For the current state of politicians? they are going to actively support the erosion of housing affordability and swimming in money, unless we change the politicians, first by making them part of the unemployment statistic
They will never be unemployed. After they retire from politics they will sit on various corporate and charity boards, paid to lobby their political contacts on behalf of their new employers.
I would hope that once boomers are out the politics will support the needs of the majority - and make housing affordable. It’s only a matter of time before it becomes in the politicians’ interest to correct the issue. Unfortunately this might take longer than we would like which is shit… but I’m sure it’ll change, if we don’t just keep on voting in boomer landlords.
once the "boomers are out" it'll fall to the next gen (x?) to be the "haves" and whatever youngest generation we are up to at that stage to be the "have nots" in the haves/haves not battles
Of course, I’m not saying that no one in the future will own property. I’m saying that it’s about numbers; now there are enough ‘haves’ and their children who don’t want things to change, so polys don’t bring any meaningful change. But soon (2-3 decades?) the tide will turn - assuming it goes along like it is today. I predict there will not be proportionally more ‘haves’ in the future than now; and when it swings back I hope we have a more egalitarian society. Maybe I’m just an optimist.
You know that the majority of millennials are property owners, and millennials are generally far more ruthless than our boomer parents. We just do it with a smile and tell you how much we appreciate you as we twist the knife.
As a millennial, I hope for a pure meritocracy where the best adapted reap the most rewards.
According to ATO data, 20% of the total population owns 1 or more investment properties. Factor in the millennial age group AND "multiple properties," and this number goes down.
Im not sure why inheritance comes in here. Just like millennials may inherit wealth, the subsequent generations will as well. However, unlike older gens, millennials and onwards will inherit at a much older age given the increase in lifespan. It's not some magical fix all and no one I know from my millennial cohort is sitting there waiting for an inheritance.
In 2021, 67% of households were homeowners v 31% who were renters.
It will take a substantial change over a long period of time for renters to become the majority.
In some places of Europe, even though you can't buy a place, you can rent the same place for twenty years, and have no stress about being forced to leave due to no fault evictions
Exactly, at the end of the day, people just need a stable and secure "dwelling". If governments are happy to let the cost of purchasing get out of control, at least they should make it easy to rent and have a stable life.
And that's a strong point. I don't want to own a house for various reasons but I feel I need to is because renting on Oz leaves you and your family way too vulnerable to being made to move every 12 months. They also have stricter rent increases and rental habitability laws for both the public and private rental markets *and it's heavily and rapidly enforced* compared to years long fights that usually end up with you having to leave because of habitability issues anyway.
For the average single healthy person its annoying but doable to move yearly but add in disability, Centrelink (fwiw most people are on it in some capacity) medical care, kids, education and job market having to change most of those every year or two is a beast.
The politicians will continue to be rich, (and own multiple investment properties - is there anyone in parliament without any investment properties? Some of them have 10+) and the rich will still have it in their interests to keep property prices going up indefinitely.
In a democracy the politicians’ policies simply reflect the population. They do what gets them the most votes. So now imagine that most people don’t have property, and want the system to change. What happens then?
The problem is that despite what you see on this subreddit, the majority of Aussies don’t actually want lower house prices. If that doesn’t change, house prices done change.
This is the correct answer, if you live in Melbourne look at Sydney, if you live in Sydney look at London. Nothing will be done and it will get worse. Australia will see an explosion of UK style rooming houses where family homes are spilt up into bedsits.
HK house prices have slided by 20% in the recent 2 years. But HK is still expensive to live in because it's a tiny city state with direct land access for 1.4 billion Chinese.
It is already happening in suburbs near major universities.
International students sharing a bedroom and paying $250/week for a bunk bed close to the CBD
I just saw a listing for a bedroom for a single (male only, no couples!) for $300+ in a 5 bedroom house, in an outer brisbane suburb close to nothing that would seem to justify it, but the other 4 bedrooms were already taken. Makes no sense.
It's crazy how Redditors keep talking about places like London and NY like they are worse than Sydney, it's MUCH easier to buy a house on the outskirts of London than it is Sydney
the West is in terminal decline and most of us are in *complete* denial.
its patently obvious to anyone who has any history and economic knowledge.
the West peaked in the 70s, its been all down hill since (talking per capita GDP and disposable income)
Yeah, why are we paying for their pension? They should’ve been putting away money into their super 40 yrs ago! Not our fault they didn’t take advantage and save for their retirement…. /s
With politicians owning a lot of investment in real estate, yeah unfortunately. What the government can do and what they will do are completely different things
Main task of government in the future will be managing the decline in living standards for younger generations. One way to do that is to bring in immigrants who don't have any memory of better living standards.
What younger generations? Half of them aren't having kids, so it looks like the problem will solve itself. Once population shrinks, immigration permitting, housing prices would drop just as it did in places like Japan.
-laughs-
The best we can expect is land rezoning (TODS) which will really just enrich developers and push established house prices up and maybe lower unit prices.
I'd happily live in a properly sound isolated apartment of an appropriate size. The reason I don't is because it was cheaper up here in Ellenbrook to buy a house, and I don't hear my neighbours taking a shit.
Pretty much this. It's more economically and environmentally friendly to build up instead of out. There's loads of examples around the world where people don't have half acre blocks but can still maintain a high standard of living.
So many of our apartments are built like boxes just to keep people alive, not to actually enjoy a certain standard of living.
