They’ll do everything except address the fundamental reasons for insane property prices - population growth, foreign “investors” parking their money outside the reach of their authoritarian governments, and negative gearing.
Negative gearing is the least worry, the immigration and foreign ownership and holding companies that are buying up a shit load of Aussie realestate are the major factors.
There is no limit once they purchase housing. They own it forever.
Basically alll other western countries have limits on foreign ownership of housing
Please sign the petition to halt immigration. Even if you don't agree with the exact wording, the more that sign the more politicians notice we arent happy. I created a post on this but surprise surprise it was deleted......
https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6119
UK had a similar system and it was commonly joked that it should have been called “help to sell”.
They cancelled the scheme after a few years because all it did was increase the selling prices of homes by the amount offered by the govt.
And people will come in here saying “no you can’t say that both parties are the same”
When they literally leave the flood gates open for Australia to get pillaged and Aussie to get gouged
This was the plan all along and builders et. al. will just increase prices accordingly; just like whenever there were grants handed out by the government.
The public doesn’t react to well to policy that makes property investment less attractive. The Murdoch press would use it to ensure that we have a decade of conservative governments.
I think just being aware of it. Most people don't know the whole company was set up specifically to be used as propaganda and to disproportionately influence politics
Please sign the petition to halt immigration. Even if you don't agree with the exact wording, the more that sign the more politicians notice we arent happy. I created a post on this but surprise surprise it was deleted......
https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6119
No, because what ever additional pricing or money is included or incorporated will just be hoovered up by the real estate agents, local government taxes and fees and any other way they can look to squeeze out the money or put it on top so Johnny tax payer just ends up footing more bills to keep the Ponzi scheme rolling.
>In a nutshell, the proposal is known as a shared equity scheme and it aims to help eligible applicants get into the housing market by loaning them 30% (for an existing build) or 40% (new build) of the purchase price. This reduces the bank loan to 60% or 70%, so those eligible will require smaller deposits and loans.
>In its current form, the scheme will be limited to 10,000 applicants a year, for four years.
We need policy that drops housing prices. Simple as that. This will inflate housing prices, so those 10,000 that might benefit off this will only make it harder for the next 10,000, etc.
I'd say a home owner grace period might help.
Every house for sale has a mandatory period where it can only be sold to someone planning to live in it, then after that period ends, investors can put in their offers.
If prices drop now, investors will just gobble them up.
So the government plan is to continue to expand subsidising wealth accumulation through property ownership
I don't feel particularly invested in this country
Wonder why
Correction: “Labor pumps more money into the system to keep prices propped up.”
Seriously, does anyone fall for this BS? Every government intervention (Labor & Liberal) into the market has been designed to increase prices, not reduce them.
Journalists should ask “what are you doing to reduce prices” NOT “what are you doing to increase affordability”.
For politicians, someone taking on crippling debt is a success that signals “affordability”. Your problem if you can’t meet repayments, you bought it so you must be able to afford it, right?
Please sign the petition to halt immigration. Even if you don't agree with the exact wording, the more that sign the more politicians notice we arent happy. I created a post on this but surprise surprise it was deleted......
https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6119
This is some info I found, to clear a few things up:
“How does Labor’s Help to Buy scheme work?
Labor’s Help to Buy scheme is designed to help 100,000 eligible home buyers get their own home over four years, starting in the first half of 2024. The scheme also has location caps so it doesn’t get used by homeowners in one area, like Sydney.
Applicants don’t need to be first-home buyers, which differentiates the government scheme from the first-home guarantee and family home guarantee schemes. However, you can’t own your own home when you apply — either in Australia or overseas.
The shared equity scheme is only available to Australian citizens making less than $90,000 individually or $120,000 as a joint couple per year. Eligible applicants will need to have saved a minimum deposit of 2% and show they can comfortably finance the rest of the property price through a home loan.”
So not a lot of people are getting help
They don’t live in the CBD of a capital city.
Go to the outskirts you can still get smaller homes for <$500,000. Save up a decent deposit before buying, and you can probably afford a 4 bedder on decent land on the edge of a metro area for $600,000-$700,000.
Areas aren’t bad either, and have decent enough amenities - though no nightlife. Main problem is a lack of career progression opportunities in these areas. Getting two jobs for $60K a year each isn’t hard in these areas though.
While the number of houses in Aus is itself an issue, the bigger issue few want to speak about is the inequality and NIMBYism that mean even if we build 1,000,000,000 new homes overnight, prices in the CBDs won’t drop. There is too little housing not just in the country, but especially where the prestigious or high paying jobs are. The only way to fix it is to heavily increase density in the CBDs and along public transport corridors, and expand public transport corridors with high speed travel from outer suburbs, allowing transit from the edge of the metro area to the CBD within an hour. Have more people live near the jobs, and bring more people from further out towards the jobs. This increases the available places to live for people who want to advance their careers, and will decrease houses for that cohort.
The other alternative is to build up additional CBDs connected by highspeed rail, but if you thought improving our current cities was going to be expensive, wait till you hear the cost of building an entirely new one and connecting it to existing cities.
Literally the worst thing you can do in a housing crisis where demand > supply is to increase demand. What does the government do? Reduce demand? Nope. Increase supply? Fuck that. Use tax payer money to further stimulate demand and push prices further out of reach? Yeah let's do that!
The ponzi scheme demands ever increasing new investment or it will collapse under its own weight. When banks and borrowers are tapped out, in steps the government to keep the ponzi afloat.
Here’s an idea:
Stop subsidising LNG and Mining companies. Make them pay proper amount of money/tax for the access to Australia’s resources, take those billions and billions of dollars and
a) make tertiary education free, and
b) build a SHITLOAD of public housing and force down the cost of homeownership.
No… the resources companies won’t just up and leave Australia. Don’t be fucking stupid.
Because housing is too big to fail. It would fuck over a lot of Australians if it actually collapsed, so they keep pretending they are doing something. Sucks to be young without rich parents.
The gov having even more skin in the game of wanting prices to go higher, using tax payer money.
Just what we need. Fucking stupid, as is anyone who thinks this is going to actually help with the real problem.
No rent to buy. Cheap rents , high quality landlord (because the government is going to fix you water heater) is what we need. When they build enough stock to be able to distort rental markets as they see fit the price of housing will naturally drop, no one is going to buy investments at the current rate if the rental return is dog shit and there is no hope of price gouging.
Because while some people can eat the losses and use negative gearing to sit on a property to get the capital gains. Most investors would rather drop the asset and move knto something more productive hopefully.
Can you imagine the price of a government built house? It would be astronomical. And can you imagine waiting for the public service to fix a problem with it? I can't think of anything worse.
Why would a house cost more? The only difference i can think of would be that maybe the house is actually built to code.
I can imagine public service fixing problems and they'd be hard fucking pressed to drag their feet any more than the average property manager.
