Society/Culture Australian Property Prices to Crash?

[Deliverance]

Not true at all, can't claim depreciation.

Yes it is. Most are investing for neg gearing and cap gains. You're not getting that in Cranbourne or Melton.

 

[Deliverance]

knock them down and put 3 townhouses on them - i work in ivanhoe and i reckon there would be 15+ houses a year in the area that are torn down and town houses put on them.

I haven't seen research on that. It could be correct.

 

[Golden_6]

I haven't seen research on that. It could be correct.

Yep. I have a client who in the past 5 years has purchased 5 different properties, knocked down each and chucked 3 townhouses on each like yearly clockwork.

 

[Deliverance]

Yep. I have a client who in the past 5 years has purchased 5 different properties, knocked down each and chucked 3 townhouses on each like yearly clockwork.

To flip and sell or own as a rental though?

 

[Golden_6]

To flip and sell or own as a rental though?

Probably 50/50 split. Most will be sold eventually though.

 

[Bombermania]

mate no ones whining they cant buy a house for 600k near the city.

people are whining they cant buy a 1.5m house 30km from the city.

they are 2 totally different things.

you are trying to simplify something that is not simple. At all.

That only really applies to Sydney because in other cities you can find a house for under $1.5m within 30kms of the CBD.

In some cases the prices can be justified but in other cases the prices look high but this is why people need to look around.

 

[yodellinhank]

so people should just buy where they can afford (basically if your young move to rural areas with minimal jobs + infastructire) whilst investors continue to buy houses that they have had unfair access too because of the fact they are old. Not smarter, or harder working. Just old.

good logic.

over 70% of the countries housing wealth is owned by 16% of the population being 65+ or older.

No one is "shitting" on old people for doing what governments allow them to do. But if you don't see that investors are the issue mate than I really don't know what to tell you, no statistic will matter. For well over 20 ******* years Investors have taken out more than 30% more loans than first home buyers at a sustained rate, and accumulating property along the way. And people wonder why we are in the position we are now.

Now that the RBA has yet again held interests rates at 0.1% to 2024 economic professionals are forecasting another 30% jump to 2024. That means in 5 years a property has almost doubled in value and will essentially put a nail in the coffin of anyone on an average wage ever owning a home.

And guess whos buying the bulk of the properties? PEOPLE WHO ALREADY OWN A HOUSE.

Governments should have restricted peoples ability to own multiple free standing homes long ago, unfortunately they are the ones with their finger in the pie and have essentially f’ed any future generation from owning a house unless they inherit it.

View attachment 1172921

You can only ever buy one first home.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Because a house rose from 500k to 3 million doesn't mean the boomer has more disposable income, failed logic. They should be able to claim pension and concession regardless of their home value.

Disposable income has nothing to do with it, genius. If said boomer sells their 3 million dollar house and buys a $500k house again, the liquid $2.5 million they just created makes them immediately ineligible for the pension. The system rewards those who mooch and penalises those who take care of themselves.

 

[HirdyLannister]

Disposable income has nothing to do with it, genius. If said boomer sells their 3 million dollar house and buys a $500k house again, the liquid $2.5 million they just created makes them immediately ineligible for the pension. The system rewards those who mooch and penalises those who take care of themselves.

why should the boomer have to sell the house where they have been for the last 50 years?

 

[FRUMPY]

why should the boomer have to sell the house where they have been for the last 50 years?

so he can buy their house

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

why should the boomer have to sell the house where they have been for the last 50 years?

Because they can't afford to live there. (or more accurately, Society can't afford to continue supporting them at the expense of everyone else to live there).

What is needed is a way to better re-balance tax away from income generation and towards wealth hoarding.

Halve Income Tax, GST, Stamp Duty, etc income, with the shortfall made up in increased wealth taxes (eg Land Tax) and suddenly there is reward for effort - rather than birthright.

Whilst the wealthy control the decision-making, the media (and thus the narrative) nothing will change.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

why should the boomer have to sell the house where they have been for the last 50 years?

Why should I have to pay for a boomer to live in the same house for another 20 years?

 

[FRUMPY]

Why should I have to pay for a boomer to live in the same house for another 20 years?

why should i have to pay for other peoples child care
why should i have to pay for anything for anyone else

You do realise other people pay for s**t you use and do - its not just you paying for this stuff.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

why should i have to pay for other peoples child care
why should i have to pay for anything for anyone else

You do realise other people pay for sh*t you use and do - its not just you paying for this stuff.

Paying for child care is a necessary evil to enable people to work such that they can feed and clothe themselves rather than being stay at home parents on a Centrelink payment, unless that's what you want.

What benefit to society comes from allowing boomers with millions of dollars in assets to claim the pension? Why should boomers be subsidised to live in their dream house instead of moving out further into a $500k house and living within their means?

 

[FRUMPY]

Paying for child care is a necessary evil to enable people to work such that they can feed and clothe themselves rather than being stay at home parents on a Centrelink payment, unless that's what you want.

What benefit to society comes from allowing boomers with millions of dollars in assets to claim the pension? Why should boomers be subsidised to live in their dream house instead of moving out further into a $500k house and living within their means?

Yes, so many of the parents who have children in child care cant afford to feed and clothes themselves if one of them didnt work......riiiiiiiggghhhhtttt.......

You're just upset because some old granny has the house you want and couldn't afford anyway.....

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Yes, so many of the parents who have children in child care cant afford to feed and clothes themselves if one of them didnt work......riiiiiiiggghhhhtttt.......

