Albanese - how long?

[Kram]

tbf like Albo's wage rise it does seem a bit like policy on the fly.

 

[Maggie5]

It's a great idea. It's only $50k to help hard working people get started, plenty of time to bulild more super over a career and a roof over you head is of far more importance now. It's just being switched to a different iife long investment anyway!

If it was a Labor plan the cheerleaders would have zero objections to it, nothing surer other than the sun coming up tomorrow morning.

Who are these hard working people you refer to? I am thinking of the people I know - widowed mum supporting two teenage children doubt she would have more than $130K in super, currently renting; male friend mid 20's out of his apprentice and can see himself living at home for a few more years; Father a self employed painter with 3 children under 5 wife not working - renting; Couple in the 40's no children but working part time etc etc.

Plenty more scenarios, terrible idea as who is to say if they get a house, when they are ready to sell value would be the same as income on super. Further, who knows what the retirement age will be when they get older?

So many flaws in this. Just another way for the comfortable to get richer.

 

[nut]

It would be if it wasn’t inflationary

That’s what scomo wants everyone to think!!! He wants people to think their house prices are going to go up !!! That’s where his votes are.

 

[DaRick]

Unlike Labor’s policy to allow people who can only afford a 450,000 house to now be in the market for a 750,000 house, that won’t inflate prices at all!!!

Only thing keeping me out of the market is the deposit, this and the Liberals 5% deposit are far better than the government owning 40% of your home so you can buy a bigger house than you need.

Not saying the ALP's policy is much chop, just saying that this isn't.

It's so obviously a great idea, no one is compelled to do it, their own choice to do or not. If I were a young man again, I would be looking at doing it for sure, but each to his own.

Part of the issue I have with some of the reasoning surrounding this policy is the appeal to 'personal responsibility'.

It assumes that people who use their super to buy a house understand the implications of doing such and can easily make the super back in the future. I find both assumptions to be a bit dubious.

That’s what scomo wants everyone to think!!! He wants people to think their house prices are going to go up !!! That’s where his votes are.

They will too. The problem is that they're going to crash afterwards.

As I've said, ScoMo is trying to pitch to voters who broadly don't trust him, and the timing makes it look more like a political stunt than anything else. I understand that the LNP feels the need to throw something at them and hope that it sticks, but I don't think this will.

 

[JBMAN]

Who are these hard working people you refer to? I am thinking of the people I know - widowed mum supporting two teenage children doubt she would have more than $130K in super, currently renting; male friend mid 20's out of his apprentice and can see himself living at home for a few more years; Father a self employed painter with 3 children under 5 wife not working - renting; Couple in the 40's no children but working part time etc etc.

Plenty more scenarios, terrible idea as who is to say if they get a house, when they are ready to sell value would be the same as income on super. Further, who knows what the retirement age will be when they get older?

So many flaws in this. Just another way for the comfortable to get richer.

I think you are just looking for flaws, history says prices will, over time, go up and at the very worst they will have a roof over their head when they need it most.

 

[Kram]

Not saying the ALP's policy is much chop, just saying that this isn't.



Part of the issue I have with some of the reasoning surrounding this policy is the appeal to 'personal responsibility'.

It assumes that people who use their super to buy a house understand the implications of doing such and can easily make the super back in the future. I find both assumptions to be a bit dubious.



They will too. The problem is that they're going to crash afterwards.

As I've said, ScoMo is trying to pitch to voters who broadly don't trust him, and the timing makes it look more like a political stunt than anything else. I understand that the LNP feels the need to throw something at them and hope that it sticks, but I don't think this will.

Whilst I've always like the idea not sure on the precise timing after a big boom.

But I'm not trying to steal an election

 

[Gralin]

So how many people talking about Scotty's policy in here can't read the thread title?

 

[Pessimistic]

So how many people talking about Scotty's policy in here can't read the thread title?