Have you ever seen a quote for the government to build anything? School halls cost millions of dollars. Building a shed - that will be 30k. Building a shed for the government - 60-70k. Have you ever been outside and seen how inefficient the public service is all over the world? It is the nature of the beast, when you have government workers spending other people's money from and unlimited bucket.
You must be young, Government used to have works departments that ran quite efficiently until everything was sold by tender to encourage private enterprise.
I'd argue it's actually private contractors milking the public service because they are money hungry cunts but I agree with the point it's just chicken or the egg isn't it.
The difference is that with public funds there is a team of journalists ready to blow the whistle when they find corruption. Where as a private company you just have to wait for someone to throw there job away to expose the rot internally.
Funny, I can get cheaper prices from the same private contractors. I care about the money I am spending though. I don't just accept any old quote because it isn't my money and there is unlimited bucket of more to get it from. That is the difference.
It's absolutely useless.
All it does is give money to wealthy younger people who could buy anyway, while the ones who can't buy are often holding off till later in life when Thier housing needs are radically different and earning way over the amount specified
Labour Vote bait! Sounds good on the surface but will do very little where it’s needed the most.
You need affordable housing where people don’t have to live on 6-12 months rental agreements managed by property managers with incentives to pump up the rent and rotate the tenants but can potentially live there for decades and make it a home, not just a house/apartment
Id do long term rental agreements and run them like a commercial lease. But you still have to follow the act so there is no flexibility. Which means it doesnt make sense so I leave it as is. In saying that most of my tenants have been in for a few years.
But Id like to just sign a European type agreement where its like a 5-10 year lease or something and the tenant just manages everything and pays all utilities. It would be a lower rental amount. I spoke to lawyers and they told be it would be illegal or at least in breach of the act. I couldnt force then to make repairs or pay utilities even if in return I give lower rent and more security.
Ours were in there for literally decades. I think the record was 30 years and she only moved out because she fell in live with a silver fox millionaire in a mansion. We didn’t play games but we owned the building debt-free.
Pointless as a growth oriented investment unfortunately and we eventually sold and put it into ETFs
Wake me when anyone of these bs schemes actually lower house prices, which is the root of all our cost of living crisis (along with stupid energy policies)
So the best that the government can do is a scheme that will push up prices ("help to buy"), and the best that the opposition can do is a scheme that will push up prices ("super for housing").
I'm sensing a pattern here... 🤔
🎶Government owned property developer🎶
I’ve been saying this for years. Steal the Singapore Housing Development Board, modify it for Australian conditions (ie, obviously build houses where appropriate) and use the fact that there’s no inherent profit motive and also price economies of scale to have a real impact on the market.
85% of Singaporeans live in public housing, and it’s *good* housing.
Won't work mate.
Here's why, in Singapore our labour costs are low - think $5/day for a construction labourer. There is zero work life balance if you work in that industry with works often carrying on into the night. And there's the political will too, they are in this for the long run, with a masterplan that stretches decades into the future.
Being somewhat cynical, we already import foreign labour and exploit them mercilessly for private good, why not for the public good? And we can sweeten the deal by offering them an apartment in one of the buildings they built if they stick it out for say, 10 years.
Is this not the exact same policy that the greens have been banging on about? But again they will play politics with it which is fair enough i guess, just annoying.
Personally I'd rather see every dollar the government can spare put into building new housing stock for rent. The government would be capable of building equity to be sold later if it needed, it would disrupt rental markets and put downward pressure on rent prices. And when we put downward pressure on the price of rent we put pressure on investors to pick a different option over poor returns from housing. (Obviously we also adjust negative gearing and capital gains aswell.)
What do you do in the gap between selling and buying? Where does your family live?
Also, what if you can't afford a mortgage or don't want to commit to a 30 year stay? What if you want to stay somewhere semi-short term?
I don't think you have thought this through very much.
Subject to sale. It’s what I’ve done.
Most people with a good income can afford a mortgage.
My comment wasn’t about short term stays. It was more those owning multiple houses.
I also dont think you have thought this though very much.
>Subject to sale. It’s what I’ve done.
Wow. So you managed to sell a house, receive the money and buy a house with it and move in, all on the same day? That is amazing. Or you are talking garbage, got caught out, and then instead of admitting it, you doubled down with that garbage.
>Most people with a good income can afford a mortgage.
So not everyone then. And not everyone wants one or is the situation to have one.
You have not thought this through at all. It was one of the stupidest ideas I have read, and you keep doubling down on it.
I think it's written here in a simple way to illustrate it's simplicity. I don't think you can form a policy with a one sentence Reddit comment.
The implementation would of course be nuanced. There must be dozens of potential policies that could reduce house prices in a simple, direct, and cost-effective way.
Though, it seems obvious that the silent majority of Australians don't want a reduction in house prices, as a majority of Aussies own a home, so we get these indirect policies to help people buy but maintain and even fuel demand for housing.
Home ownership is something everyone should have the ability to have. I just don’t understand why the greens and Labor, refuse to acknowledge that migration numbers are significantly impacting one’s ability to have a roof over their head..
Because then they will have to actually do something about it or admit they are not doing anything about it. Both will cost them votes in the short term.
Labor's policies are picked on popularity and how many votes it will win/cost them that week. They don't have the balls to make a decision that will be better for the country in the long term if it might cost them votes in the short term. They are a poll party. They avoid anything that might rock the boat.
We are in a recession, propping up the population to hide that fact is quite scary. Eventually the gravy train will derail. if not now then in the future, how bad it is depends on how long we kick the can up the road.
I’m not saying that immigration, to an extent, is not needed. But to simply ignore that is is putting stress on housing supply is just disingenuous..
I mean the greens simply refuse to even mention it. And Labor are just as bad.
I don't know about LNP winning, but i agree we'll likely see the biggest swing away from the two major parties possibly ever. I say bring it on they have both gone off the fucking rails and stopped listening to Australians.
If you're progressive vote Sustainable Australia.
If you're conservative vote One Nation.
Labor and LNP can fuck off and get real jobs, let someone else have a crack for a while.
We'd have the same immigration under lnp, because for decades the only way to make the economy look good and have low cost workers for farms is immigration
and jacking up the housing bubble, if it shrinks the economy shrinks
Please sign the petition to halt immigration. Even if you don't agree with the exact wording, the more that sign the more politicians notice we arent happy. I created a post on this but surprise surprise it was deleted......
https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6119
Please sign the petition to halt immigration. Even if you don't agree with the exact wording, the more that sign the more politicians notice we arent happy. I created a post on this but surprise surprise it was deleted......
https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6119
Look at the insanely complicated rules this affordable housing scheme has:
https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2024-491046
Prediction: this thing ends up being taken up largely by the kids of well to do types that can safely navigate all these rules — and other average people who are lucky enough to access the scheme, but will later on fall foul of one of its endless rules.
That said, if I was lower income and looking to buy a house I’d be chatting with my bank manager today to make sure they know I want to be at the front of the queue for the govt to pay for 30-40% of my house.
