Society/Culture The tax system explained in beer

[RupieDupie]

You're making the mistake of anecdotally applying the problems unqiue to Sydney and Melbourne to the broader Australia. In my own backyard we've only just seen some growth comimg back out of a very lean period beginning with the GFC. I'm an owner/occupier on a middle income supporting a young family. Pretty typical situation up here to be honest.... We also see reasonable pay increases up here just by the way... Unfortunately the Government has let citizens down in Sydney and Melbourne by allowing too high a level of immigration, often skilled, that has moved in and priced the younger generation out of the market. Now so long as citizens have the right to own private property, sellers (citizens) will always sell an asset for what the market is willing to pay. Even if the Government sells you a property for 160K what's stopping the next owner from pricing the property back to its market value that's on a supply and demand equilibrium? Eventually the Government will run out of properties that it can sell off, effectively exiting the market. Unless Governments never really lose ownership of properties and citizens lose the right to own private property, AKA socialism.

You should try reading and understanding my argument before you create an argument against it, I have never stated that government will be taking property away from people, therefore your post is not even addressing my argument. What do you want me to say?

Secondly, write a list of all ~median income earners and pretend Melbourne and Sydney do not have these people. I know people on median income can buy housing in Broken Hill for a reasonable price, but does that mean median income earners should not be able to afford housing in the city.

 

[RupieDupie]

Actually owning property is more the domain of the better off (not necessarily "rich") than ever. That's why home ownership is at all time lows across almost every age group.
Shares, not so much, thanks to compulsory superannuation and online trading accounts. But outside of super, its still only the better off who have the money above rent and groceries to actually invest.

...and instead of people investing in property, so other people cannot afford property, why can’t they just gamble, I mean, invest in the stock market? Oh that’s right, in the stock market a person cannot get a loan for shares against equity of current assets and then have other people work to pay these shares off.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

You should try reading and understanding my argument before you create an argument against it, I have never stated that government will be taking property away from people, therefore your post is not even addressing my argument. What do you want me to say?

Secondly, write a list of all ~median income earners and pretend Melbourne and Sydney do not have these people. I know people on median income can buy housing in Broken Hill for a reasonable price, but does that mean median income earners should not be able to afford housing in the city.

2 Median income earners can afford a house in Melbourne , I know a couple who are both teachers that purchased a house in ferntree gully recently.

I suggest you should find a partner to share the cost with.

If you are single than its tough, a couple can easily do it . If you are single its not anyone else's fault.

 

[RupieDupie]

2 Median income earners can afford a house in Melbourne , I know a couple who are both teachers that purchased a house in ferntree gully recently.

I suggest you should find a partner to share the cost with.

If you are single than its tough, a couple can easily do it . If you are single its not anyone else's fault.

Usual result of free market capitalism. System doesn’t work.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Usual result of free market capitalism. System doesn’t work.

No it makes sense. 20 -30 years ago it was common to only have 1 household income, today most households have 2 incomes which is going to push the value of property up.

 

[Funkalicous]

You should try reading and understanding my argument before you create an argument against it, I have never stated that government will be taking property away from people, therefore your post is not even addressing my argument. What do you want me to say?

Secondly, write a list of all ~median income earners and pretend Melbourne and Sydney do not have these people. I know people on median income can buy housing in Broken Hill for a reasonable price, but does that mean median income earners should not be able to afford housing in the city.

In Sydney and Melbourne? Correct. Although this doesn't mean you can't have accomodatiom in the city. A lot of people work in the cities and commuting sucks, so there should be options like renting a single room apartment, etc. But to own a house with a backyard in one of the fastest growing cities by population on the planet, you need enough money to outbid buyers that would otherwise outbid you. It's expensive because houses in the city are finite and highly sought after. There is simply not enough houses available for everyone that wants to live in the city, and you, I, or anyone else are not entitled to one by birthright. Whoever said you were entitled to own a house in your city of choice was lying to you...

 

[RupieDupie]

No it makes sense. 20 -30 years ago it was common to only have 1 household income, today most households have 2 incomes which is going to push the value of property up.

Doesn’t make sense,

20-30 years ago a computer with the specs of a current desktop would have required a household with more than one income to afford.

 

[Bombermania]

Actually owning property is more the domain of the better off (not necessarily "rich") than ever. That's why home ownership is at all time lows across almost every age group.
Shares, not so much, thanks to compulsory superannuation and online trading accounts. But outside of super, its still only the better off who have the money above rent and groceries to actually invest.

Agree with that and that is why I question people's understanding of being rich versus being financially well off.