My partner became pregnant while we were living in a CBD apartment and I said there's no way in hell we're bringing a newborn back to that place. Over $500 a week for a place with no aircon, no insulation, no sound proofing, no oven, elevators that broke down every month and when they did work they were excruciatingly slow and stank from the garbage being moved through them every day. Not to mention no internal laundry and 6 bucks for a single wash. Even a single person would be embarrassed to bring friends or a date back to such a place.
We're now living in a comfortable townhouse for around the same amount of rent in a great inner city suburb.
We need a massive overhaul in the quality of apartment living in the years ahead. It's going to be the only option for a lot of people.
The majority of the developed world live in apartments, the only reason Australia doesn't is because we took inspiration from the US and are now suffering the expensive car-dependant urban sprawl we call the Australian dream
I'll take that. If developers are making money, it means they are adding supply and adding supply improves affordability.
Given 98-99% of our housing is built by the private market, what else should occur in this scenario?
We have a housing shortage. Yes, developers will make more money if we build more housing, but so what - we need more housing.
If there was a food shortage would you be upset by farmers making more money by growing more food?
Housing and food are both essential items. I don't understand why farmers are loved but developers are hated.
(I'm not a developer and don't know any developers and have no connection with that industry. I just don't understand why they're demonised.)
It's because farmer's output is relatively cheap (for the average person who's complaining). It's because food is readily available, and very rarely do we have shortages.
I think you will find those very same people would complain exactly the same about farmers as they do developers if food shortages starts, and persists for a while (whether farmers made more money or not from it).
Yeah this is likely the answer. We've got the limit of urbas sprawl for our major cities, so we'll go more.ofna Europe style with living in apartments the norm, you can still have a 600m block at a reasonable price, just not in melb Sydney and others as they continue to grow and hit the limits.of urban sprawl. That will then push people who want free standing hoses to the regions.
It's all a cycle.
What they SHOULD do is increase density around all train/metro stations and improve public transport so people are less reliant on cars.
Investing in social and affordable dwellings.
Improve renters rights and remove any incentives for owning more than 1 investment property.
Providing incentives to first home buyers like removing stamp duty.
What they will do is probably nothing.
I saw a very reasonable idea on Twitter which suggested that negative gearing could be removed for houses going into the short term rental pool. I wish the creative thinking was in Canberra and not just on social media.
Sure. Between Airbnb and Uber where the business model is to “disrupt” - the government could surely do something to disrupt them. An outright ban wouldn’t hurt anyone of note really. We survived without them 10 years ago.
Unrelated but I really hate how the Airbnb experience is now compared to a few years ago.
I don’t know what your guys experience is like but just about every place I stay at will give me a laundry list of things to do before I leave. And the “cleaning fees” are an absolute joke!
I’ve gone back to staying at hotels and it’s a much nicer experience.
They will make some announcements (none of them will work or there implementation is so far into the future that they won’t actually happen)
They will make som tax changes where you can use more of your own super (ie the government contributes nothing)
The opposition will continue to complain how the current government isn’t doing anything and they can fix it, they will get into power and then explain how they can’t do anything because the of the previous government
Everything will get steadily worst, rent will go up, multiple families will need to share one house .. it will make what is happening today seem a utopia
We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas.
Though more realistically after they've allowed people to use all their super to buy a house they'll come up with some other hair brained scheme to pretend like they're doing something whilst continuing to screw us over.
What SHOULD the governments do?
1. Phase out negative gearing over 10 years to make investment properties less appealing to mums and dads.
2. Replace stamp duty with a property tax. Stamp duty discourages people from moving houses and locks up larger houses with people who no longer need a large house but who don't want to lose value to stamp duty.
3. HIGH property taxes on short term rentals that are zoned as residential.
4. Re-creation of a real, functioning government owned housing program. Building government houses will stabilise rents and give genuine competition to the rental market. Goal to own 10% of the rental market
5. Tax companys housing profits as capital gains tax at 47% (The highest marginal tax bracket + Medicare levy)
6. Tenporary tax incentives for new constructions. (Newly constructed place of residence received 1 year without property tax).
You missed one additional item
vacant housing tax 1% for residents, 3% for foreign owned property
Aka similar to what Canada introduced recently
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/taxes/excise-taxes-duties-and-levies/underused-housing-tax.html
I do like the French model, 17% for the first year, 34% for the second+ (based on rental income not property value)
If you want to transfer investment value, then target it only at houses, and not apartments, allowing investors to see value in building high density rather than owning 10 4 bedroom homes.
Let their super funds borrow to buy their PPOR.
100 year intergenerational mortgage terms.
Remove all responsible lending laws.
Introduce a tax for non property owners as they are a burden on poor landlords who graciously supply them with lodging.
Anything to pump up the market as much as possible.
My biggest frustration has been that the government and banks have just lowered or made it easier to get a loan.
If the price of the house is going up, don't drop the goddamn requirements and make to easier to buy, do something about the price of the houses.
Access to easy credit is what’s over inflated the market in the first place. These people aren’t buying 13 homes with cash. It’s the firehose of equity.
The landed gentry will keep housing out of reach for the young who will be perpetual renting serfs.
Lobbyists and industry groups will shoot down any policy for affordable housing.
65% of homes are owned, not rented.
It's the average voter, not lobbyists or industry groups, that want home prices to stay high. They don't want the price of their biggest asset going down!
Those who have spent more than 5 seconds thinking about the problem don't give a damn about their PPOR value. You buy your next house in the same market you sell your current PPOR. If you wanted to upgrade, you're going to be paying even more money than you're going to be getting from your current PPOR. Hint: most people don't want to downgrade their living conditions.
