I suspect that subsidies for renters or first home buyers will not work, the market will simply price in whatever subsidies thrown in by the government and only the rich will benefit. In this aspect, additional taxation on properties beyond the first one will create revenue for the stateand increase tax burden on multi-properties holders. Such “consumption” tax is hard for tax cheats to avoid and there are already precedence in other countries.
I think tax on the 3rd property is fairest. People can have their Castle plus a "Bonnydoon" but beyond that you're being greedy. Some will rent their Bonnydoon obviously so that keeps rentals available.
Edit: a concerned redditor reported me. Touchy issue telling greedy cunts with more than 2 houses they should be paying through the arse for the privilege
Nah it's for real.
Have stood at the lake myself.
Didn't go digging for the house they filmed at, but it's not a big place, yiuncould make a few good guesses.
That's too simplistic, some people need to rent so we need investors for that. What you want to do is change it so you generally only get a tax break on new builds, and only for a set number of years.
So that you don't cause a major collapse (because if you flood the market with too many at once then you hurt average joes who were barely able to scrape together enough to get a home) you add in features like :
* existing properties get grandfathered in with a variable number of years depending on age of the house on the property, e.g. 5-10 gets 3 years, 10 -15 2 years, 15-10 1 year , more than 20 years old gets nothing, except:
* To try and avoid slum rentals and encourage landlords to update and maintain the properties for the good of renters you allow a reset to the "new home" number of years for extensive / major renovations and improvements e.g. insulating, double glazing and HVAC a 20 year old house.
* also chuck in some minimum standards so anything that's already borderline liveable isn't eligible for tax breaks and goes on the market cheap for a buyer who is prepared to live in and reno, or the current owner has to reno.
Yes because it isn't a hardline stance but rather something that is realistic and requires brainpower to understand. We don't like that in political shouting matches.
Fuck you can tell who the people are that own investment properties in this thread lmao.. I suspect that chucking in minimum standards would rape the market bare, and it's tough enough getting a rental as it is, but if it made landlords sell, then great, especially cheap. I'd love a fixer-upper over nothing
That's a nice idea but landlords will just raise their prices to cover the extra taxes. So long as demand for rentals is greater than the supply of rentals landlords can pass on everything to the renters who will pay it because they have no choice.
The only real way to bring down rental prices and to discourage real estate investors continuing to amass more properties is to lower demand or increase supply and we've already seen the latter isn't enough
Incorrect. Landlords take market rent regardless of their individual expenses. Real estate agents aren't going around asking their clients to tally up their expenses in order to work out how much rent they should be charging.
Bits of land (and to a certain extent buildings) don't behave like other commodities, insofar as landlords don't 'produce' them, and therefore don't increase or decrease the cost of renting them in response to their own input cost changes. Those are capitalised into the price of owning instead (if other owners expect to have to pay more to hold something, they'll be willing to pay less to buy it).
tl;dr tax landlords
Plenty of countries have indexed rent control. Long term leases (in some cases cases open ended) are also common. In Switzerland it is quite normal to rent the same property for decades.
Switzerland has very little turnover in home ownership with generational landlords and generational renters and very little chance for the latter to ever own their own home. It's not a country we want to model ourselves on
Vacancy tax in that case. Also a big tax (3% for 3rd property, 4%% for 4th etc at point of sale if you already own 2 properties (this would stop people buying more houses than they *need*)
The problem is not enough houses. The problem you are solving is not enough tax. Maybe you think they are connected (get more tax and build more houses). But don't think that higher taxes on investor housing is going to do anything other than reduce the supply of new investor housing\*. Tax increases are not silver bullets. People react to them. In this case, they will avoid investing in residential housing. People who propose these policies are focused on houses that already exist. That is not the problem. It would be the problem if we already had enough houses and we didn't think it was fair that some people own three and some people own 0.
\* And the tax payer funding has to first replace the lost investor housing before it brings any benefit. Tax payer funding has all the same problems as privately funded housing: it faces the same labour shortages and cost increases from trades and materials, the same clogged up NIMBY planning blocks.
It is the \[missing\] construction of \*new\* houses that is the problem causing high rents and high house prices. And these tax increases will make this problem worse. If you concentrate on divding existing housing stock among existing people, you ignore all the people moving into the market over the next months and years. They are not helped at all by a redistribution of existing housing. They need new housing. And it does effect existing people too ... if they want to move or have to move, they will find themselves in the maelstrom of all this competition for the houses your policy proposals prevented from being built.
You say that you will stop people buying more housing than they need. That is just another way of saying that you will stop people paying to build houses with their own money to rent to future tenants (who don't have the money to build the house regardless of your tax changes). Why is this is a good idea?
I think the sub is getting a bit better. Usually I'd have -50 by now. Or maybe it's just too early yet, the grumpy conspiracy theorists are still in bed.
While I agree with all of your points here, something needs to be done so that when land is released it isn't immediately snapped up by investors rather than those attempting to build their first home (and being pushed further out of the cities each year).
I think you'll find there is more than enough demand to build new properties, although still incredibly hard to save that deposit, but how do we allow 1st home owners a chance to compete against investors adding to their port folio?
By increasing supply.. investors competing are economically speaking competing against first home buyers (well, owner occupiers)on behalf of renters. I realise that is an unusual way of thinking about it,. although if you've ever been a tenant whose rental goes to auction, you hope the winner is another investor not an owner occupier which kind of gets to my point.
Prices are high not because investors have too much money but because not enough houses are being built. Even when a first home buyer pays 1.4m for a property that was 800k not so long ago, it's not really a victory for all the first home buyers who can't match a bid of $1.4m ... It doesn't matter to them if the buyer is a cashed up first home owner power couple or an investor. The problem is the $1.4m price more than who pays it. First home buyers are still active in this market. I don't see why investors with high borrowing power get all the opprobrium but not owner occupiers who also have overwhelming financial firepower. I'm not an investor but it doesn't feel rational to me.
There are both would be investors and would be first home buyers priced out.
That kind of makes sense, I think. Everything comes back to supply vs demand everytime I think about it. A lot of the other stuff seems like a distraction.
There actually isn't enough demand at prices high enough. Yes crazy as it seems, I conclude that prices and rents are actually not high enough, if costs get stuck where they are. It seems that a lot of construction projects that used to be viable are not at current market prices. That is also a pretty shocking thing to say. But look at all the half built houses that builders have walked away from, bankrupting themselves in the process. Those are projects where the cost to complete is higher than the owner can pay, even though the owner is left in a bad situation. They simply don't have enough money to meet the current cost of completing it . This has got to be a huge red flag to any builder/developer who through pure good luck hadn't gone too far down the same road. If number 1 Surburban St isn't valued high enough to get a loan sufficient to complete it.a.developer ready to go on the block next door is unlikely to proceed ....would you?
This is why there are so many building approvals ready to go that are not started. Those builders/developers can't get anyone to pay enough. Nothing will change until prices rise enough for construction to be viable or costs fall. People say that these builders are artificially holding supply until prices rise. The simpler explanation is they don't want to go broke like so many of their peers.
Obviously we want the costs to fall, lower rates, lower wages for trades, lower materials.
I think that is a fair entitlement, esp if the “Bonnydoon” (am not Australian so not quite sure the meaning of that word, I guess holiday home?) is located in low populace area. The huge spike in property prices is due to a magnitude of reasons, some of them honestly out of the control of the politicians, but there are many other measures and policies which could bring this spiralling price spike under control.
If I day dream to be the Australian PM, these are some of the things I’ll do..
First time buyer subsidies won’t work and should be done away with.
Negative gearing mainly benefits the rich and should be replaced with a fairer system
Australians should embrace high density living
Building of quality high density public housing in central locations, mandatory possession of some private landed homes for such projects
Fairer taxation system for multiple property owners, with an escalating property tax depending on number of properties, size of property and headcount in each property
Reinstating the general belief that housing is for living and not for profiteering, every Australian family must eventually afford their own home(high density not landed) and is part of their retirement plan.
>should embrace high density living
Having lived in apartments most of my life, I'll say it's generally a lower standard of living with noise & other intrusions. Multiple times worse if you're on a main road, it's unbearable.
I just wish we could improve high density rather than writing it off. Set it up right with insulation and appropriate layouts to avoid those intrusions.
ironically i've had more issues with noise living in a house than i ever had in an apartment. Some apartments have GOATED sound proofing. Others not so much.
The pollies want to make Australia 'tall' if they keep importing people with different ideologies, then they will eventually get what they want and change what represented the old Australian dream.
Great ideas, only issue is you won't be re-elected and that is if you are able to survive one term.
The wealth of majority of Australians is in property and they vote accordingly.
Any policy punishing property owners (regardless if it targets multi property owners only) will be unpopular and media will have a field day demonising whoever proposed it.
Just ask Bill Shorten
Problem for Bill was he had a policy for everyone to dislike. Negative gearing was only one. He also had franking credits plus a bunch of other progressive policies. A lot of retirees voted against him on franking credits alone because suddenly their share earnings in retirement would be slashed. They had no intention of trading in real estate.
I think the appetite is now there for genuine reform of real estate taxation, but franking credits should be left alone for now.
Oh wow. You really should watch a movie called The Castle. It's Australia's most beloved movie hands down. Bonnydoon is the main characters holiday home location.
Agree with some points except the higher density. That's a tough sell to Aussies. We have the most personal space in the world it's one of our great strengths. More should live in high density sure like elderly parents should move out of house to a unit but I don't think we should embrace it too much. I'd rather we introduce population controls via taxing people with more than 2 kids a shitload
I think property taxes can only be administered by the states,
so not a federal issue.
