Just my two bobs worth on all this hoo-har lately from politicians crying crocodile tears about the affordability of housing. While the average young couple are finding it increasingly difficult to compete in the housing market, our politicians and vested interests are doing their very best to ensure the longevity of the three main causes.
1) Immigration; You can't artificially increase the population by large volumes and not have housing, infrastructure, resource and services issues. Of course not all our woes are due solely to immigration, but I'm betting it's playing a big enough role. All governments in this country are broke and have borrowed to the hilt trying to keep up, but it's become like a cat chasing its tail. We need to put a stop on immigration and cease this senseless grab for resources and profits by those who are making a killing in the housing and commercial sectors. Immigration served us well in the medium term post war, but it's been done to death over the past 30 years and must be wound back drastically, certainly until we have industry in place that can fund this artificial growth. It's obvious that artificial population growth is not necessarily self supporting.
2) Foreign investment in all housing; It makes no sense forcing our young home seekers to compete with overseas investors, no matter what type of dwelling, only to see them miss out due to the weight of foreign money. Then to add insult to injury, we often hear how these dwellings will sit unoccupied as foreign owners wait for a creep in values, then they sell and the cycle starts again, putting our young people further behind. If the millionaires living on harbour foreshores, waterways or prime high ground around the country want to cry about a shortage of local buyers, let them lower their expectations.
3) Negative gearing; There is no dodgy argument that can justify giving an advantage to anyone wanting to invest in a rental, over those seeking to buy a home to live in. Everyone over the age of 18 should be given the opportunity of a once only tax deductible house purchase in their lifetime, irrespective of how it will be used. If mums and dads want to invest further in the housing market, let them do it off their own bat without assistance. A system of this kind would no doubt encourage parents with extra cash to set their kids up, but in full knowledge that such a move would use up that child's one and only lifetime entitlement. Totally unlike what happens now where some parents with clever accountants are able to set their kids up with no penalty, then continue to accumulate and add to their portfolio, which ironically is propped up by taxpayers living in rentals. The system is stuffed. :kez_11::dash1:
Have to disagree about the tax deductability of a first house. Just like the first home owners grant all it will do is add to the initial buying price with a multiplier effect. Agree about the immigration as in my city over half the population seems to be recent migrants, same with my worksite. The infrastructure also cannot handle it, there are 4 stations that I regularly use that were all upgraded in the past 10 years and there isn't enough capacity on the stairs to handle the crush, on one of those stations they are about to finish the upgrade and I'm sure it still won't be enough as they are knocking down streets of older single family houses and putting in high rises that might have 20X the population.
Have to disagree with just about all of it, actually.
Australia is a nation of immigrants. EVERYBODY here is an immigrant, including the Aboriginals. They've just been here longer than everyone else, that's all.
Investment is a good thing. The problem is that some investments have been artificially made more lucrative than others. You know, just how gas has now been priced out of the market for electricity generation by the Qld export terminals.
Inputs are always deductible, whether its the cost of raw materials and transport, or interest payments on borrowed money for income-producing purposes. Kill negative gearing, and you kill ALL development.
No, the real problems here are that we are a stupid nation when it comes to development. Instead of putting new cities on the huge expanses of worthless land we have, we pave over our most productive acreage so we can fill it with MORE mouths to feed at the same time we produce LESS food. DOH!
In terms of both land mass and housing density, we are nowhere near the world standard. Cities with 10 million people work across the world. We're under half that. Europe, the US and Asia have far, far higher development across them. We've got a couple of spots with thousands of miles of emptiness between them.
There is much we can do, and should do. Those three suggestions are precisely the wrong approach though.
Quote from: 'autocoupler' pid='106871' dateline='1489855398'Just my two bobs worth on all this hoo-har lately from politicians crying crocodile tears about the affordability of housing. While the average young couple are finding it increasingly difficult to compete in the housing market, our politicians and vested interests are doing their very best to ensure the longevity of the three main causes.
1) Immigration; You can't artificially increase the population by large volumes and not have housing, infrastructure, resource and services issues. Of course not all our woes are due solely to immigration, but I'm betting it's playing a big enough role. All governments in this country are broke and have borrowed to the hilt trying to keep up, but it's become like a cat chasing its tail. We need to put a stop on immigration and cease this senseless grab for resources and profits by those who are making a killing in the housing and commercial sectors. Immigration served us well in the medium term post war, but it's been done to death over the past 30 years and must be wound back drastically, certainly until we have industry in place that can fund this artificial growth. It's obvious that artificial population growth is not necessarily self supporting.
2) Foreign investment in all housing; It makes no sense forcing our young home seekers to compete with overseas investors, no matter what type of dwelling, only to see them miss out due to the weight of foreign money. Then to add insult to injury, we often hear how these dwellings will sit unoccupied as foreign owners wait for a creep in values, then they sell and the cycle starts again, putting our young people further behind. If the millionaires living on harbour foreshores, waterways or prime high ground around the country want to cry about a shortage of local buyers, let them lower their expectations.
