- Joined
- 10 December 2012
- Posts
- 3,632
- Reactions
- 9
At least it stops land values increasing so much. I'd be quite happy to have progressive land taxes help replace all the badly implemented stamp duties and a cut in income taxes.
What are the property taxes like in those cities? A quick look and Indianapolis is 3%. Median house price in 2006 was $120k and median household income was $40k. 3% property tax means your still handing over 10% of your pre-tax income every year. Certainly changes things a bit.
I repeat ... We are NOT the U.K. nor the U.S.A. (or Portugal or Spain or Ireland or Greece) Our system of financing property and governance as well as employment history, manufacturing, tourism, export (mining) blah fricking BLAH is TOTALLY different from their working models as an economy
Even down to our style of housing and lending criteria is TOTALLY different and the risk taken by the bank is minimal exposure as LMI and government guarantees protecting the big 4 banks are in place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate
UNEMPLOYMENT is the key ...
I don't understand your point. Are you saying we have nothing to learn from the USA or UK? Are you saying that Govt policy has no affect on house prices?
There is plenty we could do to help reduce the cost of housing in this country, but most of the effort appears to be going in to protecting those who are already in teh market at the expense of FHBs.
Considering the level of LMI risk concentration I'm not sure it'll be worth much in a downturn. Either the banks insure themselves, or they get it from Genworth or QBE LMI. Moodys has already downgraded both last year.
We have a constipated housing supply like California. I'd prefer to see us emulate the policies of Texas and free up land for development. urban growth boundaries and across the board heigh restrictions for apartments just fuel land price inflation. it doesn't really benefit anyone, unless you're willing to sell up and move somewhere that has far less land inflation, but high land values choke the competitiveness of every business.
Yeh i have been looking at buying a property over here in the states and between taxes, insurance and HOA fees a 400k townhouse has about 12-15k worth of costs each year. Obviously it varies state to state
At least it stops land values increasing so much. I'd be quite happy to have progressive land taxes help replace all the badly implemented stamp duties and a cut in income taxes.
My point exactly. Constipated land supply like in California causes bigger booms and busts.
Compare that to the strong right of use in Texas and there was barely a rise in real house prices.
I know which state went through the recession in the USA better, and it wasn't California.
There is plenty of land to develop BUT the banks are not lending to property developers and making it very hard to obtain finance atm. AND the punters do not want to live in the "outer" burbs. Sounding like a broken record here !!
California is a high tax state generally. I'm sure you've realised that. Isn't the top marginal rate on imcome 12% or something?
demand = price. Surely if land prices were cheap enough (price), people would move to the outer suburbs (demand) and banks would lend.
There is something majorly wrong, if the banks are making huge profits and no new supply is being added to.
Great argument for changes in NG, maybe an incentive on new builds or a disincentive on existing.
TS - while high land prices do not effect every business, they do affect the vast majority and reduce our international competitiveness through higher wages and overheads.
Yes, yes, and yes a couple earning more than 1m pa has to pay 12% state tax, on top of federal tax
There was a post awhile back for someone demanding 75k a year and wanting to live in Bondi no doubt. Get real ... start at what you can afford.
This is where the problem lies. Everyone is talking about the "median" price and the "average" income ... The "TOP" end of town is skewiffing the nett averages due to the ridiculous prices being paid for the sought after properties.
I was going to post some facts and figures, actual houses for sale, to shoot down your argument that it's affordable to live in the suburbs on a "normal" wage that a younger person would earn.
Just one problem, the data does not support my argument since a house in the poorer suburbs of Hobart that would have been worth $200 - 250K a few years ago is now listed around the $150K mark and there are plenty of them in several suburbs.
There's the price crash, it's actually happened it would seem at least in Tas. Sure, they're dodgy houses (mostly) in generally bad areas, but the bottom line is that there's been a pretty big decline in their value.
I'm not sure if the same has happened elsewhere, I'm not familiar enough with the suburbs of the major cities to be able to judge, but at the bottom end there's certainly been a price crash in Hobart.
By definition the top or bottom do not skew a median average. A mean average yes, but not a median.
These methods are both used to find a “typical” value from a set of data. The mean is the most commonly used measurement of central tendency, but there are cases where it is not appropriate. For example, the data may be “skewed,” meaning that most of the numbers are toward either the low or the high end of the scale, or that there is one value that is wildly different from all the others ”” this is known as an outlier. Especially in a small set of data, the average value in these cases will not be typical.
A quick look at my own area reveals some interesting figures.
I bought this house 6.5 years ago for about $350,000 after considerable negotiation. It's a normal house in a normal suburb and the price was at the lower end of what was available in this area at the time. The price I paid was typical of the selling price of similar houses in the area at that time.
Today, the full asking price for a similar house is around $320,000. Allowing for some haggling and noting the state of the market, you could probably get it for somewhat less.
So whilst I bought it to live in and not to make a profit, as an investment it has very clearly been an outright dud over that time with declining value of at least 10% over that time.
I'm in a fairly middle socio-economic area, 8km by road from the Hobart CBD. No doubt the figures will vary between cities and states, but around here it seems that prices have definitely fallen.
High price alone won't change the median unless you mean that there is also a higher volume of sales at the top?Please note I was pertaining that the "TOP" end of town is skewiffing the nett averages due to the ridiculous prices being paid for the sought after property either inner city or for coastal.
TS
I reckon reckon Rangeview could drop 75% and still be overvalued!
Wadayareckon?
High price alone won't change the median unless you mean that there is also a higher volume of sales at the top?
Take 5 houses:
$250K
$350K
$400K
$500K
$800K
The median is $400K. Even if that $800K house somehow sells for $50 million, the median remains unchanged at $400K. But if you sell 10 houses at $800K and only 4 at a lower price, well then that raises the median to $800K. Volume will move the median but an individual high price won't unless it involves a shift from below to above the median OR an increase in volume.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?