Go to election watch thread where I link to scomos headline policy re heated from 2019

This suggests:
They haven’t helped much while house prices have gone up conservatively 20%
Or they were too lazy to implement them or implement them at all
Or they were just puff pieces to take the heat off

 

[Choc Milk]

Fine. Let’s just say that “younger“ person is 30 and has a super balance of $100k. Pretty small number of people to be honest But let’s assume this coz it keeps the numbers simple. Let’s even assume they’re a couple with $100k each.

They withdraw $40k each, so $80k.

Lets see how well they compete for the very same entry level properties against the newly incentivised down sizers With seven figures in their back pocket from the sale of their family home in middling suburb. (And who have to spend most of the proceeds to avoid penalty)

Even if they do outbid them, they are over leveraged with their super savings depleted.

it does nothing to address supply just increases demand for 2-3 bedroom entry level properties in relatively desirable locations.

they ain’t buying the the downsizers family homes.

Anyone supporting the policy doesn’t understand the market.

Funny, I work in Super AND Property / Finance. I think I understand it mate.

Would you rather pay a million dollars in rent and have 300k super when you retire? What if you live for another 30 years? You are ****ed.

Or would you rather pay zero rent, own an apartment at the very least, PLUS have 250k in super?

Simple answer to this question for any critical thinkers.

PS, no one is saying a FHO needs to buy a million dollar house first up

 

[Gralin]

Funny, I work in Super AND Property / Finance. I think I understand it mate.

Would you rather pay a million dollars in rent and have 300k super when you retire? What if you live for another 30 years? You are f’ed.

Or would you rather pay zero rent, own an apartment at the very least, PLUS have 250k in super?

Simple answer to this question for any critical thinkers.

PS, no one is saying a FHO needs to buy a million dollar house first up

So is that two or three jobs?

 

[sataris]

PS, no one is saying a FHO needs to buy a million dollar house first up

Million dollar house? Where? Is it anywhere in a 50km radius of the CBD?

 

[Blue1980]

As a young person this idea is ******* stupid.

Libs just want to get my super out of my hands.

Super = Power of capital, and we the people having power like that scares the shit out of every lib/nat in the nation.

Yep, LNP are anti super and this is a way to get it out of peoples hands.

Gives fake impression young people can get on property ladder easier.

Drives up house prices to a stupid degree so LNP boomer voters will cream themselves with their houses and investment properties increasing in value.

 

[Magruder]

Funny, I work in Super AND Property / Finance. I think I understand it mate.

Would you rather pay a million dollars in rent and have 300k super when you retire? What if you live for another 30 years? You are f’ed.

Or would you rather pay zero rent, own an apartment at the very least, PLUS have 250k in super?

Simple answer to this question for any critical thinkers.

PS, no one is saying a FHO needs to buy a million dollar house first up

you published your credentials in earlier posts. A couple of degrees and six figures, right?

they weren’t terribly impressive at that point so you can leave the appendage waiving out.

The choices and outcomes are not binary but this impacts and alters the market (and not just housing or super) in ways you haven’t considered or refuse to acknowledge.

 

[Magruder]

Yep, LNP are anti super and this is a way to get it out of peoples hands.

Gives fake impression young people can get on property ladder easier.

Drives up house prices to a stupid degree so LNP boomer voters will cream themselves with their houses and investment properties increasing in value.

and you continue to legitimise government withdrawing from civil interaction.

government becomes increasingly meta and self referential in that it becomes all about telling you what it doesn’t do, an ever shrinking reflexive “hose” that it will not hold.

 

[nut]

Fine. Let’s just say that “younger“ person is 30 and has a super balance of $100k. Pretty small number of people to be honest But let’s assume this coz it keeps the numbers simple. Let’s even assume they’re a couple with $100k each.

They withdraw $40k each, so $80k.

