Society/Culture Australian Property Prices to Crash?

Yeh nah sorry

Very clever model and the forced saving scheme is the kind of discipline most people in Western countries need but who the hell wants to live in a flat ?!
And can you see those “ flats “ popping up in regional towns where housing affordability is nearly as bad as cities ?

How about removing GST on housing for first home buyers ONLY?

IMHO The introduction of GST added 20% to housing costs overnight when it was introduced and this has compounded ever since .

Copy was probably the wrong word to use. It would be smart to adopt components of the Singapore model. We couldn't put up large flats like that within the current infrastructure and makeup of our residential areas.
IMHO The introduction of GST added 20% to housing costs overnight when it was introduced and this has compounded ever since .
GST isn't payable on property purchases of existing dwellings. How many home buyers are actually paying GST?
 

Madas

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 16, 2020
5,791
7,256
AFL Club
Fremantle
Copy was probably the wrong word to use. It would be smart to adopt components of the Singapore model. We couldn't put up large flats like that within the current infrastructure and makeup of our residential areas.

GST isn't payable on property purchases of existing dwellings. How many home buyers are actually paying GST?
Agree
I came away thinking the same thing , Singapore is a very smart , well run place but you can’t help but feel for the population holed up in those towers ( only been there once so no expert)

Sorry should have been clearer, I was referencing the cost of new housing and what has contributed to how expensive it has become and I believe GST is/ was a factor.
 
Agree
I came away thinking the same thing , Singapore is a very smart , well run place but you can’t help but feel for the population holed up in those towers ( only been there once so no expert)

Sorry should have been clearer, I was referencing the cost of new housing and what has contributed to how expensive it has become and I believe GST is/ was a factor.

I think there's a difference between the Singapore style towers vs Hong Kong style towers which are actually literally just concrete boxes of towers all facing into each other.

There's a reason Singapore usually ranks quite well in liveability rankings.

Imagine not being on the brink of mortgage stress, only needing to put aside less than 20% of your take-home income on housing, and the rest you can spend on essentially what ever you want. I'm sure part of it is cultural and living in towers probably won't cut it for many Australians though.

I found public amenities and infrastructure very well maintained and even very nice in Singapore. Yes, there's compromises, as you won't have a big backyard and you won't have a deck or your own pool. But props to Singapore, they've alleviated a huge social problem and struck a pretty good balance (from the outside looking in).
 

Madas

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 16, 2020
5,791
7,256
AFL Club
Fremantle
I think there's a difference between the Singapore style towers vs Hong Kong style towers which are actually literally just concrete boxes of towers all facing into each other.

There's a reason Singapore usually ranks quite well in liveability rankings.

Imagine not being on the brink of mortgage stress, only needing to put aside less than 20% of your take-home income on housing, and the rest you can spend on essentially what ever you want. I'm sure part of it is cultural and living in towers probably won't cut it for many Australians though.

I found public amenities and infrastructure very well maintained and even very nice in Singapore. Yes, there's compromises, as you won't have a big backyard and you won't have a deck or your own pool. But props to Singapore, they've alleviated a huge social problem and struck a pretty good balance (from the outside looking in).
I must say , I’m not a city person , lived in the country my whole life but have traveled fairly extensively around the world , but Singapore was probably the one city I actually liked ; friendly happy people , clean , felt safe , well ordered , affordable, beautiful in its architecture , parklands and retention of heritage buildings and precincts .
Looking forward to going back during a stop over when we can travel again .
Totally opposite vibe to Hong Kong , couldn’t wait to get out of there !
 
Here’s what’s wrong with the world


Idiot

There is nothing wrong with capitalism.

The issues with the Housing market are all Government related.

- Zero Long Term Planning for Housing Affordability (Government)
- Giving people with existing Wealth Tax Benefits over people who dont (Government)
- Dog s**t infrastructure for areas where housing is being Built (Government)
 
Last edited:
I think there's a difference between the Singapore style towers vs Hong Kong style towers which are actually literally just concrete boxes of towers all facing into each other.

There's a reason Singapore usually ranks quite well in liveability rankings.

Imagine not being on the brink of mortgage stress, only needing to put aside less than 20% of your take-home income on housing, and the rest you can spend on essentially what ever you want. I'm sure part of it is cultural and living in towers probably won't cut it for many Australians though.

I found public amenities and infrastructure very well maintained and even very nice in Singapore. Yes, there's compromises, as you won't have a big backyard and you won't have a deck or your own pool. But props to Singapore, they've alleviated a huge social problem and struck a pretty good balance (from the outside looking in).

If Australia's infrastructure was anything like Singapore's then it would be a different discussion.
 
But eventually, those in retirement now will die and either they'll pass on their wealth and/or home(s) to their kids/grandkids or market equilibrium will sort itself out. If those in their 20s, 30s or 40s now will have trouble owning a home by retirement, then what about all those who come after them? Are we saying no one will own a home?

