A rare occasion I can agree with you. Even with neg gearing, it is a costing people and only viable with rapidly increasing housing prices... and how long can that last. Does it make sense in a flat to declining market?I have previously invested in property and achieved great returns, none of my investments ever relied on negative gearing.... none.
The investment had to stand on its own two feet only mugs rely on neg gearing as a reason to invest in property sadly that's mostly the case these days.
My opinion is that it is a gamble on RE always going up.A rare occasion I can agree with you. Even with neg gearing, it is a costing people and only viable with rapidly increasing housing prices... and how long can that last. Does it make sense in a flat to declining market?
Nup
I have previously invested in property and achieved great returns, none of my investments ever relied on negative gearing.... none.
The investment had to stand on its own two feet only mugs rely on neg gearing as a reason to invest in property sadly that's mostly the case these days.
A rare occasion I can agree with you. Even with neg gearing, it is a costing people and only viable with rapidly increasing housing prices... and how long can that last. Does it make sense in a flat to declining market?
Nup
My opinion is that it is a gamble on RE always going up.
Neg gearing excesses are a consequence, not a cause.
Remove council powers and state crazy regulations, stop relentless migration and the problem is sorted..and these guys bankrupted.
If the share market was going up 15% a year always, negative gearing would be used there.
As i am not using it,not partial even better: i am really keen for Labour to remove it, just to see the shitshow, the economic collapse and the state of rental markets within 3 years. Go ahead guys go ahead
We live in a country with a Capitalist system.
I'll argue that historically a combined approach worked well.If you are hinting that we should follow the communist/socialist theory, well that is a different discussion.
We had here in WA many years the State Housing Authority, which built many homes, albeit not the mansions that most seem to want today.I'll argue that historically a combined approach worked well.
If someone let me do it then what I'd do is set up a state housing authority. The key purposes of this will be residential property development, construction of public housing, maintenance of government property and the training of apprentices.
The idea will be to sell most of the houses to private buyers at full market value, using the profit to fund those that are kept as public housing.
Doing so in the full knowledge that this intentional flooding of the market will, ultimately, drive down prices. Slowly but it will happen, it will get there and we'll have fixed the shortage of tradies at the same time as building a lot of houses and all without spending a cent of taxpayers' money apart from initial seeding capital, which will be repaid from the first houses sold.
The aim not being to put the private builders out of business. It's just to boost the supply of housing and the supply of tradies to build them. Private builders can carry on as they are, my proposed state house building enterprise will be additional to their efforts not a replacement for them.
I'd argue that's not a combined mixed capitalist/communist society. It's a capitalist society with social programs. Still a mixed economy, but words matter and how people perceive what is going on.I'll argue that historically a combined approach worked well.
If someone let me do it then what I'd do is set up a state housing authority. The key purposes of this will be residential property development, construction of public housing, maintenance of government property and the training of apprentices.
The idea will be to sell most of the houses to private buyers at full market value, using the profit to fund those that are kept as public housing. Maintenance of government property will be done on a commercial basis, the relevant department invoiced for the work and the profit goes toward the public housing scheme.
Doing so in the full knowledge that this intentional flooding of the market will, ultimately, drive down prices. Slowly but it will happen, it will get there and we'll have fixed the shortage of tradies at the same time as building a lot of houses and all without spending a cent of taxpayers' money apart from initial seeding capital, which will be repaid from the first houses sold.
The aim not being to put the private builders or landlords out of business. It's just to boost the supply of housing and the supply of tradies to build them and bring some balance back to the market. Private builders can carry on as they are, my proposed state house building enterprise will be additional to their efforts not a replacement for them.
Perhaps tenement housing does and even that it a bit loose.Maybe motivated by great idealism and humanitarian motives, doesn't public housing in practice tend to mean you're creating some kind of dodgy no-go zone full of druggies, dudes fresh outta prison with teardrop face tattoos, hookers, 'fugees and [insert other humorous caricatures at will].
As this is the public agenda of the WEF, consider it done...This would force governments to partner with developers and build multi story apartment blocks similar to those in Europe and the UK.
Imagine that, a country the size of Europe building stacked homes to cram the population into affordable housing.
I'll argue that historically a combined approach worked well.
If someone let me do it then what I'd do is set up a state housing authority. The key purposes of this will be residential property development, construction of public housing, maintenance of government property and the training of apprentices.
The idea will be to sell most of the houses to private buyers at full market value, using the profit to fund those that are kept as public housing. Maintenance of government property will be done on a commercial basis, the relevant department invoiced for the work and the profit goes toward the public housing scheme.
Doing so in the full knowledge that this intentional flooding of the market will, ultimately, drive down prices. Slowly but it will happen, it will get there and we'll have fixed the shortage of tradies at the same time as building a lot of houses and all without spending a cent of taxpayers' money apart from initial seeding capital, which will be repaid from the first houses sold.
The aim not being to put the private builders or landlords out of business. It's just to boost the supply of housing and the supply of tradies to build them and bring some balance back to the market. Private builders can carry on as they are, my proposed state house building enterprise will be additional to their efforts not a replacement for them.
If they didn't force all this legislative crap on landlords so that they can't protect their assets without spending $1000s extra a year on insurance and unnecessary repairs, houses would still be cheap to rent.I've been away for a while, so haven't heard the whole story, but isn't this Government proposal exactly the situation they were bagging the banks for?
