Society/Culture The housing crisis. How is it fixed?

[Carringbush2010]

What do you think 'wealth creation' is exactly?

Exactly what is says, wealth / money / income is necessary to survive.

You give the impression 'wealth' is nefarious

I've met 0 people who did this,

You've never met anyone that wants to better their kids lives?

I could sell my house tomorrow for $1m more than I paid for it (I wish). It's sill the same house it's always been.

And that same house has appreciated in value, and like I said, even when we had an abundance of property after WWII they still appreciated in value and always has.

Even though your intention was just to put a roof over your head, your property still appreciated in value, are properties now a sentient beings that are greedy aholes? Just like all investors?

People are allowed to be successful.

But you said that ALL investors are greedy, does that include the homeless person who punts all their money on the horses in desparation to make more money?

You did say ALL investors are greedy

All investors want the same thing. Which is to make money.

And money is necessary to survive, how dare they want to better their position. Greedy aholes.

There are only so many houses and people competing to own them

Supply and demand issue, this has been well documented to the why, all the reasons for it.

Society would be better off if real estate was cheaper and incomes were higher.

But you can't make property cheaper, they organically appreciate in value, like it or not. It's not because mum and dad own or are mortgaging one investment property.

If they invested in shares instead, just so they can buy a house, would that still make them greedy aholes? Seems you'd think so.

 

[btdg]

15% gst rate may (i stress may)be enough to eliminate stamp duty.
States just need to agree to it as its their tax money.

Yeah, that's an option (would have to see the maths on it).

I was opposed to the GST when it first came in (regressive tax on everything etc) but I have to admit its simplicity and efficiency has flipped my thinking there.

The politics of getting the states to agree AND getting people to wrap their heads around a GST increase seem insurmountable, at least in the current climate (with a Labor government whose goal seems to be to be as small a target as possible, and an opposition who seem quite ok with being in opposition).

But I'd be up for it as an option. I genuinely think that the supply problem is just as much about the price people pay to resell (and particularly downsize) and the consequent lack of options in the market.

 

[Billy ray]

Yeah, that's an option (would have to see the maths on it).

I was opposed to the GST when it first came in (regressive tax on everything etc) but I have to admit its simplicity and efficiency has flipped my thinking there.

The politics of getting the states to agree AND getting people to wrap their heads around a GST increase seem insurmountable, at least in the current climate (with a Labor government whose goal seems to be to be as small a target as possible, and an opposition who seem quite ok with being in opposition).

But I'd be up for it as an option. I genuinely think that the supply problem is just as much about the price people pay to resell (and particularly downsize) and the consequent lack of options in the market.

ok, across all states, stamp duty on property conveyances raised about $30b in 2023-24.
The GST at 10% raised about $90b
that stamp duty would include non residential transaction also...

so easily, the GST up to 15% would raise more than enough to eliminate it

 

[leon123]

ok, across all states, stamp duty on property conveyances raised about $30b in 2023-24.
The GST at 10% raised about $90b
that stamp duty would include non residential transaction also...

so easily, the GST up to 15% would raise more than enough to eliminate it

I like the concept of keeping gst at 10%, and introducing a transaction tax - this will capture many companies/individuals who dont pay tax - ie widening the tax base

 

[Grumpyshades]

Not much of a crisis

I own 4 myself

 

[Seeds]

ok, across all states, stamp duty on property conveyances raised about $30b in 2023-24.
The GST at 10% raised about $90b
that stamp duty would include non residential transaction also...

so easily, the GST up to 15% would raise more than enough to eliminate it

Um we increase land tax to offset stamp duty. Not gst.

We should be taxing good luck not hard effort. A land tax is a tax on good luck. Its also impossible to avoid.

 

[Episode IV]

Net migration WILL reduce because it is not sustainable, not to mention politically unpopular.

You're both right about many things, but this one is out of touch.
Net migration is not showing signs of slowing any time soon, and is not unpopular in Australia as you'd expect - or at least certainly not important as an issue, given the last election results.

Europe demonstrates how things can get completely out of control while everyone is standing around arguing about it - time is the real key.
While I agree mass migration isn't sustainable, the European example shows that sustainability is not a factor in determining whether or not mass migration should occur. Pragmatism no longer has any place in politics or policy.

Here's a link to a map of the countries with the highest rates of home ownership.
Rather interesting, I think.

Home Ownership by Country 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

 

[Carringbush2010]

and is not unpopular in Australia as you'd expect - or at least certainly not important as an issue, given the last election results.

The vote doesn't equal 'immigration isn't that unpopular', that's a simplistic view. The very large net migration is obviously unpopular with Jan and Joe - not 'CoZ wEEEr RaSISt' but because it's unsustainable.

Being unsustainable and govt. not actively reducing it would equal political suicide.

