Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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.
No mention at all in QT from the home affairs minster as she stood up and threw some meat to the base
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.
‘List of enemies’: Affordable housing advocates say Labor abandoned them
Affordable housing advocates say federal Labor has abandoned Australians on low incomes in favour of wealthy landlords.www.smh.com.au
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Yes that does describe the MSM simping for Gladys.youtube and twit ter resurch
Yes that does describe the MSM simping for Gladys.
Thank god this nation has a proper jounro in Jordies who is not a liberal stooge.
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
See How They Vote On Increasing housing affordability
Find out more and see how they voted on other issues that matter to youtheyvoteforyou.org.au
Roughly half of all MPs have declared more than one house.Id love to know how many investment properties the guys who voted no have. Id suggest its quite a bit.
If you own an investment property it’s a nest egg for retirement. If you own more than one it’s a *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.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.
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 *en business.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
Last time they had those policies they lost the unloseable election. So can you really blame them?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.
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.
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