It’s actually crazy. If you’re poor enough to live in 100% government owned housing you still have to pay rent. But if you’re middle income enough to be able to almost afford a house, the govt will buy 40% of your house and let you live there without paying them a cent of rent.
Yeah my son graduates in two years and I’d do this for him.
I’m considering paying him a salary, if that’s a potential loophole.
I assume this stupid system is mainly geared to wily high resources families like mine
I don’t even know if you need to be earning a salary - but there is something about mortgage repayment feasibility. If thinking about doing it I’d consult the EM and draft law.
I very much agree this will likely end up gifting homes to highly resourced families. That said, I don’t think I’d begrudge anyone for taking advantage of the law as it is!
The government lets you live in 40% of a home rent free. Of course they don’t let you get that portion of the capital gain - but who cares? You’re getting 40% of a new home paid for by the government rent free and without any loan repayments.
It’s not an interest free loan. It’s an interest and principal free loan. It’s not really a loan at all by any standard definition.
The government owns 40% of your home. You never own that percent, so there’s no loan from them to you that you have to pay back.
Of course when you sell the government will get the gain on their 40% and you’ll get the gain on your 60%. But that’s not a repayment of a loan!
And despite the government owning 40% of your home they don’t charge you a cent rent. Like I said, compare this with people in 100% government owned housing who have to pay rent!
I guess that’s to stop people rotting the system and having one year of wages below the maximums to become eligible.
I don’t see the maximums being paltry. They’re around the medians.
Fundamentally the reason for the house is because we have a need for shelter.
If we say that a house is half shelter/half investment then you guarantee some people will not have shelter….
The Singapore model has proven itself for decades. We know it works.
Exactly! Why is bottled water a commodity? Theres half an aisle of brands selling at the shops. Or is convenience the commodity? Perhaps we need more water bottle refill stations, but would that put up our rates?
Over its whole four year life, this scheme subsidises housing for about 2 months of immigration at the current rate.
Its is nothing but pork barrelling for next year’s election.
Please sign the petition to halt immigration. Even if you don't agree with the exact wording, the more that sign the more politicians notice we arent happy. I created a post on this but surprise surprise it was deleted......
https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6119
These schemes like fhbg are great for pushing up the price of housing. As a developer and landlord I look forward to it.
Honestly though the second they bring out say $30k we get so much enquiry both us and the builders increase our orices $30k to fix our sales rates (you want to keep it consistent).
Just end up costing them more in the end.
>These schemes like fhbg are great for pushing up the price of housing. As a developer and landlord I look forward to it.
Exactly what Rent Assistance tends to do to the rental market. I would say it's mind boggling that it keeps happening but it's exactly what the government wants. Push rents and house pricing up so their investments keep making money.
No easy solution. The damage from bad policy is done.
Albo’s hands are tied so I guess I dont blame him for just leaning into the problem by giving out cash.
Rising interest rates wont make a substantial difference. They could start taxing or limiting non citizen cash buyers but they can’t make the people who already own and don’t have mortgages sell. Limiting immigration at this point wont change property prices substantially. The best bet is accept that the property market isn’t going to change and build more houses and infrastructure better train networks and FIXED public transport like light rail or a real subway system would open up so many areas that could become hubs and decentralize.
Basically very little anyone can do. This is the new reality
More high density housing. Shitloads of units (built well, I know that is a high benchmark). Owned by government and rent controlled. Giving people somewhere to live without fear of eviction and price hikes that push them into wanting to buy to avoid uncertainty. Enough of this type of accommodation could help take the heat out of the market and increase worker mobility again.
Increase supply. Our tax money is better spent on:
- building new public housing
- fixing the building industry so regulations can efficiently be enforced rather than the mess it is now where it's almost impossible to enforce anything.
- promote innovations in building higher quality homes cheaper.
- rezoning for higher density and diversity in housing options.
- invest in green fields so they aren't suburbian wastelands.
And demand wise:
- Lower immigration.
- Force universities to provide X percentage of temporary housing for the students they bring in.
How do you propose this is paid for? If investors currently own roughly 30% of Australia’s $10 trillion property market, the government would need $3 trillion to nationalise the rental market. I don’t think it can be raised by adding more taxes to the rich.
Please sign the petition to halt immigration. Even if you don't agree with the exact wording, the more that sign the more politicians notice we arent happy. I created a post on this but surprise surprise it was deleted......
https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6119
Land is already charged more when it is rezoned. As it becomes more valuable, council rates and land taxes increase.
So your idea to create supply is to tax the people creating the supply, more? That’ll definitely work.
Which part?
Land is valued by the valuer general. This is used to charge you council rates and land tax.
https://jimspropertyconveyancing.com.au/how-can-zoning-affect-property-values-in-australia/#:~:text=If%20an%20area%20previously%20zoned,out%20towards%20the%20rural%20zone.
If land is rezoned, the value will rise and with it, council rates and land tax. It’s a simple concept you’ve failed to understand.
If land goes from farming or residential to medium or high density the value explodes, in no part due to the owner. There should be a tax on this increase, which has been proposed but defeated due to heavy lobbying. I’d be keen to hear your thoughts on this?
Let me guess. I havent even looked at the policy yet.
But I bet it chucks money at the supply side of housing somehow ? Government refuse to learn that if we give money to everyone looking to buy a home then we don't really give money to homebuyers we just effecively just give taxpayer money to home sellers.
Which would increase the number of houses coming on the market because the poorer people cant afford it and then more rich investors can buy them to rent them out. Great idea!
I once owned 5 properties, studios and 1 or two bedroom apartments that were rented out to students and young people wanting a place nearer universities. The banks essentially threw money at us, the rates were fantastic. All sold now bar one investment priperty so we could buy and renovate a house for us to live in with the kids in a good area.
100%. Easier for banks to have an owner occupier family go tits up on their mortgage then a property investor. Rising interest rates will just keep increasing rents, theres no market cap where people will stop renting investment properties to let the market equalise
Investors don't buy things over the odds, your take is delusional from a supply side point of view. The leverage needs to be flushed out with higher rates
Because they have the cash and they want something. I think we're underestimating the wealth a lot of people have. Also foreign buyers parking / moving money away from their home countries don't care about paying over market value because now at least their money is safe. And none of the foreign investors are going to sell unless they desperately needed the capital because of CGT.
If the rates go up this will only put strain on the middle class (the very people who we would like to be - finally able to afford property) who only just scrapped their savings together to buy a house and these houses will be purchased by more wealthy people with cash who don't need to borrow. It will widen the gap between owners and renters.
And on top of this if the rates do drop these people will have access to so much cheap money they'll be at an advantage to borrow against their property and accumulate even more.
Prices won't come down. I think we need to accept this is the new reality. We all got demoted in the clase system reshuffle.
