Kirby, seems like you and I come from the same model, having been there myself for many years.

The bit that annoys me the most is to have some twerp public servant say "your kids get zero because you earn too much" Of cause they contradict themselves because in a separation situation, the more one earns, the more the kids are paid.

But, from one risk taker to another, I say bravo to you for defying the odds and having a go. As I have said to many, the reality of entering into small business today, is that one stands a better chance of failure than success and that's just sad.

Dear rehctub,

You wrote;

“if you take away incentives to invest, people will stop investing”

We have been through this before. These are not incentives but subsidies to make loss making investments viable.

If there is a greater good, ie the construction of new homes then you perhaps have an argument but to be foregoing billions of tax dollars to pay for subsidies on existing homes is just silly. The realestate agents and the banks love it of course just as the love the resultant inflated housing market. But affording a new home is now a real struggle. It shouldn't be the legacy we leave our children. Labour's NG policy is probably the best we can hope for at the moment but leaving the situation as it is would be wrong.

SteeleRedux,

using your "definition" of subsides . So if the tax payer gets no subsidies to provide rental accommodation. There is no incentive to invest in residential housing, so less supply of rentals means rents go up. Less building being built means higher unemployment (carpenters, sparkies, bricklayers etc).

So, lets remove all subsides, no private health rebate (means millions drop out of the private system and more strain on the public system) or Union fees , lets stop subsiding them and that is a tax deduction or subsidy as you call it.

Lets stop any subsidy to people or businesses, so there is no investment in capital or R&D. Meaning nothing gets invented and millions are unemployed.

Not having subsidies to encourage investment was tried (and badly failed) in many countries, USSR, China, North Korea come to mind

Opps! sorry I just realised I spelt subsidies wrong

Housing is a people management business. The regulatory risks alone should advise caution.

Hats off to anyone who is prepared to take up massive loans and run the considerable risks to provide shelter for other Aussies.

Where some and in modern times probably many tenants imagine that they are 'model tenants' if they might one day get around to paying the rent. Discretionary expenditure always comes first.

In the last week I inspected five houses for friends returning from an overseas posting. All were in good residential suburbs.

The first two were 20+ years old and immaculate, having been lived in by owners and their families (now empty nesters downsizing). I recorded as comments, that carpets, walls, fittings, curtains and so on, were original and all in very good serviceable condition. My only criticism was the outdated colours eg apricot/beige formica.

The other two were in the same suburb and both substantially renovated (not cheaply either) between three and five years previously. The agent said it was before they were bought by investors. However both showed the obvious 'wear and tear' of tenancies. It was a long list of repairs for both, with such summing up as, 'with the hard wear to the benches, damaged cupboard door fittings and so on, kitchen + bathroom replacement, replace carpets and repaint all interiors'. Use a plasterer and carpenter first on advice of painters.

The rented homes had been professionally managed. I met one of the property managers who said simply that it was all 'wear and tear' as accepted by the rental tribunal and that light fittings, whiteware, an oven and dishwasher as examples, had also been replaced through wear and tear.

Those are not special examples.
tbc..

continued..

I suggest that the only way ahead for rental housing is to let bare bones' Where the incoming tenant is responsible for the floor coverings, curtains and interior decorating. That may be the only way to lessen the costs for the now smaller number of responsible tenants who must inevitably pay higher rents to support the others who are hard on properties. It would allow for cheaper rent and encourage longer rental terms.

I cannot see government stepping in to make up for any shortfall in housing for low and fixed incomes.

The big private investors, eg insurance and super funds, are NOT interested in rental housing and for good reasons - management intensive, to real way to add value and be adequately recompensed for it, high risks and poor returns.