3) Negative gearing; There is no dodgy argument that can justify giving an advantage to anyone wanting to invest in a rental, over those seeking to buy a home to live in. Everyone over the age of 18 should be given the opportunity of a once only tax deductible house purchase in their lifetime, irrespective of how it will be used. If mums and dads want to invest further in the housing market, let them do it off their own bat without assistance. A system of this kind would no doubt encourage parents with extra cash to set their kids up, but in full knowledge that such a move would use up that child's one and only lifetime entitlement. Totally unlike what happens now where some parents with clever accountants are able to set their kids up with no penalty, then continue to accumulate and add to their portfolio, which ironically is propped up by taxpayers living in rentals. The system is stuffed. :kez_11::dash1:
100% TOTALLY AGREE :yahoo:
That's your opinion, the problem is it mirrors current practise, which is precisely why there is a dilemma. Same ol same ol is no longer the way IMO.
Our migrant history has absolutely nothing to do with how we manage the numbers, now, or into the future.
Of course, deductibility of costs in business should be allowed, as it always has been. Where we went wrong is when we allowed those costs to be offset against PAYE tax, as is the case for costs incurred in running an investment home. This is BS and gives those who invest in this area the unfair advantage of increased buying power over those wanting to purchase a home to live in. As I said previously, it's a disgrace that so called mum and dad investors, who may own multiple rentals, are being propped up by the very people they are keeping out of the housing market.
It's a mistake to compare Australia's land mass / housing density to other regions on the planet. There's a reason why nearly all of us live around the rim, most of the centre bit is semi-arid to desert, and a 300 km crow flight will easily get you there. Who wants 10 million people cities here anyway? This is one of those no brainers where more is definitely not better.
I do agree that we appear to condone perpetually stupid activity in relation to where we build housing developments etc. Governments and councils are continually planning for more and more prime agricultural land to be swallowed up by greedy, all for profit developers, all of whom would tell us it's a great thing.
There needs to be a change in how we do things, but sadly, I don't see it happening, so we'll no doubt bumble blindly along following the same failed path as home prices soar to new highs. The thing I fear most is when interest rates do return to 9 or 10 percent, and the impact that will have on the $500,000 plus mortgages that current policy has engineered.
In the interests of fairness, negative gearing property deductions should be rectified to not allow deductions from other incomes (like any other investment) but rather deductions should be carried forward and claimed when the property is positively geared.
That being said, negative gearing deduction changes won't fix anything, it's just being used by politicians to show they're doing something without actually having to do anything because it specifically targets investors.
In regards to your fist point Immigration,
I heard last week that in the last 12 months,
5,000 immigrants moved to Fairfeild an outer suburb of Sydney, they all move directly into public housing which puts pressure on our welfare system & also the housing sector.We should curb immigration for at least 12 months.
Quote from: 'interest' pid='106907' dateline='1489980488'I heard last week that in the last 12 months,
5,000 immigrants moved to Fairfeild an outer suburb of Sydney, they all move directly into public housing which puts pressure on our welfare system & also the housing sector.
Where did you hear this?
Quote from: 'Ozcoins' pid='106914' dateline='1489989308'Quote from: 'interest' pid='106907' dateline='1489980488'I heard last week that in the last 12 months,
5,000 immigrants moved to Fairfeild an outer suburb of Sydney, they all move directly into public housing which puts pressure on our welfare system & also the housing sector.
Where did you hear this?
ooops it should have been 3,000 sorry
Fairfield (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-02/fairfield-struggles-to-cope-after-increase-in-refugee-arrivals/8145250)
Quote from: 'interest' pid='106915' dateline='1489993491'Quote from: 'Ozcoins' pid='106914' dateline='1489989308'Quote from: 'interest' pid='106907' dateline='1489980488'I heard last week that in the last 12 months,
5,000 immigrants moved to Fairfeild an outer suburb of Sydney, they all move directly into public housing which puts pressure on our welfare system & also the housing sector.
Where did you hear this?
ooops it should have been 3,000 sorry
Fairfield (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-02/fairfield-struggles-to-cope-after-increase-in-refugee-arrivals/8145250)
Know the Fairfield area well (used to live there). Many of the refugees are Assyrian and Fairfield is their hub in Australia. Houses there are often a million plus, even old fibro dumps are 700 thousand plus. What really @$@#$$#:@ me is that a big chunk of the district belonged to my great grandfather and it was resumed by the socialists for public housing in the early 1930s. Family were not paid for the theft for 8 years and then only paid peanuts and in the meantime my grandfather and other family members went bankrupt and had their other properties seized for unpaid taxes and other debts. The various properties now have about 4 suburbs on them and the land is now worth well over 10 billion.
