The Housing Crisis

[rubberman]

How do you know that it will be extended to accounts below $3m Rev? Where's your source that's official government policy?

Also the reason politicians are exempt is because there's a constitutional rule regarding politicians superannuation. Now we know how Australia's history with constitutional amendments go.

Is it really worth spending several hundreds of millions of dollars to amend the constitution just so we can include politicians, given the several other pressing priorities at the moment?

Stop sprouting bullshit.

Plus, those pensions pay full tax minus 10% not the zero tax after 60 that accumulation accounts pay. So, in all probability, those actually pay more. So what's the point of changing to get less revenue?

[SBD]

We appear to currently have a preference to solve the Housing Crisis by attempting to assist young people to extend urban sprawl by offering incentives for new-build houses, with the ambition that the "crisis" will be solved by increasing the supply of houses. The government collects massive amounts of stamp duty when older people eventually feel forced to sell their homes.

I wonder if the crisis could be ameliorated by focusing on bedrooms instead of houses. Provide incentives for older people to "right size" from a large home with empty bedrooms, with NDIS or MyAgedCare providing assistance with cleaning and gardening as the one or two remaining occupants become overwhelmed with the thought of having to pack and move, unable to buy a home the size they actually use because of the lost costs of turnover and moving. Instead, make this family home with a back yard available to a new family, and give the older person the opportunity to "age in place" in a building better suited to their retirement years.

[[Shuz]]

We appear to currently have a preference to solve the Housing Crisis by attempting to assist young people to extend urban sprawl by offering incentives for new-build houses, with the ambition that the "crisis" will be solved by increasing the supply of houses. The government collects massive amounts of stamp duty when older people eventually feel forced to sell their homes.

I wonder if the crisis could be ameliorated by focusing on bedrooms instead of houses. Provide incentives for older people to "right size" from a large home with empty bedrooms, with NDIS or MyAgedCare providing assistance with cleaning and gardening as the one or two remaining occupants become overwhelmed with the thought of having to pack and move, unable to buy a home the size they actually use because of the lost costs of turnover and moving. Instead, make this family home with a back yard available to a new family, and give the older person the opportunity to "age in place" in a building better suited to their retirement years.

I suspect this will be up for discussion politically in the next year or two.

Here is an example of how the "bedroom tax" works in the UK. It focuses on social housing only. Given how protected home owners are in Australia, I wouldn't be surprised if a similar policy is proposed by either major party. The policy is focused on targeting welfare recipients only, but lumped together with a carrot-and-stick general increase in the the welfare allowances paid. The offset would be budget-neutral / budget-positive. This would be the only way to make it politically feasible to middle Australia that the government is seen to be "doing something" about the housing crisis.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedroom ... ears%20and

[rev]

Taxing people by reducing their welfare payments because they have spare rooms in their homes, in government provided housing no less, let alone pensioners?

More tax, in any form, is not going to solve the housing crisis.

If I've worked hard, and have been able to afford a house with 5 bedrooms+study, 3 bathrooms, double garage, 2 living spaces, etc, and choose to retire in that house, how many spare bedrooms there are should be of no concern to the government, nor should I be taxed or penalised for it. And certainly shouldn't be punished for not wanting to rent out bedrooms to strangers to share my house with.
What insanity to even think of such a scheme.

Then again it is the UK.

[Dvious]

1 step closer to communism...

[rubberman]

Australians choose to spend $25bn per year on gambling.

That's an amount which would build half the number of houses per year needed to brige the gap between demand and present building rates.

Next, plenty of people refuse to buy apartments such as you see in most European cities, in favour of stand alone housing. That could easily bridge the rest of the gap between demand and supply.

Do we really have a supply problem, when it seems rather we have enough money to build enough dwellings, but make lifestyle choices instead?

I know we say we have a crisis, but if it boils down to just not wanting to give up gambling, and not wanting to live in apartments, European style, it's a choice.

[rev]

New data has revealed the income needed to buy a home in South Australia.

And it’s more than double what you needed five years ago.

An investigation by Canstar shows to buy a median-priced home in SA – one costing $827,000 – you need to earn $154,500.

To buy a median-priced unit – $570,000 – you need to earn $106,480.

In 2020, when the median house price was $482,000 you needed to earn just $64,469 in order to avoid mortgage stress.

That represents an increase of $90,020.

It’s a similar story for units. In 2020, you needed to earn just $44,139 to buy a median-priced unit at $330,000 – some $20,000 less than you need now.

According to Payscale.com the average SA salary now is $74,000. In 2020 it was $67,844 – just $6156 less.

This shows the growth in income needed to buy has clearly outpaced wage growth during that period.

https://www.realestate.com.au/news/the- ... cement=spa

Oh I know, lets find new creative ways to tax people and take more money out of their pockets, because that will really help make housing affordable and fix the cost of living crisis.

[Bobski]

[T]o buy a median-priced home in SA ... you need to earn $154,500.

According to Payscale.com the average SA salary now is $74,000.

Geez that's bleak

[ChillyPhilly]

[T]o buy a median-priced home in SA ... you need to earn $154,500.

According to Payscale.com the average SA salary now is $74,000.

Geez that's bleak

Special thanks to John Howard, and then Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison for allowing that rot to continue unfettered.

[rev]

Geez that's bleak

Special thanks to John Howard, and then Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison for allowing that rot to continue unfettered.

Since Howard there has been 3 Liberal governments (Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison) and 3 Labor governments (Rudd, Gillard, Albanese), this is the fourth Labor government term now.

Both sides have had ample opportunity to fix things.

[shiftaling]

Labor got punished for taking negative gearing reform to an election. It's not like they didn't try.

[[Shuz]]

Labor got punished for taking negative gearing reform to an election. It's not like they didn't try.

That was just one factor - franking credits as well. Bill Shorten was a very unpopular leader who also lost in 2016. Had Albo been leader in 2019, they might have won then. The margin was pretty tight, 74-69 or so. ScoMo barely scraped through despite his unpopularity as well.

[SBD]

Oops, it's been a few days since I threw this cat at the pigeons, and cutting welfare payments to people who need them in order to make them leave their public housing was not the angle I was thinking of.

I was looking at all the government assistance to encourage urban sprawl, and wondering if some of it could be repurposed to encouraging more efficient use of current housing. I don't expect an instant "fix", but policy changes to make the option more attractive.

We currently have government spending on providing water, sewerage and wastewater to sprawling new suburbs on former farm and horticultural land. We then provide financial incentives to first home buyers to build new houses on this land, mostly building detached houses with enough capacity for the young couples' families to grow. Then we also have to build new schools to support these new areas, extend public transport and so on.

There is no stamp duty on buying the vacant land for this urban sprawl, but there is stamp duty charged on selling an existing home and buying another one. There is no subsidy available for paying a removalist, or land agents to sell the current home or find a suitable new one. There is a lot of money that "just disappears" if a family of five wanted to sell a 2-bedroom unit and buy a 5-bedroom house at the same time a seventy year old widow wants to sell a 5-bedroom house with a big backyard and downsize to a ground-level 2-bedroom unit.

My observation is that the new sprawl needs new schools that are overfull almost as soon as they are built, and schools are closing due to lack of students in suburbs full of small households in (relatively) large houses. It's easier and cheaper for the individual to add to the sprawl than to optimise the utilisation of existing resources. I'm trying to propose that policy settings change to move this balance.