leoj says "Over beers at a bbq some older family friends were comparing their situations in their early seventies. There was very little real difference between one couple who had raised their family in rental housing and largely with government support and another, a couple who had been in full-time employment most of their lives and invested in some houses.

However the former could remember all of the times they walked on the beach, were present for sports days (and the event after) and the shared time with other folk, visiting and local."

This is really frightening.

Tell me leoj, do you really think it is reasonable that many tax payers have had to pick up the cost of your family members living the life of riley? Is it reasonable they should get the cheep rent of public housing, just because they are too bone idle to earn their own living.

Has it not occurred to you that those who earn their own living might get a little more time for leisure, if they were not having to work longer & harder supporting such bums

Cheaper rents are possible where the tenant rents the property 'bare bones' ie where the tenant is responsible for interior decoration and for appliances (outside of the water heater). I would put the stove as a possible tenant choice as well.

That way the responsible tenants get what they want and are not (so much) indirectly subsidising the poor tenants through the higher rents caused by tenants being hard on property. It also permits longer leases.

Although the feral tenant can still exhibit his/her contempt for 'rich landlords'(hah!) by putting overheated pans of oil on benchtops, kicking cupboard doors shut, locking the pig dogs in the house without litter while they are away and other niceties, and unprincipled 'professional' tenants will always find a way to take advantage of property manager and landlord.

A tenant who is prepared to add value and show his/her pride by providing his/her own floor coverings, curtains and whitewear is far more likely to take care and fulfil his/her other obligations.

In Australia many tenants are short term by their own choice and by tradition. The resulting high level of churn adds significant costs to overheads and to rents.

The 90 year old pensioner couldn't live on benefits? With the house paid for there's not much left after wheel-chair batteries are charged and cough medicine is paid. No resorts in Spain , no home theatre up-grade. Sad.
-

"No, it would not work, just like the state govt first home owners grant, it would increase prices. What builder/real estate agent would not increase the price by $50k knowing its govt backed?"

But the price in the window is for all buyers not just 1st home mtge. Auctions don't finish with : "Sold to the fat bludger with screaming kids and chuck in $50K you look like a government hand-out".

Hasbeen,

You leapt to an erroneous conclusion. I will leave it at that.

The whole point of this is that if renters have diligently paid their rent for ten years, surely they could be seen as low risk borrowers and, surely its better for governments to 'loan money' to safe borrowers, than simply hand out 20K never to be seen again.

Sproblem with that isn the banks are carrying all the risk, whereas they are already handing out money in up to $20K lots, so why not increase it to $50K and get it back to re use.

This way the banks are nort so expossed.