The Housing Crisis

[rev]

We just had a federal election.

Australia will get what it deserves.
Keep being apathetic and only worrying if (insert football code) is on tv and the pub/bottlo are open.

[A-Town]

We just had a federal election.

Australia will get what it deserves.
Keep being apathetic and only worrying if (insert football code) is on tv and the pub/bottlo are open.

Yep. There's going to be a lot of pain to come for young Australians who ever wish to own a home.

[Bobski]

Oh look. "Rises of up to 10% by early 2026". This must be that "sustainable growth" the Housing Minister said she wants to see

Property prices lift in May as interest rates fall, analysts expect rises of up to 10pc by early 2026

House prices have continued rising across the country amid interest rate cuts and expectations are that as more buyers return to the market, property values will keep rising.

Property analysts think capital city combined dwelling prices could rise between 6 per cent to 10 per cent by late this year or early next year.

Data from Cotality (formerly CoreLogic) shows that house prices trended higher in May.

Its national Home Value Index recorded another 0.5 per cent in May, taking the national index 1.7 per cent higher over the first five months of the year.

Source

[rev]

I don't know how, and honestly I don't think even cutting migration right back will bring prices down or slow them down all that much although that would have its own benefits on easing pressure in other things, but something needs to give. And it's not just a combination of lower interest rates and bringing the cost of living down, the cost of housing is out of control.

Maybe state/territory and the federal governments need to get together with a select few major builders and say we will provide land and build the infrastructure, you will build X amount of houses at a fixed price, and then the government sells them or offers a rent to buy scheme? For people that don't actually own their own home, which there is a shit tonne of people in this country.

Something needs to happen, because I don't know about the rest of you, but if most of Australia can barely afford a house right now, and its tipped to get more expensive, how are future generations going to afford it?
Housing isn't a privilege, it is a right.

And long time renting should not be seen as 'housing', not anymore.
Because who owns these concrete jungle structures popping up, some call them apartments some call them dog boxes...? Mega wealthy corporates? People should be handing over their hard earned money to enrich a corporate, and not being able to own their own home? Ridiculous.

[Bobski]

Yep, completely out of control. If Clare O'Neil thinks this is "sustainable" she is not fit to be in her role. We're already pretty much at the stage where the only people who can afford to buy a home are people who already have a home, or have parents willing/able to gift them money. And it's not just younger generations either. Single women over 50 are the fastest growing cohort of homeless people.

Labor have a thumping majority and a workable Senate, with multiple pathways to get legislation through. The LNP are in disarray and will probably not be in a position to form government for a decade, if they even survive. There is no excuse now for the government not to take BOLD steps to arrest this disastrous trajectory. Time for the boy who grew up in public housing to prove he actually gives a damn.

[Jaymz]

Yep this is an absolute disaster.

To put it even further into perspective there was an article on realestate.com.au today showing Sydney property prices over various periods since 1980. It calculates what the current price would be if they only grew by inflation. It makes for very ugly reading....

[gnrc_louis]

Yep this is an absolute disaster.

To put it even further into perspective there was an article on realestate.com.au today showing Sydney property prices over various periods since 1980. It calculates what the current price would be if they only grew by inflation. It makes for very ugly reading....

Wonder why they jumped so much after 2000…. It’s almost like the Federal Government implemented a policy change which has continued to ruin housing affordability to this day.

[rev]

Yep, completely out of control. If Clare O'Neil thinks this is "sustainable" she is not fit to be in her role. We're already pretty much at the stage where the only people who can afford to buy a home are people who already have a home, or have parents willing/able to gift them money. And it's not just younger generations either. Single women over 50 are the fastest growing cohort of homeless people.

Labor have a thumping majority and a workable Senate, with multiple pathways to get legislation through. The LNP are in disarray and will probably not be in a position to form government for a decade, if they even survive. There is no excuse now for the government not to take BOLD steps to arrest this disastrous trajectory. Time for the boy who grew up in public housing to prove he actually gives a damn.

You mean the guy who wants to impose higher tax rates on peoples super (currently it will be at $3milion+, but will eventually be brought onto all our super accounts and God knows what else), who exempted him self and his fellow politicians from the same tax imposed on the public?
He long ago forgotten the struggle. He's a sell out like the rest of them.

[[Shuz]]

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.

[gnrc_louis]

Yep, completely out of control. If Clare O'Neil thinks this is "sustainable" she is not fit to be in her role. We're already pretty much at the stage where the only people who can afford to buy a home are people who already have a home, or have parents willing/able to gift them money. And it's not just younger generations either. Single women over 50 are the fastest growing cohort of homeless people.

Labor have a thumping majority and a workable Senate, with multiple pathways to get legislation through. The LNP are in disarray and will probably not be in a position to form government for a decade, if they even survive. There is no excuse now for the government not to take BOLD steps to arrest this disastrous trajectory. Time for the boy who grew up in public housing to prove he actually gives a damn.

