Australian Politics General...

[Sean K]

I think there's another thread on the 'cash cow' that super is, but it's relevant to politics now too. I think super was an invention of a Labor government, which made sense. Not sure. But, did they have longer term ambitions for the funds? Is it a long term plan for just more control over our money and distributing it where they see fit? oink oink x 2.

 

[IFocus]

Super was started by Hawke as part of the accord and employer contributions by Keating.

The point of Super was to take pressure of pensions (which now is the biggest slice of welfare and growing if my memory is correct) and allow most a comfortable retirement not beholden to the state.

The whole thing is of a great benefit to all tax paying Australians.

It was never a savings scheme for random spending.

Using it to supporting the housing Ponzi scheme shows the Coalition have lost the plot totally.

 

[sptrawler]

Super was started by Hawke as part of the accord and employer contributions by Keating.

True

The point of Super was to take pressure of pensions (which now is the biggest slice of welfare and growing if my memory is correct) and allow most a comfortable retirement not beholden to the state.

It was also started as a means of putting downward pressure on inflation at the time, as it was out of control, by locking away the wage rises as a super payment, it interupted the wage price spiral.
Secondly as I mentioned earlier, the 1987 stock market crash hit the Australian banks hard, because Australia had no savings pool, if you read up on Keating it was one of his main arguments for starting super. So that Australia wouldn't have to source its money from overseas sources.

The whole thing is of a great benefit to all tax paying Australians.

True

It was never a savings scheme for random spending.

Until now it has never been a savings scheme for anything other than building a pool of money that invests mainly in Australian companies, the first people who contributed, the baby boomers, are only just starting to hit the retirement age with any serious amounts in super.

Using it to supporting the housing Ponzi scheme shows the Coalition have lost the plot totally.

I agree, but having said that, most experts agree that the best way to a comfortable retirement is to own a house.
Labor are suggesting the super funds invest in social housing, which the Governments themselves got out of because it was a bottomless money pit, so is it a good move to invest members money in low return high risk ventures like social housing.
Or are Labor losing the plot also?


As I've said before, now that super has matured it needs to be removed from being a political football and a Government honey pot and go back to what it should be an incentive for workers to achieve a comfortable retirement.
Not a penalty and indirect tax for people who work.

 

[SirRumpole]

I agree, but having said that, most experts agree that the best way to a comfortable retirement is to own a house.

Agreed. Which is why reducing the tax advantages of owning residential investment properties and returning stock to owner occupiers made sense.

But of course, the cashed up investors didn't like that , so now any reforms in that area look unlikely.

 

[Knobby22]

Agreed. Which is why reducing the tax advantages of owning residential investment properties and returning stock to owner occupiers made sense.

But of course, the cashed up investors didn't like that , so now any reforms in that area look unlikely.

The tax lurks should only apply to new developments encouraging housing supply.

 

[PZ99]

Allowing use of super to buy housing was daft policy.

However, using it to mitigate increased home loan repayments from rising interest rates does make sense.

 

[Belli]

Labor are suggesting the super funds invest in social housing, which the Governments themselves got out of because it was a bottomless money pit, so is it a good move to invest members money in low return high risk ventures like social housing.

Interesting you raised this point. A couple of years ago an number of overseas pension funds and institutions were buying up residential properties in the USA and Europe. Invesco was one. They tend to treat the rent as a form of an annuity (I believe this was the norm for many older funds in some parts of Europe.) I guess it made sense at the time when interest rates were very low. Now with higher interest rates maybe not unless they can increase the rents. Whether they can or not I don't know.

 

[sptrawler]

Agreed. Which is why reducing the tax advantages of owning residential investment properties and returning stock to owner occupiers made sense.

But of course, the cashed up investors didn't like that , so now any reforms in that area look unlikely.

Wouldn't it be just as easy for the government, to enter joint ownership with first home buyers? The Govt is keen on reverse mortgage for older people to down size and even gives them perks to do so.
Wouldn't it be just as easy to to have a system where low wage earners can buy Govt built or sponsored homes a bit like the war service home system?
Where from memory returned service personnel could enter a contract with the Govt, for a home on a lower interest rate, this could be done for first home buyers and would add to housing stock.

What was proposed was only reducing the tax advantage on existing properties, while maintaining it on new builds no matter what the price, don't you think that would have just increased the wealth divide even further, by locking the lower income people out of the market?

Or is it just a case of any idea is a good idea, as long as it comes from the right people?

 

[SirRumpole]

Wouldn't it be just as easy for the government, to enter joint ownership with first home buyers? The Govt is keen on reverse mortgage for older people to down size and even gives them perks to do so.
Wouldn't it be just as easy to to have a system where low wage earners can buy Govt built or sponsored homes a bit like the war service home system?
Where from memory returned service personnel could enter a contract with the Govt, for a home on a lower interest rate, this could be done for first home buyers and would add to housing stock.

What was proposed was only reducing the tax advantage on existing properties, while maintaining it on new builds no matter what the price, don't you think that would have just increased the wealth divide even further, by locking the lower income people out of the market?