The trends for home ownership of age demographics near or in retirement isn't actually gloomy. In fact, I reckon we'll continue to see the positive upward trend in the coming census results.

ummmm what the hell statistics are you reading?

There is a drop in in home ownership over ALL age groups, including those nearing retirement. The biggest % drop is in younger people aged 30-34 of of which over 50 years its dropped almost 14% and its getting lower, not increasing.

26% of properties in this country are owned by a private Investor, that is 1 in every 4 homes. yet people somehow still think the reason housing is expensive is because of supply rofl.

yet again another statistic that shows there's too much god damn housing investment in this country. And if by the shear fact home ownership keeps dropping then Investor % will keep increasing.


What a country we live in. If you have existing wealth and have equity then no problems, here is a Tax break to buy another house as an investment to get more wealth and equity.

If you are a first time home buyer, than go * yourself. you get nothing except an enormous mortgage, if you are lucky enough to outbid the investor.

Wealth Inequality 101.

If there was ever a need for a Royal Commission than this is it. Wealthy Politicians looking after Wealthy Voters as well as their own investments.
 
Last edited:

Madas

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 16, 2020
5,791
7,256
AFL Club
Fremantle
ummmm what the hell statistics are you reading?

There is a drop in in home ownership over ALL age groups, including those nearing retirement. The biggest % drop is in younger people aged 30-34 of of which over 50 years its dropped almost 14% and its getting lower, not increasing.

26% of properties in this country are owned by a private Investor, that is 1 in every 4 homes. yet people somehow still think the reason housing is expensive is because of supply rofl.

yet again another statistic that shows there's too much god damn housing investment in this country. And if by the shear fact home ownership keeps dropping then Investor % will keep increasing.


What a country we live in. If you have existing wealth and have equity then no problems, here is a Tax break to buy another house as an investment to get more wealth and equity.

If you are a first time home buyer, than go fu** yourself. you get nothing except an enormous mortgage, if you are lucky enough to outbid the investor.

Wealth Inequality 101.

If there was ever a need for a Royal Commission than this is it. Wealthy Politicians looking after Wealthy Voters as well as their own investments.
Yet you say Capitalism is fine ?
I provide an example where someone (in this case a celebrity) outbids others by about 15% driving the house price up by nearly $1,000,000 and you are ok with it ?
Yet on the other hand you are adamant that we need to remove investors from the market?

Having a hard time getting a read on your actual solutions to the problem?

I think the government does include infrastructure in its planning it just gets blocked at every level until everyone has got their piece of the pie ( ever watched Utopia ?)

So I’m a property investor and in true capitalist form I am hoping my properties increase in value over my lifetime so I have sufficient funds to retire with , meanwhile providing affordable rental accommodation for people who require it ( haven’t put our rent up in about 4 years and kept the same happy tenants 🤞)

Is it ok that I’m capitalist but not ok that I’m an investor? I’m confused?!

Your solutions whereby the government provides affordable housing is in fact sound more socialist than capitalist.
A balance of both would be ideal IMO but where does the government get that kind of money ?

Their current capitalist model incentivising investors to build more housing satisfies this demand .

Perhaps what we are both saying is that investment incentives are ok for new housing but should not extend to buying existing properties?
 
Last edited:
This is the UK, but 40 year fixed-rate mortgage... :oops:

1637571636558.png
 
I dunno - this sounds good to me. People can just buy, know what they will be paying, and the payment adjusted for inflation will become smaller over time.

It's actually always surprised me why Australia doesn't have more longer-term fixed rate mortgages. I would have thought our capital markets is large enough to be able to have the liquidity to support it.

FWIW France have had long term fixed rate mortgages at like, what, less than 1%? The US also have long term fixed rate mortgages too. Both countries are leaders in wealth inequality - is it the chicken or the egg? Or no effect at all towards their problems?
 
Last edited:
I dunno - this sounds good to me. People can just buy, know what they will be paying, and the payment adjusted for inflation will become smaller over time.
The banks could bundle them together and sell them as bond like products too, especially if the reserve banks are really shy to raise interest rates because their economies were already on life support.
 
The banks could bundle them together and sell them as bond like products too, especially if the reserve banks are really shy to raise interest rates because their economies were already on life support.

Mortgage backed securities.
We already saw that movie, it doesn't end well for home buyers.
 
Yet you say Capitalism is fine ?
I provide an example where someone (in this case a celebrity) outbids others by about 15% driving the house price up by nearly $1,000,000 and you are ok with it ?
Yet on the other hand you are adamant that we need to remove investors from the market?

Having a hard time getting a read on your actual solutions to the problem?

I think the government does include infrastructure in its planning it just gets blocked at every level until everyone has got their piece of the pie ( ever watched Utopia ?)

So I’m a property investor and in true capitalist form I am hoping my properties increase in value over my lifetime so I have sufficient funds to retire with , meanwhile providing affordable rental accommodation for people who require it ( haven’t put our rent up in about 4 years and kept the same happy tenants 🤞)

Is it ok that I’m capitalist but not ok that I’m an investor? I’m confused?!