So glad a certain members post was removed ... can't buy housing with bit-coins
Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='106916' dateline='1490001730'Quote from: 'interest' pid='106915' dateline='1489993491'Quote from: 'Ozcoins' pid='106914' dateline='1489989308'Quote from: 'interest' pid='106907' dateline='1489980488'I heard last week that in the last 12 months,
5,000 immigrants moved to Fairfeild an outer suburb of Sydney, they all move directly into public housing which puts pressure on our welfare system & also the housing sector.
Where did you hear this?
ooops it should have been 3,000 sorry
Fairfield (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-02/fairfield-struggles-to-cope-after-increase-in-refugee-arrivals/8145250)
Know the Fairfield area well (used to live there). Many of the refugees are Assyrian and Fairfield is their hub in Australia. Houses there are often a million plus, even old fibro dumps are 700 thousand plus. What really @$@#$$#:@ me is that a big chunk of the district belonged to my great grandfather and it was resumed by the socialists for public housing in the early 1930s. Family were not paid for the theft for 8 years and then only paid peanuts and in the meantime my grandfather and other family members went bankrupt and had their other properties seized for unpaid taxes and other debts. The various properties now have about 4 suburbs on them and the land is now worth well over 10 billion.
My family owned the land that is now Mt Gravatt 8n Brisbane
Sold a big chunk around or just before.WWII
Would be worth a he'll. Of a lot nowadays as well
But in our case the sale was voluntary
the housing price in Sydney has now gone up 18.9% in the last 12 months which bring the median price up to $805,000
WOW!!
My sister pays $800 a WEEK rent in inner Sydney
Lovely older 3 bedroom home
That will be demolished and rebuilt for resale of apx 3-4 million I think the old house would sell for about 1.5 million as is
Crazy stuff
HeHe
My rent is $520 a YEAR :yahoo:
yeah - seems incredible don't it ?
when we bought this house (first time buying a home 7 years ago) i said that our repayments would soon be the same as paying rent and it pretty well is now
so even though we don't own the house it would cost much the same to be renting ... but not $520 a year!!!! it would probably be close to $520 a week by now
$520 a yeah Trout
your rent has gone up since I last remember you saying what it was a couple of years ago
that is a great rent
gee if more of Australia worked that way we'd have such a fantastic society of fairness
ho humm
Yeah, demand is the key. There will always be demand that drives the cost of housing and everything else, but we have been stupid enough to include all comers in our domestic housing market, it just helps drive demand further.
Why would we allow the likes of foreign investors to compete in our domestic housing market when they have absolutely no intention of living in the dwelling they buy? Are we so brain dead that we appear to be totally unable to develop other industries in this country, and as such are more and more reliant on foreign money to drive jobs in a housing industry that history says will eventually implode?
With our fearless leaders blindly following a migration program that should be drastically downgraded in the short term, as well as this nonsense of negative gearing the costs of owning a rental against other income, it's simply pushing the cost of housing and rents higher and higher.
The reason why this failed thinking will be allowed to perpetuate, of course, is because too many ordinary folk are getting fat riding the gravy train, while an ever increasing number of those unfortunate enough to be on lower incomes are condemned to a lifetime of high rents and never owning their own home.
Politicians are addicts, addicted to stamp duty.
It's a lovely, non emotional tax for them, which requires no thought to implement.
If they were forced to do something smart, like triple the amount of stamp duty, but make it only payable by foreign investors, you'd soon see the workarounds like they currently have for foreign investment.
There are rules for foreign investment limitations, however if you are here on a study visa, the rules don't apply. So that's why there are so many "Asian students" buying houses.
I could write a book about the trials and tribulations of someone (me), who spent two years (yes ... TWO) looking for a place in Sydney. Some Saturdays I would go to ten open houses. This feverish looking happened every weekend and mid week for two years. It was exhausting and depressing.
I was looking specifically in the Ryde area of Sydney. 20 years ago I couldn't afford Ryde, so I did what Gen Y don't seem to understand. I bought a unit in a shitty suburb, then another, then another, then sold them all to get a house in a suburb I didn't like ... then slowly chipped away at the mortgage till I had enough equity to sell up and move to Ryde.
Or so I thought.
The housing boom happened in 2013-14. Ryde experienced two years of 30% per annum growth.
Ryde was a hotbed for mainland Chinese money. For some pretty good reasons. It was semi affordable, has two train stations, express buses to the city and out west, a university, hospitals, business parks. It actually has it all. The fact that my inlaws are aged and in the area, and my wife and I both work in Macquarie Park made it the sound choice, and why we spent a generation of effort in building up wealth and equity to get there.
But, when we sold our house to take advantage of the hot market, and then leap into auctions, we were out priced. I knew the area really well, and knew what it was worth. I was always $100k shy though.
We lived for 12 months with the inlaws and literally watch the Ryde housing market increase by $500k. We couldn't save that money fast enough, and went backwards. We had cash from our own house sale, which had just been obliterated by the housing market increase.
No house, no money and the inlaws house was aged and depressed.
There were some dark thoughts during that time.
It angers me when homeowners don't acknowledge the problem, only because it doesn't affect them (and indeed benefits them). This is a massive problem which is going to tear apart Australia.