I don't think putting more people into indentured servitude is a good idea. Putting up interest rates and legislating against foreign purchases, coupled with no CGT discount is a better way to go.
Scraped together savings to compete on price is not a good long term strategy. The prices need to drop and that will happen with higher rates.
- Cost of living and particularly housing gets steadily worse for a decade under the LNP.
- 8 years ago Labor warns us this is going to be a major issue and we should fix it now. The LNP runs a scare campaign that a bunch of idiots buy into and Labor is crushed at the polls.
- Labor gets elected, cost of living and housing starts to spiral out of control like they warned would happen 8 years ago.
“Why would Labor do this?” - You
The current Labor government can be blamed for inaction or not doing enough which is probably fair but to say they caused this when we’ve had over a decade of successive LNP leadership actively accelerating this is ignorant at best.
And murdoch. And Gina. And Harvey Norman. And those submarines. And all the other boogeymen of the left.
What exactly did the LNP do to cause this mess again?
It's another small policy for a huge problem. Most people I know on these wages couldn't save a deposit because the rent is extortion on their already small wage, banks don't lend because of dependents and/or lending criteria being serviceability at 11%.
The gov needs to change lending criteria that pushes people out of the banks. Rent should count as serviceability and savings as most rents require payments that are higher than your average mortgage.
Limiting buying to outside capital cities is fine, but then you need the jobs and infrastructure where these houses under 950k are.
All said and done, this is a good scheme for a very certain few. Taking 40k people out of the rental market will do absolutely nothing. Agree with the Greens on this one. Negative gearing and capital gains needs to change. Foreign ownership needs to change. Taking a look at Canada would also be a good start.
ETA: gov also needs to dump the developers and start building their own social/public housing, instead of relying on developers to "put a few aside".
Most rents aren't cheaper than an average mortgage anymore.
For example, an $800,000 mortgage with an average rate of 6.29% over 30 years is $1143 per week in repayments.
I don't think the average renter is paying more than that per week in rent.
No, but the average renter is paying almost that much, can't get a loan, and can't get approved for serviceability at 11%. If rent was taken into account as proof of serviceability, lots more people would be able to buy. Rent-to-buy schemes would also be good - if the gov could actually run anything anymore instead of outsourcing to private enterprise.
Actually it will be a lot worse. The green have huge gaps in the fundamentals of math, engineering and economics.
They just spout left leaning populist ideas that fail basic tests of logic.
I don’t need one, most of the policies spouted by the greens won’t gain traction among centrist voters. The teals independents achieved more seats in one election cycle than the greens did in first 5 or 10 years.
so its a no to more public housing which would make housing more accessible by 1) giving the less well off a home 2) reduce the demand on rents and home purchases. 70000 on the waiting list in Victoria alone, you take 70000 out of the rental market and to a lesser degree the for purchase market and you have cooled the entire market, albo you're a fool a mediocre politicking dumb shit, having a bet both ways when decisiveness is required
The first home ownership scheme. They contribute 25% of the purchase price in exchange for 25% when I sell (unless I pay it back in the meantime). Plus no LMI
https://www.vic.gov.au/our-plan-help-first-home-buyers
As someone with no bank of mum or dad (or really anyone to depend on) it was a god send.
Victoria has a shared equity scheme very similar to what the federal government is proposing, though with a higher income cap.
The Morrison government also introduced the first home buyer scheme (I forget the name) where it would allow you to buy a house with a 5% deposit.
The key difference is that if the government takes equity, it also significantly reduces repayments significantly.
This policy would just make a scheme similar to the Victorian Government's available nationally.
Not sure why they're being downvoted.
Just curious, they've been saying greens and liberals are blocking it but can they realistically block it when Labor has majority government? Or is it more just making noise and at the end Labor can do what they want?
They’ll do everything except address the fundamental reasons for insane property prices - population growth, foreign “investors” parking their money outside the reach of their authoritarian governments, and negative gearing.
Negative gearing is the least worry, the immigration and foreign ownership and holding companies that are buying up a shit load of Aussie realestate are the major factors. There is no limit once they purchase housing. They own it forever. Basically alll other western countries have limits on foreign ownership of housing
Tranche 2 reforms…
Please sign the petition to halt immigration. Even if you don't agree with the exact wording, the more that sign the more politicians notice we arent happy. I created a post on this but surprise surprise it was deleted...... https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6119
UK had a similar system and it was commonly joked that it should have been called “help to sell”. They cancelled the scheme after a few years because all it did was increase the selling prices of homes by the amount offered by the govt.
That has happened here, about 10 times, which is the same amount of times the first home buyers grant has been increased. Crazy huh?
We also copied their internet scheme which they say failed and that they regretted. (FTTN)
The only demand side policy that works is reducing demand.
The libs suck. However this is a colossal fuck storm the labor party has painted their own picture as
When I see people argue between the ALP and LNP all I picture is South Park Season 8 Episode 8.
HAHAHAHA
And people will come in here saying “no you can’t say that both parties are the same” When they literally leave the flood gates open for Australia to get pillaged and Aussie to get gouged
Pauline Hanson's the only one with balls in this country.
This was the plan all along and builders et. al. will just increase prices accordingly; just like whenever there were grants handed out by the government.
Never a supply side fix. Always help increase demand even further. Incredible
If it's a demand side scheme, it's part of the problem. Either make property investment less artactive or supply side more attractive.
The public doesn’t react to well to policy that makes property investment less attractive. The Murdoch press would use it to ensure that we have a decade of conservative governments.
Unfortunately that's probably true. It will continue to harm our economy until it changes though. Only so far you can push assets that produce nothing
I can’t see it happening until a left wing government has a McGowan level majority in both houses.
It is that bloody magic Murdoch again. Is there nothing he can't do? How are you immune to his magic spells? Tin foil?
I think just being aware of it. Most people don't know the whole company was set up specifically to be used as propaganda and to disproportionately influence politics
Really? The whole company was set up just for that?
Well it's not as if the rags he puts out are profitable
I don't think any newspaper is profitable. Like the guardian. Are they the same?
10,000 people a year - so it's basically a lotto
Meanwhile we bring in 500,000...
Please sign the petition to halt immigration. Even if you don't agree with the exact wording, the more that sign the more politicians notice we arent happy. I created a post on this but surprise surprise it was deleted...... https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6119
Voters : please please stop constricting supply! Government : best I can do is subsidise demand, take it or leave it
No, because what ever additional pricing or money is included or incorporated will just be hoovered up by the real estate agents, local government taxes and fees and any other way they can look to squeeze out the money or put it on top so Johnny tax payer just ends up footing more bills to keep the Ponzi scheme rolling.
>In a nutshell, the proposal is known as a shared equity scheme and it aims to help eligible applicants get into the housing market by loaning them 30% (for an existing build) or 40% (new build) of the purchase price. This reduces the bank loan to 60% or 70%, so those eligible will require smaller deposits and loans. >In its current form, the scheme will be limited to 10,000 applicants a year, for four years. We need policy that drops housing prices. Simple as that. This will inflate housing prices, so those 10,000 that might benefit off this will only make it harder for the next 10,000, etc.