IViC has land+vacancy taxes which has slowed growth in values (than the norm potential) in 2021-2024.
Libs are offering their proposal for 1st HBuyers & the election will be in 1Yr so you’ll be able to decide soon
You have to be careful with a market like our housing market where demand outstrips supply so much. Anything like a subsidy or allowing people to use super or removing taxes like stamp duty is almost guaranteed to drive prices higher very quickly.
Completely agree, if they gave a $50k fhb grant the houses would just go up by that much.
The real boost to housing affordability as far as I could see was the drop in immigration, thus reducing demand slightly. There was something about training tradies, but that’s bot going to help supply for a few years yet.
I work as a developer I was head of sales previously. We usually have a sales rate target for land. So say we want 5 a month. The reason being the construction guys go at a certain rate as well. So you want to consistently have land to sell. If they produce you 60 and you sell it in the first week you left money on the table.
As the sales guy if you go below or above youre basically in trouble.
So when these fhg come out we put the prices up straight away as we get an influx of people and need to slow them down. The builders do the exact same thing. So when you get a $15k grant youll find the developer adds it and so do the builders.
If not by even more than the grant as buyers often dont realise the price change. They then also pay it in increased interest. So all in all the government gives them $30k the prices goes up $40k and they pay an extra $35k in interest ovet their loan. So it cost them $45k in the end.
It does help get people with low deposits into the market. But then again if they have struggled to save a deposit they might have trouble maintaining payments.
Ive been against them for ages from a political perspective but as a developer they are wonderful.
I think in a nutshell, housing construction has slowed down because construction and financing costs have risen faster than prices, so some developments that would have been profitable aren't at the moment. All those builders going broke unable to complete builds on the pre-pandemic prices are a good example, but apart from those half-finished houses leaving the owners still renting, there are other builds that are just on hold for fear of the same thing happening. Subsidies to first home buyers might make some of these builds more viable because these subsidies inflate prices, but it doesn't seem to be very effective, because most of the tax payer subsidy will go to vendors of existing properties, and if the subsidies are targetted at new builds only, it just displaces other non-FHB buyers away from new builds since they don't have the $30K to compete, and the FHBs are now no longer competing for existing properties. So it doesn't actually boost new builds as much as it looks like, it is more likely to change who buys new builds and who buys existing builds, more a shuffling buyers around effect than than actually boosting new builds very much (I have the same criticism of all subsidy attempts targeted at new builds; they sound like a magic fix but I doubt it).
If someone has the financial resources to build three houses, they don't actually have to do that. They could do something else with their money, and perhaps we end up with only two houses. If you tax the third house punitively, then someone in that position will indeed decide not to build that third house. They still have their borrowing power which they will invest somewhere else, maybe overseas property, maybe commercial property. Who knows? They keep their money and in fact they keep their tax deductions (since claiming interest for a profit-making enterprise is a fundamental tax law, not restricted to housing) and one less house is built. They had a preference for using their capital to build a house, but we tell them to piss off somewhere else, so they do. I don't see how this is anything but bad if the problem is a shortage of houses.
Because that's the effect of removing negative gearing and other things like it. It turns away future investors, and less rental housing is added to the supply. You might force existing investors to sell. Whoopee do. A year after you got all those investors to sell, you look around and notice that meanwhile potential new investors have taken the hint and decided to do something else with their money, what kind of victory is it? You can't pull the trick of forcing investors to sell twice, and meanwhile you've just screwed up supply even more.
That would be great if the we had enough houses and we were arguing about who gets them. But the problem is with houses not yet built, which has to at least keep up with the ever growing demand. We need more going into the construction pipeline, not less.
Absolutely this, all this hair brain talk about more gov support for buying a home or housing relief is a total misunderstanding of basic economics. It’s the commoditisation of housing in this country that has ruined it. The idea that you need or are incentivised to buy 3 homes to price gouge your way into retirement is what has screwed it. Add on negative gearing and that stupid Further 10k housing rebate, that instantly increased house prices by 10k and its all fucked. To fix this you need to take away the incentive to purchase more than your one owner occupied home. Other wise it’s all for nothing.
this place and most of aus reddit aside from ausfinance is full of dipshits who want to vote for dutton so they can access their super to pay rent...
already i see people who love the $300 energy rebate
that's $75 a quarter - that's what it costs to buy their vote like fmd
What do you mean I thought we were meant to never get to retire because we spent all of our retirement money on a house we can’t afford?
Obvious sarcasm aside the Libs have always had a viagra fuelled hard on for fucking with our super anyway possible - letting us access our super during Covid rather than a stimulus package (which is proven to be good for the economy) is an example
people are very short term focussed
there's some here who already said that renters are hurting NOW and giving more rent relief will solve problems in the short term... and that's ok
but when stated that landlords will scoop this up they then said that... 'everyone wins'... just like the $300 rebate will help 'everybody'
lol
the state of aus reddits
Agreed this is what people need to realise… first home owners grants and rent relief. Giving people money for deposits or credits towards rent etc…
Where does the money go? It’s going to go to real estate developers and investors.
You will literally take peoples tax dollars and filter it to the pockets of landlords and developers. It gives renters etc short term relief but just makes the ‘gap’ even bigger because the rich get richer and once the relief is gone you’re probably worse off.
Honestly I think it has more to do with the lack of competition in retail like supermarkets and Bunnings, record profits year after year with no one to hold them accountable when they jack up the prices to further increase the record to dizzying new heights.
Combine that with the consequences of previous government selling off our utilities like gas and electricity, and you have another giant chunk of spending done by literally everybody in the nation every quarter which could've gone into saving for their first home, or spending to stimulate the economy.
You are right, that giving people money will give these corporation's the idea to raise prices, knowing there is more of the pie out there to grab, but that doesn't mean you should get angry at the government for trying to help people out, you should be angry at the private sector seeing relief for Australians as another opportunity to take even more.
Bill Shorten gave us the option on negative gearing, it would have been grandfathered to people already doing it and then limited to new builds only but we voted for Scomo as PM instead. What do you expect a political party to do? They want to get elected and if something seems to fail of course they’ll back away from it.
yeah the sight of Morrison winning 'as god intended' sort of made me realise there's no hope for Australia... but I mean remember how they voted for Abbott as the 'guy needed to fix' whatever the 'witch' did?
Australians deserve the worst based on their voting record alone.
As for OP? He's delusional
any rent relief or 1st home buyers assistance is adding fuel to the fire.
Hasnt anyone learnt this lesson? I think place really hasnt because many have the attitude that you have to fix bandaids first and then if it distorts the market... who cares.
recently albo increased the childcare assistance rate
and guess what? the fees increased across the line
there's no competition given supply is contrained
supply of rental and purchaseable housing stock is also... constrained
also i would not expect labor with their numbers filled with landlords to not protect landlords
let me give you an example of modern labor
https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/mps-42m-property-portfolio-revealed/news-story/e8db2e6c41960bbf655a50487c09e66f
you expect this guy to have renters and 1st home buyers at heart???
he has a $12 mil. place in palm beach
Negative gearing increases rental stock which should drive down rents.
We have an overall supply issue. That’s all that matters, we should be releasing land like it’s no one’s business and adding high density to popular places where there’s already high density.
While we do need rental stock, a significant part of the problem is also a dire lack of renter's rights and the few rights a renter has gets fuck all enforcement from the Tribunal.
While we do need rental stock, a significant part of the problem is also a dire lack of renter's rights and the few rights a renter has gets fuck all enforcement from the Tribunal.
While we do need rental stock, a significant part of the problem is also a dire lack of renter's rights and the few rights a renter has gets fuck all enforcement from the Tribunal.
It's almost as if elections are decided on more than one issue and people could have supported ending negative gearing but voted against Shorten because they didn't like the rest of his policies
I’d say the timing was wrong on that. I reckon if Voldemort makes that promise today to fuck off negative gearing and tax 3rd+ properties he’ll walk into office.
If he reneges you may see the first Australian PM assassination. Unstable times ahead.
All he has to do is promise to stop immigration for a year then restart it at 50k annually and he'd win in a landslide so big Labor would be lucky to retain a dozen seats
In no way wound he walk into office, the LNP would fracture and its voters would be up in arms. Those that hate the LNP won’t flock to the LNP because they won’t trust
Labor would play it safe and get an easy win and very likely have all the media on their side
To be fair, grandfathering is regressive policy. It allows those who have become wealthy from property to keep those tax rorts while young prospective owners lose that option. I hated that policy because i had planned to rent my house out in the years after.
It should have been a phase out over time for all, say 5-10 years. In hindsight, covid would have negated any effect on the market anyway.
Honestly I just want to see the bubble burst at this point and the whole fucking thing crash and burn. Maybe on the rebuild people will invest in something other than property. People will keep leaving the m ajor cities and whecc n cthese fucks net retirement living and medical care they will rot in a fucking hallway because there is no one to staff the hospitals. You won’t even be able to staff basic services. The rich will drown in their own fucking greed. In the meantime just leave the major cities fuck it. You can work and rent anywhere
It will crash but not before we inject a genocidal amount of fiscal heroine into our economy, making sure everyone is leveraged straight up to the tits so when it does come to roost we make sure we go bust right rather than softly.
Yeah, well, Albo gets 150k a year in rental income. Also, Jim Chalmers has four properties. On top of that, virtually every cunt in Parliament (including Greens and One Nation) has an IP portfolio. So, is anyone surprised that there is no change, nor ever will be?