Gen Y will be forever renting, and paying increased taxes to support the aging Australia who have had the best of everything.
[attachment=3642]
gosh
what a sad story of hard efforts
i have watched the sydney prices go through the roof as well
areas (like many cities) that were pretty well slums have become gentrified and the prices are through the roof
even here in canberra a house falling apart but in yarralumla can sell for a million - it's the location
they knock down
rebuild and resell for 3 times the price
i do feel for you and I take heart that for all of my grizzling we did manage to get a loan (very late in life) and are progressively paying off the first house that we have ever bought and it has gradually increased in value (thank goodness) but it will never equal those sydney prices
QuoteGen Y will be forever renting, and paying increased taxes to support the aging Australia who have had the best of everything.
What an ignorant and ill informed statement.
The "Aging" Australians are those people that have paid for all the infrastructure and security with their Blood, Sweat and tears that Gen Y is now enjoying.
If you think that bringing up a young family in 80s was a walk in the park because they "Had the best of everything" you are out of your gourd, Most Gen Y's wouldn't survive the 80's
must admit I did note that last comment
i think the oldies from the 1960's maybe have done a bit better re; land values where they bought in the 1960s and now selling about 400% ? maybe a 1,000% more than their original buy price
it was cheaper in the 1960's to buy than to rent
but those homes are progressively being sold off and add to the real estate boom for some but not all
I worked in supported housing/welfare in the 1980's when interest rates were about - what was it 18% ?
there were lots of people losing their homes, farms and even their lives
it was terrible and that was what made me resolve that i'd never buy a house
the great Australian dream to me was a nightmare for most who were in full swing loans - the only winner were the banks the government and the repossession agencies cashing in on the human misery
I do agree with part of the last statement, We "did have the best of everything" but shit we worked for it!
Being a boomer, I lived through the 18.5% interest of the 80's, paying off a home, a car & bringing up kids.
Had to have two jobs, plus wife was working.
But now, okay I must admit that maybe I am, in a small way, partly responsible for the housing crisis's. I am hoping house prices in Sydney keep going up.
Sorry.
Quote from: 'trout' pid='107462' dateline='1491355335'QuoteGen Y will be forever renting, and paying increased taxes to support the aging Australia who have had the best of everything.
What an ignorant and ill informed statement.
The "Aging" Australians are those people that have paid for all the infrastructure and security with their Blood, Sweat and tears that Gen Y is now enjoying.
If you think that bringing up a young family in 80s was a walk in the park because they "Had the best of everything" you are out of your gourd, Most Gen Y's wouldn't survive the 80's
I bet i've been the cover story of more Personal Investor magazines than you.
:angel:
Quote from: 'interest' pid='107465' dateline='1491361449'I do agree with part of the last statement, We "did have the best of everything" but shit we worked for it!
Being a boomer, I lived through the 18.5% interest of the 80's, paying off a home, a car & bringing up kids.
Had to have two jobs, plus wife was working.
But now, okay I must admit that maybe I am, in a small way, partly responsible for the housing crisis's. I am hoping house prices in Sydney keep going up.
Sorry.
Its been proven time and time again that it is harder to buy a house today than it was during the 80's.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/melbourne-house-prices-who-had-it-tougher-the-highinterest-80s-or-the-highpriced-present/news-story/fd97816f1fa6c432c7e7973efb711b4a
You are wrong. So you can stop singing that song.
The government is trying to save money on building aged care facilities by keeping older people in their homes (you know, that service that comes and looks after your parents), however it is at the cost to the next generation.
The housing supply is being depleted, with old people unable to move about their houses properly, yet occupying a space which could benefit a current tax payer.
I look at my in-laws.
Immigrants in the late 60's. Came and got a factory job on minimum wage, paying bugger all tax, and retired at the first available option.
They are now in a prime two story house, but cant make it up the stairs. They live in a small room down the bottom, cooking on a camp gas stove in the garage, and washing dishes in the laundry tub.
I had the audacity to suggest they sell it, and downsize, or even put it all in a term deposit, and rent somewhere. The interest they would trounce the money they get from the pension.
Geez, it was like I suggested self-immolation.
"We earnt that pension".
What a joke. They have consumed more than they contributed.
But me, paying over $50k in tax each year ... I can get nothing thanks.
There wont be a pension for me. I can buy private healthcover too. I can also expect super to be more heavily taxed.
Baby boomers. The most self-entitled generation, but cant see it
QuoteBut me, paying over $50k in tax each year ... I can get nothing thanks.
You poor little sausage :angel:
Last year I paid over 70k in tax and have paid the equivalent pretty much every year since the eighties, How many years have you done the same?
The baby boomers got nothing FREE, Good lord you GenY Mob even get a few thou just for dropping a sprog, Baby boomers didn't get paid to have kids.
So you think that all the old people should be chucked out of their homes and into one of the "Death Parks" just so you selfish bastards can get a cheaper house ?
