Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[The Cryptkeeper]

I’d be 100% for it, providing you had to pay back + interest.
So effectively you are borrowing from your own super..
Which industry do you think would be against that?

The issue though is that in addition to fueling the housing market we are then burdening first homebuyers with extra debt to their super funds. Debt that is not generating any sort of return until it is repaid.

It's a terrible and poorly conceived idea. It has no upside that I can see at all.

 

[Crankyhawk]

It is a perfectly legitimate question. If the policy is going to make existing problems worse long term then the treasurer should explain himself.

If you are the same person complaining about cost of living pressure and cost of living relief I stand by my comment. Unless someone has a magic way of delivering one without the other
The only thing I can think of are draconian price controls

 

[Gough]

The issue though is that in addition to fueling the housing market we are then burdening first homebuyers with extra debt to their super funds. Debt that is not generating any sort of return until it is repaid.

It's a terrible and poorly conceived idea. It has no upside that I can see at all.

Lessening the strength of industry super funds mean the wrong sort of chaps are less likely to find themselves on boards.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Lessening the strength of industry super funds mean the wrong sort of chaps are less likely to find themselves on boards.

I'm not sure how it lessens their strength mate. Australian Super manages over $300b worth of assets. Whatever potential first homebuyers take out (and ultimately have to repay) would not be enough to significantly weaken the fund.

One would hope Dutton's hair-brained scheme at least has the potential homebuyer contributing a reasonable portion of their own savings too.

 

[Carn The Berries]

So often I see these giant people movers with one or two people in them. Replace them with the smaller school bus style of bus, fitting maybe 40 people, which navigate the streets much quicker, and send two in the same time it would take one big bus. Or split the route between two or three of these smaller buses. The aim should be to move people from their homes to the train station in about 10 mins, then train into the city.

I remember the little red and yellow national buses that used to get around the eastern suburbs... Probably half the size of a "regular" bus. Even then, they were rarely full in off peak times.

Mind you, this is going back a fair way... We were still using paper tickets

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

If you are the same person complaining about cost of living pressure and cost of living relief I stand by my comment. Unless someone has a magic way of delivering one without the other
The only thing I can think of are draconian price controls

The thing I especially love is that when it was mooted that the stage 3 tax cuts would be abolished, the wailing and gnashing of teeth was unbearable.

Now the same people are complaining about $300 and the impact on inflation.

It's laughable.

 

[The Punter]

You want to pay these already high earners an additional amount that is higher than the jobseeker rate?

Let me guess, you are an aspiring politician?

Wait

Reckon they should put them in dorms

why not treat them like other public servants - if you own a property, no entitlement - if you don't government pays the bill to a properly contracted hotel/apartment not cash to the member.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

There they are - actual suggestions!

1. Build bunk beds for the pollies
2. Spend more putting them up in commercial short-term accommodation

But they're paid too much already, grumble, grumble.

The RBA economist has just said the economic housing problem has an economic solution (increase supply).

But to get a better class of elected official, it's a calling.

If we need better politicians, perhaps we should pay them more.

If we need better teachers, perhaps we should pay them more.

Simple economic theory based on human nature.

Now, I'm off to search for a greenfield site in the ACT where I can start construction on the YMC-MP-A

 

[Carn The Berries]

If you are the same person complaining about cost of living pressure and cost of living relief I stand by my comment. Unless someone has a magic way of delivering one without the other
The only thing I can think of are draconian price controls

You're right, you can't complain about both. But it's completely disingenuous for the PM or Treasurer to say they are bringing these measures in to help people with the current cost of living, and in the same breath say they won't have any impact on inflation.

All they needed to do was to say that it would have minimal additional inflationary impact, which will be far outweighed by the up-front benefit families will realise. But they wanted to pump their tyres up, and proceeded to make a rod for their own backs.

 

[Carn The Berries]

I'm not sure how it lessens their strength mate. Australian Super manages over $300b worth of assets. Whatever potential first homebuyers take out (and ultimately have to repay) would not be enough to significantly weaken the fund.

One would hope Dutton's hair-brained scheme at least has the potential homebuyer contributing a reasonable portion of their own savings too.

And what happens if the homeowner defaults on their "mortgage" to the super fund? Are they entitled to liquidate the asset?

There isn't a single good thing about this idea.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

You're right, you can't complain about both. But it's completely disingenuous for the PM or Treasurer to say they are bringing these measures in to help people with the current cost of living, and in the same breath say they won't have any impact on inflation.

All they needed to do was to say that it would have minimal additional inflationary impact, which will be far outweighed by the up-front benefit families will realise. But they wanted to pump their tyres up, and proceeded to make a rod for their own backs.

Mate, you are getting caught up in semantics here.

In real terms, the impact of $300 to each household on overall inflation is so miniscule that it really has no impact in the greater scheme of things. I don't think this is the big deal that you are making it out to be.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

And what happens if the homeowner defaults on their "mortgage" to the super fund? Are they entitled to liquidate the asset?

There isn't a single good thing about this idea.

Yep, it just splits the "debt" across multiple channels.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Mate, you are getting caught up in semantics here.

In real terms, the impact of $300 to each household on overall inflation is so miniscule that it really has no impact in the greater scheme of things. I don't think this is the big deal that you are making it out to be.

It's not, which is exactly the point I'm making. The ALP have opened the door for an attack on this if inflation isn't below 3% at the end of the year. Will this measure be a major driver of it? No. But by claiming it was anti-inflationary, the door is open.

