.

In the late 80's one would have felt secure owning a complex with a fruit shop, butcher, news agent, baker even a family owned hardware. Nowadays, they are on shaky ground.

Another little known law in commercial leases was that anyone could break a long term lease by simply paying five years rent in advance. This caught many out with twenty year seemingly 'bullet proof' leases.

Commercial is under constant preasure from redirected roads, to online shopping so it is still my opinion that residential is a fairly safe investment however, if one borrows 110% and expects hastel free investing, then more fool them I say.

As for serial lease pests, I hear you. My advice to any wanaby landlord, is engage and agent and never let yourself be known as the owner.