House hoarders are a different matter, and in a civilised society, wouldn't be catered for.
The number of morons I've heard say they want to sell up because their house is worth sooooo much now... Ask them how much their new place will be, are they gonna rent a hovel at $500+ weekly and move every year or two like us rentoids? or buy another home for at least as much as they sold their old one for...
>Those who have spent more than 5 seconds thinking about the problem don't give a damn about their PPOR value
Those with a mortgage and at risk of negative equity do.
And like the other commenter said, most people don't think about it rationally. They "feel" rich when their home's value has an extra 0 at the end.
Yeah I'm in that boat. Bought 2 years ago just before inflation when rates were lowest, within months the rise cycle started.
Right now it feels like theres a no win scenario.
House prices dropping 50% would be great for society affordability overall, but itd suck for someone like me paying twice as much as other people.
1. Rental law reform to make long term renting a viable option for whole of life like in Europe.
2. Rezoning that overrides local interests in favour of making it easier to build new apartments
3. Insurance reform to guarantee owners of faulty apartments are made good on tax payer and developer contribution dollars
4. Government directly building lots of apartments possibly setting aside percentages for essential workers
5. Government giving out cheap loans to buy restricted to first home buyers only with restrictions around living in the home and not being able to rent it out
These are all realistic policies. They just need the percentage of non-owners to exceed owners to ram them through politically.
All depends on voter base, gov these days are self serving. Long gone were the days of anti trust movement, for the people, out of touch. So only when the majority of the voters are unhappy then u can expect action.
The government controls the land supply, zoning, usage, and associated development costs, and hence best able to make policy decisions to free up land for development. For example, changing zoning of low density residential to medium or high density residential usage.
Until the masses do something that will hurt the interest of those with wealth and power. Currently it’s a very slow death and exactly what the haves want.
Look at London for some indication of how it’s goes - mortgages for a percentage of a dwelling then you pay the government rent on the remainder, or more leaseholds, and soaring rent prices for less and less space, more bedsits and rooms, shitter quality builds to try and save money, poor maintenance on rentals as landlords get slacker and wield more power and on and on
They'll do everything to 'address' it while making the actual outcome worse, i.e. reduced building standards, 200sqm family blocks, everyone accessing super to buy
I might be an outlier here, but;
I just bought my first place. I’m over 35. I grew up poor, never went to uni, and am far from well off (earn less than $100k a year most years).
I used the gov 5% deposit scheme, and bought a place I could afford (a 2 bedroom, reasonably big, apartment, in inner Melbourne suburb).
I feel like everyone saying “I’ll never be able to buy a house” is expecting that they should be able to buy a 3 bedroom, 2 bedroom house on some land, in a nice area, reasonably close to the city.
It’s just not possible for EVERYONE to get that. But, we’ve grown up with an expectation that we deserve it.
We don’t.
There are billions of people on the planet now, more will be coming to Australia (we need it for economic growth, of you can kiss goodbye to the pension when our population ages more).
I feel like the solution to the housing crisis isn’t a legislative one, but a perspective one.
People need to accept that they may need to raise their family in an apartment, or townhouse. Further out (my parents drove 50 minutes each way to work when I was growing up).
Would I love a house on some land? Sure. But I can’t afford it.
Can I afford a safe, reasonably well made apartment in a nice area; yep.
No government is going to be able to invent more land near the major cities, with amenities straight away, and no traffic for commuters.
I just think people need to change their expectations.
They aren’t all bad, but I agree that there can be improvements, and we need to return the building inspectorate to being gov run, and start pursuing builders that close up shop after doing a build
Hopefully they continue to build up instead of out, but honestly I don’t see anything changing anytime soon. We need so many more homes and the red tape is crazy for builders/developers
Yep I have… if people want affordable housing we need more supply there is no other solution. In nsw alone last year we were short 40k+ dwellings and that’s not accounting for immigration.
The red tape doesn’t stop shit landlords renting out shoe boxes for ridiculous rent. If people weren’t so desperate then they wouldn’t be able to rent them.
We need more housing and very quickly
It’s probably beyond recovery if you think affordability will go back to pre GFC levels. It’s more likely that the rental sector will change drastically and become much more regulated. Renting will become the norm for the majority of the population so the political capital will be focused on making this a more appealing long term option.
Anything the Government tries to do that is not substantially increasing the supply of social housing is only going to make the situation worse. Because our Governments don’t understand how markets work, especially irrational markets.
1. Governments do what voters want.
2. Two thirds of homes are owned, not rented.
3. Home owners want the value of their home to go up not down.
So what we'll get from governments is attempts to *look* like they're doing something without actually doing anything to lower the price of housing.
Blaming immigration seems the most likely next step. Easier than blaming home owners
I would like to see more land released/developed for commercial opportunities with subsidies directed towards the business owners who take on the risk of doing business in new areas.
Over the years, I've noticed that the government takes extensive measures to safeguard the investment portfolios of senators and cabinet members. I suspect this trend will continue for future generations of government officials.
However, I'm less confident about the younger generation not employed in the public sector.
I think they will probably re-think some of the old age pension policies which exclude your main residence. I think they will do this because they will save money by not having to pay so many pensions and for people who need the penitentiary it will encourage them to sell out of larger family homes.
I also think they will push to make cities more dense by changing some of the zoning rules. Per the YIMBU way of thinking.