I'm looking at it as a credibility issue, rather than a severe economic one. Why give your opponents a way in by making dumb statements?

 

[Carn The Berries]

Yep, it just splits the "debt" across multiple channels.

And if I have to make a choice between repaying my bank, and repaying my super, I know which one I'm choosing 100% of the time.

 

[Black Diamond]

If you are the same person complaining about cost of living pressure and cost of living relief I stand by my comment. Unless someone has a magic way of delivering one without the other
The only thing I can think of are draconian price controls

Raising taxes and cutting spending, and explaining to the public there is no short term solution.

Giving people more money to spend will not, and has never worked.

 

[Gralin]

I'm not sure how it lessens their strength mate. Australian Super manages over $300b worth of assets. Whatever potential first homebuyers take out (and ultimately have to repay) would not be enough to significantly weaken the fund.

One would hope Dutton's hair-brained scheme at least has the potential homebuyer contributing a reasonable portion of their own savings too.

Is that Duttons proposal?
Borrowing from your super, which you then have to pay back as well as paying your mortgage?

 

[Gralin]

Raising taxes and cutting spending, and explaining to the public there is no short term solution.

Giving people more money to spend will not, and has never worked.

So the fix to everything being unaffordable is charge people more tax and withdrawing support?

You must be an economist

 

[Gralin]

Austerity has never fixed jack shit btw

Australia had a soft landing in the GFC because the government didn't go for austerity

 

[Black Diamond]

Well the prevailing policy of borrowing, spending, and handouts over the last 20 years has also done SFA.

Just a modicum of discipline during the GFC and Covid and we would be in a far better place.

Continuing to spend only kicks the can down the road.

If what Chalmers delivered is going to meet his objectives then he should be able to explain why.

We could actually do with some “economists” in these positions. Anyone, just an experiment, following the principles rationally and dryly.

 

[JackOutback]

Busses are for people like Mantis, no thanks.

I tend to agree, slow and cumbersome, but if the buses were smaller, comfortable and you didn't have to spend as much time on one to get to the train station, it'd be a better proposition at least. Mind you, I'm close enough to walk and always will.

 

[Festerz]

Final post on the housing issue which is being led by rhetoric rather than evidence from all sides of politics.

Dutton concedes homes sales to foreigners are ‘low’

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has conceded only a tiny fraction of property sales in Australia are made by foreign residents, hours after releasing a major new population policy.

t.co

Peter Dutton has conceded only a tiny fraction of property sales in Australia are made by foreign residents, after struggling to say what the effect of his newly announced population policy would be on the housing market.

The opposition leader used his budget reply speech on Thursday night to pledge a Coalition government would slash permanent migration, cutting arrivals by a quarter to 140,000 a year, and ban foreign investors and temporary residents from buying established homes for two years.

He said the plan would free up 100,000 properties and help Australians by “restoring the dream of homeownership”,
The Coalition’s cut to the permanent migrant intake from 185,000 to 140,000 would take the metric to its lowest level for 20 years, amid continuing labour shortages that threaten to keep inflation high.

But, challenged on Friday morning about the number of overseas migrants who purchase property in Australia, Mr Dutton could not say.

The evidence makes it clear his policy proposals announced last night would do two thirds of feck all to turn around the deep seated housing crisis caused by decades of policy failure.

 

[Golden_6]

And of course there's this impacting on the supply of long term rentals in the private market as well:

View attachment 1991265

Seems to me that some carefully coordinated regulation in the private rental market (a state issue under the Constitution) is sorely needed to enhance supply and pricing and could be easily done if there was the political will.

I’ve never understood why this isn’t attacked. Why can’t we make a simple short term rental tax that severely disincentivises this option? Have the proceeds reinvested into affordable housing.

I’m an accountant and a huge amount of property investors have made the decision to remove their properties from the long term rental market due to higher returns.

We have a housing supply issue and we have perfectly liveable homes taken off the market for pure investment decisions.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Reckon they should put them in dorms

I'm pretty sure each office in Parliament House already has a kitchenette...

Give them George Costanza style desks to sleep in and they'll be fine.

 

[Festerz]

I’ve never understood why this isn’t attacked. Why can’t we make a simple short term rental tax that severely disincentivises this option? Have the proceeds reinvested into affordable housing.

I’m an accountant and a huge amount of property investors have made the decision to remove their properties from the long term rental market due to higher returns.

We have a housing supply issue and we have perfectly liveable homes taken off the market for pure investment decisions.

This is being done in some sections of Qld. by local councils.

Brisbane City Council for example imposed a 50% rate surcharge on properties listed for short-term rental for more than 60 days a year in their 2022-23 Budget, and increased it to 65% in 2023-24.

 

[peetoo]

I'm not sure how it lessens their strength mate. Australian Super manages over $300b worth of assets. Whatever potential first homebuyers take out (and ultimately have to repay) would not be enough to significantly weaken the fund.

One would hope Dutton's hair-brained scheme at least has the potential homebuyer contributing a reasonable portion of their own savings too.

I thought the figure was more like 3 trillion.

 

[burge13]

Eliminate negative gearing and CGT concessions and you'll start to solve the problem.

Cap negative gearing at x houses (2? I'd probably be in favour of 3 as we still do need rentals built). People should still be able to invest for their retirement and the NG is still than aged pensions I'm sure