Or is it just a case of any idea is a good idea, as long as it comes from the right people?

A lot of ideas could work, you never know until the ideas are tried.

Did the former government solve the problem ?

They had nearly a decade to do it.

 

[sptrawler]

A lot of ideas could work, you never know until the ideas are tried.

Did the former government solve the problem ?

They had nearly a decade to do it.

I'm not seeing many indications, that anything is improving.
Lots of hot air, cashless credit card cancelled, violence ramping up, yep and all we talk about is the cost of housing in Sydney/Melbourne.
We are a weird mob.

 

[Belli]

Allowing use of super to buy housing was daft policy.

However, using it to mitigate increased home loan repayments from rising interest rates does make sense.

Hmm, redirecting the SG to a mortgage but not allowing a redraw unless it's to the super fund. Essentially salary sacrificing the mortgage payments. Wonder if that could work and how.

A random thought over a large cup of black tea which tends to cause my brain to go haywire.

 

[SirRumpole]

I'm not seeing many indications, that anything is improving.
Lots of hot air, cashless credit card cancelled, violence ramping up, yep and all we talk about is the cost of housing in Sydney/Melbourne.
We are a weird mob.

Cost of housing is a big issue.

It's the difference between people having a secure retirement or sleeping in their cars after they retire and can't afford the rent.

 

[sptrawler]

Cost of housing is a big issue.

It's the difference between people having a secure retirement or sleeping in their cars after they retire and can't afford the rent.

Well is there any reasonable priced property near you? There is near me.

 

[SirRumpole]

Well is there any reasonable priced property near you? There is near me.

Maybe there is. It might be suitable for retirees, having the jobs to support young families is another matter.

 

[Belli]

Cost of housing is a big issue.

It's the difference between people having a secure retirement or sleeping in their cars after they retire and can't afford the rent.

Maybe there is. It might be suitable for retirees, having the jobs to support young families is another matter.

This issue was raised with me by a neighbour recently. In their 40's, two children and a mortgage. She was only discussing it in a general manner with comments on how much money they will need when they eventually retire. I gave her my inexpert view the first thing needed is shelter and how much is required to keep the roof over your head (rates, utilities, insurances and some maintenance.) She quickly got where I was coming from which was identifying those elements you need to fund in retirement - home, internet, car registration, food, etc.

I avoided saying what they should do because that isn't my role and I have no idea they approach they will take or if they will do anything. However, it was interesting someone in their 40's was contemplating it.

 

[sptrawler]

Maybe there is. It might be suitable for retirees, having the jobs to support young families is another matter.

Bringing in 200,000 workers, they all wont be going to Sydney, maybe the the young families should move to where the work is, you never know there might be reasonable priced houses there.
Then that in turn might reduce the competition for houses in Sydney which might push prices down.
But no we will just continue to complain that young people cant buy a house in Sydney and bring in workers for places where we cant get young people to move to.
Lucky my parents werent made the same, otherwise I would be living in England bitching about unaffordable housing and bad weather.
Im just fortunate mum and dad pulled up stumps with three kids and moved half way around the World .

 

[SirRumpole]

Bringing in 200,000 workers, they all wont be going to Sydney, maybe the the young families should move to where the work is, you never know there might be reasonable priced houses there.

Where is the work ?

It's still mainly in the cities.

There needs to some pro-activity by governments in their desire to increase manufacturing and self reliance. Get the solar manufacturing plants or whatever out into the regions if they have the guts to tell people in their inner city electorates to "get out of town".

 

[sptrawler]

Where is the work ?

It's still mainly in the cities.

There needs to some pro-activity by governments in their desire to increase manufacturing and self reliance. Get the solar manufacturing plants or whatever out into the regions if they have the guts to tell people in their inner city electorates to "get out of town".

Mark McGowan is advertising in UK for 30,000 workers ranging from plebs to police, but hey we can always find excuses to maintain the narrative. Lol

 

[wayneL]

Mark McGowan is advertising in UK for 30,000 workers ranging from plebs to police, but hey we can always find excuses to maintain the narrative. Lol

They'll be able to afford a pile of bricks here too... And they'll I think they're cheap because of relative size of housing.

 

[sptrawler]

They'll be able to afford a pile of bricks here too... And they'll I think they're cheap because of relative size of housing.

Yes 10m people live in Sydney/Melbourne, most rich overseas immigrants want to go and live there because the house prices are twice that of elsewhere, most of the Australian elite, most of Australia's professional politicians and most of the journalists live there and most have an investment property or two probably.

So are we going to keep the fanfare going, keep the narrative bubbling along, or are we going to fix the ridiculous prices of my PPR and my investment properties in Sydney/Melbourne? Let me think HMMMMM.

Lets bring in 200,000+ workers, to help keep prices down and while we're at it lets add $1,000 to the first home buyers grant.

But there is hope.

Anthony Albanese lists investment property for $2.1m

The federal Opposition Leader and former NSW deputy premier Carmel Tebbutt are selling their bungalow in the trendy inner-west Sydney suburb of Marrickville.

www.afr.com