Remember Mate, You are going to be old one day (If you are lucky) and maybe you would like to be treated with respect and dignity at that time.
"Generation hand out" are going to ensure that there will be no entitlements in 20 years, and their attitude towards the prosperity of the next generations have cemented what we think of them.
Edit: Baby bonus? You do understand why that was needed don't you? Don't you? Let me explain some pretty simple economics.
Australia can't afford to support its resource sapping aging population, so needs more tax payers. It's not a "here you go" to the parents, but to their grand parents
We may have to endure your stupid and simplistic ideals We certainly do NOT have to endure with your foul language.
Unlike yourself the majority here Respect the other members and keep our posts "Civil".
Tone the language down Mate :ok:
2 posts have been edited to remove foul language. If you can't make your point without the language, don't bother posting at all.
Probably stick to numismatics which is what this forum is for I thought
I am not going to say anything more than "there will be a correction in house prices. This is due to highly inflated prices we see around the country. There are very few people who can afford a $800k + mortgage. Also the leading is getting tough from the banks now. I can not tell you if this happens next month or next year, but I guarantee you it is coming.. so hold tight".
Anyone interested, watch the movie big short... that shows you how some of the leading practices work..
Humm
Instead of blaming old couples who choose to live on the ground floor of their home and obviously also opened their home to you .....
Let's get some of the current capitalism into perspective re: home 'ownership' these days are multiple investment properties owned by folks who are happy to bleed this country dry
No the government isn't trying to keep old people at home to reduce nursing home costs orcbuiods. The costs of inhome care is pretty close to nursing home care. The fact is that most nursing homes have loads of empty beds - why?
Well, old people are young people who grew old. They want independence, privacy, to retain their home and the memories within. Old couples often want to stay together.nureing homes often split them apart in the home. Sometimes old people can't cope with the stress of change. So selling up and leaving a neighbourhood that they have lived in for a couple of generations is very threatening.
Who cares if your father in law cooks on a stove in the garage. He is not doing anyone out of a home. You fail to criticize the investment developer who owns say 14 properties. The bloke we bought our house from 'owns' more then 14 properties and then got himself a government redundancy package. Now I call that greed.
I'd never call an elderly couple living modestly on their pensions greedy or selfish.
I fear that when you see your father in law you don't see respect. You feel jealousy and contempt.
I have never earnt enough money to pay $50k tax
But I figure it's a good salary.
Surely you can get a reasonable home on that wage.
The oldies aren't pushing you out. I suspect that your own blinkers are and it has made you very bitter in the process.
Robbiegal. I suspect that you are a little right I your assessment, but I suspect that the resentment has many sources.
This guy's is describing having done everything right and everything possible and still cannot buy a property planned and worked for for a long time.
Then he gets people (politicians no less) saying "get a better job" and others saying "stop your whinging - you don't know what tough is".
If he is paying $50000 in tax he HAS a very good job. He has saved/invested and still it's not working.
I really feel for the guy.
I had a discussion almost 20 years ago with someone that things were tougher now than when this person started out. He had the same attitude "young people spend all their money on big TVs" "you don't know what tough is" etc etc.
I pointed out that when he started out an average man's wage would cover an average house/car/family.
I said "Do the maths. Where can an average man's wage buy a property". The only place possible then was Tasmania - but you would likely earn less than the Australian average wage. So even going as close as possible to leaving Australia did not work back then.
Do the maths now 20 years later.......
Its easy to say "I did it tough", but how do you compare "tough"?
Do the maths....
As a starter
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income_in_Australia_and_New_Zealand
Shows median household income as $57000
https://www.livingin-australia.com/salaries-australia/
Shows average earnings about $80000
The rule of thumb for sensible borrowing that you can pay back seems to be 3.5 time your income.
If the average house price in Sydney is around $800,000, there's no way a single income household on the average wage could service something like that, and a dual average income household would struggle.
But, phew....anyone who pays $50,000 in tax and can't secure a house deal, probably needs to reassess their expectations, just as people of any generation has had to do.
In any era of which we speak, there has always, and always will be areas that are out of reach. Incomes and demand, being the obvious determining factors, and is why the vast majority of new house seekers and young families have always inhabited suburbs that fitted their economic scale.
What has changed as I see it, is current long term policy has created an artificial demand for housing, and is exacerbated by some buyers having the advantage of a legislated increase in their buying power over others.
At least ozcoins understands what is going on.
The problem is that blazé comments don't address the problem.
"Reassess their expectations", is such a tripe statement for what is going on.
The only people with blinkers on, are those who think "my house has gone up in value, so there is nothing wrong".
You could say I did everything right, and there's a reason I was on an investment magazine cover in the year 2000.
I was apparently a "property guru". Singled out because I had bought two properties before I was 20.
I was on the path to financial success. But was I really?
Before 20 I had a couple of properties.
Before 30 I had a million dollars of debt.
Before 40 I had a million dollars of cash.
But I still could not afford to buy a decent house in Sydney.
