The Housing Crisis

[abc]

Just think, most of these affordability issues could have been avoided at the previous Federal Election in 2019.

But voters decided selfishly that franking credits and tax breaks and cuts for millionaires and billionaires was a better choice.

that's a stretch true believer

[SBD]

Just think, most of these affordability issues could have been avoided at the previous Federal Election in 2019.

But voters decided selfishly that franking credits and tax breaks and cuts for millionaires and billionaires was a better choice.

Which party/groups had policies to remove those? "We" elected a Labor government, which replaced the Stage 3 tax cuts with a new single across-the-board tax cut.

The majority of voters are not millionaires or billionaires, so I'm not sure how you end up with the majority voting selfishly if you think that was the issue most people voted on.

[rev]

Just think, most of these affordability issues could have been avoided at the previous Federal Election in 2019.

But voters decided selfishly that franking credits and tax breaks and cuts for millionaires and billionaires was a better choice.

Which party/groups had policies to remove those? "We" elected a Labor government, which replaced the Stage 3 tax cuts with a new single across-the-board tax cut.

The majority of voters are not millionaires or billionaires, so I'm not sure how you end up with the majority voting selfishly if you think that was the issue most people voted on.

Not to turn this into a politics thread, but the majority of people vote based on what appeals to them through media coverage.
Most people don't know what the policies are, they hear the catch phrases and that's it. If we had voluntary voting instead of mandatory, election results would be a lot different, and perhaps better outcomes for the country.

[SBD]

Just think, most of these affordability issues could have been avoided at the previous Federal Election in 2019.

But voters decided selfishly that franking credits and tax breaks and cuts for millionaires and billionaires was a better choice.

Which party/groups had policies to remove those? "We" elected a Labor government, which replaced the Stage 3 tax cuts with a new single across-the-board tax cut.

The majority of voters are not millionaires or billionaires, so I'm not sure how you end up with the majority voting selfishly if you think that was the issue most people voted on.

Not to turn this into a politics thread, but the majority of people vote based on what appeals to them through media coverage.
Most people don't know what the policies are, they hear the catch phrases and that's it. If we had voluntary voting instead of mandatory, election results would be a lot different, and perhaps better outcomes for the country.

The Housing Crisis is a political issue. We might disagree on which government policies have created it, and over what timeframe, but I think we agree that it is caused by government policies and can only be fixed by Government actions.

I’d say the underlying issue is that community expectations have moved, and the government has not kept up. The opposite perspective would be that government expectations have moved (such as less public housing) and the community expectations have not moved to match.

[mattblack]

Just think, most of these affordability issues could have been avoided at the previous Federal Election in 2019.

But voters decided selfishly that franking credits and tax breaks and cuts for millionaires and billionaires was a better choice.

Which party/groups had policies to remove those? "We" elected a Labor government, which replaced the Stage 3 tax cuts with a new single across-the-board tax cut.

The majority of voters are not millionaires or billionaires, so I'm not sure how you end up with the majority voting selfishly if you think that was the issue most people voted on.

Not to turn this into a politics thread, but the majority of people vote based on what appeals to them through media coverage.
Most people don't know what the policies are, they hear the catch phrases and that's it. If we had voluntary voting instead of mandatory, election results would be a lot different, and perhaps better outcomes for the country.

In which way would voluntary voting have better outcomes?? The UK and US has this system and has a voter turnout of 60% - 66%. In the UK where I lived for some time I would not say that this has been beneficial economically or democratically. US elections are basically bought. The disillusioned masses simply can't b bothered. At least here the disillusioned have to have skin in the game, what they do with that vote is up to them. Just because you don't like the party or person that the majority voted in (maybe with preferences) doesn't mean democracy is knackered. If housing is your biggest concern next time then vote for that party or independent that aligns with your views, who knows, the majority might feel the same!

[abc]

Which party/groups had policies to remove those? "We" elected a Labor government, which replaced the Stage 3 tax cuts with a new single across-the-board tax cut.

The majority of voters are not millionaires or billionaires, so I'm not sure how you end up with the majority voting selfishly if you think that was the issue most people voted on.

Not to turn this into a politics thread, but the majority of people vote based on what appeals to them through media coverage.
Most people don't know what the policies are, they hear the catch phrases and that's it. If we had voluntary voting instead of mandatory, election results would be a lot different, and perhaps better outcomes for the country.

In which way would voluntary voting have better outcomes?? The UK and US has this system and has a voter turnout of 60% - 66%. In the UK where I lived for some time I would not say that this has been beneficial economically or democratically. US elections are basically bought. The disillusioned masses simply can't b bothered. At least here the disillusioned have to have skin in the game, what they do with that vote is up to them. Just because you don't like the party or person that the majority voted in (maybe with preferences) doesn't mean democracy is knackered. If housing is your biggest concern next time then vote for that party or independent that aligns with your views, who knows, the majority might feel the same!

wouldn't make any difference

a bought election has nothing to do with compulsory voting, the media is manipulated by the donor class to influence the masses one way or another... it has always happened here anyway however we've never had an anti-establishment candidate because the parliamentary system doesn't allow it

[rev]

Which party/groups had policies to remove those? "We" elected a Labor government, which replaced the Stage 3 tax cuts with a new single across-the-board tax cut.

