It isn't just Shorten who has been on cruise mode and enjoying the easy life, his whole shadow front bench are damned lazy and not worth the very high salaries and international travel they enjoy.

NO policies to speak of. No action to boot the union heavies, the CFMEU and others out of Labor. Just idiotic time-wasting obstructionism and bastardry in Parliament. All jeers and challenges to the Speaker.

They need a jolly good boot to their behinds and some real work to do.

This is what happens where the Labor members, the rank and file, are treated as cattle and the career politicians like Shorten and his mates in the unions are running the show.

The aspirational mums&dads investors in rental property are there because federal government from both sides of politics do NOT want to support Australians in their Autumn years.

It is deliberately skewed, bent, economics, that doesn't see those Mums&Dads providers of the welfare and low income shelter as contributing massively to the public good and to the GDP.

They are very largely low income earners themselves. Their earnings from the rental properties they invest in is very poor indeed and its is very high risk. It is only through losing their free time to work on properties themselves and through compromising their own quality of life that they remain shakily on top of their outgoings, but NEVER comfortable. They have been sold dreams, but the truth is that they are being forced by government to provide for their own age.

tbc

Shadow,
$600m over the first four years (and probably rising after that) is still a significant amount of money. And Labor aren't planning to completely axe negative gearing. I don't think making a lot of money's their main objective; rather they want to encourage more new housing to be constructed.

Of course there's plenty of investment opportunities, but few lucrative ones right now.

The proportion of people owning their own homes is falling, partly due to house prices rising because buy to let is such a good investment. If it wasn't for the NG tax break, fewer people would rent but more would own their own homes instead.

As for land tax, rather than just raising the rate I favour phasing out the exemption for owner occupiers. This would remove the current tax disadvantage, probably resulting in more rental properties.

______________________________________________________________________________________

rehctub, do you know the details of what Shorten's proposing? I'd expect redevelopments on larger lots would count as new build. If they don't, I suggest you contact your MP (or if your MP's a Lib, contact the Labor Party) to suggest changing it so they do.

If this change does result in fewer rental properties available (which seems unlikely), surely the lack of investors buying would put downward pressure on house prices, making them more affordable to FHBs?

As for public housing, government unwillingness to fund it has resulted in a very limited supply of it, with availability restricted to those who need it most. But it need not be like that. I expect there are many different options, but off the top of my head I can think of three completely different historical models:
1) Very widely available public housing, with renting off the local authority seen as a practical alternative to buying your own home.
2) Actively using public housing as a tool to reduce the cost of living. Giving tenants the opportunity to eventually buy their house.
3) Using it as a social tool to keep communities together despite rapidly rising house prices. Priority goes to those with a family connection to the local area.

As for other forms of investment, ordinary folk are being served very poorly by the greedy, unprincipled SOBs in the finance industry and most small time investors have some life experience or that of their close friends of the sharks in shares and management funds.

Once again, federal governments do NOT want to be in the business of providing, managing and maintaining low income and welfare housing.
They have had their fingers burned over and over again. Now there is the spillover from too many law graduates, a new push of voracious rental lawyers who are busily building an industry for themselves. In an industry where the rules are advantageous for the uncaring and 'professional'* tenants to abuse the system.

*professional tenant - the rising number of tenants who know their way around the system, take advantage of the advocacy services for tenants and make a tidy income out of avoiding their responsibilities, especially the payment of rent and continually lodge nuisance and compensation claims against owners and property managers to shake them down.

It is a sad fact that government is most reluctant itself to be managing welfare housing under the tenant friendly regulations and tribunals it has foisted on the private sector (on those mums&dads 'investors').

As for the cost of housing, all three tiers of government treat housing as a milch cow for taxes and for user pays. Sit down folks and figure the cumulative effect of the the governmental taxes, fees and charges on property developments and the overheads for developers in dealing with them.

On top of that, governments such as the Rudd and Galah'd(+Greens sidekicks) have for decades set new records for immigration and all requiring housing and increased infrastructure (increases the taxes on property owners).

'Negative Gearing'? Just another hare for the tabloids to chase and sensationalise. L'il Shorten and his over-paid, always 'over there' (enjoying international travel) pear shaped colleagues are a waste of their seats in Parliament. A better Opposition is desperately needed, the present one sucks big time.

Aiden, as usual we have only been provided with the end result wish, not the detail, so we will have to wait and see, however, buying an old house, submitting plans, awaiting approvals ect can be a lengthy process, so I doubt these would be exempted in this case as they are a new home. I say this because gaining approval doesn't guarantee the project proceeds.

Aidan,

$600m over 4 years might rise to $250m p.a. combine that with the crack down on international corporations and you might get $1bn p.a. Considering that Labor is promising that it will cover their Gonski and NDIS costs that are flagged to reach $25bn p.a. you can see the problem.

What you also haven't considered is that this extra cash is going to come from tenants that can't afford to buy houses.

Aidan, "As for public housing.. I expect there are many different options"

However, do a little research and you will find plenty of sad, embarrassing, experience by government that those suggestions (the jargon may vary) and more have been tried umpteen times before. Bureaucrats, and bureaucrats in QANGOS are no different just more expensive and less accountable, cannot manage housing development or management of tenants.

The billions of taxpayers' dollars expended on aboriginal housing and those indigenous controlled agencies have resulted in sweet bugger all housing, for example.

The federal government's own auditor, the ANAO, has produced finding after finding of gross wastage of public moneys and the ANAO has made recommendation after recommendation and published best practice guides (often tuned down for dummies!) and all to no avail.

Now Shorten, the man who cannot even shirt-front the CFMEU and other union bosses who are telling him what to do and was himself part of the failed Rudd and Galah'd (+treacherous Greens) governments, is seeking carte blanche to stuff up the private rental industry.