I don't drink or smoke, have a good wage, drive a cheap 17 year old car, had a ton of cash ... but still couldn't afford to buy in a semi-decent part of Sydney.
A ten year old project home in Ryde was going for $2.4m.
We even looked at a crummy (https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-nsw-north+ryde-119722707) place (don't believe the photos) in North Ryde, which had an easement running the full length of the property, and it went for $1.89m.
Those who know Sydney would also know that I am talking about Ryde. Ryde. The old housing commission suburb. It's not inner city.
When you can have someone on a decent wage, have a working wife, no debts, with a million in cash, and still not able to buy a semi-decent place in Sydney ... something is broken.
I know I could buy something out west with a 3+ hour round trip commute. But that is not an answer to housing affordability.
My inlaws bought in Ryde, paid cash, after being in Australia for ten years and working lowly factory jobs.
For me to buy a similar place in the same suburb will be a 50 year mortgage (I've already done 20 years of mortgages to get to this point), and I earn a very decent wage.
(https://funstuffpeoplesendme.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/humor011.jpg)
QuoteI know I could buy something out west with a 3+ hour round trip commute. But that is not an answer to housing affordability.
I imagine it would beat working an extra job for 3+ hours a day just to live with the 'in Crowd" in some dilapidated and overpriced old house in the inner city.
From what you have said it seems that you have already speculated in the property market and have made a handsome profit out of it, That makes you part of the problem So whinging and complaining about the current property values is pretty hypocritical don't you think :angel:
20-30 years ago many people did the commute thing and guess what, The properties that those people bought cheaply back then are now worth a small fortune.
I don't have a mortgage.
I played the game which was required, however I am concerned about the future generations of young Australians. The cost of entry to the game is beyond what anyone can afford.
20% deposit on a million dollar house? That's a lot of burgers to flip.
I don't put importance on capital growth (which you can't draw on anyway, only lever against), over their needs.
Quote from: 'seedyrom' pid='107486' dateline='1491418756'The problem is that blazé comments don't address the problem.
"Reassess their expectations", is such a tripe statement for what is going on.
Nothing wrong with compromise, it's what we all do.
I think we all know the system is broken to a certain extent, the question is, what are we prepared to do about it? The answer seems to be, "not much".
I find it bizarre and hypocritical that on one hand we are a nation of people as a whole who do care about the genuine plight of others, we show concern for the environment and the dangers of global warming, all to the point where some could be considered as raving nazi extremists. On the other hand, we try and justify similar poor behavior as being quite OK when it comes to the noble act of earning a living, providing for our families and accumulating wealth. It's gloves off and to hell with anything or anyone who gets in the way.
I don't see anything going on at the moment that would instill any confidence in the ability of our leaders to make the necessary tough decisions to fix this, nor the preparedness of the population to withstand them.
I agree ... and I believe that is why President Trump exists.
I'd like to believe that the American population wanted to break the entrenched political families and alliances.
I'd like to think that the American population had decided that big business in the pockets of politicians was not giving them the outcomes they want, nor deserve.
I hope that the American people have realised that career politicians who are somehow able to amass hundreds of millions of dollars in personal wealth (or within "trusts"), are corrupt and needed the "swamp to be drained".
I really hope all of that is the truth, and they didn't really just want a thin-skinned, bigoted, masochistic ass in charge of the nukes.
We certainly deserve better politicians ... but who would have that gig, for that money?
In my line of work, my career can be ended in a moment. The modern workplace is one where spreadsheet decisions impact hundreds of lives with no emotion. Talk to anyone in the city. It seems everyone is a contractor, or fixed term ... and then even full-time employees don't sit there with any form of job security. The workforce is depressed, then they have ridiculous house prices to go home to. There is going to be an absolute epidemic of depression and suicide that occurs in the next 20 years.
I used to be fairly right-wing.
I used to have little sympathy for those who weren't working two jobs to get ahead.
However as I got older, wiser and had children ... my concerns have moved me to a more socialist stand-point.
I guess you could say I've started to care about others. I believe legislation could solve a lot of problems. If politicians were strong enough, they could make a change for the better. Mark Latham (the idiot that he was), actually made some good change to upset the entitlement apple cart. So of course he had to go :)
Quote from: 'seedyrom' pid='107490' dateline='1491443513'I used to be fairly right-wing.
Sometimes when something is clearly wrong, it shouldn't matter whether we are right, left or down the middle, it should be seen for what it is. Our politicians are so busy defending their failing platforms, they can't see the forest for the trees.
I've always thought of myself as travelling down the right side of the left lane, although, I may have fleetingly crossed the double white lines momentarily on a couple of occasions but never ventured so far left that I was knocking people off the footpath ;)
Quote from: 'seedyrom' pid='107490' dateline='1491443513'I agree ... and I believe that is why President Trump exists.
I'd like to believe that the American population wanted to break the entrenched political families and alliances.
I'd like to think that the American population had decided that big business in the pockets of politicians was not giving them the outcomes they want, nor deserve.