The majority of voters are not millionaires or billionaires, so I'm not sure how you end up with the majority voting selfishly if you think that was the issue most people voted on.

Not to turn this into a politics thread, but the majority of people vote based on what appeals to them through media coverage.
Most people don't know what the policies are, they hear the catch phrases and that's it. If we had voluntary voting instead of mandatory, election results would be a lot different, and perhaps better outcomes for the country.

In which way would voluntary voting have better outcomes?? The UK and US has this system and has a voter turnout of 60% - 66%. In the UK where I lived for some time I would not say that this has been beneficial economically or democratically. US elections are basically bought. The disillusioned masses simply can't b bothered. At least here the disillusioned have to have skin in the game, what they do with that vote is up to them. Just because you don't like the party or person that the majority voted in (maybe with preferences) doesn't mean democracy is knackered. If housing is your biggest concern next time then vote for that party or independent that aligns with your views, who knows, the majority might feel the same!

Most people don't give a shit about politics. They are influenced by media coverage. A perfect example is how we ended up with a Liberal government recently. We only got that because the media ran a campaign that it was time to change from Labor to Liberal because Labor had been in long enough.
If it was only those who took an interest who turned up to vote, instead of forcing everyone who doesn't care to also turn up, the result would be different.

Would we have a better outcome overall? Who knows, but we would at least have informed people voting instead of people influenced by media rubbish casting votes.

Had Labor retained power, would we have seen changes come to housing and trust housing sooner rather then later as we have had now? Would other measures have been taken? Would we have had the AdeLink tram network work underway, giving viable public transport options to more people therefore saving them money in transport costs and therefore helping to ease the cost of living squeeze, would we have had the NSM work well underway now and at a lower cost therefore freeing up more money for the government to allocate to things like more public housing developments?

[mattblack]

Not to turn this into a politics thread, but the majority of people vote based on what appeals to them through media coverage.
Most people don't know what the policies are, they hear the catch phrases and that's it. If we had voluntary voting instead of mandatory, election results would be a lot different, and perhaps better outcomes for the country.

In which way would voluntary voting have better outcomes?? The UK and US has this system and has a voter turnout of 60% - 66%. In the UK where I lived for some time I would not say that this has been beneficial economically or democratically. US elections are basically bought. The disillusioned masses simply can't b bothered. At least here the disillusioned have to have skin in the game, what they do with that vote is up to them. Just because you don't like the party or person that the majority voted in (maybe with preferences) doesn't mean democracy is knackered. If housing is your biggest concern next time then vote for that party or independent that aligns with your views, who knows, the majority might feel the same!

wouldn't make any difference

a bought election has nothing to do with compulsory voting, the media is manipulated by the donor class to influence the masses one way or another... it has always happened here anyway however we've never had an anti-establishment candidate because the parliamentary system doesn't allow it

You're free to vote for an anti establishment candidate such as a teal or independent if their views align with yours instead of bitching about the establishment. Plenty of other people have and because of this now hold a considerable number of seats. Agree that media manipulation is something that should be curtailed but good luck with that.

Overall democracy is messy but I'd rather that than the alternative. Glad to see your so passionate about this abc. Vote for housing policy next time.

[A-Town]

Affordability fears as Adelaide houses become more expensive than Melbourne

A new record for median Adelaide house prices has raised fears that home ownership is now out of reach for many South Australians.

Both the Property Council of Australia and Shelter SA have renewed calls for action on housing in the state after news that Adelaide’s median home value climbed past Melbourne’s in August for the first time since CoreLogic started keeping records 40 years ago.

The Adelaide median house price is now $790,800, compared to Melbourne’s $776,044.

The new CoreLogic data also revealed national house price growth of 0.5 per cent in August, while Adelaide saw gains of 1.4 per cent in the month.

SA executive director of the Property Council of Australia Bruce Djite said the continued growth of Adelaide’s median house price “reflects the need for the government to do much more to incentivise an increase in housing supply”.

“These median house price statistics, coupled with our exceptionally low rental vacancy rate, reflects how far behind the curve we are in addressing the housing crisis,” he said.

The new CoreLogic data follows the release of a report in August from PropTrack which found Adelaide’s rental vacancy rate dropped to 1.06 per cent in July; a 0.08 per cent decrease from June and a 29 per cent decrease from March 2020.

Only Darwin has a tighter rental vacancy rate than Adelaide, at 1.03 per cent.