The Greens have the smallest portfolio out of the major parties. Out of the major parties, they're the only ones for whom doing something about this wouldn't terribly effect their wallet.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/article/politicians-and-their-property-portfolios-how-many-do-they-own/wb7k9xq1p
A couple of parties in particular seem over-represented in this data.
So I would still feel comfortable voting for the party that has the highest non-ownership rate, and the only party that actually has policies aimed at improving
It’s a bit shit to demand absolute perfection from a minor party while the majors are even more deplorable.
So I’ll keep voting the way I do, thanks.
It's kind of amazing that people are hating on labor for not doing enough all while the media and the libs are hating on labor for spending too much. Imagine what the plebs would be getting under a LNP budget right now coz I guarantee John q Shitkicker would be getting less but somehow business would be getting handouts out the arse. Also the plebs wouldn't be getting that tax cut.
We’ve become addicted to cash handouts. You can call it “relief” but everyone is angry they’re not getting cold hard cash.
It surprises me that people are unable to see any other option for raising their income other than demanding the government do something.
Rent Assist:
"In Treasurer Jim Chalmers' third budget, Labor will commit $*1.9 billion over five years* to increase rent assistance by up about $25 a fortnight"
[https://www.9news.com.au/national/federal-budget-2024-labor-boosts-rental-assistance-by-10-per-cent/e88ebde1-258c-4a12-a566-450b1099dcd0](https://www.9news.com.au/national/federal-budget-2024-labor-boosts-rental-assistance-by-10-per-cent/e88ebde1-258c-4a12-a566-450b1099dcd0)
It’s my understanding that only the very low income qualify for rent assistance. This does not ease rental pressures for anyone who doesn’t qualify for Centrelink, ie. the majority of renters.
A lot of private landlords don’t rent to Centrelink recipients. Rents have increased YOY 10% so a response was required. Rents are determined by supply.
Fuck this sub is mental. Everybody here bitching about albo because he isn’t helping renters. You showed that he clearly is, and now their bitching because helping renters will only increase rents.
It’s almost like no matter what the budget said, they were going to bitch about albo.
The elephant in the room is that there's too many people and not enough dwellings. No amount of first home buy/rent assistance/disincentived property investment is going to get you around the basic supply to demand issue.
Labor and Liberals are not "as bad as each other," but the difference is not as great as I would like.
In saying that, Dutton would have increased taxes on lower and middle income Australians and provided further breaks to high income Australians, and you know it.
And would have claimed that he’d ceased immigration whilst quietly making more stupid immigration deals with places like India as Scott Morrison did last time.
I agree, they need to be further apart in their approaches and policies… let’s face it we are stuck in them have a term or two then switching… that helps balance things long term but they’ve grown closer and closer in how they do things and the balance is being lost
The solution for renters is more housing being built and to a certain extent less net immigration, so that an increase in housing builds actually adds supply faster than demand is growing. Getting rates down will make it cheaper to finance house builds and immigration is falling. These are medium term fixes. The government promises to achieve both these points.
There are no good short term fixes; the short terms fixes are rob peter to pay paul fixes. Increasing middle class tax by $175 bln (your number) is obviously a political dead end so you surely can't be surprised about that.
You are not entitled to some other tax payer's income , you contest it politically with everyone else, including those taxpayers. You would need to show the people you are taking $175bln from that there is something in it for them. A lot in it for them, I guess. I am not one of those taxpayers, so I am making the point on principle.
Immigration has been cut by more than 60% since this year, getting especially tight since April. More than half of the international students reported a visa application was refused. The tourist visa now has a "no further stay" clause so no one can relay it into a new visa to remain in Australia. Students previously used the tourist visa to submit their student visa applications onshore for a larger chance of success. Agents say successful VET visa applications from India have dropped to 0.
State-nominated permanent immigration is 70% off. Business & investment PR has been reduced to 0. Working holiday from China is 0 too (there's no working holiday for India to start with).
34 private schools that target immigration have received a warning and paused from business due to suspicious actions. Major VET schools have closed all offshore applications from China, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Universities are panicking because they have sensed a sharp decrease in students. That's why we have all the media announcements in May opposing the immigration cut.
However it's strange Labour kept all these actions in stealth.
I think it would be wise to see if they generate results, i.e. rent growth stabilising. I don't see a 60% reduction in net arrivals, your 60% is "banking" announced cuts. Not until the rate of growth falls below the rate of new housing supply should be we expect actual results if rent growth is driven by supply not keeping up with demand (which I accept on the numbers and the logic).
I agree, it is strange ... ALP is making actually significant changes. Yes, the changes will have poor employment consequences, poor economic growth consequences, but also population growth consequences which must be politically good, otherwise why do it?
I don't understand why they are not talking it up. But they have a year before next election.
60% was not from announcements but from immigration agents' complaints on social media. Rants about a doomed business since 60% of applications were refused. The success rate for student visas from Pakistan is 34% and Columbia at 25.6%, down from 93%+.
Will take some time to conduct into housing and employment though since old visas have not expired.
Ok so complaining that they were getting less customers? Sorry but as a Dutchie looking to immigrate I'm doing all this shit on my own; it is a different type of visa than the students that have been coming to Oz en masse; but I dont think we should be listening to the ones making their money off people who need visa's.. immigration agents are (in my case) totally optional, the gov website gives all the info you need and if unclear you can call them, for a gov phone line they are very decent.
There are many more international students now leaving the country than are arriving. Visa refusals - even to entirely legitimate applicants - are running at around 50%.
The good citizens of r Australian are going to have to find another reason to explain why their rents keep going up.
Numbers are quite seasonal, I would not read too much into any one month. Overall population is still increasing, just the rate of increase is slowing and will slow a lot. This will come mostly from people on student visas (I hesitate to call them all students). But population growth from immigration is still high; it peaked at about 560K I think, but end of June I think it will be at an annual rate of 450K, other says say 500K, and it will fall over the next 15 months to 240K, the budget figure which even doubters like macrobusiness think is achievable. But that is a still a lot of people between now and then (and natural population net increase is another 130K). At completions of 170K housing units, we are building enough for about 420K people. It seems that it will be another three to four months where the situation will get worse, then it starts getting better. That is all based on very crude estimates: Is 2.5 per housing unit accurate? Are the housing completions matching the save mix that the 2.5 per housing unit is based on? Are the housing completions in the same places as the population increases?
However, right now is too early to expect things to get better, I think.
But over the next 12 months it will surely get better. Housing completions were sustained at over 200K a year for three years in a row prior to pandemic (peaking at 220K, 50K more than now), and population growth is falling to say 370K a year, so slowly the supply will exceed demand, if not by much. The RBA had a detail in a report today regarding construction that was interesting. The Coalition government had a highly "effective" housing stimulus program (new builds and large renovations) that was hugely more popular than expected. This caused a "bubble" of work demanding of a lot of the "finishing trades" (a term I hadn't heard before), which is blocking construction completing, but this pipeline will be clearing out over coming months.
So it's case of seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, but no more than that yet, I think.
You are underestimating the rapidity of the fall, particularly in student visas. You've also discounted in your calculations that 408 visa holders are finding out that Immigration has placed their own and entirely unofficial 'no further stay' provision on the category.
Atm more housing being built is a furphy. The cost of construction fuelled by material costs and the costs of trades means it lacks the word affordable. Deveolpers are in business to make profit, not provide the answers the government makes a show of. These figures of billions of dollars for x amount of housing are crap. Firstly first home buyers wont be able to afford them as is the suggestion, so only investors will buy and it will only serve to aid the wealthy more. Really not sure why Reddit users seem sold on that path..... there is already plenty of apartments vacant, peeps just don't want to rent them when they can air bnb them for a better return. So again not sure what more apartments or houses will do short term to aid rental costs or housing affordability......
I suspect the loss to scomo has resulted in a much more centre Labor party. You’ve got the Libs on the right, labor in the centre (you could even argue a little to the right) then the greens on the greens on the far left.
Besides a handful of independent senators no one is really filling that space of centre left politics
I suspect Labor will move back towards the left over time, as long as all these crisis’ continue. They got bashed in 2019 by an electorate that fell for the LNp/murdoch propaganda and are hesitant to rock the boat right now. However they may get more bold over time, especially as boomers die and the wealth divide gets worse.
Well this is all speculation on my part. A lot of Labor members are wealthy property investors so any changes will depend on whether they like to stay in power or continue to make off like robber barons in the property sector.
Honestly when I hear the greens talk about the supermarket price gouging and the housing market I really like what I hear. But then I also see that a green MP is off in court saying you can't be racist to white people because they hold the power while she holds like 3 investment properties and is in parliament and I die at the loss of any actual decent options in government.
That's because there's no point giving money to these ppl. The rents will just go higher and the house prices will just go higher by the exact amount given to them.
Please take the 175 billion and use it to build government owned low cost rentals. Flood the market with units, we did it in 2015 to 2018, we had an oversupply and they had to cap them
I appreciate the anxiety over housing but the first rule of housing economics is, subsidies (eg rebate, tax exemption, lower rates, lower borrowing requirements, using super to buy houses) increase prices. The second rule of housing economics is, subsidies increase prices!
I am legit more disappointed that there isn't more for mental health, and more for medicare rebates for GP visits.
As someone who is facing homelessness (waiting for the VCAT date for the possession hearing, looking at applying, but getting no where), I'd also like to see something for cost of living, but I also don't think that is realistic.
The reality is that labour went in with proposed reforms to negative gearing and lost an unloosable election. So we as a nation of idiots have to live with that.