Lets see how well they compete for the very same entry level properties against the newly incentivised down sizers With seven figures in their back pocket from the sale of their family home in middling suburb. (And who have to spend most of the proceeds to avoid penalty)

Even if they do outbid them, they are over leveraged with their super savings depleted.

it does nothing to address supply just increases demand for 2-3 bedroom entry level properties in relatively desirable locations.

they ain’t buying the the downsizers family homes.

Anyone supporting the policy doesn’t understand the market.

It’s a nothing policy.

If a young couple have 100k each in super they don’t need to redraw on it… they’d already have the financial power to get a house.

This policy is for people in their mid 30’s … with little super …. Who will rape their super to buy a bit bigger house.

 

[Magruder]

It’s a nothing policy.

If a young couple have 100k each in super they don’t need to redraw on it… they’d already have the financial power to get a house.

This policy is for people in their mid 30’s … with little super …. Who will rape their super to buy a bit bigger house.

And not understand what they’ve done.

 

[Choc Milk]

you published your credentials in earlier posts. A couple of degrees and six figures, right?

they weren’t terribly impressive at that point so you can leave the appendage waiving out.

The choices and outcomes are not binary but this impacts and alters the market (and not just housing or super) in ways you haven’t considered or refuse to acknowledge.

No, that wasn't me.

 

[Kram]

Relax Albo is coasting towards the goals and the goalie has fallen over, all he has to do is tap the ball into the back of the net.

 

[nut]

And not understand what they’ve done.

The policy isn’t aimed at first home buyers… it’s aimed at the people who have a mortgage already, who are facing interest rate rises … who want their house prices to continue go up. It’s aimed at the families who bought at the top of the market, scared that their house prices are going to drop!!!
The more people say that this policy is going to increase house prices the better …

This is another wedge !!!!

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The policy isn’t aimed at first home buyers… it’s aimed at the people who have a mortgage already, who are facing interest rate rises … who want their house prices to continue go up. It’s aimed at the families who bought at the top of the market, scared that their house prices are going to drop!!!
The more people say that this policy is going to increase house prices the better …

This is another wedge !!!!

They were discussing the policy on NewsRadio this morning.

One journo said they actually have been trying to find people who actually support the policy. So far both economists and even punters are all either questioning its value, or saying its outright useless.

 

[nut]

They were discussing the policy on NewsRadio this morning.

One journo said they actually have been trying to find people who actually support the policy. So far both economists and even punters are all either questioning its value, or saying its outright useless.

The quiet Australians … the selfish voter who sees the benefits to themselves … that’s who will support this.

“It’s their money they should be able to use it to buy a house” !!! Knowing it will push the price up of their own house or investment property.

 

[Brad Goodman]

They were discussing the policy on NewsRadio this morning.

One journo said they actually have been trying to find people who actually support the policy. So far both economists and even punters are all either questioning its value, or saying its outright useless.

Here's one:

LNP's super-for-housing policy

Forget using it for housing. Just let people use super however they want.

fresheconomicthinking.substack.com

But he's proven himself to be a douchebag already so this isn't surprising.

 

[Pessimistic]

The policy isn’t aimed at first home buyers… it’s aimed at the people who have a mortgage already, who are facing interest rate rises … who want their house prices to continue go up. It’s aimed at the families who bought at the top of the market, scared that their house prices are going to drop!!!
The more people say that this policy is going to increase house prices the better …

This is another wedge !!!!

So like work for the dole not aimed at unemployed voters?

People who are conversant with possibly buying a property and the numbers will see it has narrow appeal

 

[nut]

This is just the story scumo wanted
… the media is on the bullshit

House prices will fall 10pc before the PM’s super plan sends them up

Allowing first home buyers to tap their superannuation would eventually push up house prices, but only after the RBA’s interest rate rises cut property prices by at least 10 per cent.

www.afr.com

 

[Pessimistic]

and you continue to legitimise government withdrawing from civil interaction.

government becomes increasingly meta and self referential in that it becomes all about telling you what it doesn’t do, an ever shrinking reflexive “hose” that it will not hold.

They never cut MPs though