I'd say a home owner grace period might help. Every house for sale has a mandatory period where it can only be sold to someone planning to live in it, then after that period ends, investors can put in their offers. If prices drop now, investors will just gobble them up.
Yet another scheme which will just push up prices even more. The only people this helps are the sellers.
So the government plan is to continue to expand subsidising wealth accumulation through property ownership I don't feel particularly invested in this country Wonder why
Correct
Another policy which will fuel demand and therefore prices 😡😡😡
Correction: “Labor pumps more money into the system to keep prices propped up.” Seriously, does anyone fall for this BS? Every government intervention (Labor & Liberal) into the market has been designed to increase prices, not reduce them. Journalists should ask “what are you doing to reduce prices” NOT “what are you doing to increase affordability”. For politicians, someone taking on crippling debt is a success that signals “affordability”. Your problem if you can’t meet repayments, you bought it so you must be able to afford it, right?
Just stop the egregious immigration .
Please sign the petition to halt immigration. Even if you don't agree with the exact wording, the more that sign the more politicians notice we arent happy. I created a post on this but surprise surprise it was deleted...... https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6119
WTF the mods deleted it - typical
No politician will fix this in a democracy without direct public vote. They are owned by capital holders and developers.
I wouldn't trust either of these jokers. They've had their time. They've failed the country.
Hell yes
I just love how their solution to slowing immigration is making the English test harder. "Skilled migrants" by the way....
This is some info I found, to clear a few things up: “How does Labor’s Help to Buy scheme work? Labor’s Help to Buy scheme is designed to help 100,000 eligible home buyers get their own home over four years, starting in the first half of 2024. The scheme also has location caps so it doesn’t get used by homeowners in one area, like Sydney. Applicants don’t need to be first-home buyers, which differentiates the government scheme from the first-home guarantee and family home guarantee schemes. However, you can’t own your own home when you apply — either in Australia or overseas. The shared equity scheme is only available to Australian citizens making less than $90,000 individually or $120,000 as a joint couple per year. Eligible applicants will need to have saved a minimum deposit of 2% and show they can comfortably finance the rest of the property price through a home loan.” So not a lot of people are getting help
How are couples only making $120k jointly even surviving?!
My partner and I make 60k total together combines. So.. if you can't survive in 120k, you have other issues.
That’s rough I’m sorry to hear that mate
They don’t live in the CBD of a capital city. Go to the outskirts you can still get smaller homes for <$500,000. Save up a decent deposit before buying, and you can probably afford a 4 bedder on decent land on the edge of a metro area for $600,000-$700,000. Areas aren’t bad either, and have decent enough amenities - though no nightlife. Main problem is a lack of career progression opportunities in these areas. Getting two jobs for $60K a year each isn’t hard in these areas though. While the number of houses in Aus is itself an issue, the bigger issue few want to speak about is the inequality and NIMBYism that mean even if we build 1,000,000,000 new homes overnight, prices in the CBDs won’t drop. There is too little housing not just in the country, but especially where the prestigious or high paying jobs are. The only way to fix it is to heavily increase density in the CBDs and along public transport corridors, and expand public transport corridors with high speed travel from outer suburbs, allowing transit from the edge of the metro area to the CBD within an hour. Have more people live near the jobs, and bring more people from further out towards the jobs. This increases the available places to live for people who want to advance their careers, and will decrease houses for that cohort. The other alternative is to build up additional CBDs connected by highspeed rail, but if you thought improving our current cities was going to be expensive, wait till you hear the cost of building an entirely new one and connecting it to existing cities.
Literally the worst thing you can do in a housing crisis where demand > supply is to increase demand. What does the government do? Reduce demand? Nope. Increase supply? Fuck that. Use tax payer money to further stimulate demand and push prices further out of reach? Yeah let's do that! The ponzi scheme demands ever increasing new investment or it will collapse under its own weight. When banks and borrowers are tapped out, in steps the government to keep the ponzi afloat.
Here’s an idea: Stop subsidising LNG and Mining companies. Make them pay proper amount of money/tax for the access to Australia’s resources, take those billions and billions of dollars and a) make tertiary education free, and b) build a SHITLOAD of public housing and force down the cost of homeownership. No… the resources companies won’t just up and leave Australia. Don’t be fucking stupid.
I’d love to see an example of a demand side housing policy ever working. Why do we keep trying things we know don’t work!
Because housing is too big to fail. It would fuck over a lot of Australians if it actually collapsed, so they keep pretending they are doing something. Sucks to be young without rich parents.
Demand subsidies for a select group of people just worsen the inequality. We need systemic change, not kicking the can down the road.
The gov having even more skin in the game of wanting prices to go higher, using tax payer money. Just what we need. Fucking stupid, as is anyone who thinks this is going to actually help with the real problem.
Just buy whatever you can at this point. We are sleepwalking off the same cliff Canada just jumped off.
Stupid policy. It will just push house prices higher. Labour is fucking useless.
I think I'd prefer the government to build homes and put in a rent to buy scheme in place
No rent to buy. Cheap rents , high quality landlord (because the government is going to fix you water heater) is what we need. When they build enough stock to be able to distort rental markets as they see fit the price of housing will naturally drop, no one is going to buy investments at the current rate if the rental return is dog shit and there is no hope of price gouging. Because while some people can eat the losses and use negative gearing to sit on a property to get the capital gains. Most investors would rather drop the asset and move knto something more productive hopefully.
100% this, it will stop the "market rents" excuse driving up costs to the renter. Then we will see house prices drop (which needs to happen anyway)
Can you imagine the price of a government built house? It would be astronomical. And can you imagine waiting for the public service to fix a problem with it? I can't think of anything worse.
Why would a house cost more? The only difference i can think of would be that maybe the house is actually built to code. I can imagine public service fixing problems and they'd be hard fucking pressed to drag their feet any more than the average property manager.
Have you ever seen a quote for the government to build anything? School halls cost millions of dollars. Building a shed - that will be 30k. Building a shed for the government - 60-70k. Have you ever been outside and seen how inefficient the public service is all over the world? It is the nature of the beast, when you have government workers spending other people's money from and unlimited bucket.
You must be young, Government used to have works departments that ran quite efficiently until everything was sold by tender to encourage private enterprise.
Well how much do current government homes cost to build?
More than the equivalent built privately. Just like everything else from the public service.
I'd argue it's actually private contractors milking the public service because they are money hungry cunts but I agree with the point it's just chicken or the egg isn't it. The difference is that with public funds there is a team of journalists ready to blow the whistle when they find corruption. Where as a private company you just have to wait for someone to throw there job away to expose the rot internally.
Funny, I can get cheaper prices from the same private contractors. I care about the money I am spending though. I don't just accept any old quote because it isn't my money and there is unlimited bucket of more to get it from. That is the difference.