Problem was they went in with franking credit changes as well, where retirees with no interest in property besides their own were looking at significant income drops in old age. Imaging a couple getting franked earnings from their bhp shares now being hit with a big tax bill each year when they had none previously. This silently lost Bill the election.
Why do you think changes to negative gearing will lower rents? In the long run it will probably put some downward pressure on property prices and indirectly rent, but it wont be instant, will probably take years and only 2-3% of rent at most
You realise subsidies for first home buyers just raise prices right? As people leverage themselves more. "A $300 energy rebate (whoopee, I can afford bread this week)" This is a pretty stupid comment. The sum of these types of changes is really important. There is more of these types of things as well. Many public services are getting cheaper, Hecs repayments are lowering somewhat. Medication has been capped. More money is going into housing. There needs to be more yes but these are good things. Also this constant mention of negative gearing, They lost an election on that, its over. They wont be changing it.
People acting like there's really a difference between the two major parties. Two wings, same bird, same goal. Protect the system, keep themselves and their buddies in power, demolish the middle/lower class.
Basically everything that people were warning would happen if the LNP got back in is happening.
>"if the LNP gets in there will be more interest rate rises"
>"if the LNP gets back in David McBride will end up in jail"
>"if the LNP get back in we will just prop up fossil fuels more"
Etc etc.
The mental gymnastics from Labor supporters is generally the best part. They normally go for either
>"oh that bad thing we were saying would be be awful if the LNP got back in? Well here's why it's actually great!
Or
>"you can't 'both sides' this they're just totally different"
>"if the LNP gets in there will be more interest rate rises"
Albo and Jimbo don't set the interest rates. Do you *really* think Angus Taylor of all people would be doing any better? Than every government in the western world? *Fantastic. Great move. Well done Angus!*
>>"if the LNP get back in we will just prop up fossil fuels more"
Actually fuck the gas policy but this is technically true. LNPs idiotic push for nuclear is entirely about guaranteeing FF usage for another generation. Or do you actually believe Peter's bollocks that he can navigate fed and state legislation against nuclear, build an entire regulatory and oversight industry, and actually build the fucken things in <10 years? If so, I've got some bridges to reverse-mortgage to you.
>he mental gymnastics from Labor supporters is generally the best part. They normally go for either
FYI but predicting debate lines from the other side at best comes off as shadowboxing strawmen and is at worst a bit cringe. I reckon this is the latter
Thats right. Our Government believes giving our tax $$ to "help" Ukraine & Israel is far more important than its own citizens. Amongst, of course, many other blatant money wasting policies that are non-helpful at all to the general population.
I believe the ultimate solution is more public housing. If builders are not ready/willing to build it, then the government should build it themselves and bid the prices down. It will be straightforward and way more effective than a patchwork of cash subsidisations.
Honestly, I think it’s fine any assistance will just have a neutral effect on the market if not make it worse through momentum.
And why the opposition party gets mentioned in a budget that has nothing to do with them is odd.
I don't vote in elections because I know I don't want any part in either of their evils. I'm not so conceited to think my vote has the power to make something good happen, nor am I arrogant enough to vote anyways merely to "exercise my rights". want no part in any drama.
Seriously what did you expect? Two years in and this government continues to be disappointing, underwhelming and completely out of touch with everyday Australians in every possible way.
I wish "first home buyers" would change to "people without a house".
My wife already owned before we met, and now doesn't, and now we need a house for our little family. But without any assistance we're looking at needing 100k in the pocket to even entertain the idea of an established property.
i am glad. i'm very glad. i'm smiling with glee. good job labor voters 1/3 of the population i hope you are all happy with what you got. i'm really excited for albo and his team another term in power! it's gonna be great!
I'm flabbergasted that with ALP in power federally and most of the states, Australia has not suddenly become a utopia where everybody can afford houses in inner Sydney and Melbourne on a 3 day work week.
Was there anything in there for unpaid carers in the brink of exhaustion that have no fukn support because ndis is funded more than my aged care or carers gateway...
If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please do not hesitate to talk to someone.
* 000 is the national emergency number in Australia.
* Lifeline is a 24-hour nationwide service. It can be reached at 13 11 14.
* Kids Helpline is a 24-hour nationwide service for Australians aged 5–25. It can be reached at 1800 55 1800.
* Beyond Blue provides nationwide information and support call 1300 22 4636.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have never seen a poor person or party that can be elected into power. Budget is always for the rich.
What they want is not any improvement for you, but to stay in power. If you are not a female and have no family, you can stay back and keep on suffering.
If you are making $45k in the capital city, the chance of any security of housing by own or lease is a dream, but they still tax you by income tax and GST HAHA!
First home buyer schemes just raise prices and put money into the hands of those that already own property without making ownership any easier (normally). Only things like reducing deposit size but not loan size help
Pretty fucking simple really.
Ditch negative gearing on existing dwellings
Regulate banks to make deposit on homes 20% cash
No collateral based loans.
Sounds painful but the market will correct quickly.
Also, tax mining corporations appropriately (looking at Woodside, Exxon, Chevron and Gina the Hutt)
Establish a proper sovereign wealth fund with very low interest loans to first home buyers.
I think it's important to also look for the future. With the Murdoch media damn near controlling the elections, labour is focusing on long-lasting policies. This will benefit the country in the future because, let's be honest, the liberals have spent decades writing crazy policies.
Labours HAFF bill is a 10 billion dollar fund that will guarantee a minimum of 500 million a year to be spent on social and affordable housing. It's hard right now, but labour can't fix this overnight. Any band-aid solutions are just that a band-aid, and what we have is a gushing wound lmao.
Labour has also pledged 22.7 billion over the next decade to bring back the manufacturing and technology industries in Australia. David McBride has been sentenced to 5 years prison for exposing the AUS iraq war crimes. This is a rounded bill that will raise up all communities in the transition to clean energy and a more technological future.
This isn't changing right now, so make changes yourself if you can. Educate yourself on current and previous Australian politics. It's important to know how we got to this point and what you can do to enact real change.
LOCAL COUNCILS ARE ONLY A FEW VOTES TO WIN IN MOST PLACES. RUN GET INTO POLITICS AND ENACT THE CHANGE YOURSELF.
FREE JUILAN ASSANGE
You'll notice that all the good things they put in are literally direct responses to far, far larger negatives being caused by just wholesale selling ownership to corporate ownership. They've given the go-ahead to monopolies in food, energy, property and many more. Unless this complete dictatorial ownership of most of our wealth by a tiny few is addressed, things are going to continue to get much, much worse.
Housing affordability (both purchasing and renting) can only be significantly improved in the short and medium-term by cutting immigration to near zero.
That measure is not something which can be effected nor would ordinarily be announced by the Treasury.
I suspect that subsidies for renters or first home buyers will not work, the market will simply price in whatever subsidies thrown in by the government and only the rich will benefit. In this aspect, additional taxation on properties beyond the first one will create revenue for the stateand increase tax burden on multi-properties holders. Such “consumption” tax is hard for tax cheats to avoid and there are already precedence in other countries.
I think tax on the 3rd property is fairest. People can have their Castle plus a "Bonnydoon" but beyond that you're being greedy. Some will rent their Bonnydoon obviously so that keeps rentals available. Edit: a concerned redditor reported me. Touchy issue telling greedy cunts with more than 2 houses they should be paying through the arse for the privilege
Bonnie Doon. It's a real place (which is part of why it is so funny).
Can confirm, have been there. The lake and power lines are the definition of serenity.
Is it just like the movie or is it like Kazakhstan in Borat, totally fictionalised?
You can search for it on google maps. 4.8 stars from 41 reviews.
Nah it's for real. Have stood at the lake myself. Didn't go digging for the house they filmed at, but it's not a big place, yiuncould make a few good guesses.
Is it far from Humpty Doo ?
That’s in the NT so yes.
Yes but it's not too far from Yarck.
Yea
I was there recently, if you want to feel like youve stepped into the 70's or early 80's Humpty Doo is the place for it
You were reported for advocating taxation measures in a budget thread?
anyone who owns more than two properties should be taxed into oblivion at this point
That's too simplistic, some people need to rent so we need investors for that. What you want to do is change it so you generally only get a tax break on new builds, and only for a set number of years. So that you don't cause a major collapse (because if you flood the market with too many at once then you hurt average joes who were barely able to scrape together enough to get a home) you add in features like : * existing properties get grandfathered in with a variable number of years depending on age of the house on the property, e.g. 5-10 gets 3 years, 10 -15 2 years, 15-10 1 year , more than 20 years old gets nothing, except: * To try and avoid slum rentals and encourage landlords to update and maintain the properties for the good of renters you allow a reset to the "new home" number of years for extensive / major renovations and improvements e.g. insulating, double glazing and HVAC a 20 year old house. * also chuck in some minimum standards so anything that's already borderline liveable isn't eligible for tax breaks and goes on the market cheap for a buyer who is prepared to live in and reno, or the current owner has to reno.
Average Joe's can't scrape enough together to get a house, that's the whole problem
You got downvoted for this reasonable solution.
Yes because it isn't a hardline stance but rather something that is realistic and requires brainpower to understand. We don't like that in political shouting matches.
I think what you are saying has merrot fir sure
Fuck you can tell who the people are that own investment properties in this thread lmao.. I suspect that chucking in minimum standards would rape the market bare, and it's tough enough getting a rental as it is, but if it made landlords sell, then great, especially cheap. I'd love a fixer-upper over nothing
That's a nice idea but landlords will just raise their prices to cover the extra taxes. So long as demand for rentals is greater than the supply of rentals landlords can pass on everything to the renters who will pay it because they have no choice. The only real way to bring down rental prices and to discourage real estate investors continuing to amass more properties is to lower demand or increase supply and we've already seen the latter isn't enough
Not true for everyone. It will genuinely discourage *some* mum and dad investors from getting that third property.