You're just upset because some old granny has the house you want and couldn't afford anyway.....

Lmao nice melt. See you in a few weeks champ

 

[FRUMPY]

Lmao nice melt. See you in a few weeks champ

melt? what melt?

 

[HirdyLannister]

so he can buy their house

Basically sums it up, self entitled me me me now now now generation.

Why should I have to pay for a boomer to live in the same house for another 20 years?

Why should I have to pay for peoples medicare, I'm healthy and I can afford my own visits. I shouldn't have to prop up lesser parts of society.

As someone who is earlier 30's, my generation and younger are pathetic. kicking screaming and cry that life is unfair but not prepared to do the hard yards or make sacrifices.

I'm so glad I worked so many extra hours to purchase my house 8 years ago and another home 2 year ago, I look forward to purchasing my third free standing home this year or next with the capital that I have gained.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Basically sums it up, self entitled me me me now now now generation.


Why should I have to pay for peoples medicare, I'm healthy and I can afford my own visits. I shouldn't have to prop up lesser parts of society.

As someone who is earlier 30's, my generation and younger are pathetic. kicking screaming and cry that life is unfair but not prepared to do the hard yards or make sacrifices.

I'm so glad I worked so many extra hours to purchase my house 8 years ago and another home 2 year ago, I look forward to purchasing my third free standing home this year or next with the capital that I have gained.

See, this is the difference between you and Frumpy (or Frumpy's 50yr boomer character).

You have put in the effort, earned the money to build your wealth yourself. Frumpy's boomer didn't, doesn't, and yet still expects even more support from society - despite a lifetime of favourable conditions.

Any home valued more than the basic required (lets say $300k for ease of argument) should not be exempt from means/asset testing. It should be used to reduce other support. Own a 2 million dollar house? That's fine - but you don't need support. You are CHOOSING to be wealthy.

Imagine how much better our country could look after our least fortunate if the middle/upper-class welfare and free reign for those sitting on unearned assets were stopped?

 

[HirdyLannister]

Imagine how much better our country could look after our least fortunate if the middle/upper-class welfare and free reign for those sitting on unearned assets were stopped?

Why should the least fortunate get looked after without contributing to society, why should a boomer whos house rose in value and worked his whole life, paid tax not receive anything because he made wise choices. All my mates blew money on gear, shitty bali holidays, takeaway coffee and smashed avos, if they end up with nothing to show for it once they retire why should I be penalise from their bad choices if I chose to invest?

There is plenty of work and good money to make atm, people are so so lazy it's astounding. A guy I work with his wife wanted part time work and on hours that suit her (between school drop off and pick up) no one would hire her (has an accounting degree). She decided to set up a cleaning business, works the hours she wants and has started knocking back hours for work life balance, she is looking at making 60-65k in the first year.

If these less fortunate actually have a crack there can be good money to make on the back of our lazy society.
I personally couldn't fathom not cleaning my own home.

 

[Deliverance]

Basically sums it up, self entitled me me me now now now generation.


Why should I have to pay for peoples medicare, I'm healthy and I can afford my own visits. I shouldn't have to prop up lesser parts of society.

As someone who is earlier 30's, my generation and younger are pathetic. kicking screaming and cry that life is unfair but not prepared to do the hard yards or make sacrifices.

I'm so glad I worked so many extra hours to purchase my house 8 years ago and another home 2 year ago, I look forward to purchasing my third free standing home this year or next with the capital that I have gained.

Well, that answers the thread title. It'll never crash while we have so many trying to get in to the market for the first time, while people are buying their 3rd.

 

[Madas]

Because they can't afford to live there. (or more accurately, Society can't afford to continue supporting them at the expense of everyone else to live there).

What is needed is a way to better re-balance tax away from income generation and towards wealth hoarding.

Halve Income Tax, GST, Stamp Duty, etc income, with the shortfall made up in increased wealth taxes (eg Land Tax) and suddenly there is reward for effort - rather than birthright.

Whilst the wealthy control the decision-making, the media (and thus the narrative) nothing will change.

I’m with this train of thought
If people had the handbrake of income tax released they could actually get some where in life instead of the slow drudge of just keeping their heads above water.
Then as you say , when they are successful, tax them.
I’ve always thought that the best thing that this country could do is provide the $50-60k deposit for first home buyers .
The knock on effect for the greater wealth and a strong economy would be unbelievable.
But it needs to be the new normal, when they do it in fits and spurts , all that happens is these stupid booms like we are having now when the prices of everything goes up .

 

[juss]

Anyway to answer the question houses aren't going to "crash". At worst you might see a slower growth and steadying or maybe a slight dip in some areas in the short term.

I'd bet most of what I have that like anything if you weather the drizzle your house is going to still be worth more in 10 years than it is today.

Provided you don't buy an absolute dud location.

 

[Scotland]

I’ve always thought that the best thing that this country could do is provide the $50-60k deposit for first home buyers

Horrible idea.

We've had first home owner grants before. As soon as you give every first home buyer $10k, $20k, $50k the bottom end of the market suddenly jumps by that amount.

 

[Madas]

Horrible idea.

We've had first home owner grants before. As soon as you give every first home buyer $10k, $20k, $50k the bottom end of the market suddenly jumps by that amount.

That’s my point
It happens in short burst booms because demand outstrips supply
But if it was standard everyday procedure after a while so much more housing would be created and more first homebuyers would be in their own homes , that there wouldn’t be such a demand for rentals hence cooling the speculation and investment markets