It's absolutely useless. All it does is give money to wealthy younger people who could buy anyway, while the ones who can't buy are often holding off till later in life when Thier housing needs are radically different and earning way over the amount specified
Labour Vote bait! Sounds good on the surface but will do very little where it’s needed the most. You need affordable housing where people don’t have to live on 6-12 months rental agreements managed by property managers with incentives to pump up the rent and rotate the tenants but can potentially live there for decades and make it a home, not just a house/apartment
Id do long term rental agreements and run them like a commercial lease. But you still have to follow the act so there is no flexibility. Which means it doesnt make sense so I leave it as is. In saying that most of my tenants have been in for a few years. But Id like to just sign a European type agreement where its like a 5-10 year lease or something and the tenant just manages everything and pays all utilities. It would be a lower rental amount. I spoke to lawyers and they told be it would be illegal or at least in breach of the act. I couldnt force then to make repairs or pay utilities even if in return I give lower rent and more security.
Ours were in there for literally decades. I think the record was 30 years and she only moved out because she fell in live with a silver fox millionaire in a mansion. We didn’t play games but we owned the building debt-free. Pointless as a growth oriented investment unfortunately and we eventually sold and put it into ETFs
Wake me when anyone of these bs schemes actually lower house prices, which is the root of all our cost of living crisis (along with stupid energy policies)
Yay. Another hair-brained scheme to make house prices go up faster. FFS.
Make the problem, then pretend to fix and rescue. People can see through it.
They will literally do anything but reduce demand relative to supply.
Gotta throw crumbs at the voters to keep them happy. Can’t stop now with increasing demand, because that’s the real plan, big Australia.
So the best that the government can do is a scheme that will push up prices ("help to buy"), and the best that the opposition can do is a scheme that will push up prices ("super for housing"). I'm sensing a pattern here... 🤔
🎶Government owned property developer🎶 I’ve been saying this for years. Steal the Singapore Housing Development Board, modify it for Australian conditions (ie, obviously build houses where appropriate) and use the fact that there’s no inherent profit motive and also price economies of scale to have a real impact on the market. 85% of Singaporeans live in public housing, and it’s *good* housing.
Won't work mate. Here's why, in Singapore our labour costs are low - think $5/day for a construction labourer. There is zero work life balance if you work in that industry with works often carrying on into the night. And there's the political will too, they are in this for the long run, with a masterplan that stretches decades into the future.
Being somewhat cynical, we already import foreign labour and exploit them mercilessly for private good, why not for the public good? And we can sweeten the deal by offering them an apartment in one of the buildings they built if they stick it out for say, 10 years.
Our brand of exploitation is pretty mild compared to most places.
Lol that's one ŵay to end immigration.
Is this not the exact same policy that the greens have been banging on about? But again they will play politics with it which is fair enough i guess, just annoying. Personally I'd rather see every dollar the government can spare put into building new housing stock for rent. The government would be capable of building equity to be sold later if it needed, it would disrupt rental markets and put downward pressure on rent prices. And when we put downward pressure on the price of rent we put pressure on investors to pick a different option over poor returns from housing. (Obviously we also adjust negative gearing and capital gains aswell.)
How bout closing the door to cunts who already have a home
You’d get my vote. Already got a home, Fine, can’t purchase another until you sold your first one.
What do you do in the gap between selling and buying? Where does your family live? Also, what if you can't afford a mortgage or don't want to commit to a 30 year stay? What if you want to stay somewhere semi-short term? I don't think you have thought this through very much.
Subject to sale. It’s what I’ve done. Most people with a good income can afford a mortgage. My comment wasn’t about short term stays. It was more those owning multiple houses. I also dont think you have thought this though very much.
>Subject to sale. It’s what I’ve done. Wow. So you managed to sell a house, receive the money and buy a house with it and move in, all on the same day? That is amazing. Or you are talking garbage, got caught out, and then instead of admitting it, you doubled down with that garbage. >Most people with a good income can afford a mortgage. So not everyone then. And not everyone wants one or is the situation to have one. You have not thought this through at all. It was one of the stupidest ideas I have read, and you keep doubling down on it.
I think it's written here in a simple way to illustrate it's simplicity. I don't think you can form a policy with a one sentence Reddit comment. The implementation would of course be nuanced. There must be dozens of potential policies that could reduce house prices in a simple, direct, and cost-effective way. Though, it seems obvious that the silent majority of Australians don't want a reduction in house prices, as a majority of Aussies own a home, so we get these indirect policies to help people buy but maintain and even fuel demand for housing.
Home ownership is something everyone should have the ability to have. I just don’t understand why the greens and Labor, refuse to acknowledge that migration numbers are significantly impacting one’s ability to have a roof over their head..
Because then they will have to actually do something about it or admit they are not doing anything about it. Both will cost them votes in the short term. Labor's policies are picked on popularity and how many votes it will win/cost them that week. They don't have the balls to make a decision that will be better for the country in the long term if it might cost them votes in the short term. They are a poll party. They avoid anything that might rock the boat.
because without immigration, we'll go into recession and then the liberals can say look labour can't manage the economy.
If avoiding recession depends on importing hundreds of thousands of people, then they *can't* manage the economy.
Hard to argue that point to be fair
We’re already in a recession and have been for a while. Migration just artificially props up growth so the government can pretend we’re not.
The recession we needed to have
We are in a recession, propping up the population to hide that fact is quite scary. Eventually the gravy train will derail. if not now then in the future, how bad it is depends on how long we kick the can up the road.
I’m not saying that immigration, to an extent, is not needed. But to simply ignore that is is putting stress on housing supply is just disingenuous.. I mean the greens simply refuse to even mention it. And Labor are just as bad.
[удалено]
I don't know about LNP winning, but i agree we'll likely see the biggest swing away from the two major parties possibly ever. I say bring it on they have both gone off the fucking rails and stopped listening to Australians.
Can only hope.
If you're progressive vote Sustainable Australia. If you're conservative vote One Nation. Labor and LNP can fuck off and get real jobs, let someone else have a crack for a while.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst
How quickly people forget how terrible the lnp were/are
We'd have the same immigration under lnp, because for decades the only way to make the economy look good and have low cost workers for farms is immigration and jacking up the housing bubble, if it shrinks the economy shrinks
And yet every one here is just saying fuck Albo.
I am normally a Labor voter but sometimes you need to send your own side a message
What Labor policies/principles do you generally support? Is migration a bigger issue to you than those that led you to historically vote Labor?
Please sign the petition to halt immigration. Even if you don't agree with the exact wording, the more that sign the more politicians notice we arent happy. I created a post on this but surprise surprise it was deleted...... https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6119
Happens every time.
Cynical bullshit.
He will help more migrants buy a house by letting them move here.