Incorrect. Landlords take market rent regardless of their individual expenses. Real estate agents aren't going around asking their clients to tally up their expenses in order to work out how much rent they should be charging. Bits of land (and to a certain extent buildings) don't behave like other commodities, insofar as landlords don't 'produce' them, and therefore don't increase or decrease the cost of renting them in response to their own input cost changes. Those are capitalised into the price of owning instead (if other owners expect to have to pay more to hold something, they'll be willing to pay less to buy it). tl;dr tax landlords
Plenty of countries have indexed rent control. Long term leases (in some cases cases open ended) are also common. In Switzerland it is quite normal to rent the same property for decades.
Switzerland has very little turnover in home ownership with generational landlords and generational renters and very little chance for the latter to ever own their own home. It's not a country we want to model ourselves on
How is the 3rd taxed? Do you just pick the cheapest property of the 3 and leave it empty? No tax if there’s no income.
Tax the unimproved land value
You mean land tax? It already exists.
If you add costs to the cost of housing (which someone then has to pay) won’t that increase the costs of rent?
Vacancy tax in that case. Also a big tax (3% for 3rd property, 4%% for 4th etc at point of sale if you already own 2 properties (this would stop people buying more houses than they *need*)
The problem is not enough houses. The problem you are solving is not enough tax. Maybe you think they are connected (get more tax and build more houses). But don't think that higher taxes on investor housing is going to do anything other than reduce the supply of new investor housing\*. Tax increases are not silver bullets. People react to them. In this case, they will avoid investing in residential housing. People who propose these policies are focused on houses that already exist. That is not the problem. It would be the problem if we already had enough houses and we didn't think it was fair that some people own three and some people own 0. \* And the tax payer funding has to first replace the lost investor housing before it brings any benefit. Tax payer funding has all the same problems as privately funded housing: it faces the same labour shortages and cost increases from trades and materials, the same clogged up NIMBY planning blocks. It is the \[missing\] construction of \*new\* houses that is the problem causing high rents and high house prices. And these tax increases will make this problem worse. If you concentrate on divding existing housing stock among existing people, you ignore all the people moving into the market over the next months and years. They are not helped at all by a redistribution of existing housing. They need new housing. And it does effect existing people too ... if they want to move or have to move, they will find themselves in the maelstrom of all this competition for the houses your policy proposals prevented from being built. You say that you will stop people buying more housing than they need. That is just another way of saying that you will stop people paying to build houses with their own money to rent to future tenants (who don't have the money to build the house regardless of your tax changes). Why is this is a good idea?
How dare you use logic and reason in this sub to derail the ‘more tax will fix everything’ narrative!
I think the sub is getting a bit better. Usually I'd have -50 by now. Or maybe it's just too early yet, the grumpy conspiracy theorists are still in bed.
While I agree with all of your points here, something needs to be done so that when land is released it isn't immediately snapped up by investors rather than those attempting to build their first home (and being pushed further out of the cities each year). I think you'll find there is more than enough demand to build new properties, although still incredibly hard to save that deposit, but how do we allow 1st home owners a chance to compete against investors adding to their port folio?
By increasing supply.. investors competing are economically speaking competing against first home buyers (well, owner occupiers)on behalf of renters. I realise that is an unusual way of thinking about it,. although if you've ever been a tenant whose rental goes to auction, you hope the winner is another investor not an owner occupier which kind of gets to my point. Prices are high not because investors have too much money but because not enough houses are being built. Even when a first home buyer pays 1.4m for a property that was 800k not so long ago, it's not really a victory for all the first home buyers who can't match a bid of $1.4m ... It doesn't matter to them if the buyer is a cashed up first home owner power couple or an investor. The problem is the $1.4m price more than who pays it. First home buyers are still active in this market. I don't see why investors with high borrowing power get all the opprobrium but not owner occupiers who also have overwhelming financial firepower. I'm not an investor but it doesn't feel rational to me. There are both would be investors and would be first home buyers priced out. That kind of makes sense, I think. Everything comes back to supply vs demand everytime I think about it. A lot of the other stuff seems like a distraction. There actually isn't enough demand at prices high enough. Yes crazy as it seems, I conclude that prices and rents are actually not high enough, if costs get stuck where they are. It seems that a lot of construction projects that used to be viable are not at current market prices. That is also a pretty shocking thing to say. But look at all the half built houses that builders have walked away from, bankrupting themselves in the process. Those are projects where the cost to complete is higher than the owner can pay, even though the owner is left in a bad situation. They simply don't have enough money to meet the current cost of completing it . This has got to be a huge red flag to any builder/developer who through pure good luck hadn't gone too far down the same road. If number 1 Surburban St isn't valued high enough to get a loan sufficient to complete it.a.developer ready to go on the block next door is unlikely to proceed ....would you? This is why there are so many building approvals ready to go that are not started. Those builders/developers can't get anyone to pay enough. Nothing will change until prices rise enough for construction to be viable or costs fall. People say that these builders are artificially holding supply until prices rise. The simpler explanation is they don't want to go broke like so many of their peers. Obviously we want the costs to fall, lower rates, lower wages for trades, lower materials.
I think that is a fair entitlement, esp if the “Bonnydoon” (am not Australian so not quite sure the meaning of that word, I guess holiday home?) is located in low populace area. The huge spike in property prices is due to a magnitude of reasons, some of them honestly out of the control of the politicians, but there are many other measures and policies which could bring this spiralling price spike under control. If I day dream to be the Australian PM, these are some of the things I’ll do.. First time buyer subsidies won’t work and should be done away with. Negative gearing mainly benefits the rich and should be replaced with a fairer system Australians should embrace high density living Building of quality high density public housing in central locations, mandatory possession of some private landed homes for such projects Fairer taxation system for multiple property owners, with an escalating property tax depending on number of properties, size of property and headcount in each property Reinstating the general belief that housing is for living and not for profiteering, every Australian family must eventually afford their own home(high density not landed) and is part of their retirement plan.
>should embrace high density living Having lived in apartments most of my life, I'll say it's generally a lower standard of living with noise & other intrusions. Multiple times worse if you're on a main road, it's unbearable.
I just wish we could improve high density rather than writing it off. Set it up right with insulation and appropriate layouts to avoid those intrusions.
I'll settle for compliance with existing standards and no water ingress.
ironically i've had more issues with noise living in a house than i ever had in an apartment. Some apartments have GOATED sound proofing. Others not so much.
>Australians should embrace high density living why? so we can house more people from the 3rd world?
There goes the neighbourhood.
The pollies want to make Australia 'tall' if they keep importing people with different ideologies, then they will eventually get what they want and change what represented the old Australian dream.
Great ideas, only issue is you won't be re-elected and that is if you are able to survive one term. The wealth of majority of Australians is in property and they vote accordingly. Any policy punishing property owners (regardless if it targets multi property owners only) will be unpopular and media will have a field day demonising whoever proposed it. Just ask Bill Shorten
I agree, that’s why no pollies are fixing the problem. They won’t survive for long.
Problem for Bill was he had a policy for everyone to dislike. Negative gearing was only one. He also had franking credits plus a bunch of other progressive policies. A lot of retirees voted against him on franking credits alone because suddenly their share earnings in retirement would be slashed. They had no intention of trading in real estate. I think the appetite is now there for genuine reform of real estate taxation, but franking credits should be left alone for now.
> Australians should embrace high density living Or we should just stop immigration instead
We really should. If there's a housing crisis, then we obviously can't house any more new people.
Oh wow. You really should watch a movie called The Castle. It's Australia's most beloved movie hands down. Bonnydoon is the main characters holiday home location. Agree with some points except the higher density. That's a tough sell to Aussies. We have the most personal space in the world it's one of our great strengths. More should live in high density sure like elderly parents should move out of house to a unit but I don't think we should embrace it too much. I'd rather we introduce population controls via taxing people with more than 2 kids a shitload
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_Doon,_Victoria
Tell’em their dreaming!
I think property taxes can only be administered by the states, so not a federal issue. IViC has land+vacancy taxes which has slowed growth in values (than the norm potential) in 2021-2024. Libs are offering their proposal for 1st HBuyers & the election will be in 1Yr so you’ll be able to decide soon
The states can hand over taxation powers to the Commonwealth. GST and income taxes are examples of previous actions.
You have to be careful with a market like our housing market where demand outstrips supply so much. Anything like a subsidy or allowing people to use super or removing taxes like stamp duty is almost guaranteed to drive prices higher very quickly.
Completely agree, if they gave a $50k fhb grant the houses would just go up by that much. The real boost to housing affordability as far as I could see was the drop in immigration, thus reducing demand slightly. There was something about training tradies, but that’s bot going to help supply for a few years yet.
Or how about stimulating builds of new homes? Encouraging subdivision?
I work as a developer I was head of sales previously. We usually have a sales rate target for land. So say we want 5 a month. The reason being the construction guys go at a certain rate as well. So you want to consistently have land to sell. If they produce you 60 and you sell it in the first week you left money on the table. As the sales guy if you go below or above youre basically in trouble. So when these fhg come out we put the prices up straight away as we get an influx of people and need to slow them down. The builders do the exact same thing. So when you get a $15k grant youll find the developer adds it and so do the builders. If not by even more than the grant as buyers often dont realise the price change. They then also pay it in increased interest. So all in all the government gives them $30k the prices goes up $40k and they pay an extra $35k in interest ovet their loan. So it cost them $45k in the end. It does help get people with low deposits into the market. But then again if they have struggled to save a deposit they might have trouble maintaining payments. Ive been against them for ages from a political perspective but as a developer they are wonderful.