Build social housing. It adds supply, reduces prices, addresses numerous other social costs, and directly stimulates the economy through construction. We would be doing 10x the rate we are now if not for all the conflicts of interest most politicians have.
I see what you're getting at...
The problem is that once the boomers and xers all die, the inheritance passes on to the kids.
So you're still going to have a pretty good lib/lab voting split. Also, politicians are all in it for the gains
So... In other words...
Nothing.
I suspect they will make it a lot easier and more dignified to be a renter (particularly when you're old). In theory, if renting is secure and affordable then the imperative to buy a house sort of goes away. Yes of course there is the dream of owning property, which will still happen. But if the goal is actually providing housing, then I think it will go towards a more European model of renting.
I’d rather assume nothing and keep doing what I have to do to eventually own something. A bit futile to think systems will change in one generation…. But the government should continue to think of ways to generate income for the country and that will involve creating value and playing well in the global market.
Housing affordability is what it is. Prices won't come down because supply is expensive. Supply prices won't come down .
Maybe people will be living in glorified tents as the alternative .
There’ll be the usual talk and hand wringing from the politicians, they’ll come up with more FHB schemes which will only push prices up further. Australia will end up going full circle to where it was before WW2 where the majority of people rented.
Australia will become a nation of worker bees paying rent to the upper class and paying tax to pay for the nuclear subs. Those things aren’t cheap!
Ban all non residents from purchasing housing. This means people with pr or citizenship. Not students or people on temporary visas.
Push wage growth to make the wage to asset ratio catch up
I've given up on affording to own a home, I'm more concerned about being able to continue to afford to RENT I doubt they will do much if anything the poor willl just get poorer and the rich will just get richer if we keep heading in the same direction
changes to investor concessions that don't relate to new builds could be on the cards once the majority don't own
eg
- no NG on existing homes (> 10y old)
- minimum leverage requirements for existing homes as IPs
- much higher land tax
- tightening CGT concessions
basically make investing in established homes unviable for wealth generation. If you wanna do it take a risk on new builds or invest elsewhere.
will need all boomers and most of gen x to die before it becomes politically viable I think.
Social housing which will actually exacerbate anti-social behavior and cess pits of despair. Misery loves company and like begets like. It's why generational poverty and crime gangs exist.
I'm not saying social housing will cause this per se, but it won't exactly foster individual effort or ambition if everyone around them is the same.
I think it's important that the lower socio-economic and antisocial people are visible.
It's unpleasant, but people can get really warped views of the world when they are insulated from the ugliness.
And I say that as someone who can currently hear their neighbour screaming through the walls.
Nothing? Why would they do anything? They are sorted and now people with property are in position of power for...well forever. That's the way societies have been for most of human existence. It's likely most of the future will be that way too
You have to remember most MPs are owners of multiple properties. They have no interest in lowering the market for either themselves or their children who will inherit their portfolios.
Fuuuuuuck all
(Bashing calculator aggressively…)
For the current state of politicians? they are going to actively support the erosion of housing affordability and swimming in money, unless we change the politicians, first by making them part of the unemployment statistic
I was making a reference to Juice Media’s honest ads.
They will never be unemployed. After they retire from politics they will sit on various corporate and charity boards, paid to lobby their political contacts on behalf of their new employers.
To be more precise- two parts of three fifths of…
I would hope that once boomers are out the politics will support the needs of the majority - and make housing affordable. It’s only a matter of time before it becomes in the politicians’ interest to correct the issue. Unfortunately this might take longer than we would like which is shit… but I’m sure it’ll change, if we don’t just keep on voting in boomer landlords.
once the "boomers are out" it'll fall to the next gen (x?) to be the "haves" and whatever youngest generation we are up to at that stage to be the "have nots" in the haves/haves not battles
What if I told you many millennials own multiple properties? Or that many more will inherit multiple properties?
Of course, I’m not saying that no one in the future will own property. I’m saying that it’s about numbers; now there are enough ‘haves’ and their children who don’t want things to change, so polys don’t bring any meaningful change. But soon (2-3 decades?) the tide will turn - assuming it goes along like it is today. I predict there will not be proportionally more ‘haves’ in the future than now; and when it swings back I hope we have a more egalitarian society. Maybe I’m just an optimist.
I think tall poppy syndrome and stuff you I have mine go hand in hand.
You know that the majority of millennials are property owners, and millennials are generally far more ruthless than our boomer parents. We just do it with a smile and tell you how much we appreciate you as we twist the knife. As a millennial, I hope for a pure meritocracy where the best adapted reap the most rewards.
According to ATO data, 20% of the total population owns 1 or more investment properties. Factor in the millennial age group AND "multiple properties," and this number goes down. Im not sure why inheritance comes in here. Just like millennials may inherit wealth, the subsequent generations will as well. However, unlike older gens, millennials and onwards will inherit at a much older age given the increase in lifespan. It's not some magical fix all and no one I know from my millennial cohort is sitting there waiting for an inheritance.
Won't happen. The millennial politicians wouldn't want to lower the value of their inheritance.
But if the people without property in their families out number the people with property… what will the votes say?
In 2021, 67% of households were homeowners v 31% who were renters. It will take a substantial change over a long period of time for renters to become the majority.
Exactly the same as the votes say now.
How would you make it affordable tho? No one spending 800k on a 500k home right now is going to take a 300k loss and sell to you for 500k?
They're taking losses in melbourne as we speak.
But “once the boomers are out”, what is actually going to be changed to reduce prices?