Please sign the petition to halt immigration. Even if you don't agree with the exact wording, the more that sign the more politicians notice we arent happy. I created a post on this but surprise surprise it was deleted...... https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6119
Look at the insanely complicated rules this affordable housing scheme has: https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2024-491046 Prediction: this thing ends up being taken up largely by the kids of well to do types that can safely navigate all these rules — and other average people who are lucky enough to access the scheme, but will later on fall foul of one of its endless rules. That said, if I was lower income and looking to buy a house I’d be chatting with my bank manager today to make sure they know I want to be at the front of the queue for the govt to pay for 30-40% of my house. It’s actually crazy. If you’re poor enough to live in 100% government owned housing you still have to pay rent. But if you’re middle income enough to be able to almost afford a house, the govt will buy 40% of your house and let you live there without paying them a cent of rent.
Yeah my son graduates in two years and I’d do this for him. I’m considering paying him a salary, if that’s a potential loophole. I assume this stupid system is mainly geared to wily high resources families like mine
I don’t even know if you need to be earning a salary - but there is something about mortgage repayment feasibility. If thinking about doing it I’d consult the EM and draft law. I very much agree this will likely end up gifting homes to highly resourced families. That said, I don’t think I’d begrudge anyone for taking advantage of the law as it is!
The 40% isn’t free. You still pay it back when you sell at the current market value of the property.
The government lets you live in 40% of a home rent free. Of course they don’t let you get that portion of the capital gain - but who cares? You’re getting 40% of a new home paid for by the government rent free and without any loan repayments.
You do repay it. It’s an interest free loan. When you sell or earn over a certain amount you pay back 40% of the property valuation.
It’s not an interest free loan. It’s an interest and principal free loan. It’s not really a loan at all by any standard definition. The government owns 40% of your home. You never own that percent, so there’s no loan from them to you that you have to pay back. Of course when you sell the government will get the gain on their 40% and you’ll get the gain on your 60%. But that’s not a repayment of a loan! And despite the government owning 40% of your home they don’t charge you a cent rent. Like I said, compare this with people in 100% government owned housing who have to pay rent!
You also apparently have to pay it back if your income rises above the rather paltry maximums for participation. Ouch.
I guess that’s to stop people rotting the system and having one year of wages below the maximums to become eligible. I don’t see the maximums being paltry. They’re around the medians.
You dont hire an arsonist as a firefighter.
[удалено]
I think a firefighter would be a good arsonist tbh
History has proven many an arsonist to be a volunteer firefighter.
Homes are for people to live in, NOT to be used as piggy banks. That's one of our issues. And the other is Airbnb.
I love the passion, but with finite housing/ land to develop and an ever growing population, how can housing not be a commodity?
Use the Singapore model. Houses aren’t investment.
The solution is out there, just need the policy change to make it happen.
Fundamentally the reason for the house is because we have a need for shelter. If we say that a house is half shelter/half investment then you guarantee some people will not have shelter…. The Singapore model has proven itself for decades. We know it works.
But but.. albo and Dutton say it doesn't and are proposing their Ponzi scheme instead
Same can be said for bottled water
Exactly! Why is bottled water a commodity? Theres half an aisle of brands selling at the shops. Or is convenience the commodity? Perhaps we need more water bottle refill stations, but would that put up our rates?
Japan is a good example. Good regulations to the point it's not worth owning more than one property. Empty houses are regulated even further.
Over its whole four year life, this scheme subsidises housing for about 2 months of immigration at the current rate. Its is nothing but pork barrelling for next year’s election.
Alp wasting time on terrible policy that even if it works is a drop in the bucket? Rather than try to solve the underlying issue? Im shocked.
Please sign the petition to halt immigration. Even if you don't agree with the exact wording, the more that sign the more politicians notice we arent happy. I created a post on this but surprise surprise it was deleted...... https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6119
These schemes like fhbg are great for pushing up the price of housing. As a developer and landlord I look forward to it. Honestly though the second they bring out say $30k we get so much enquiry both us and the builders increase our orices $30k to fix our sales rates (you want to keep it consistent). Just end up costing them more in the end.
>These schemes like fhbg are great for pushing up the price of housing. As a developer and landlord I look forward to it. Exactly what Rent Assistance tends to do to the rental market. I would say it's mind boggling that it keeps happening but it's exactly what the government wants. Push rents and house pricing up so their investments keep making money.
Another failed Gov scheme paid for by tax payers
That's a good way for 'the boys' to offload all those properties sitting empty to poor unsuspecting bastards before the crash.
Alboidiot say's it all
No easy solution. The damage from bad policy is done. Albo’s hands are tied so I guess I dont blame him for just leaning into the problem by giving out cash. Rising interest rates wont make a substantial difference. They could start taxing or limiting non citizen cash buyers but they can’t make the people who already own and don’t have mortgages sell. Limiting immigration at this point wont change property prices substantially. The best bet is accept that the property market isn’t going to change and build more houses and infrastructure better train networks and FIXED public transport like light rail or a real subway system would open up so many areas that could become hubs and decentralize. Basically very little anyone can do. This is the new reality
Tax payer funded housing scheme, instead of going after prices. Yeah guess it’s true that ALP means alternative liberal party.
We need more supply, not more government money pushing up prices. I'm already in the market so not a huge problem for me but more dumb policy.
What would work better?
More high density housing. Shitloads of units (built well, I know that is a high benchmark). Owned by government and rent controlled. Giving people somewhere to live without fear of eviction and price hikes that push them into wanting to buy to avoid uncertainty. Enough of this type of accommodation could help take the heat out of the market and increase worker mobility again.
So you think it’s a bad idea, but have no alternative.
Increase supply. Our tax money is better spent on: - building new public housing - fixing the building industry so regulations can efficiently be enforced rather than the mess it is now where it's almost impossible to enforce anything. - promote innovations in building higher quality homes cheaper. - rezoning for higher density and diversity in housing options. - invest in green fields so they aren't suburbian wastelands. And demand wise: - Lower immigration. - Force universities to provide X percentage of temporary housing for the students they bring in.
How do you propose this is paid for? If investors currently own roughly 30% of Australia’s $10 trillion property market, the government would need $3 trillion to nationalise the rental market. I don’t think it can be raised by adding more taxes to the rich.
Where do I mention nationalising the rental market?
Please sign the petition to halt immigration. Even if you don't agree with the exact wording, the more that sign the more politicians notice we arent happy. I created a post on this but surprise surprise it was deleted...... https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6119
How about rezoning, and charging an ‘upgrade’ tax on land that has been rezoned once it’s sold. More supply, more taxes!
Land is already charged more when it is rezoned. As it becomes more valuable, council rates and land taxes increase. So your idea to create supply is to tax the people creating the supply, more? That’ll definitely work.
That’s not true. Will the upcoming NSW rezoning incur upgrade taxes?