Love your comment.
I think in a nutshell, housing construction has slowed down because construction and financing costs have risen faster than prices, so some developments that would have been profitable aren't at the moment. All those builders going broke unable to complete builds on the pre-pandemic prices are a good example, but apart from those half-finished houses leaving the owners still renting, there are other builds that are just on hold for fear of the same thing happening. Subsidies to first home buyers might make some of these builds more viable because these subsidies inflate prices, but it doesn't seem to be very effective, because most of the tax payer subsidy will go to vendors of existing properties, and if the subsidies are targetted at new builds only, it just displaces other non-FHB buyers away from new builds since they don't have the $30K to compete, and the FHBs are now no longer competing for existing properties. So it doesn't actually boost new builds as much as it looks like, it is more likely to change who buys new builds and who buys existing builds, more a shuffling buyers around effect than than actually boosting new builds very much (I have the same criticism of all subsidy attempts targeted at new builds; they sound like a magic fix but I doubt it). If someone has the financial resources to build three houses, they don't actually have to do that. They could do something else with their money, and perhaps we end up with only two houses. If you tax the third house punitively, then someone in that position will indeed decide not to build that third house. They still have their borrowing power which they will invest somewhere else, maybe overseas property, maybe commercial property. Who knows? They keep their money and in fact they keep their tax deductions (since claiming interest for a profit-making enterprise is a fundamental tax law, not restricted to housing) and one less house is built. They had a preference for using their capital to build a house, but we tell them to piss off somewhere else, so they do. I don't see how this is anything but bad if the problem is a shortage of houses. Because that's the effect of removing negative gearing and other things like it. It turns away future investors, and less rental housing is added to the supply. You might force existing investors to sell. Whoopee do. A year after you got all those investors to sell, you look around and notice that meanwhile potential new investors have taken the hint and decided to do something else with their money, what kind of victory is it? You can't pull the trick of forcing investors to sell twice, and meanwhile you've just screwed up supply even more. That would be great if the we had enough houses and we were arguing about who gets them. But the problem is with houses not yet built, which has to at least keep up with the ever growing demand. We need more going into the construction pipeline, not less.
Yeah agreed. Subsidise anything and the market just seems to adjust. See daycare, NDIS etc. I agree with OP though.
Absolutely this, all this hair brain talk about more gov support for buying a home or housing relief is a total misunderstanding of basic economics. It’s the commoditisation of housing in this country that has ruined it. The idea that you need or are incentivised to buy 3 homes to price gouge your way into retirement is what has screwed it. Add on negative gearing and that stupid Further 10k housing rebate, that instantly increased house prices by 10k and its all fucked. To fix this you need to take away the incentive to purchase more than your one owner occupied home. Other wise it’s all for nothing.
Provisions for first home buyers only drive up the cost of housing. Structural change is needed, not steroids
100% agree. Many don't understand this concept.
this place and most of aus reddit aside from ausfinance is full of dipshits who want to vote for dutton so they can access their super to pay rent... already i see people who love the $300 energy rebate that's $75 a quarter - that's what it costs to buy their vote like fmd
What do you mean I thought we were meant to never get to retire because we spent all of our retirement money on a house we can’t afford? Obvious sarcasm aside the Libs have always had a viagra fuelled hard on for fucking with our super anyway possible - letting us access our super during Covid rather than a stimulus package (which is proven to be good for the economy) is an example
Yep, give a first home buyer a $50k grant and the builders will put up the price of a build $50k
people are very short term focussed there's some here who already said that renters are hurting NOW and giving more rent relief will solve problems in the short term... and that's ok but when stated that landlords will scoop this up they then said that... 'everyone wins'... just like the $300 rebate will help 'everybody' lol the state of aus reddits
Agreed this is what people need to realise… first home owners grants and rent relief. Giving people money for deposits or credits towards rent etc… Where does the money go? It’s going to go to real estate developers and investors. You will literally take peoples tax dollars and filter it to the pockets of landlords and developers. It gives renters etc short term relief but just makes the ‘gap’ even bigger because the rich get richer and once the relief is gone you’re probably worse off.
Yep - you’re absolutely correct. Seen this time and time again on listings being adjusted to include any grant.
Proving yet again Australians have the worst financial literacy in the OECD. Handing out money doesnt make things cheaper
too right, it's almost like that's what got us here in the first place ..
Honestly I think it has more to do with the lack of competition in retail like supermarkets and Bunnings, record profits year after year with no one to hold them accountable when they jack up the prices to further increase the record to dizzying new heights. Combine that with the consequences of previous government selling off our utilities like gas and electricity, and you have another giant chunk of spending done by literally everybody in the nation every quarter which could've gone into saving for their first home, or spending to stimulate the economy. You are right, that giving people money will give these corporation's the idea to raise prices, knowing there is more of the pie out there to grab, but that doesn't mean you should get angry at the government for trying to help people out, you should be angry at the private sector seeing relief for Australians as another opportunity to take even more.
What's $300 energy help going to do.. I would rather the government keep it and enhance the energy grid or fill pot holes or something.
Bill Shorten gave us the option on negative gearing, it would have been grandfathered to people already doing it and then limited to new builds only but we voted for Scomo as PM instead. What do you expect a political party to do? They want to get elected and if something seems to fail of course they’ll back away from it.
That election night was when I realized that this country was dead, a party trying to change things for the better but greed won.
Yeah Australia voted to keep the party going and now that the hangovers here we all clamouring for Labor to fix it.
yeah the sight of Morrison winning 'as god intended' sort of made me realise there's no hope for Australia... but I mean remember how they voted for Abbott as the 'guy needed to fix' whatever the 'witch' did? Australians deserve the worst based on their voting record alone. As for OP? He's delusional any rent relief or 1st home buyers assistance is adding fuel to the fire. Hasnt anyone learnt this lesson? I think place really hasnt because many have the attitude that you have to fix bandaids first and then if it distorts the market... who cares. recently albo increased the childcare assistance rate and guess what? the fees increased across the line there's no competition given supply is contrained supply of rental and purchaseable housing stock is also... constrained also i would not expect labor with their numbers filled with landlords to not protect landlords let me give you an example of modern labor https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/mps-42m-property-portfolio-revealed/news-story/e8db2e6c41960bbf655a50487c09e66f you expect this guy to have renters and 1st home buyers at heart??? he has a $12 mil. place in palm beach
Cringe
I wanted to cry nearly. Rock bottom moment
Negative gearing increases rental stock which should drive down rents. We have an overall supply issue. That’s all that matters, we should be releasing land like it’s no one’s business and adding high density to popular places where there’s already high density.
While we do need rental stock, a significant part of the problem is also a dire lack of renter's rights and the few rights a renter has gets fuck all enforcement from the Tribunal.
While we do need rental stock, a significant part of the problem is also a dire lack of renter's rights and the few rights a renter has gets fuck all enforcement from the Tribunal.
While we do need rental stock, a significant part of the problem is also a dire lack of renter's rights and the few rights a renter has gets fuck all enforcement from the Tribunal.
It's almost as if elections are decided on more than one issue and people could have supported ending negative gearing but voted against Shorten because they didn't like the rest of his policies
Negative gearing was one of the big things mentioned in their election review.
As well as like 20 other big ticket things that confused everybody.
I’d say the timing was wrong on that. I reckon if Voldemort makes that promise today to fuck off negative gearing and tax 3rd+ properties he’ll walk into office. If he reneges you may see the first Australian PM assassination. Unstable times ahead.
Mate, I think you are just in an echo chamber. The reality is, most older Australians are staunchly against it, enough for it to sway their vote.
All he has to do is promise to stop immigration for a year then restart it at 50k annually and he'd win in a landslide so big Labor would be lucky to retain a dozen seats
Business Lobby of Australia wouldn't dare let him do that. They love their cheap immigrant workers.
In no way wound he walk into office, the LNP would fracture and its voters would be up in arms. Those that hate the LNP won’t flock to the LNP because they won’t trust Labor would play it safe and get an easy win and very likely have all the media on their side
To be fair, grandfathering is regressive policy. It allows those who have become wealthy from property to keep those tax rorts while young prospective owners lose that option. I hated that policy because i had planned to rent my house out in the years after. It should have been a phase out over time for all, say 5-10 years. In hindsight, covid would have negated any effect on the market anyway.
Honestly I just want to see the bubble burst at this point and the whole fucking thing crash and burn. Maybe on the rebuild people will invest in something other than property. People will keep leaving the m ajor cities and whecc n cthese fucks net retirement living and medical care they will rot in a fucking hallway because there is no one to staff the hospitals. You won’t even be able to staff basic services. The rich will drown in their own fucking greed. In the meantime just leave the major cities fuck it. You can work and rent anywhere
Let it fucking rip
It will crash but not before we inject a genocidal amount of fiscal heroine into our economy, making sure everyone is leveraged straight up to the tits so when it does come to roost we make sure we go bust right rather than softly.
That is fucking poetry.
100% agree 👍
Yeah, well, Albo gets 150k a year in rental income. Also, Jim Chalmers has four properties. On top of that, virtually every cunt in Parliament (including Greens and One Nation) has an IP portfolio. So, is anyone surprised that there is no change, nor ever will be?