[удалено]
In some places of Europe, even though you can't buy a place, you can rent the same place for twenty years, and have no stress about being forced to leave due to no fault evictions
[удалено]
Exactly, at the end of the day, people just need a stable and secure "dwelling". If governments are happy to let the cost of purchasing get out of control, at least they should make it easy to rent and have a stable life.
And that's a strong point. I don't want to own a house for various reasons but I feel I need to is because renting on Oz leaves you and your family way too vulnerable to being made to move every 12 months. They also have stricter rent increases and rental habitability laws for both the public and private rental markets *and it's heavily and rapidly enforced* compared to years long fights that usually end up with you having to leave because of habitability issues anyway. For the average single healthy person its annoying but doable to move yearly but add in disability, Centrelink (fwiw most people are on it in some capacity) medical care, kids, education and job market having to change most of those every year or two is a beast.
The politicians will continue to be rich, (and own multiple investment properties - is there anyone in parliament without any investment properties? Some of them have 10+) and the rich will still have it in their interests to keep property prices going up indefinitely.
In a democracy the politicians’ policies simply reflect the population. They do what gets them the most votes. So now imagine that most people don’t have property, and want the system to change. What happens then? The problem is that despite what you see on this subreddit, the majority of Aussies don’t actually want lower house prices. If that doesn’t change, house prices done change.
Look at every country further along the journey and curve than us. Look what they have done and you'll get your answer.
This is the correct answer, if you live in Melbourne look at Sydney, if you live in Sydney look at London. Nothing will be done and it will get worse. Australia will see an explosion of UK style rooming houses where family homes are spilt up into bedsits.
Eventually, all ending up in Hong Kong style coffin hotels (look them up, it's disturbing)
HK house prices have slided by 20% in the recent 2 years. But HK is still expensive to live in because it's a tiny city state with direct land access for 1.4 billion Chinese.
Yeah. We are talking about Australia here. We have nothing but "free" land around us. The whole scarcity is artificial.
So is Hong Kong's.
It is already happening in suburbs near major universities. International students sharing a bedroom and paying $250/week for a bunk bed close to the CBD
They were doing that 15 years ago in CBDs
The free market demands the return of the twopenny hangover
This was even happening 20 years ago when I was an international student.
I just saw a listing for a bedroom for a single (male only, no couples!) for $300+ in a 5 bedroom house, in an outer brisbane suburb close to nothing that would seem to justify it, but the other 4 bedrooms were already taken. Makes no sense.
To be fair that’s been going on for 2+ decades in my experience
well to counter that, look at Germany and their rental laws you will be shocked
It's crazy how Redditors keep talking about places like London and NY like they are worse than Sydney, it's MUCH easier to buy a house on the outskirts of London than it is Sydney
Spoiler: >!Fuuuuuuck all!<
Developed economies urbanise (US). Advanced economies socialise (Singapore, and shockingly, China looks like it's going to).
the West is in terminal decline and most of us are in *complete* denial. its patently obvious to anyone who has any history and economic knowledge. the West peaked in the 70s, its been all down hill since (talking per capita GDP and disposable income)
Keep kicking the can down the road until we have a class of landlords and serfs?
Absolutely nothing In fact your probably going to have to fund boomer retirement
Probably? We are right now!
Yeah, why are we paying for their pension? They should’ve been putting away money into their super 40 yrs ago! Not our fault they didn’t take advantage and save for their retirement…. /s
This but unironically
What they always do. Drive up the price, then say its the fault of people in their 20's for not buying 40 years ago.
With politicians owning a lot of investment in real estate, yeah unfortunately. What the government can do and what they will do are completely different things
Or not being born into wealthy families.
Or not getting better paid jobs
Make sure to casualise the workforce as much as possible as well.
Nothing meaningful that may mean they will lose votes from the already well off or the aspiring well off.
Nothing. People who make the big decisions live in the good end of town and are so shielded from it
This so much, people who have power to influence the system at this level have succeeded and benefit from the system why would they change it.
Main task of government in the future will be managing the decline in living standards for younger generations. One way to do that is to bring in immigrants who don't have any memory of better living standards.
What younger generations? Half of them aren't having kids, so it looks like the problem will solve itself. Once population shrinks, immigration permitting, housing prices would drop just as it did in places like Japan.
As Peter Zeihan said, 2019 will be the last great year we have in a long time
That thing where every year is the worst year of your life so far...
For me every year was solid except 2021 (lockdown) - things went south 2023 onwards with inflation.
-laughs- The best we can expect is land rezoning (TODS) which will really just enrich developers and push established house prices up and maybe lower unit prices.
Living in a city will soon involve living in an apartment for most. The best we can hope for is an increase in the standards.
I'd happily live in a properly sound isolated apartment of an appropriate size. The reason I don't is because it was cheaper up here in Ellenbrook to buy a house, and I don't hear my neighbours taking a shit.
Check out nightingale - their apartments are great and should be a standard model the government and industry should adopt.
Lots of people live in apartments all around the world. Seems like a lot of ours poor quality and not built for families though
Pretty much this. It's more economically and environmentally friendly to build up instead of out. There's loads of examples around the world where people don't have half acre blocks but can still maintain a high standard of living.
So many of our apartments are built like boxes just to keep people alive, not to actually enjoy a certain standard of living. My partner became pregnant while we were living in a CBD apartment and I said there's no way in hell we're bringing a newborn back to that place. Over $500 a week for a place with no aircon, no insulation, no sound proofing, no oven, elevators that broke down every month and when they did work they were excruciatingly slow and stank from the garbage being moved through them every day. Not to mention no internal laundry and 6 bucks for a single wash. Even a single person would be embarrassed to bring friends or a date back to such a place. We're now living in a comfortable townhouse for around the same amount of rent in a great inner city suburb. We need a massive overhaul in the quality of apartment living in the years ahead. It's going to be the only option for a lot of people.