Where the banks were lending money on minimal deposit, to those who could least afford it and the banks were lambasted for it which eventually led to a Royal Commission.
It is a weird world, where we are perpetuating a ponzi, that will probably lead to a lifetime of poverty and probably intergenerational mortgages.
10 years is a long time in politics:
10 reasons not to hold bank royal commission
There is popular and political support for a bank royal commission, but what can it really achieve? Two years of bank bashing for doubtful results in an already heavily-regulated and monitored industry.www.firstlinks.com.au
Labor’s Bill Shorten clearly thinks he’s on a winner with the demand for a royal commission, hitting all the right political notes when he said:
“There is a culture in banking which puts the profits of banks, big profits, billions of dollars of profits, ahead of the national interest and interests of mum and dad mortgagees, small businesses and people with large credit card interest rate debts.”
Albo’s bold move on housing crisis
he government will reintroduce its Help To Buy Bill in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, once parliament resumes for a three-day sitting week.
Two attempts to force a vote in the Senate in September were thwarted, with the Greens pushing back the next vote until November 26 in order to continue negotiations.
Housing Minister Clare O’Neil called on the opposition and cross bench to put politics aside and back the legislation which would allow 40,000 Australians buy a home with a 2 per cent deposit.
To qualify for the scheme, buyers also must earn less than $90,000 a year, or $120,000 a year for couples.
“Every time the Coalition and the Greens have had a chance to help renters or first home buyers, they have chosen politics over progress,” she said.
“This week they get the chance to make progress for first home buyers in the parliament. Australians wanting to buy their first home expect more than further delay.”
The Greens have argued the scheme would not help, was largely inaccessible to the key workers Labor has said the Bill will assist, including nurses, childcare workers, teachers and paramedics.
Analysis by the Parliamentary Library found registered nurses and paramedics on average would earn above the income test, while a childcare worker on an average full-time salary of $67,430 a year would be in mortgage stress if they bought in Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne.
The Greens also argue the policy will likely drive up prices of homes below the maximum price cap of $950,000 for NSW buyers in Sydney and other regional centres.
Instead the minor party, which holds the balance of power in the Senate, has called on the government to strip back negative gearing and capital gains tax concession for investors – both policies Labor has denounced.
The Greens have also called on the government to invest in a government-owned property developer which would be tasked with building affordable homes, which could be funded through cutbacks to the investor tax concessions.
Rent tends to be a reflection of return on investment, that is why people borrow and invest, therefore the more someone pays for the investment the more return they have to and want to derive from it, that's investing 101.If they didn't force all this legislative crap on landlords so that they can't protect their assets without spending $1000s extra a year on insurance and unnecessary repairs, houses would still be cheap to rent.
They can't that's another problem, remember all the people that withdrew from their super after Covid to buy in. All they can do now is ride it out and hopefully, it sorts itself out over the yearsThe problem is how does the Govt stop the ponzi without trashing the economy, a very difficult situation that has obviously gotten out of control in the last couple of years.
I've been involved with rentals for a very long time, probably longer than some people on here have been alive. Years ago rents were just pocket money, basically not many regulations and when the tenant stuffed you around you just threw them out, and they house hopped. It costs a lot of money to run a house by the rules these days, and I'd say if you see a big recession you're going to see a lot of bankrupt people. You only have to look as far as how many builders have gone bankrupt due to material prices climbing so fast.Rent tends to be a reflection of return on investment, that is why people borrow and invest, therefore the more someone pays for the investment the more return they have to and want to derive from it, that's investing 101.
People either invest for income/ capital gain/ or both, very few invest to just fulfill their social conscience.
I'll argue that historically a combined approach worked well.
If someone let me do it then what I'd do is set up a state housing authority. The key purposes of this will be residential property development, construction of public housing, maintenance of government property and the training of apprentices.
The idea will be to sell most of the houses to private buyers at full market value, using the profit to fund those that are kept as public housing. Maintenance of government property will be done on a commercial basis, the relevant department invoiced for the work and the profit goes toward the public housing scheme.
Doing so in the full knowledge that this intentional flooding of the market will, ultimately, drive down prices. Slowly but it will happen, it will get there and we'll have fixed the shortage of tradies at the same time as building a lot of houses and all without spending a cent of taxpayers' money apart from initial seeding capital, which will be repaid from the first houses sold.
The aim not being to put the private builders or landlords out of business. It's just to boost the supply of housing and the supply of tradies to build them and bring some balance back to the market. Private builders can carry on as they are, my proposed state house building enterprise will be additional to their efforts not a replacement for them.
My parents had a rental on the outskirts of a housing commission estate pre 2000s, we used to get all the people that would leave or get thrown out of public housing. The rent in public housing was means tested and when someone who worked went to stay with them or a house member got a job it would make the rent go up, so they would leave because it was cheaper to go private.Govn't-funded housing will face the same issues as with anything taxpayer-funded....it will be rife with corrupt behavior, outrageously-expensive labour costs, unions will run the show.... see NDIS or the Big Build in Victoria. We'll end up new housing which is more expensive than it is today (and poor build quality), and it will simply be a massive drain on the federal budget.
Better to free up bottlenecks and reduce taxes/costs under the current privately-funded system IMO. (and slow-down population growth/immigration numbers)
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?