While I agree mass migration isn't sustainable, the European example shows that sustainability is not a factor in determining whether or not mass migration should occur. Pragmatism no longer has any place in politics or policy.

You're suggesting that migration is out of control in all of Europe? Well, easy to believe I guess if you listen to the media.

As always the media overblows everything.

Unless one has been there and it's actual real time chaos, well then I'm leaning it's a problem but not existential.

Does it have an impact on housing over there? Probably, but I've think you've used this discussion to point out the migration 'problem' in Europe.

The media would love you working for them.

 

[Episode IV]

The vote doesn't equal 'immigration isn't that unpopular', that's a simplistic view. The very large net migration is obviously unpopular with Jan and Joe - not 'CoZ wEEEr RaSISt' but because it's unsustainable.

I said it was not as important an issue (as others came to be).

Being unsustainable and govt. not actively reducing it would equal political suicide.

Yes.
I vaguely remember the Labour side suggesting a reduction of 15,000 odd "planned" places if elected. From a total of 185,000, or down to that number, I can't remember. When viewed in the lens of there having been over 600,000 arrivals in 2023 or 2024, and a net migration figure of nearly half a million as a result (and when viewed on a per capita basis even more alarming), those numbers become very obvious political chicanery.
Well. Obvious to some, at any rate.

Point being, most being aren't really aware of how many are coming in, or what might be required to make it sustainable. That you or I might view it as being unsustainable isn't something Joe and Jan are going to take into consideration, or even know much about.

You're suggesting that migration is out of control in all of Europe? Well, easy to believe I guess if you listen to the media.

As always the media overblows everything.

Some countries more than others, obviously. But yes, in a couple of those countries, it is.

We've had this discussion before.
I agree that the media has a habit of sensationalizing everything, but that doesn't mean they're always wrong. Taking the attitude that the media is always wrong as a result, or the numbers can't be believed, is a rather silly position in my view.

Unless one has been there and it's actual real time chaos, well then I'm leaning it's a problem but not existential.

There is actual real time chaos. A far greater effort is being devoted to downplaying it all than there is to bringing it to light. Where do you get your news from?

Does it have an impact on housing over there? Probably, but I've think you've used this discussion to point out the migration 'problem' in Europe.

So, it does have an effect but you're going to disregard it because you assume I have a bone to pick?
K.

It is having an impact on housing over there, yes. On all aspects of life, really.
It's having an impact on housing here, too. Personally, I think that anyone who argues it isn't is a damned fool.
Perhaps we should just start building cities in the middle of nowhere like China did, maybe that will help. Although I do think you'd have a bit of a problem finding someone to pay for it.

I was particularly amused by the argument I had a few pages back with regard to the need for migrant tradies. You know, to build the houses for the migrants we need to build... anyway.

The media would love you working for them.

I doubt that. Media outlets generally require loyalty to the narratives.

 

[Rob R]

Housing crisis going to get worse with Albo just copying the awful libs. No meaningful changes to taxation policy, no increase to social housing and is now breaking his promise to cut immigration and is expanding the university migration scams. Not going to get any progress until the major parties lose their duopoly.

 

[Carringbush2010]

When viewed in the lens of there having been over 600,000 arrivals in 2023 or 2024, and a net migration figure of nearly half a million as a result (and when viewed on a per capita basis even more alarming), those numbers become very obvious political chicanery.

These sorts of numbers won't be coming again anytime soon, if ever in such a short time frame.

Can't remember where I saw / read, but seems to be govt. wanting to reduce to somewhere 100 - 200k yearly.

Taking the attitude that the media is always wrong as a result,

I've never suggested that they 'always wrong', always hyperbolized? definitely.

I'm not completely dismissive, just critique the delivery. And rightly so.

There is actual real time chaos.

Define that 'chaos'

It is having an impact on housing over there, yes. On all aspects of life, really.

Agreed, so does time and evolution.

Some will argue that immigration is 'changing our way of life', yep you betcha it is, but those that say it with lament are the same ones still enjoying their liberal freedoms like, goin to the pub, watchin your fave tv show without being policed, all those same 'way of life' things.

After WWII it was the scary Mediterranean's, now 3 gens later those same Mediterranean's (or a small number of them) are claiming 'immigration is the problem'. In the 70s it was the scary asians, now it's the scary anyone not of 'western' culture.

Time and evolution, not a nefarious conspiracy to infiltrate and 'change our way of life'

It's not immigration, it's time and evolution.

Personally, I think that anyone who argues it isn't is a damned fool.

And who is doing that?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Housing crisis going to get worse with Albo just copying the awful libs. No meaningful changes to taxation policy, no increase to social housing and is now breaking his promise to cut immigration and is expanding the university migration scams. Not going to get any progress until the major parties lose their duopoly.

true

but the majority of the voting base are home owners and will be for a long time. They are not going to willingly vote for themselves to have less asset worth.