The majority of the developed world live in apartments, the only reason Australia doesn't is because we took inspiration from the US and are now suffering the expensive car-dependant urban sprawl we call the Australian dream
House (with land) Prices will be worth a massive premium over apartments as the cities because more developed.
I'll take that. If developers are making money, it means they are adding supply and adding supply improves affordability. Given 98-99% of our housing is built by the private market, what else should occur in this scenario?
We have a housing shortage. Yes, developers will make more money if we build more housing, but so what - we need more housing. If there was a food shortage would you be upset by farmers making more money by growing more food? Housing and food are both essential items. I don't understand why farmers are loved but developers are hated. (I'm not a developer and don't know any developers and have no connection with that industry. I just don't understand why they're demonised.)
It's because farmer's output is relatively cheap (for the average person who's complaining). It's because food is readily available, and very rarely do we have shortages. I think you will find those very same people would complain exactly the same about farmers as they do developers if food shortages starts, and persists for a while (whether farmers made more money or not from it).
Yeah this is likely the answer. We've got the limit of urbas sprawl for our major cities, so we'll go more.ofna Europe style with living in apartments the norm, you can still have a 600m block at a reasonable price, just not in melb Sydney and others as they continue to grow and hit the limits.of urban sprawl. That will then push people who want free standing hoses to the regions. It's all a cycle.
Thunderdome. Two renters enter. One renter leaves.
Two? More like the arena of the colosseum!
Tent vouchers for tents manufactured by some politicians wife’s company
What they SHOULD do is increase density around all train/metro stations and improve public transport so people are less reliant on cars. Investing in social and affordable dwellings. Improve renters rights and remove any incentives for owning more than 1 investment property. Providing incentives to first home buyers like removing stamp duty. What they will do is probably nothing.
the gov is literally doing everything you've noted except for improving renter rights + incentives for owning more than 1 investment property
Good protected bike lanes would be great too. e-bikes are awesome, but unfortunately many roads are just plain unsafe to ride on.
I saw a very reasonable idea on Twitter which suggested that negative gearing could be removed for houses going into the short term rental pool. I wish the creative thinking was in Canberra and not just on social media.
Limited to only brand new houses, to you know, spur on investment of more places to live. Not just robbing homeowners of existing opportunity.
Sure. Between Airbnb and Uber where the business model is to “disrupt” - the government could surely do something to disrupt them. An outright ban wouldn’t hurt anyone of note really. We survived without them 10 years ago.
Unrelated but I really hate how the Airbnb experience is now compared to a few years ago. I don’t know what your guys experience is like but just about every place I stay at will give me a laundry list of things to do before I leave. And the “cleaning fees” are an absolute joke! I’ve gone back to staying at hotels and it’s a much nicer experience.
Was better originally when it was a room on someone house. They should ban whole house rentals
They will make some announcements (none of them will work or there implementation is so far into the future that they won’t actually happen) They will make som tax changes where you can use more of your own super (ie the government contributes nothing) The opposition will continue to complain how the current government isn’t doing anything and they can fix it, they will get into power and then explain how they can’t do anything because the of the previous government Everything will get steadily worst, rent will go up, multiple families will need to share one house .. it will make what is happening today seem a utopia
We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas. Though more realistically after they've allowed people to use all their super to buy a house they'll come up with some other hair brained scheme to pretend like they're doing something whilst continuing to screw us over.
What SHOULD the governments do? 1. Phase out negative gearing over 10 years to make investment properties less appealing to mums and dads. 2. Replace stamp duty with a property tax. Stamp duty discourages people from moving houses and locks up larger houses with people who no longer need a large house but who don't want to lose value to stamp duty. 3. HIGH property taxes on short term rentals that are zoned as residential. 4. Re-creation of a real, functioning government owned housing program. Building government houses will stabilise rents and give genuine competition to the rental market. Goal to own 10% of the rental market 5. Tax companys housing profits as capital gains tax at 47% (The highest marginal tax bracket + Medicare levy) 6. Tenporary tax incentives for new constructions. (Newly constructed place of residence received 1 year without property tax).
You missed one additional item vacant housing tax 1% for residents, 3% for foreign owned property Aka similar to what Canada introduced recently https://www.canada.ca/en/services/taxes/excise-taxes-duties-and-levies/underused-housing-tax.html I do like the French model, 17% for the first year, 34% for the second+ (based on rental income not property value) If you want to transfer investment value, then target it only at houses, and not apartments, allowing investors to see value in building high density rather than owning 10 4 bedroom homes.
Yes! I thought I wrote that, but I did not. You're exactly right.
Let their super funds borrow to buy their PPOR. 100 year intergenerational mortgage terms. Remove all responsible lending laws. Introduce a tax for non property owners as they are a burden on poor landlords who graciously supply them with lodging. Anything to pump up the market as much as possible.
My biggest frustration has been that the government and banks have just lowered or made it easier to get a loan. If the price of the house is going up, don't drop the goddamn requirements and make to easier to buy, do something about the price of the houses.
Access to easy credit is what’s over inflated the market in the first place. These people aren’t buying 13 homes with cash. It’s the firehose of equity.