You mean the guy who wants to impose higher tax rates on peoples super (currently it will be at $3milion+, but will eventually be brought onto all our super accounts and God knows what else), who exempted him self and his fellow politicians from the same tax imposed on the public?
He long ago forgotten the struggle. He's a sell out like the rest of them.

This is just pure speculation, there’s zero evidence it’ll be applied to super accounts under $3million (which is currently a tiny percentage of the population) or to other areas.

[[Shuz]]

I will correct myself, the constitutional issue only applies to senior public servants, judges and politicians who were appointed prior to October 2004.

Probably need to wait another 10 years at least before the last of them retire before this issue gets eliminated.

[rev]

The only ones sprouting bullshit are our politicians.

How will the housing market be impacted?
One of the consequences of the super tax, which has been at the centre of the debate, is its potential impact on housing.

The tax will cover unrealised capital gains — meaning people could be taxed each year on the rising paper value of assets like property in a self-managed super fund (SMSF), even if they haven't sold them.

Nicola Powell, chief of research and economics at Domain, told SBS News this could affect the makeup of property investment.

"It is the first time paper gains have been taxed in this way and not the realised earnings. So in essence, it's edging into new territories," she said.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/cou ... /g0snoc2rs

Keating says the 30 per cent tax should not apply until at least a balance of $5 million. But, most of all, he is exercised by Chalmers’ refusal to index the $3 million threshold to inflation.

Over time, the lack of indexation would act as a stealth tax that would confine superannuation more to lower and middle-income earners, Keating complains, thus eroding political support for the policy achievement he so treasures.

https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/why- ... 827-p5k5l4

Here you go, from a government funded media outlet and a former Labor PM.
The reason these fears exist, of what I said will eventually apply, is because it will eventually be applied, and it will eventually impact more Australian's then just the 80,000 who fall into the $3mil+ category today.

[gnrc_louis]

The only ones sprouting bullshit are our politicians.

How will the housing market be impacted?
One of the consequences of the super tax, which has been at the centre of the debate, is its potential impact on housing.

The tax will cover unrealised capital gains — meaning people could be taxed each year on the rising paper value of assets like property in a self-managed super fund (SMSF), even if they haven't sold them.

Nicola Powell, chief of research and economics at Domain, told SBS News this could affect the makeup of property investment.

"It is the first time paper gains have been taxed in this way and not the realised earnings. So in essence, it's edging into new territories," she said.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/cou ... /g0snoc2rs

Keating says the 30 per cent tax should not apply until at least a balance of $5 million. But, most of all, he is exercised by Chalmers’ refusal to index the $3 million threshold to inflation.

Over time, the lack of indexation would act as a stealth tax that would confine superannuation more to lower and middle-income earners, Keating complains, thus eroding political support for the policy achievement he so treasures.

https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/why- ... 827-p5k5l4

Here you go, from a government funded media outlet and a former Labor PM.
The reason these fears exist, of what I said will eventually apply, is because it will eventually be applied, and it will eventually impact more Australian's then just the 80,000 who fall into the $3mil+ category today.

And here’s some articles arguing it’s good or at least fair: https://theconversation.com/actually-ge ... tax-257450

https://www.afr.com/policy/tax-and-supe ... 528-p5m2wb

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-eco ... 5m2l1.html

[rev]

Ok so we can add the media as sprouting bullshit too flipity flop.

I can see you ignored the fact it's not indexed, which will mean more people will eventually be affected then just the 0.5% mentioned today.

This is being done to raise revenue.
If they want to raise revenue, why don't they leave the Australian public alone who are already taxed heavily, and go speak to the mining giants and other mega corporations that don't pay their fair share?
They don't have to do anything as extreme as what the psychos in the Greens propose, but just a little more then what they pay.
They can afford it, the Australian tax payer cant.

How much affordable housing could the government build with that extra money? How much more could they do ease the cost of living crisis? If only there was a seriously untapped tax base out there somewhere between the Cooper Basin and the north west shelf....

[gnrc_louis]

Ok so we can add the media as sprouting bullshit too flipity flop.

I can see you ignored the fact it's not indexed, which will mean more people will eventually be affected then just the 0.5% mentioned today.

This is being done to raise revenue.
If they want to raise revenue, why don't they leave the Australian public alone who are already taxed heavily, and go speak to the mining giants and other mega corporations that don't pay their fair share?
They don't have to do anything as extreme as what the psychos in the Greens propose, but just a little more then what they pay.
They can afford it, the Australian tax payer cant.

How much affordable housing could the government build with that extra money? How much more could they do ease the cost of living crisis? If only there was a seriously untapped tax base out there somewhere between the Cooper Basin and the north west shelf....

I too would prefer they tax large corporations more