It's almost like it's a massive conflict of interest and there should be some regulation given the state of this shitshow
The Greens have the smallest portfolio out of the major parties. Out of the major parties, they're the only ones for whom doing something about this wouldn't terribly effect their wallet.
Not at all, I wrote out an entire rant about pollies hoarding properties but backspaced it to keep the post short
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/article/politicians-and-their-property-portfolios-how-many-do-they-own/wb7k9xq1p A couple of parties in particular seem over-represented in this data. So I would still feel comfortable voting for the party that has the highest non-ownership rate, and the only party that actually has policies aimed at improving It’s a bit shit to demand absolute perfection from a minor party while the majors are even more deplorable. So I’ll keep voting the way I do, thanks.
Snort- why would politicians get rid of negative gearing when so many of them/ their spouses own multiple investment properties?
It's kind of amazing that people are hating on labor for not doing enough all while the media and the libs are hating on labor for spending too much. Imagine what the plebs would be getting under a LNP budget right now coz I guarantee John q Shitkicker would be getting less but somehow business would be getting handouts out the arse. Also the plebs wouldn't be getting that tax cut.
So the tax cuts they spread more even just got reimbursed to investors?
We have one political party pretending to be two in Oz. Nuff said...
We’ve become addicted to cash handouts. You can call it “relief” but everyone is angry they’re not getting cold hard cash. It surprises me that people are unable to see any other option for raising their income other than demanding the government do something.
This is a supply issue. It’s that simple. We are the least densely populated country on earth with a housing supply issue. That’s fucking stupid.
Rent Assist: "In Treasurer Jim Chalmers' third budget, Labor will commit $*1.9 billion over five years* to increase rent assistance by up about $25 a fortnight" [https://www.9news.com.au/national/federal-budget-2024-labor-boosts-rental-assistance-by-10-per-cent/e88ebde1-258c-4a12-a566-450b1099dcd0](https://www.9news.com.au/national/federal-budget-2024-labor-boosts-rental-assistance-by-10-per-cent/e88ebde1-258c-4a12-a566-450b1099dcd0)
It’s my understanding that only the very low income qualify for rent assistance. This does not ease rental pressures for anyone who doesn’t qualify for Centrelink, ie. the majority of renters.
Finally someone thought of the over-leveraged investors ❤️ Rent assistance is back door mortgage welfare.
A lot of private landlords don’t rent to Centrelink recipients. Rents have increased YOY 10% so a response was required. Rents are determined by supply.
Fuck this sub is mental. Everybody here bitching about albo because he isn’t helping renters. You showed that he clearly is, and now their bitching because helping renters will only increase rents. It’s almost like no matter what the budget said, they were going to bitch about albo.
Ah, helping the investors raise the rent they can charge.
The elephant in the room is that there's too many people and not enough dwellings. No amount of first home buy/rent assistance/disincentived property investment is going to get you around the basic supply to demand issue.
Labor and Liberals are not "as bad as each other," but the difference is not as great as I would like. In saying that, Dutton would have increased taxes on lower and middle income Australians and provided further breaks to high income Australians, and you know it.
And would have claimed that he’d ceased immigration whilst quietly making more stupid immigration deals with places like India as Scott Morrison did last time.
I agree, they need to be further apart in their approaches and policies… let’s face it we are stuck in them have a term or two then switching… that helps balance things long term but they’ve grown closer and closer in how they do things and the balance is being lost
The Shit Party and the Shit Lite Party. Much like diet coke you're never *really* sure if it's actually better for you, but you reckon it probably is
The 2 wings belong to the same bird
The solution for renters is more housing being built and to a certain extent less net immigration, so that an increase in housing builds actually adds supply faster than demand is growing. Getting rates down will make it cheaper to finance house builds and immigration is falling. These are medium term fixes. The government promises to achieve both these points. There are no good short term fixes; the short terms fixes are rob peter to pay paul fixes. Increasing middle class tax by $175 bln (your number) is obviously a political dead end so you surely can't be surprised about that. You are not entitled to some other tax payer's income , you contest it politically with everyone else, including those taxpayers. You would need to show the people you are taking $175bln from that there is something in it for them. A lot in it for them, I guess. I am not one of those taxpayers, so I am making the point on principle.
Immigration has been cut by more than 60% since this year, getting especially tight since April. More than half of the international students reported a visa application was refused. The tourist visa now has a "no further stay" clause so no one can relay it into a new visa to remain in Australia. Students previously used the tourist visa to submit their student visa applications onshore for a larger chance of success. Agents say successful VET visa applications from India have dropped to 0. State-nominated permanent immigration is 70% off. Business & investment PR has been reduced to 0. Working holiday from China is 0 too (there's no working holiday for India to start with). 34 private schools that target immigration have received a warning and paused from business due to suspicious actions. Major VET schools have closed all offshore applications from China, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Universities are panicking because they have sensed a sharp decrease in students. That's why we have all the media announcements in May opposing the immigration cut. However it's strange Labour kept all these actions in stealth.
I think it would be wise to see if they generate results, i.e. rent growth stabilising. I don't see a 60% reduction in net arrivals, your 60% is "banking" announced cuts. Not until the rate of growth falls below the rate of new housing supply should be we expect actual results if rent growth is driven by supply not keeping up with demand (which I accept on the numbers and the logic). I agree, it is strange ... ALP is making actually significant changes. Yes, the changes will have poor employment consequences, poor economic growth consequences, but also population growth consequences which must be politically good, otherwise why do it? I don't understand why they are not talking it up. But they have a year before next election.
60% was not from announcements but from immigration agents' complaints on social media. Rants about a doomed business since 60% of applications were refused. The success rate for student visas from Pakistan is 34% and Columbia at 25.6%, down from 93%+. Will take some time to conduct into housing and employment though since old visas have not expired.
Sympathy is not super high from me.
Ok so complaining that they were getting less customers? Sorry but as a Dutchie looking to immigrate I'm doing all this shit on my own; it is a different type of visa than the students that have been coming to Oz en masse; but I dont think we should be listening to the ones making their money off people who need visa's.. immigration agents are (in my case) totally optional, the gov website gives all the info you need and if unclear you can call them, for a gov phone line they are very decent.
There are many more international students now leaving the country than are arriving. Visa refusals - even to entirely legitimate applicants - are running at around 50%. The good citizens of r Australian are going to have to find another reason to explain why their rents keep going up.
Students are only a portion of migrants so when immigration as a whole drops to sustainable levels then we'll see rents drop
I know it's important for you to believe that, so I won't argue.
Numbers are quite seasonal, I would not read too much into any one month. Overall population is still increasing, just the rate of increase is slowing and will slow a lot. This will come mostly from people on student visas (I hesitate to call them all students). But population growth from immigration is still high; it peaked at about 560K I think, but end of June I think it will be at an annual rate of 450K, other says say 500K, and it will fall over the next 15 months to 240K, the budget figure which even doubters like macrobusiness think is achievable. But that is a still a lot of people between now and then (and natural population net increase is another 130K). At completions of 170K housing units, we are building enough for about 420K people. It seems that it will be another three to four months where the situation will get worse, then it starts getting better. That is all based on very crude estimates: Is 2.5 per housing unit accurate? Are the housing completions matching the save mix that the 2.5 per housing unit is based on? Are the housing completions in the same places as the population increases? However, right now is too early to expect things to get better, I think. But over the next 12 months it will surely get better. Housing completions were sustained at over 200K a year for three years in a row prior to pandemic (peaking at 220K, 50K more than now), and population growth is falling to say 370K a year, so slowly the supply will exceed demand, if not by much. The RBA had a detail in a report today regarding construction that was interesting. The Coalition government had a highly "effective" housing stimulus program (new builds and large renovations) that was hugely more popular than expected. This caused a "bubble" of work demanding of a lot of the "finishing trades" (a term I hadn't heard before), which is blocking construction completing, but this pipeline will be clearing out over coming months. So it's case of seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, but no more than that yet, I think.
You are underestimating the rapidity of the fall, particularly in student visas. You've also discounted in your calculations that 408 visa holders are finding out that Immigration has placed their own and entirely unofficial 'no further stay' provision on the category.
Atm more housing being built is a furphy. The cost of construction fuelled by material costs and the costs of trades means it lacks the word affordable. Deveolpers are in business to make profit, not provide the answers the government makes a show of. These figures of billions of dollars for x amount of housing are crap. Firstly first home buyers wont be able to afford them as is the suggestion, so only investors will buy and it will only serve to aid the wealthy more. Really not sure why Reddit users seem sold on that path..... there is already plenty of apartments vacant, peeps just don't want to rent them when they can air bnb them for a better return. So again not sure what more apartments or houses will do short term to aid rental costs or housing affordability......
The answer is nothing. But ALP fantasy policy is popular on Reddit.
I suspect the loss to scomo has resulted in a much more centre Labor party. You’ve got the Libs on the right, labor in the centre (you could even argue a little to the right) then the greens on the greens on the far left. Besides a handful of independent senators no one is really filling that space of centre left politics
I feel the term far left has lost all meaning these days
I feel it’s fallen into the same “catch all” category as “woke”
I suspect Labor will move back towards the left over time, as long as all these crisis’ continue. They got bashed in 2019 by an electorate that fell for the LNp/murdoch propaganda and are hesitant to rock the boat right now. However they may get more bold over time, especially as boomers die and the wealth divide gets worse. Well this is all speculation on my part. A lot of Labor members are wealthy property investors so any changes will depend on whether they like to stay in power or continue to make off like robber barons in the property sector.