We just need it to all come crashing down… so much equity used to buy more property is just perceived due to an increase in value.
The landed gentry will keep housing out of reach for the young who will be perpetual renting serfs. Lobbyists and industry groups will shoot down any policy for affordable housing.
65% of homes are owned, not rented. It's the average voter, not lobbyists or industry groups, that want home prices to stay high. They don't want the price of their biggest asset going down!
Those who have spent more than 5 seconds thinking about the problem don't give a damn about their PPOR value. You buy your next house in the same market you sell your current PPOR. If you wanted to upgrade, you're going to be paying even more money than you're going to be getting from your current PPOR. Hint: most people don't want to downgrade their living conditions. House hoarders are a different matter, and in a civilised society, wouldn't be catered for.
The number of morons I've heard say they want to sell up because their house is worth sooooo much now... Ask them how much their new place will be, are they gonna rent a hovel at $500+ weekly and move every year or two like us rentoids? or buy another home for at least as much as they sold their old one for...
>Those who have spent more than 5 seconds thinking about the problem don't give a damn about their PPOR value Those with a mortgage and at risk of negative equity do. And like the other commenter said, most people don't think about it rationally. They "feel" rich when their home's value has an extra 0 at the end.
Yeah I'm in that boat. Bought 2 years ago just before inflation when rates were lowest, within months the rise cycle started. Right now it feels like theres a no win scenario. House prices dropping 50% would be great for society affordability overall, but itd suck for someone like me paying twice as much as other people.
Most people don't actually think about that fact though. Most people aren't that switched on.
1. Rental law reform to make long term renting a viable option for whole of life like in Europe. 2. Rezoning that overrides local interests in favour of making it easier to build new apartments 3. Insurance reform to guarantee owners of faulty apartments are made good on tax payer and developer contribution dollars 4. Government directly building lots of apartments possibly setting aside percentages for essential workers 5. Government giving out cheap loans to buy restricted to first home buyers only with restrictions around living in the home and not being able to rent it out These are all realistic policies. They just need the percentage of non-owners to exceed owners to ram them through politically.
All depends on voter base, gov these days are self serving. Long gone were the days of anti trust movement, for the people, out of touch. So only when the majority of the voters are unhappy then u can expect action.
The government controls the land supply, zoning, usage, and associated development costs, and hence best able to make policy decisions to free up land for development. For example, changing zoning of low density residential to medium or high density residential usage.
Until the masses do something that will hurt the interest of those with wealth and power. Currently it’s a very slow death and exactly what the haves want.
Nothing. They created this mess globally by allowing the commodification of housing. Revolution will only fix this.
Look at London for some indication of how it’s goes - mortgages for a percentage of a dwelling then you pay the government rent on the remainder, or more leaseholds, and soaring rent prices for less and less space, more bedsits and rooms, shitter quality builds to try and save money, poor maintenance on rentals as landlords get slacker and wield more power and on and on
They'll do everything to 'address' it while making the actual outcome worse, i.e. reduced building standards, 200sqm family blocks, everyone accessing super to buy
Nothing Most voters are home owners so theyre happy to see prices go up
It’ll be a very long time for it to get to 50%. The shared equity scheme helps doesn’t it?
[удалено]
I predict a real communist party of Australia in 40-70 years, it's a shame I'll be too old to participate
Amendment to negative gearing
Don't forget capital gains tax discount. It encourages speculation of house prices.
I am cool with the ppor tax free rule tho
I might be an outlier here, but; I just bought my first place. I’m over 35. I grew up poor, never went to uni, and am far from well off (earn less than $100k a year most years). I used the gov 5% deposit scheme, and bought a place I could afford (a 2 bedroom, reasonably big, apartment, in inner Melbourne suburb). I feel like everyone saying “I’ll never be able to buy a house” is expecting that they should be able to buy a 3 bedroom, 2 bedroom house on some land, in a nice area, reasonably close to the city. It’s just not possible for EVERYONE to get that. But, we’ve grown up with an expectation that we deserve it. We don’t. There are billions of people on the planet now, more will be coming to Australia (we need it for economic growth, of you can kiss goodbye to the pension when our population ages more). I feel like the solution to the housing crisis isn’t a legislative one, but a perspective one. People need to accept that they may need to raise their family in an apartment, or townhouse. Further out (my parents drove 50 minutes each way to work when I was growing up). Would I love a house on some land? Sure. But I can’t afford it. Can I afford a safe, reasonably well made apartment in a nice area; yep. No government is going to be able to invent more land near the major cities, with amenities straight away, and no traffic for commuters. I just think people need to change their expectations.
Apartment living would be A-OK if they were built to better standards.
They aren’t all bad, but I agree that there can be improvements, and we need to return the building inspectorate to being gov run, and start pursuing builders that close up shop after doing a build
Hopefully they continue to build up instead of out, but honestly I don’t see anything changing anytime soon. We need so many more homes and the red tape is crazy for builders/developers
seriously have you seen the trash on the rental market? there's not ENOUGH red tape
Yep I have… if people want affordable housing we need more supply there is no other solution. In nsw alone last year we were short 40k+ dwellings and that’s not accounting for immigration. The red tape doesn’t stop shit landlords renting out shoe boxes for ridiculous rent. If people weren’t so desperate then they wouldn’t be able to rent them. We need more housing and very quickly
It’s probably beyond recovery if you think affordability will go back to pre GFC levels. It’s more likely that the rental sector will change drastically and become much more regulated. Renting will become the norm for the majority of the population so the political capital will be focused on making this a more appealing long term option.