I hope that the American people have realised that career politicians who are somehow able to amass hundreds of millions of dollars in personal wealth (or within "trusts"), are corrupt and needed the "swamp to be drained".
I really hope all of that is the truth, and they didn't really just want a thin-skinned, bigoted, masochistic ass in charge of the nukes.
We certainly deserve better politicians ... but who would have that gig, for that money?
In my line of work, my career can be ended in a moment. The modern workplace is one where spreadsheet decisions impact hundreds of lives with no emotion. Talk to anyone in the city. It seems everyone is a contractor, or fixed term ... and then even full-time employees don't sit there with any form of job security. The workforce is depressed, then they have ridiculous house prices to go home to. There is going to be an absolute epidemic of depression and suicide that occurs in the next 20 years.
I used to be fairly right-wing.
I used to have little sympathy for those who weren't working two jobs to get ahead.
However as I got older, wiser and had children ... my concerns have moved me to a more socialist stand-point.
I guess you could say I've started to care about others. I believe legislation could solve a lot of problems. If politicians were strong enough, they could make a change for the better. Mark Latham (the idiot that he was), actually made some good change to upset the entitlement apple cart. So of course he had to go :)
So how did you get into coin collecting & what is you favorite coin or banknote.
Funnily enough, I really got interested in coin collecting, when I was working at TABs around Sydney.
Working in a cash handling environment was always interesting, I even had one guy pay for a bet with proof coins once. Face value only.
Started working there when I was 14. Remained working through uni, and even when I had a proper job, would work 9-5 at my real job, then 6-11 at the TAB.
I did that so I could buy a house. Because they were affordable back then if you worked hard. Not these days however.
well
if i coud boast having a million in cash before 40
there is no F*** way I'd be whining or take the time to listen to a whiner
i'd be more than thankful for having made it that far - a millin dollars is still a lot of money
i'm outta this thread
it is way out of my league but I am sure that others here might fit in OK with it
You don't get it. I understand that.
If you aren't actively seeking a property you can't understand what the next generation face.
You can have a million dollars, and not afford a house in a decent area of Sydney. That is the point of the thread. Affordability.
Affordability.
Not how much does someone have. It's more how much does someone need.
I went through at least 300 properties when I was looking. Auction campaigns which were just three weeks long. Being so outgunned by Mainland Chinese investors, that I was only an underbidder once, and at that place, it was like the tour bus hadn't pulled up.
I'd laugh, cause all the pollies were on the news "the statistics say that it's not overseas investors which are the problem". They lie. Go to an Auction in Sydney. They even have interpreters there.
There's a problem with affordability, and Mr Morrison's latest plan to allow young people to access their super is ridiculous.
20 year olds have bugger all super. And even if they could, it only allows them to take a bigger mortgage. It's not stemming the problem of affordability.
On a cold night I could give a homeless bum $5 ... but it's not like he can buy a hotel room. It is still too unaffordable.
true
same here
the local investors here all own around 12 houses each - most being people who I have worked with
let alone what the overseas ones own
there should have been more control on the buying capabilities for investors
but we have a full on capitalist society
and greed underpins this system - not quality of life, home ownership for citizens etc
The simple fact of the matter is,
I want to sell my house for the highest price I can get.
Somebody wants to buy my house for the lowest price they can get.
Never the twain shall meet.
Quote from: 'interest' pid='107619' dateline='1491916719'The simple fact of the matter is,
I want to sell my house for the highest price I can get.
Somebody wants to buy my house for the price they can afford.
Never the twain shall meet.
Fixed it for Sydney
https://www.dicksmithfairgo.com.au/pdf/DICK-SMITH-FAIR-GO-HOUSING-AFFORDABILITY.pdf
Love Dick Smith's thinking. Sadly, too many vested interests as well as failed thinkers in positions of influence, for much to come of it though. We can only hope!!
I'm only part way through it, but the sad thing is, it's nothing new.
This thread is littered with the same points being raised, but baby boomer generations saying "suck it up princess, we had it tough too".
Hopefully some here will change their tune if their beloved Dick gives them the message.
Just read this whole thread, and I gotta say, there's a whole lot of failed assumptions here.
"Boo Hoo, I can't afford to live where I want!" - So what? We have an entire continent with the population of ONE CITY occupying it. Go someplace else.
"But I've always lived in Sydney (Melbourne or wherever). I don't want to move!" - Why? Because you can make more money there, which you can't use to put a roof over your head anyway?
Think about this:
Compare the pair... A and B both make $100,000. Both pay the same taxes. A pays five times the rent B does, buys Lattes at trendy cafes, drives a $60,000 car, and at the end of the year, has saved $10,000. B lives frugally in some undesirable 'hole', drinks instant coffee and drives a $1,000 Holden, but saves $20,000 a year. Which is better off?
"But there are no jobs in Upper Tumbukta West!" - Bullshit. We live in a digital world. Jobs are portable, and can be performed absolutely anywhere. If YOUR job isn't like that, you're in the wrong job, and chances are the dinosaur you work for will cark it sooner rather than later and you'll be unemployed anyway.