 

[Episode IV]

true

but the majority of the voting base are home owners and will be for a long time. They are not going to willingly vote for themselves to have less asset worth.

Maybe you should consider aspiring home owners.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

true

but the majority of the voting base are home owners and will be for a long time. They are not going to willingly vote for themselves to have less asset worth.

Many of those home owners have multiple children. One child might be able to inherit the family home and live in it, two or more won't.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Maybe you should consider aspiring home owners.

Many of those home owners have multiple children. One child might be able to inherit the family home and live in it, two or more won't.

these are the things prospective governments need to worry about, they are the ones who need to convince people to vote for them.

 

[Scotland]

But you can't make property cheaper, they organically appreciate in value, like it or not. It's not because mum and dad own or are mortgaging one investment property.

You can though. If you want to. No one wants to.

If they invested in shares instead, just so they can buy a house, would that still make them greedy aholes? Seems you'd think so.

If I take $50 to the casino and turn it into $500,000 then buy a Ferrari, does that make the value of Ferraris appreciate?

 

[Carringbush2010]

You can though. If you want to. No one wants to

That's right, not everyone wants to, they'd be home owners of every variety. So one can't

If I take $50 to the casino and turn it into $500,000 then buy a Ferrari, does that make the value of Ferraris appreciate?

Answering a question with an irrelevant question.

 

[Gralin]

ok, across all states, stamp duty on property conveyances raised about $30b in 2023-24.
The GST at 10% raised about $90b
that stamp duty would include non residential transaction also...

so easily, the GST up to 15% would raise more than enough to eliminate it

this puts more of the tax burden on those that don't own land though

renters paying more for everything to save people purchasing/owning property money

 

[Billy ray]

this puts more of the tax burden on those that don't own land though

renters paying more for everything to save people purchasing/owning property money

youd only need 13% for the stamp duty, the other 2b can be used to increase the tax free threshold, and slightly tweak lower the top two brackets so the benefit from the threshold increases phases out around 100k

 

[Gralin]

youd only need 13% for the stamp duty, the other 2b can be used to increase the tax free threshold, and slightly tweak lower the top two brackets so the benefit from the threshold increases phases out around 100k

Again this is putting an unequal burden on the bottom and middle to reduce tax on the top
It's making the tax system more regressive

Swap stamp duty for land tax if you want to get rid of stamp duty

Move the brackets sure but we don't need to lower tax rates on the top earners

There's lots of ways to increase government revenue that doesn't involve increasing taxes on the poorest

 

[Kram]

El Cabello sold for big loss on Perth's outskirts after failed housing plan

An Indigenous organisation is demanding $21 million in compensation from the trustee which oversaw the purchase of an ageing horse ranch after an investigation found the trustee "breached its duties".

www.abc.net.au

 

[Hu$tler]

**** off we're full.

 

[Scotland]

That's right, not everyone wants to, they'd be home owners of every variety. So one can't

More than home owners. Banks, super funds who own banks, people who rely on super funds for their income, governments.

I have a house. Let's say it's worth $1m. Would not bother me one bit if in 10 years it was still worth $1m. It provides zero benefit to me being worth $1.5m or $2m or $5m other than as an asset I am able to borrow more money against it. When my $1m house goes up to $2m then that $2m house today is going to be $4m, so I would still on the hook for an extra $1m to trade up.

Answering a question with an irrelevant question.

There's more to life than buying houses. You don't invest in shares or bet on the nags or whatever just to buy houses. People buy houses because they go up and houses go up because people buy them. It's a self fulfilling cycle.

Australia has a cultural obsession with real estate. There's more to life.

 

[Carringbush2010]

More than home owners. Banks, super funds who own banks, people who rely on super funds for their income, governments.

Never suggested otherwise.

I have a house. Let's say it's worth $1m. Would not bother me one bit if in 10 years it was still worth $1m. It provides zero benefit to me being worth $1.5m or $2m or $5m other than as an asset I am able to borrow more money against it. When my $1m house goes up to $2m then that $2m house today is going to be $4m, so I would still on the hook for an extra $1m to trade up.

Which doesn't matter, there's ZERO chance of your property not appreciating in value.

Whether or not you look it as an investment or just a roof over your head, it's still gonna go up.

There's more to life than buying houses. You don't invest in shares or bet on the nags or whatever just to buy houses. People buy houses because they go up and houses go up because people buy them. It's a self fulfilling cycle.

Never suggested otherwise

Australia has a cultural obsession with real estate. There's more to life.

You think that property only appreciates in Australia?

 

[Freomaniac]

World war 3, society collapse, complete upheaval of the economy system AKA Russka 1917 nothing less will do it.

Crazy thing is that could work lol