 

[RupieDupie]

In Sydney and Melbourne? Correct. Although this doesn't mean you can't have accomodatiom in the city. A lot of people work in the cities and commuting sucks, so there should be options like renting a single room apartment, etc. But to own a house with a backyard in one of the fastest growing cities by population on the planet, you need enough money to outbid buyers that would otherwise outbid you. It's expensive because houses in the city are finite and highly sought after. There is simply not enough houses available for everyone that wants to live in the city, and you, I, or anyone else are not entitled to one by birthright. Whoever said you were entitled to own a house in your city of choice was lying to you...

That’s why the government should build housing valued relative to median income, simple problems are easily overcome through simple solutions.

Yep, that’s the state of play, back in the 1990s people found building housing piss easy, and they could also sell them at prices people could afford, but in the dumbass 2000s owning a house is now a pipe dream, because the free market industry has forgotten how to build housing.

 

[RupieDupie]

Australian Gubmint - “Good morning Kindergarten students, today we’re going to demonstrate some of the tough challenges facing the Australian Gubmint. You guys try to keep up, ‘Here is Jack, he owns two houses valued at $1M each, Sally wants to own a house but cannot afford one. Now I don’t expect you to be able to answer this question considering it is the equivalent of solving the Navier-Stokes Equation, but any ideas on what The Gubmint can do to help Sally?’”

Kindergarten children in unison - “Build a house for Sally”

Australian Gubmint <exasperated> - “But, but, what about Communism... Immigration... Feminism...! You didn’t think of that did you, you little Lefty jerk-offs”

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Doesn’t make sense,

20-30 years ago a computer with the specs of a current desktop would have required a household with more than one income to afford.

And today a house ownership in melbourne requires 2 median incomes.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Australian Gubmint - “Good morning Kindergarten students, today we’re going to demonstrate some of the tough challenges facing the Australian Gubmint. You guys try to keep up, ‘Here is Jack, he owns two houses valued at $1M each, Sally wants to own a house but cannot afford one. Now I don’t expect you to be able to answer this question considering it is the equivalent of solving the Navier-Stokes Equation, but any ideas on what The Gubmint can do to help Sally?’”

Kindergarten children in unison - “Build a house for Sally”

Australian Gubmint <exasperated> - “But, but, what about Communism... Immigration... Feminism...! You didn’t think of that did you, you little Lefty jerk-offs”

When the goverment builds a house for sally and everyone else who wants one house values will collapse and all these people will be left with a debt 10 times the size of their asset.

Well done the country is now totally broke and in a recession.

 

[RupieDupie]

And today a house ownership in melbourne requires 2 median incomes.

That’s because the free market has failed to supply houses per demand.

 

[RupieDupie]

When the goverment builds a house for sally and everyone else who wants one house values will collapse and all these people will be left with a debt 10 times the size of their asset.

Well done the country is now totally broke and in a recession.

Same thing wouldn’t happen with cars and computers.

 

[Bombermania]

That’s because the free market has failed to supply houses per demand.

We don't have a free market in housing construction, we have development per approval by government planning which allows for people to object, it seems that you want to remove the right to object to housing development. Then there is the issue of financing, the banks are already in enough trouble without adding lacks lending to the list.

 

[RupieDupie]

We don't have a free market in housing construction, we have development per approval by government planning which allows for people to object, it seems that you want to remove the right to object to housing development. Then there is the issue of financing, the banks are already in enough trouble without adding lacks lending to the list.

They didn’t seem to have all these issues back in the olden days of the ‘90s.

You are starting to get close to the real reason as to why my hypothetical example won’t work in reality, instead of all the bullshit reasons that are been made up.

The simple reason, behind the simple problem with a simple solution is, it presumes the people in power are not degenerate thugs and pigs who abuse other people and their power. This is why housing is expensive.

Here’s another view on this;

Note the answer Joe Hockey gave when asked on housing affordability, he did not state development approvals, he did not state immigration, he did not state socialism, he said that if Australians want to afford housing they should get better jobs. Tony Abbott on housing affordability did not state that people should all move to Mildura, he did not state that there is not enough land in a continent for more housing, he stated that he would like his house to be worth more.

Let’s get serious here, instead of pretending what the problem is.

 

[Bombermania]

They didn’t seem to have all these issues back in the olden days of the ‘90s.

You are starting to get close to the real reason as to why my hypothetical example won’t work in reality, instead of all the bullshit reasons that are been made up.

The simple reason, behind the simple problem with a simple solution is, it presumes the people in power are not degenerate thugs and pigs who abuse other people and their power. This is why housing is expensive.

