The Liberal Party - How long?

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Johnny Bananas

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 10, 2010
9,049
12,052
A sugar refinery
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
The upcoming elections are probably the first time since I have been allowed to vote whereby the liberals are not guaranteed my vote.

COVID isn't even my top priority anymore, neither is Climate Change nor Submarine deals, Housing Prices are. Neither Federals nor State liberals have made mention of the housing crisis and how they intend to address it over coming generations to ensure affordable housing. I mean i guess that tells me everything I need to know.
That's a good realisation that you've made. The Liberals really have no interest in making housing more affordable. Their only policies on housing are allowing people to buy homes with lower deposits, which does nothing to reduce house prices, it just increases demand for houses further.

Labor are offering more on that front, in the form of a fund that will build, over 5 years, 20 000 new social houses and 10 000 affordable homes for frontline workers. This is a start, but I don't think it's enough to make a serious change in housing affordability considering the sheer level of demand for properties. At the same time, they've abandoned policies they previously had that would have done something substantial about the problem, like limiting negative gearing to new properties only and cutting the 50% capital gains tax discount.


So they're clearly offering more than the Liberals, but I'd call it a half measure.

What I would call a full measure is the Greens' proposal to build, over 20 years, 750 000 new social houses and 125 000 shared ownership homes, where first home buyers can own up to 75% equity in a house for $300 000 as long as they're owner-occupiers, with the option to sell it back to the government with a return on investment. That's the scale of housing supply I reckon is needed to really make housing affordable for young people.

Of course, the Greens aren't going to form government anytime soon, but if they gain the balance of power in the lower house, they can force Labor to lift their social housing targets to a higher level and maybe start a shared ownership program. That's the only way I can see real change happening. So maybe you'd consider tossing your first preference to the Greens, though I understand other things will factor into your vote too.
 

HirdsTheWord

πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†
Jun 19, 2014
7,919
8,910
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
New York Rangers
That's a good realisation that you've made. The Liberals really have no interest in making housing more affordable. Their only policies on housing are allowing people to buy homes with lower deposits, which does nothing to reduce house prices, it just increases demand for houses further.

Labor are offering more on that front, in the form of a fund that will build, over 5 years, 20 000 new social houses and 10 000 affordable homes for frontline workers. This is a start, but I don't think it's enough to make a serious change in housing affordability considering the sheer level of demand for properties. At the same time, they've abandoned policies they previously had that would have done something substantial about the problem, like limiting negative gearing to new properties only and cutting the 50% capital gains tax discount.


So they're clearly offering more than the Liberals, but I'd call it a half measure.

What I would call a full measure is the Greens' proposal to build, over 20 years, 750 000 new social houses and 125 000 shared ownership homes, where first home buyers can own up to 75% equity in a house for $300 000 as long as they're owner-occupiers, with the option to sell it back to the government with a return on investment. That's the scale of housing supply I reckon is needed to really make housing affordable for young people.

Of course, the Greens aren't going to form government anytime soon, but if they gain the balance of power in the lower house, they can force Labor to lift their social housing targets to a higher level and maybe start a shared ownership program. That's the only way I can see real change happening. So maybe you'd consider tossing your first preference to the Greens, though I understand other things will factor into your vote too.
Agreed, What I am learning and what is becoming more and more obvious is that Affordable Housing policy needs to be removed from a voting capacity. No government will touch housing prices as it is voting suicide, not to mention the conflict of interest from their own investment portfolios. Typical homeowners do not give 2 shits about the plights of people trying to buy their first home, and along as their property doesn't drop in value they are fine at the detriment of future generations housing affordability.

Housing is an essential need and needs to be treated as such. There should be key metrics being monitored by an independent body that are reigned i if housing starts to get out of control, say 5% growth in a yearly 1/4 or something.

Like who gives 2 flying fu**s about a submarine deal when houses went up nationally 20% in 1 year. Scomo and his cronies have not said a single thing about it outside of "oh its a supply issue". Crock of sh*t and Asleep at the wheel the lot of em
 

Johnny Bananas

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 10, 2010
9,049
12,052
A sugar refinery
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Agreed, What I am learning and what is becoming more and more obvious is that Affordable Housing policy needs to be removed from a voting capacity. No government will touch housing prices as it is voting suicide, not to mention the conflict of interest from their own investment portfolios. Typical homeowners do not give 2 shits about the plights of people trying to buy their first home, and along as their property doesn't drop in value they are fine at the detriment of future generations housing affordability.