Your solutions whereby the government provides affordable housing is in fact sound more socialist than capitalist.
A balance of both would be ideal IMO but where does the government get that kind of money ?

Their current capitalist model incentivising investors to build more housing satisfies this demand .

Perhaps what we are both saying is that investment incentives are ok for new housing but should not extend to buying existing properties?

if he’s going to live in it I don’t care how much he pays for it, this isnt the issue affecting the housing market.

my issue is investors who already have wealth being allowed tax breaks over people who don’t have wealth. This isn’t capitalism, it’s wealth inequality. It is not an equal system.

if you can afford your investment properties without tax breaks than good for you, I have zero issue with that…but you should not be receiving tax breaks for owning multiple homes when people are struggling to buy their first, and get zero tax benefits to do so.

This is is the single issue with the housing market, it creates nothing but more expensive houses and creates wealth inequality. It is wrong.
 
Last edited:
This is the UK, but 40 year fixed-rate mortgage... :oops:

View attachment 1285411

why are you surprised?, this will be Australia within a decade.

the more the average Mortage amount grows the more the term will be to allow people to pay it off. This is the aging workforce we are heading for all because this inept *in government does nothing to fix the issue now. they Prefer to line their own pockets and their wealthy voters instead of doing what’s right for future generations.

it’s a s**t show.
 
Dec 18, 2007
10,972
6,789
Counting premiership cups
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Non that play Essendon

Madas

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 16, 2020
5,791
7,256
AFL Club
Fremantle
How is Andy Lee an idiot. He has the cash and its not at the expense of a first home buyer.
Because his FOMO has led him to pay way more than that property is worth and exacerbate the problem of people creating these ridiculous bubble economies that just aren’t sustainable.

It’s just a show off wank , look at me , I’ve got $8 million dollars
Could have bought an amazing house for $2 million and used the rest to create housing for the homeless or victims of domestic violence.

That’s why !
 

Madas

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 16, 2020
5,791
7,256
AFL Club
Fremantle
if he’s going to live in it I don’t care how much he pays for it, this isnt the issue affecting the housing market.

my issue is investors who already have wealth being allowed tax breaks over people who don’t have wealth. This isn’t capitalism, it’s wealth inequality. It is not an equal system.

if you can afford your investment properties without tax breaks than good for you, I have zero issue with that…but you should not be receiving tax breaks for owning multiple homes when people are struggling to buy their first, and get zero tax benefits to do so.

This is is the single issue with the housing market, it creates nothing but more expensive houses and creates wealth inequality. It is wrong.
No
One person having $8 million to spend on a piece of crap house is wrong .

I’m sorry but you just aren’t acknowledging the reasoning behind why these incentives exist therefore I can’t continue this debate .
They have purpose and have been used to effect over many years to create housing stock .
Almost guarantee AndyLee and many like him would have multiple investments and be working the tax system for all its worth .
 
Dec 18, 2007
10,972
6,789
Counting premiership cups
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Non that play Essendon
Because his FOMO has led him to pay way more than that property is worth and exacerbate the problem of people creating these ridiculous bubble economies that just aren’t sustainable.

It’s just a show off wank , look at me , I’ve got $8 million dollars
Could have bought an amazing house for $2 million and used the rest to create housing for the homeless or victims of domestic violence.

That’s why !

$8 million in that location would be for the land because the house is just a shell.
 
I dunno - this sounds good to me. People can just buy, know what they will be paying, and the payment adjusted for inflation will become smaller over time.

there is nothing good about an ageing workforce.

No
One person having $8 million to spend on a piece of crap house is wrong .

I’m sorry but you just aren’t acknowledging the reasoning behind why these incentives exist therefore I can’t continue this debate .
They have purpose and have been used to effect over many years to create housing stock .
Almost guarantee AndyLee and many like him would have multiple investments and be working the tax system for all its worth .

Negative gearing and other tax benefits worked once upon a time. It is no longer relevant or required in todays society. It was introduced when the avg house wasn’t 15 times the avg income which is only growing.

Andy Lee can pay 8m for whatever he wants if he can afford it.This just emphasises the point that he along with anyone else with wealth does not need tax breaks.

people cannot afford to buy their first home. Why should he and others who already have a property get these financial benefits? It’s bullshit and completely unfair to the younger generations.

creating housing stock means nothing if 1/4 of it is owned by a private investor. This is why home ownership % numbers are dropping. This is not a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Because his FOMO has led him to pay way more than that property is worth and exacerbate the problem of people creating these ridiculous bubble economies that just aren’t sustainable.

It’s just a show off wank , look at me , I’ve got $8 million dollars
Could have bought an amazing house for $2 million and used the rest to create housing for the homeless or victims of domestic violence.

That’s why !

He can buy what he wants bro rofl. Him spending 8million on a house is not the issue, there is zero wrong with being successful.
 
Back