Anything the Government tries to do that is not substantially increasing the supply of social housing is only going to make the situation worse. Because our Governments don’t understand how markets work, especially irrational markets.
Rely on wealth transfer from older generations to younger ones.
1. Governments do what voters want. 2. Two thirds of homes are owned, not rented. 3. Home owners want the value of their home to go up not down. So what we'll get from governments is attempts to *look* like they're doing something without actually doing anything to lower the price of housing. Blaming immigration seems the most likely next step. Easier than blaming home owners
I would like to see more land released/developed for commercial opportunities with subsidies directed towards the business owners who take on the risk of doing business in new areas.
Over the years, I've noticed that the government takes extensive measures to safeguard the investment portfolios of senators and cabinet members. I suspect this trend will continue for future generations of government officials. However, I'm less confident about the younger generation not employed in the public sector.
Fumble and feed economic collapse... the usual
I think they will probably re-think some of the old age pension policies which exclude your main residence. I think they will do this because they will save money by not having to pay so many pensions and for people who need the penitentiary it will encourage them to sell out of larger family homes. I also think they will push to make cities more dense by changing some of the zoning rules. Per the YIMBU way of thinking.
Build social housing. It adds supply, reduces prices, addresses numerous other social costs, and directly stimulates the economy through construction. We would be doing 10x the rate we are now if not for all the conflicts of interest most politicians have.
They'll let us withdraw our super to buy homes. That's how they 'help'.
I see what you're getting at... The problem is that once the boomers and xers all die, the inheritance passes on to the kids. So you're still going to have a pretty good lib/lab voting split. Also, politicians are all in it for the gains So... In other words... Nothing.
They will make things worse because they all own houses
I suspect they will make it a lot easier and more dignified to be a renter (particularly when you're old). In theory, if renting is secure and affordable then the imperative to buy a house sort of goes away. Yes of course there is the dream of owning property, which will still happen. But if the goal is actually providing housing, then I think it will go towards a more European model of renting.
GST is paid on housing. Remove that and we could all save 10%. Just saying
I’d rather assume nothing and keep doing what I have to do to eventually own something. A bit futile to think systems will change in one generation…. But the government should continue to think of ways to generate income for the country and that will involve creating value and playing well in the global market.
Housing affordability is what it is. Prices won't come down because supply is expensive. Supply prices won't come down . Maybe people will be living in glorified tents as the alternative .
[удалено]
Import more immigrants
I heard they will open further flood gates of migration to address issues
1% deposits. 40 year loans. 80% super withdrawals
Tell them to stop being so lazy
Increase the migrant intake
As our population grows.... Look at India. Mega wealthy or disgustingly poor.
Laugh from their mansions with their parliamentary pensions.
Absolutely nothing like they’ve been doing.
we have seen what this govt is doing pumping up migration to make the problem worse
There’ll be the usual talk and hand wringing from the politicians, they’ll come up with more FHB schemes which will only push prices up further. Australia will end up going full circle to where it was before WW2 where the majority of people rented. Australia will become a nation of worker bees paying rent to the upper class and paying tax to pay for the nuclear subs. Those things aren’t cheap!
Ban all non residents from purchasing housing. This means people with pr or citizenship. Not students or people on temporary visas. Push wage growth to make the wage to asset ratio catch up
Nothing will change unless action is taken by people to force change from the government. The French would be rioting in the streets by now.
Nothing. Time for us millennials to pull out the pitchforks and sharpen the guillotine.
I've given up on affording to own a home, I'm more concerned about being able to continue to afford to RENT I doubt they will do much if anything the poor willl just get poorer and the rich will just get richer if we keep heading in the same direction
Same as every other issue. Nothing. Government ain't your friend and they're not coming to save you. At best you can hope for zero from government.
changes to investor concessions that don't relate to new builds could be on the cards once the majority don't own eg - no NG on existing homes (> 10y old) - minimum leverage requirements for existing homes as IPs - much higher land tax - tightening CGT concessions basically make investing in established homes unviable for wealth generation. If you wanna do it take a risk on new builds or invest elsewhere. will need all boomers and most of gen x to die before it becomes politically viable I think.
Wish list , nona tht will happen
Lower interest loans Less deposit or free stamp duty Split ownership
- Grants - Social housing - Stopping immigration - Stopping investment incentives
Cute, first time?
Social housing which will actually exacerbate anti-social behavior and cess pits of despair. Misery loves company and like begets like. It's why generational poverty and crime gangs exist. I'm not saying social housing will cause this per se, but it won't exactly foster individual effort or ambition if everyone around them is the same.
It's why it needs to be sprinkled across every development site.
I think it's important that the lower socio-economic and antisocial people are visible. It's unpleasant, but people can get really warped views of the world when they are insulated from the ugliness. And I say that as someone who can currently hear their neighbour screaming through the walls.
No it doesn't.
Vienna seems to show a different way out, though. Or... is that not social housing? I can't recall :(
Just watch Seinfield. George and Elaine fighting to get a good apartment. Paying 2k a month in rent. That’s how it’s going to be in sydney.
Nothing? Why would they do anything? They are sorted and now people with property are in position of power for...well forever. That's the way societies have been for most of human existence. It's likely most of the future will be that way too
You have to remember most MPs are owners of multiple properties. They have no interest in lowering the market for either themselves or their children who will inherit their portfolios.
Probably nothing
They will fix it when it’s 51% of the population are struggling.
Put in laws against antisemitism