Housing is an essential need and needs to be treated as such. There should be key metrics being monitored by an independent body that are reigned i if housing starts to get out of control, say 5% growth in a yearly 1/4 or something.

Like who gives 2 flying fu**s about a submarine deal when houses went up nationally 20% in 1 year. Scomo and his cronies have not said a single thing about it. Asleep as the wheel the lot of em
I agree. And I don't see a market-based solution that's going to work for anyone. Development companies will stop building the minute house prices stop growing, which will create a shortage all over again leading to higher prices. And if, improbably, developers miscalculate and flood the market with too many properties, a lot of people will go underwater on their mortgages. That's why an expansion of public housing is the best way forward. It cools the demand for new homes while restraining rent growth, and it can be tailored to a level that will keep house prices flat, rather than falling.
 

HirdsTheWord

πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†
Jun 19, 2014
7,919
8,910
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
New York Rangers
I agree. And I don't see a market-based solution that's going to work for anyone. Development companies will stop building the minute house prices stop growing, which will create a shortage all over again leading to higher prices. And if, improbably, developers miscalculate and flood the market with too many properties, a lot of people will go underwater on their mortgages. That's why an expansion of public housing is the best way forward. It cools the demand for new homes while restraining rent growth, and it can be tailored to a level that will keep house prices flat, rather than falling.
Not entirely correct developers will continue to develop as long as they can sell for a profit, IE the sale cost is higher then the construction cost.

but yeah I get your general point.
 

Johnny Bananas

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 10, 2010
9,049
12,052
A sugar refinery
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Not entirely correct developers will continue to develop as long as they can sell for a profit, IE the sale cost is higher then the construction cost.

but yeah I get your general point.
I'm going by what I've heard happen in Brisbane. In a couple of inner suburbs, there was a building boom for apartments that people thought would lower house prices in the area. But then there was a lull in development approvals and construction that brought prices straight back up again. Perhaps it's more complex than I've stated though.
 

Christopher Buttersnip

Beware of the Drop Bears
Oct 28, 2020
2,945
7,074
AFL Club
Melbourne
Seems lying is contagious in the Liberal ranks. There's as much chance of Fletcher taking up the offer as there is of Scummo stopping lying through his teeth on an hourly basis and stopping running a protection racket for his crooked colleagues. In other words zilch,

 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SBD Gonzalez

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 5, 2012
18,468
29,107
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Kidding, right?
Where I live (lower Blue Mountains NSW) we have council elections coming up.

Local rag has a story in it that the Blue Mountains Conservation Society sent - as they always do - a questionnaire to all candidates asking their positions on major environmental issues.

For the first time ever, not a single Lib candidate in any ward replied.

They really are that contemptuous.
 

cartwright

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 7, 2007
9,010
11,668
here
AFL Club
St Kilda
Agreed, What I am learning and what is becoming more and more obvious is that Affordable Housing policy needs to be removed from a voting capacity. No government will touch housing prices as it is voting suicide, not to mention the conflict of interest from their own investment portfolios. Typical homeowners do not give 2 shits about the plights of people trying to buy their first home, and along as their property doesn't drop in value they are fine at the detriment of future generations housing affordability.

Housing is an essential need and needs to be treated as such. There should be key metrics being monitored by an independent body that are reigned i if housing starts to get out of control, say 5% growth in a yearly 1/4 or something.

Like who gives 2 flying fu**s about a submarine deal when houses went up nationally 20% in 1 year. Scomo and his cronies have not said a single thing about it outside of "oh its a supply issue". Crock of sh*t and Asleep at the wheel the lot of em
you can see here how politicians have voted on housing affordability

 

HirdsTheWord

πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†
Jun 19, 2014
7,919
8,910
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
New York Rangers

HPKS

Club Legend
Apr 6, 2012
2,415
2,975
Perth
AFL Club
Sydney
Roughly half of all MPs have declared more than one house.
If you own an investment property it’s a nest egg for retirement. If you own more than one it’s a fu**en business plain and simple. Tax it at the business rate. It’s bloody rediculous governments have pissed and moaned about propping up businesses like the car industry, and then cut it loose, but will fudge everything they can to keep house prices high as possible. But like I’ve said a lot of times a lot of boomers own investment properties and until they become the minority nothing will change. Perfect example is if you want to see the divide of our home ownership future go down to tassie and it’s stark how that older generation are very happy to keep the status quo.
 