Djite said the CoreLogic figures mean Adelaide can no longer boast its status as an “affordable” place to buy.

“South Australia’s attractive competitive advantage of being relatively affordable is well and truly eroded,” Djite said.

“To address affordability and access to housing, we need to be more welcoming of increased density, see faster rezonings, development approvals and enabling infrastructure delivery.

“Most importantly we need to depoliticise development and increase certainty. If we fail to do the aforementioned then the housing crisis is destined to get much worse.”

Shelter SA executive director Alice Clark said the median house price of $790,800 puts home ownership out of reach for both low-income and average-income households.

“Only about a quarter of households can afford to buy houses at that price,” Clark said.

“The government’s focus is on land releases and building market-sale housing, but there’s no plan for that 75 per cent of people who will never afford a house at this price.

“Building our way out of the housing crisis is just not a reality for this huge section of the population who are nowhere near those income levels.”

With the median house price climbing alongside ever-tightening rental vacancies, Clark said there was “no end in sight” for low-income households.

“Four years ago, before the pandemic, for low-income households, there was nothing affordable in the private rental market,” she said.

“Rents have increased so significantly that there’s a bigger group of those people now as well. Our members who provide homelessness services are completely overwhelmed with people coming to them for assistance.

“There’s no end in sight for those people.”

She said more should be done to increase the stock of social housing.

“That’s where we really need to see an uplift if we’re actually to solve the housing crisis.”

Housing and Urban Development Minister Nick Champion said the rising median house price was a “symptom of a strong economy with limited supply of housing”, noting South Australia’s economy was ranked the top in the nation for three consecutive quarters by CommSec.

“That’s why the Malinauskas Labor government developed the housing roadmap, a bold plan with 74 initiatives to build more homes, faster,” Champion said.

“This includes an unprecedented $1.5 billion to expand the water and sewer network which has the potential to unlock 40,000 new allotments.”

The state government also announced today that SA was leading the nation in terms of residential construction activity.

The government pointed to Australian Bureau of Statistics data that showed the value of residential construction work grew by 7.5 per cent to $1.1 billion in the June quarter.

Further, SA also recorded the strongest growth nationally for the construction of apartments and units, growing by 10.4 per cent in the quarter.

“The key to addressing the housing crisis is building more homes faster and this government is leading by example,” Champion said.

https://www.indaily.com.au/business/pro ... -VWvUTZ3vQ

[abc]

Melbourne has literally hundreds of thousands more apartment dwellings than Adelaide which is still dominated by detached houses.
Comparing the price of detached houses in Melbourne with Adelaide would provide a more realistic comparison. That's not to say the housing crisis isn't an Australia wide problem, but Adelaide didn't suddenly become more desirable than Melbourne.

[[Shuz]]

Melbourne prices on Adelaide wages.

We're fucked.

[rev]

That average price takes into account detached housing and units.
The average detached house price in Adelaide is somewhere in the $800k range now I believe.

We're beyond fucked. The way things stand now most people will have to be saving for a few decades just to afford a deposit on a house.
But how do we expect politicians to comprehend how bad it is, when they're on massive salaries well into the 6 figures, many owning multiple houses and apartments not just here but overseas as well...and all of whom will retire with a healthy non-means tested pension (6 figures also?) unlike the rest of society.

Only get angry and take to the streets when your local pub is threatened with demolition

[abc]

That average price takes into account detached housing and units.
The average detached house price in Adelaide is somewhere in the $800k range now I believe.

We're beyond fucked. The way things stand now most people will have to be saving for a few decades just to afford a deposit on a house.
But how do we expect politicians to comprehend how bad it is, when they're on massive salaries well into the 6 figures, many owning multiple houses and apartments not just here but overseas as well...and all of whom will retire with a healthy non-means tested pension (6 figures also?) unlike the rest of society.

Only get angry and take to the streets when your local pub is threatened with demolition

read the article again

[Jaymz]

The above article is incorrect. It says the median dwelling price of Adelaide is $790k... that is the median HOUSE price, as in detached property.

If Adelaide's average median DWELLING price was actually $790k, then we are well and truly f%$ked!!

[SBD]

The above article is incorrect. It says the median dwelling price of Adelaide is $790k... that is the median HOUSE price, as in detached property.

If Adelaide's average median DWELLING price was actually $790k, then we are well and truly f%$ked!!

I thought the point was that in Adelaide, almost every dwelling is a house, so the dwelling median is not pulled down by flats/units/apartments/semi-detached like the price in Melbourne.

What's less-clear to me is whether it is the median value of all residential properties, or only the median sale price of properties which have changed hands. I have no idea whether there is actually a significant difference, but I can imagine that the bottom end of the market might change hands more often, as people trade up to their "forever home". Maybe the competition in Adelaide means less people are trading up?