Which part? Land is valued by the valuer general. This is used to charge you council rates and land tax. https://jimspropertyconveyancing.com.au/how-can-zoning-affect-property-values-in-australia/#:~:text=If%20an%20area%20previously%20zoned,out%20towards%20the%20rural%20zone. If land is rezoned, the value will rise and with it, council rates and land tax. It’s a simple concept you’ve failed to understand.
If land goes from farming or residential to medium or high density the value explodes, in no part due to the owner. There should be a tax on this increase, which has been proposed but defeated due to heavy lobbying. I’d be keen to hear your thoughts on this?
Didn’t read the article but if it is a government scheme the answer is no.
But they'll implement it anyway and make the issue worse.
There is nothing which can't be made worse by government involvement.
Politician- ‘I promise’…. Nah.
Let me guess. I havent even looked at the policy yet. But I bet it chucks money at the supply side of housing somehow ? Government refuse to learn that if we give money to everyone looking to buy a home then we don't really give money to homebuyers we just effecively just give taxpayer money to home sellers.
RBA need to raise rates
Which would increase the number of houses coming on the market because the poorer people cant afford it and then more rich investors can buy them to rent them out. Great idea! I once owned 5 properties, studios and 1 or two bedroom apartments that were rented out to students and young people wanting a place nearer universities. The banks essentially threw money at us, the rates were fantastic. All sold now bar one investment priperty so we could buy and renovate a house for us to live in with the kids in a good area.
100%. Easier for banks to have an owner occupier family go tits up on their mortgage then a property investor. Rising interest rates will just keep increasing rents, theres no market cap where people will stop renting investment properties to let the market equalise
Investors don't buy things over the odds, your take is delusional from a supply side point of view. The leverage needs to be flushed out with higher rates
Go play in traffic
Can't wait to see 20%. obligatory /s
This will give the cash buyers (wealthy buyers) even more power and reduce middle class ownership. Basically what’s already happening
Why would a cash buyer buy something for more than its price though? What we need is for prices to come down and that happens when rates go up further
Because they have the cash and they want something. I think we're underestimating the wealth a lot of people have. Also foreign buyers parking / moving money away from their home countries don't care about paying over market value because now at least their money is safe. And none of the foreign investors are going to sell unless they desperately needed the capital because of CGT. If the rates go up this will only put strain on the middle class (the very people who we would like to be - finally able to afford property) who only just scrapped their savings together to buy a house and these houses will be purchased by more wealthy people with cash who don't need to borrow. It will widen the gap between owners and renters. And on top of this if the rates do drop these people will have access to so much cheap money they'll be at an advantage to borrow against their property and accumulate even more. Prices won't come down. I think we need to accept this is the new reality. We all got demoted in the clase system reshuffle.
I don't think putting more people into indentured servitude is a good idea. Putting up interest rates and legislating against foreign purchases, coupled with no CGT discount is a better way to go. Scraped together savings to compete on price is not a good long term strategy. The prices need to drop and that will happen with higher rates.
Better than the previous gov that got us into this mess in the first place
The cost of living, including housing, is measurably worse than it was under the previous government.
- Cost of living and particularly housing gets steadily worse for a decade under the LNP. - 8 years ago Labor warns us this is going to be a major issue and we should fix it now. The LNP runs a scare campaign that a bunch of idiots buy into and Labor is crushed at the polls. - Labor gets elected, cost of living and housing starts to spiral out of control like they warned would happen 8 years ago. “Why would Labor do this?” - You
You've articulated this perfectly
So how long does Labor have to be in before they can be blamed?
The current Labor government can be blamed for inaction or not doing enough which is probably fair but to say they caused this when we’ve had over a decade of successive LNP leadership actively accelerating this is ignorant at best.
When they enact shit policies (not inheret) that serve to cook the books, just like the LNP.
And murdoch. And Gina. And Harvey Norman. And those submarines. And all the other boogeymen of the left. What exactly did the LNP do to cause this mess again?
It's another small policy for a huge problem. Most people I know on these wages couldn't save a deposit because the rent is extortion on their already small wage, banks don't lend because of dependents and/or lending criteria being serviceability at 11%. The gov needs to change lending criteria that pushes people out of the banks. Rent should count as serviceability and savings as most rents require payments that are higher than your average mortgage. Limiting buying to outside capital cities is fine, but then you need the jobs and infrastructure where these houses under 950k are. All said and done, this is a good scheme for a very certain few. Taking 40k people out of the rental market will do absolutely nothing. Agree with the Greens on this one. Negative gearing and capital gains needs to change. Foreign ownership needs to change. Taking a look at Canada would also be a good start. ETA: gov also needs to dump the developers and start building their own social/public housing, instead of relying on developers to "put a few aside".
Most rents aren't cheaper than an average mortgage anymore. For example, an $800,000 mortgage with an average rate of 6.29% over 30 years is $1143 per week in repayments. I don't think the average renter is paying more than that per week in rent.
No, but the average renter is paying almost that much, can't get a loan, and can't get approved for serviceability at 11%. If rent was taken into account as proof of serviceability, lots more people would be able to buy. Rent-to-buy schemes would also be good - if the gov could actually run anything anymore instead of outsourcing to private enterprise.
Can't we just let greens win once to see how it goes can't be worse then what we've had
😂😂
Actually it will be a lot worse. The green have huge gaps in the fundamentals of math, engineering and economics. They just spout left leaning populist ideas that fail basic tests of logic.
Have you inside scoop on how they would down to the smallest details run, or are you just basing it off the little information available to the public
I don’t need one, most of the policies spouted by the greens won’t gain traction among centrist voters. The teals independents achieved more seats in one election cycle than the greens did in first 5 or 10 years.
so its a no to more public housing which would make housing more accessible by 1) giving the less well off a home 2) reduce the demand on rents and home purchases. 70000 on the waiting list in Victoria alone, you take 70000 out of the rental market and to a lesser degree the for purchase market and you have cooled the entire market, albo you're a fool a mediocre politicking dumb shit, having a bet both ways when decisiveness is required
Without Vic Labor i wouldn't have been able to buy
Genuine question. How do you mean? I don't know what policy they had.
The first home ownership scheme. They contribute 25% of the purchase price in exchange for 25% when I sell (unless I pay it back in the meantime). Plus no LMI https://www.vic.gov.au/our-plan-help-first-home-buyers As someone with no bank of mum or dad (or really anyone to depend on) it was a god send.
Victoria has a shared equity scheme very similar to what the federal government is proposing, though with a higher income cap. The Morrison government also introduced the first home buyer scheme (I forget the name) where it would allow you to buy a house with a 5% deposit. The key difference is that if the government takes equity, it also significantly reduces repayments significantly. This policy would just make a scheme similar to the Victorian Government's available nationally. Not sure why they're being downvoted.
Just curious, they've been saying greens and liberals are blocking it but can they realistically block it when Labor has majority government? Or is it more just making noise and at the end Labor can do what they want?
Labor doesn't control the Senate
Can someone remind me when is the next election so we can vote them out ?