Besides, jobs follow people. If everybody moves to the middle of a desert, how long do you think it will be before the construction industry finds them? And services? Finance, Retail, etc? There is nothing magic about a bunch of cliffs around a patch of water. Humans can, and do, live in all sorts of environments, from the arctic to the tropics, with equal success.
And anyway, how stupid do you have to be to pave over the best agricultural land to build concrete wastelands on it, instead of starting with a wasteland and improving it? A 40-storey apartment block, office building, factory and shopping centre would be equally functional ANYWHERE. They don't have to be built on the veggie patch, which is then replaced with shiploads of imports.
Oh, and if you're going to bring Tricky Dicky into it, why not look at his thoughts on population? Anyone with kids deserves to be tried for crimes against humanity, apparently. Which is probably not far from the truth at all.
The reference to kids and crimes against humanity when speaking of Dick's sensible call for a 70,000 migration intake, absolutely misrepresents his campaign. Any inference of that nature is typical of something you would hear from the bias media and other vested interests on this matter!
I don't have a lot to add here apart from the fact that interest rates are no longer 17%+ as they were when I got my first home loan.
Quote from: 'autocoupler' pid='111836' dateline='1506043494'The reference to kids and crimes against humanity when speaking of Dick's sensible call for a 70,000 migration intake, absolutely misrepresents his campaign. Any inference of that nature is typical of something you would hear from the bias media and other vested interests on this matter!
Migration is not the issue, and never has been. The entire world was built on migration, ever since the very first people walked out of Africa.
The real issue is population numbers itself. We breed like a virus, and like any virus will overwhelm the resources we need to sustain ourselves.
Why exactly do we have 7 Billion people? What possible logical explanation can there be for the incessant raping and pillaging of the only planet we have to call home?
Me, I would throw the doors wide open, and invite absolutely anyone to come and live in Australia. With two provisos... mandatory sterilisation, and they would not be able to settle in the capital cities. By all means build new cities, and improve the country, themselves, the rest of the population and the world at large. But when you drop off the perch, you're not going to leave a tribe of several hundred descendants behind.
Interestingly, statistics seem to indicate that at least some of our community is already adopting this philosophy. Perhaps not with surgery, but certainly conscious decisions not to add to the problem.
They were only in the range of 12% to 13% when our first home loan was approved. Shortly after, when we drew the money, it was just over 17%. Made a big difference to our budget I can tell you.
Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='111841' dateline='1506060685'Quote from: 'autocoupler' pid='111836' dateline='1506043494'The reference to kids and crimes against humanity when speaking of Dick's sensible call for a 70,000 migration intake, absolutely misrepresents his campaign. Any inference of that nature is typical of something you would hear from the bias media and other vested interests on this matter!
Migration is not the issue, and never has been. The entire world was built on migration, ever since the very first people walked out of Africa.
The real issue is population numbers itself. We breed like a virus, and like any virus will overwhelm the resources we need to sustain ourselves.
:i_agree:
Couldn't resist digging this thread up again.
I see the Government is incurring RSI of the shoulder as they slap themselves on the back over the drastically improved jobless figures.
IMHO, we've had next to zero immigration for two years. The outcome is a fair indication of what effect the excessive people ponzy scheme of the past twenty five years has had.
Of course the clowns from both major political points of view are talking up a return to the same ol same ol.
Our leaders and prospective leaders are lazy, and continue to deliver platitudes as they attempt to justify the outcomes of their position which is not in the interest of Australians, particularly younger Australians finding affordable housing.
As someone said to me the other day, " are those foreign students here to study or work?"
Backpackers doing casual work is fine as plenty of young Australians returning the favour elsewhere.
I suspect a lot of the special visas for people with skills not available here or because not enough locals available to do certain jobs is much a rort to just get cheaper workers. And/or an indictment on our skills training -kill of TAFE and what do you expect.
Dick Smith advocates the rate of immigration should be 70,000 per year, which is the long term average. The most recent proposal is somewhere around 250,000.
Little wonder we just about doubled our population in thirty something years, and smaller wonder all Governments are broke and borrowed to the hilt as they trying to keep ahead of the ongoing infrastructure requirements.
What would I know but, I think it's obvious many Governments over the decades were happy to see a manufacturing industry which did need some life support, slowly die, and condemn the problem to the too hard basket.
Once that matter was sorted, our visionary's decided there was no further need to train fitters, tool makers, machinists, boilermakers, welders, tinsmiths, die setters etc etc.
Oh, hang about they thought, we could replace the skills of one lost industry by super heating the skill requirements of another, the building industry.
Yippee they thought, if we ramp up immigration our problems are solved, everyone does require somewhere to live after all, and they can drive to their new jobs in nice shiny imported motor cars.
All ponzi schemes come to nothing eventually, and no doubt lobbyists still beat a worn path to the door of any incumbent minister for immigration.