Here’s another view on this;

Note the answer Joe Hockey gave when asked on housing affordability, he did not state development approvals, he did not state immigration, he did not state socialism, he said that if Australians want to afford housing they should get better jobs. Tony Abbott on housing affordability did not state that people should all move to Mildura, he did not state that there is not enough land in a continent for more housing, he stated that he would like his house to be worth more.

Let’s get serious here, instead of pretending what the problem is.

The 1990s saw the rise of the "Save Our Suburb" group which ran many campaigns against urban development, and as housing and the town planning process are a state government responsibility then what a few dopey members of the federal government thinks doesn't matter that much as the supply of housing is not a federal government matter besides maybe if they choose to sell federal government land for redevelopment and the provision of public housing and homeless services are a state government responsibility.

 

[RupieDupie]

The 1990s saw the rise of the "Save Our Suburb" group which ran many campaigns against urban development, and as housing and the town planning process are a state government responsibility then what a few dopey members of the federal government thinks doesn't matter that much as the supply of housing is not a federal government matter besides maybe if they choose to sell federal government land for redevelopment and the provision of public housing and homeless services are a state government responsibility.

Liberal Party, has all the info on housing and can either state “save our suburb” is the reason housing pricing is expensive or can put a “struggling” tradie on TV stating he’s just trying to get ahead with an investment property...

C’mon let’s be serious here

 

[Bombermania]

Liberal Party, has all the info on housing and can either state “save our suburb” is the reason housing pricing is expensive or can put a “struggling” tradie on TV stating he’s just trying to get ahead with an investment property...

C’mon let’s be serious here

I think you are missing a key point.

You are, or at least seem to be arguing that governments should do more to increase supply, that is a state government job, yet you are going on about the federal government which has little say in what the state government does with it planning process.

The state governments have various planning processes in place, these processes requires all planning applications to go through a planning process in which the public have the right to comment, and as is the nature of politics, many local residence groups are very vocal in their opposition to development and that has the effect of impacting on what is ultimately developed.

The mare mention of reviewing local zoning laws is enough to send some residence groups off like its the biggest threat since the Barbarians sacked Rome.

 

[RupieDupie]

I think you are missing a key point.

You are, or at least seem to be arguing that governments should do more to increase supply, that is a state government job, yet you are going on about the federal government which has little say in what the state government does with it planning process.

The state governments have various planning processes in place, these processes requires all planning applications to go through a planning process in which the public have the right to comment, and as is the nature of politics, many local residence groups are very vocal in their opposition to development and that has the effect of impacting on what is ultimately developed.

The mare mention of reviewing local zoning laws is enough to send some residence groups off like its the biggest threat since the Barbarians sacked Rome.

No key points missed at all, unless the federal government is ignorant of this they would have mentioned it without noting how both the tradie and Abbott will suffer. The former would have been smart, and competent, the latter was the truth.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

That’s because the free market has failed to supply houses per demand.

The free market is supplying houses per demand, its just that because of your personal circumstances you are not able to afford a house were you would like to live.

If you were to either find a partner or increase your income or choose to live outside of the big cities you would have a house.

So the issue is of your doing.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Same thing wouldn’t happen with cars and computers.

But it would with houses.

Cars and computers are assets that are much smaller and decrease in value while houses are larger and appreciate. So this is were a large amount of equity is kept.

Anything that could be done to drastically lower house prices over the short term will simply lead to a recession .

 

[RupieDupie]

The free market is supplying houses per demand, its just that because of your personal circumstances you are not able to afford a house were you would like to live.

If you were to either find a partner or increase your income or choose to live outside of the big cities you would have a house.

So the issue is of your doing.

No it’s not, you state in your very next post that an increase in supply would lead to a recession... Which GC is correct? The one where a free market can keep supply as per demand in a smart housing market and therefore greedy pigs are the only reason housing prices are high, or one that if supply keeps up with demand the fragile capitalist economy fails?

But it would with houses.

Cars and computers are assets that are much smaller and decrease in value while houses are larger and appreciate. So this is were a large amount of equity is kept.

Anything that could be done to drastically lower house prices over the short term will simply lead to a recession .

 

[RupieDupie]

No it’s not, you state in your very next post that an increase in supply would lead to a recession... Which GC is correct? The one where a free market can keep supply as per demand in a smart housing market and therefore greedy pigs are the only reason housing prices are high, or one that if supply keeps up with demand the fragile capitalist economy fails?

What Would Bolt Do?

 

[geelong_crazy26]

No it’s not, you state in your very next post that an increase in supply would lead to a recession... Which GC is correct? The one where a free market can keep supply as per demand in a smart housing market and therefore greedy pigs are the only reason housing prices are high, or one that if supply keeps up with demand the fragile capitalist economy fails?

The free market does not mean that everyone can have what they want at the price they want.