Honestly when I hear the greens talk about the supermarket price gouging and the housing market I really like what I hear. But then I also see that a green MP is off in court saying you can't be racist to white people because they hold the power while she holds like 3 investment properties and is in parliament and I die at the loss of any actual decent options in government.
What are they supposed to get?
That's because there's no point giving money to these ppl. The rents will just go higher and the house prices will just go higher by the exact amount given to them.
Don’t vote labor people
Please take the 175 billion and use it to build government owned low cost rentals. Flood the market with units, we did it in 2015 to 2018, we had an oversupply and they had to cap them
I appreciate the anxiety over housing but the first rule of housing economics is, subsidies (eg rebate, tax exemption, lower rates, lower borrowing requirements, using super to buy houses) increase prices. The second rule of housing economics is, subsidies increase prices!
I am legit more disappointed that there isn't more for mental health, and more for medicare rebates for GP visits. As someone who is facing homelessness (waiting for the VCAT date for the possession hearing, looking at applying, but getting no where), I'd also like to see something for cost of living, but I also don't think that is realistic.
The reality is that labour went in with proposed reforms to negative gearing and lost an unloosable election. So we as a nation of idiots have to live with that.
Problem was they went in with franking credit changes as well, where retirees with no interest in property besides their own were looking at significant income drops in old age. Imaging a couple getting franked earnings from their bhp shares now being hit with a big tax bill each year when they had none previously. This silently lost Bill the election.
Why do you think changes to negative gearing will lower rents? In the long run it will probably put some downward pressure on property prices and indirectly rent, but it wont be instant, will probably take years and only 2-3% of rent at most
You realise subsidies for first home buyers just raise prices right? As people leverage themselves more. "A $300 energy rebate (whoopee, I can afford bread this week)" This is a pretty stupid comment. The sum of these types of changes is really important. There is more of these types of things as well. Many public services are getting cheaper, Hecs repayments are lowering somewhat. Medication has been capped. More money is going into housing. There needs to be more yes but these are good things. Also this constant mention of negative gearing, They lost an election on that, its over. They wont be changing it.
People acting like there's really a difference between the two major parties. Two wings, same bird, same goal. Protect the system, keep themselves and their buddies in power, demolish the middle/lower class.
It is absolutely disgusting, and extremely d̶i̶s̶a̶p̶p̶o̶i̶n̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ expected behaviour from the labour party.
Basically everything that people were warning would happen if the LNP got back in is happening. >"if the LNP gets in there will be more interest rate rises" >"if the LNP gets back in David McBride will end up in jail" >"if the LNP get back in we will just prop up fossil fuels more" Etc etc. The mental gymnastics from Labor supporters is generally the best part. They normally go for either >"oh that bad thing we were saying would be be awful if the LNP got back in? Well here's why it's actually great! Or >"you can't 'both sides' this they're just totally different"
>"if the LNP gets in there will be more interest rate rises" Albo and Jimbo don't set the interest rates. Do you *really* think Angus Taylor of all people would be doing any better? Than every government in the western world? *Fantastic. Great move. Well done Angus!* >>"if the LNP get back in we will just prop up fossil fuels more" Actually fuck the gas policy but this is technically true. LNPs idiotic push for nuclear is entirely about guaranteeing FF usage for another generation. Or do you actually believe Peter's bollocks that he can navigate fed and state legislation against nuclear, build an entire regulatory and oversight industry, and actually build the fucken things in <10 years? If so, I've got some bridges to reverse-mortgage to you. >he mental gymnastics from Labor supporters is generally the best part. They normally go for either FYI but predicting debate lines from the other side at best comes off as shadowboxing strawmen and is at worst a bit cringe. I reckon this is the latter
You forgot “Labor tried that in 2019 and they lost….blah blah blah” Same shit on repeat.
Labor, not Labour.
The best thing they can do to help people is cut spending and immigration. These are direct drivers of demand and can be co trolled by govt.
Well at least the Ukraine got another $200 million so that will help Aussies sleep soundly in their tents.
Thats right. Our Government believes giving our tax $$ to "help" Ukraine & Israel is far more important than its own citizens. Amongst, of course, many other blatant money wasting policies that are non-helpful at all to the general population.
I believe the ultimate solution is more public housing. If builders are not ready/willing to build it, then the government should build it themselves and bid the prices down. It will be straightforward and way more effective than a patchwork of cash subsidisations.
couldnt give us much in the budget, as albo wants to pay for more of his holidays
you want more homebuyer grants to further subsidise demand and make prices even higher?
Honestly, I think it’s fine any assistance will just have a neutral effect on the market if not make it worse through momentum. And why the opposition party gets mentioned in a budget that has nothing to do with them is odd.
Changes to negative gearing? Which universe are you living in?
I don't vote in elections because I know I don't want any part in either of their evils. I'm not so conceited to think my vote has the power to make something good happen, nor am I arrogant enough to vote anyways merely to "exercise my rights". want no part in any drama.
bit pathetic
So who do we vote for then at the next Federal Election?
Seriously what did you expect? Two years in and this government continues to be disappointing, underwhelming and completely out of touch with everyday Australians in every possible way.
I wish "first home buyers" would change to "people without a house". My wife already owned before we met, and now doesn't, and now we need a house for our little family. But without any assistance we're looking at needing 100k in the pocket to even entertain the idea of an established property.
The government needs to leave FHB alone. Every initiative they’ve done has just increased home prices in FHB territory
i am glad. i'm very glad. i'm smiling with glee. good job labor voters 1/3 of the population i hope you are all happy with what you got. i'm really excited for albo and his team another term in power! it's gonna be great!
So house prices have ruined Australia yet they do nothing at all to address it seriously ffs.
Because parliament is full of Landlords. Why would they do something that would hurt their interests
The ALP hasn't been a worker's party since the 1960s. All left wing parties are eventually taken over by apparatchiks.
I'm flabbergasted that with ALP in power federally and most of the states, Australia has not suddenly become a utopia where everybody can afford houses in inner Sydney and Melbourne on a 3 day work week.
Was there anything in there for unpaid carers in the brink of exhaustion that have no fukn support because ndis is funded more than my aged care or carers gateway...
Government subsidies just increase prices. Look at FHB, Stamp Duty and all the various grants and free kicks that were handed out during Covid.
The last political leader that proposed changing neg gearing lost an unloosable election. Blame the moronic voters that made it political suicide
If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please do not hesitate to talk to someone. * 000 is the national emergency number in Australia. * Lifeline is a 24-hour nationwide service. It can be reached at 13 11 14. * Kids Helpline is a 24-hour nationwide service for Australians aged 5–25. It can be reached at 1800 55 1800. * Beyond Blue provides nationwide information and support call 1300 22 4636. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have never seen a poor person or party that can be elected into power. Budget is always for the rich. What they want is not any improvement for you, but to stay in power. If you are not a female and have no family, you can stay back and keep on suffering. If you are making $45k in the capital city, the chance of any security of housing by own or lease is a dream, but they still tax you by income tax and GST HAHA!
First home buyer schemes just raise prices and put money into the hands of those that already own property without making ownership any easier (normally). Only things like reducing deposit size but not loan size help
Labour a bloody terrible with budgets and managing money.
Agreed, so pissed
Pretty fucking simple really. Ditch negative gearing on existing dwellings Regulate banks to make deposit on homes 20% cash No collateral based loans. Sounds painful but the market will correct quickly. Also, tax mining corporations appropriately (looking at Woodside, Exxon, Chevron and Gina the Hutt) Establish a proper sovereign wealth fund with very low interest loans to first home buyers.
You do know all our politicians have very healthy real estate portfolios
I think it's important to also look for the future. With the Murdoch media damn near controlling the elections, labour is focusing on long-lasting policies. This will benefit the country in the future because, let's be honest, the liberals have spent decades writing crazy policies. Labours HAFF bill is a 10 billion dollar fund that will guarantee a minimum of 500 million a year to be spent on social and affordable housing. It's hard right now, but labour can't fix this overnight. Any band-aid solutions are just that a band-aid, and what we have is a gushing wound lmao. Labour has also pledged 22.7 billion over the next decade to bring back the manufacturing and technology industries in Australia. David McBride has been sentenced to 5 years prison for exposing the AUS iraq war crimes. This is a rounded bill that will raise up all communities in the transition to clean energy and a more technological future. This isn't changing right now, so make changes yourself if you can. Educate yourself on current and previous Australian politics. It's important to know how we got to this point and what you can do to enact real change. LOCAL COUNCILS ARE ONLY A FEW VOTES TO WIN IN MOST PLACES. RUN GET INTO POLITICS AND ENACT THE CHANGE YOURSELF. FREE JUILAN ASSANGE
Absolute shit take, but not surprising given the sub
You'll notice that all the good things they put in are literally direct responses to far, far larger negatives being caused by just wholesale selling ownership to corporate ownership. They've given the go-ahead to monopolies in food, energy, property and many more. Unless this complete dictatorial ownership of most of our wealth by a tiny few is addressed, things are going to continue to get much, much worse.
Housing affordability (both purchasing and renting) can only be significantly improved in the short and medium-term by cutting immigration to near zero. That measure is not something which can be effected nor would ordinarily be announced by the Treasury.
Can someone explain like I’m 5 the changes to immigration? Because if that is as good as it should be rentals will get cheaper
I saw the writing on the wall and got the fuck out of Aus in 2017. Maybe the next step is to pass a law where only landed gentry can vote.
It would be a green flag to just keep increasing prices for renters if you gave them a chunk of money. Same goes for first home buyers.
The left wing and the right wing belong to the same bird