E Shed

Fremantle Obsessive
Sep 10, 2006
19,486
31,895
Perth WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
If you own an investment property it’s a nest egg for retirement. If you own more than one it’s a fu**en business plain and simple. Tax it at the business rate. It’s bloody rediculous governments have pissed and moaned about propping up businesses like the car industry, and then cut it loose, but will fudge everything they can to keep house prices high as possible. But like I’ve said a lot of times a lot of boomers own investment properties and until they become the minority nothing will change. Perfect example is if you want to see the divide of our home ownership future go down to tassie and it’s stark how that older generation are very happy to keep the status quo.
The trouble is it’s not just that it’s political suicide to tackle affordability but also that the whole economy has come to rely on the wealth effect of rising house prices. It’s the biggest Ponzi scheme in history.
And once the boomers are gone do you think the kids who inherited are going to want to be less wealthy all of a sudden?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

HPKS

Club Legend
Apr 6, 2012
2,415
2,975
Perth
AFL Club
Sydney
The trouble is it’s not just that it’s political suicide to tackle affordability but also that the whole economy has come to rely on the wealth effect of rising house prices. It’s the biggest Ponzi scheme in history.
And once the boomers are gone do you think the kids who inherited are going to want to be less wealthy all of a sudden?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When the boomers are gone your not replacing one person with another. Most boomers have a minimum of two kids. It’ll get broken up & divided among the kids. That’s my generation and unlike the boomers a lot will be happy just to own a home. There’s a hell of a lot in that generation that don’t own a home. It’s stark the difference between the two generations. I own a home. I’m totally different but I know a lot that don’t. A lot will get the inheritance and buy a house but we need tax laws changed as the transition happens. Ffs I know a boomer that owns six houses and doesn’t pay a cent in tax. That’s not a retirement investment that’s a fu**en business.
 

Millky95

Starchild > You
Jul 6, 2014
39,705
53,888
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Renegades
At the same time, they've abandoned policies they previously had that would have done something substantial about the problem, like limiting negative gearing to new properties only and cutting the 50% capital gains tax discount.
Last time they had those policies they lost the unloseable election. So can you really blame them?
 

HirdsTheWord

πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†
Jun 19, 2014
7,919
8,910
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
New York Rangers
When the boomers are gone your not replacing one person with another. Most boomers have a minimum of two kids. It’ll get broken up & divided among the kids. That’s my generation and unlike the boomers a lot will be happy just to own a home. There’s a hell of a lot in that generation that don’t own a home. It’s stark the difference between the two generations. I own a home. I’m totally different but I know a lot that don’t. A lot will get the inheritance and buy a house but we need tax laws changed as the transition happens. Ffs I know a boomer that owns six houses and doesn’t pay a cent in tax. That’s not a retirement investment that’s a fu**en business.
Easiest call to make is to completely phase out Negative Gearing over 3-5 years.

Remove CGT Tax Benefits completely on houses that are more than 5 years old and then reduce CGT on new houses to 50% of current.
 

HirdsTheWord

πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†
Jun 19, 2014
7,919
8,910
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
New York Rangers
The trouble is it’s not just that it’s political suicide to tackle affordability but also that the whole economy has come to rely on the wealth effect of rising house prices. It’s the biggest Ponzi scheme in history.
And once the boomers are gone do you think the kids who inherited are going to want to be less wealthy all of a sudden?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Absolutely correct. the mere fear of an an economic catastrophe by regulating housing prices shows you the utter stupidity of the system the government has allowed to be created by 20 years of inaction.

Most peoples wealth are in their homes.

I absolutely guarantee you 80% of the people who live in Sydney would not be able to afford the house they live in now, if they were to buy it based on what they earn. That is a sh*t system and is ******* disastrous in the years coming.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad