Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[Kram]

Very true!

I'm pretty confident that house will be standing in some form for another 70+ years. Most of the crap they build these days not so much..

If some doesnt understand the best example I use is the old frog bricks they used then v now. The former a few hits with a mallet hammer and it would struggle to dent it, the latter would smash a fist size hole through the wall. One almost like a small concrete block, the other mostly just air.

 

[The Punter]

i work with guys who own multiple properties around the country who are currently buying up places in Perth because its "the best value" for them

they also say its a supply issue, even though they are pricing locals out of the market so they can then charge them jacked up rent to live there

both of these guys are into double figures for properties owned and they're always looking for the next one

Just for my perverse interest, do you have the same conversational style with them as you do in here?

 

[Kram]

I dunno about the strategy of highly leveraging yourself now in the Perth market as an investment and relying on squeezing tenants with high rents..

Prices have already run very hard and have mostly caught up with elsewhere. There is also already significant cracks in mining appearing , the arse has fallen out of lithium and nickel prices with operations shutting down, iron ore pulled back as well. Shortage of housing stock still extreme but that could come into balance fairly quickly. Hopefully.

 

[peetoo]

F*** John Howard and f*** all those f***ing idiots that voted for him time after time.
View attachment 2128785

Crisis ‘entirely caused by the two year old albanese govt’ according to the talest Lib talking points

 

[Kram]

Sure they are still part of it but blaming the situation squarely on either Albanese's current government or one from 30 years ago is just cheerleading rubbish.

 

[Gough]

Sure they are still part of it but blaming the situation squarely on either Albanese's current government or one from 30 years ago is just cheerleading rubbish.

Blaming Howard's changes to negative gearing for the problems today aren't cheerleading rubbish, it's fact and a viewed shared by plenty who know economics better than you or I.

 

[peetoo]

Blaming Howard's changes to negative gearing for the problems today aren't cheerleading rubbish, it's fact and a viewed shared by plenty who know economics better than you or I.

Put something in place which those who are benefitting kick up a political stink to keep it, even though it makes the economic sector unsustainable

Like the health insurance levy

 

[Northalives]

Blaming Howard's changes to negative gearing for the problems today aren't cheerleading rubbish, it's fact and a viewed shared by plenty who know economics better than you or I.

After 8 years of Fraser/Howard/LNP government, building residential dwellings had dried up to almost nothing.

After 9 years of Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison/LNP government, building residential dwellings had dried up to almost nothing because Howard had deformed a brilliant piece of social and public policy which supercharged building as a LONG TERM investment into a rort!

Howard turned negative gearing into a speculators paradise and created a whole lot of ten bob millionaires which came to be known as Howard's battlers. What the grubby bastard Howard did was capture these greedy pricks by the short 'n' curlies and held them to ransom by fighting elections on the basis that if they vote Labor, interest rates would go up, as well as of course, blowing his dogwhistle incessantly.

Negative gearing and the tax arraignments around it as originally implemented, was for individuals, companies, developers along with investment by superannuation funds to BUILD hosing/accommodation with a long term view for a return on their investment. When Howard got his grubby paws on it and changed the tax arraignments, housing construction stopped to a trickle and every Tom, Dick and Harriet became a property investor. What's the best thing for property investors? To see their purchases increase in value and the best way for that to happen, is for construction to all but cease; supply and demand in other words.

The Help to Buy Scheme which has been blocked by the Greens and LNP in the Senate, is very similar to what the original negative gearing was all about, that is, provide tax incentives for individuals, companies, developers to build low cost housing for the most vulnerable in the community with a long term view for a return on their investment. The way that this Help to Buy Scheme is structured would be almost, if not impossible, for a LNP Government to deform. They could try but they would have to try and break the contractual agreements between the Federal Government and home buyers through the courts which not only I, but those that know much more about financial law than me say is so remote, it is impossible.

Some around here would do well to remember that the ALP took a pledge to reform negative gearing and the tax arrangements back to what they originally were as well as pledging to not touch any properties bought under Howard's rorting laws but the electorate rejected the ALP and that policy initiative. It's the same as those who are shedding crocodile tears at the Government not pursuing Makarrata after it was rejected by 60% of the population.

The problems we now have with astronomical housing prices and rents, is due solely and wholly to Howard and is being exacerbated by slimy, opportunistic politicians and political parties for political gain: stuff the most vulnerable if there are votes to by gained.

 

[Rob R]

After 8 years of Fraser/Howard/LNP government, building residential dwellings had dried up to almost nothing.

After 9 years of Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison/LNP government, building residential dwellings had dried up to almost nothing because Howard had deformed a brilliant piece of social and public policy which supercharged building as a LONG TERM investment into a rort!

Howard turned negative gearing into a speculators paradise and created a whole lot of ten bob millionaires which came to be known as Howard's battlers. What the grubby bastard Howard did was capture these greedy pricks by the short 'n' curlies and held them to ransom by fighting elections on the basis that if they vote Labor, interest rates would go up, as well as of course, blowing his dogwhistle incessantly.

Negative gearing and the tax arraignments around it as originally implemented, was for individuals, companies, developers along with investment by superannuation funds to BUILD hosing/accommodation with a long term view for a return on their investment. When Howard got his grubby paws on it and changed the tax arraignments, housing construction stopped to a trickle and every Tom, Dick and Harriet became a property investor. What's the best thing for property investors? To see their purchases increase in value and the best way for that to happen, is for construction to all but cease; supply and demand in other words.

The Help to Buy Scheme which has been blocked by the Greens and LNP in the Senate, is very similar to what the original negative gearing was all about, that is, provide tax incentives for individuals, companies, developers to build low cost housing for the most vulnerable in the community with a long term view for a return on their investment. The way that this Help to Buy Scheme is structured would be almost, if not impossible, for a LNP Government to deform. They could try but they would have to try and break the contractual agreements between the Federal Government and home buyers through the courts which not only I, but those that know much more about financial law than me say is so remote, it is impossible.

Some around here would do well to remember that the ALP took a pledge to reform negative gearing and the tax arrangements back to what they originally were as well as pledging to not touch any properties bought under Howard's rorting laws but the electorate rejected the ALP and that policy initiative. It's the same as those who are shedding crocodile tears at the Government not pursuing Makarrata after it was rejected by 60% of the population.

The problems we now have with astronomical housing prices and rents, is due solely and wholly to Howard and is being exacerbated by slimy, opportunistic politicians and political parties for political gain: stuff the most vulnerable if there are votes to by gained.

I must be missing something with Help to buy? I can understand concern it is too small but I keep hearing mentions of investors being involved but the details I can see limit it to 40000 homes and they must be for lower income citizens which seems perfect?

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gralin]

Help to buy is on of those programs that sounds good on paper but doesn't add up

 

[Carn The Berries]

After 8 years of Fraser/Howard/LNP government, building residential dwellings had dried up to almost nothing.

After 9 years of Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison/LNP government, building residential dwellings had dried up to almost nothing because Howard had deformed a brilliant piece of social and public policy which supercharged building as a LONG TERM investment into a rort!

Howard turned negative gearing into a speculators paradise and created a whole lot of ten bob millionaires which came to be known as Howard's battlers. What the grubby bastard Howard did was capture these greedy pricks by the short 'n' curlies and held them to ransom by fighting elections on the basis that if they vote Labor, interest rates would go up, as well as of course, blowing his dogwhistle incessantly.

Negative gearing and the tax arraignments around it as originally implemented, was for individuals, companies, developers along with investment by superannuation funds to BUILD hosing/accommodation with a long term view for a return on their investment. When Howard got his grubby paws on it and changed the tax arraignments, housing construction stopped to a trickle and every Tom, Dick and Harriet became a property investor. What's the best thing for property investors? To see their purchases increase in value and the best way for that to happen, is for construction to all but cease; supply and demand in other words.

The Help to Buy Scheme which has been blocked by the Greens and LNP in the Senate, is very similar to what the original negative gearing was all about, that is, provide tax incentives for individuals, companies, developers to build low cost housing for the most vulnerable in the community with a long term view for a return on their investment. The way that this Help to Buy Scheme is structured would be almost, if not impossible, for a LNP Government to deform. They could try but they would have to try and break the contractual agreements between the Federal Government and home buyers through the courts which not only I, but those that know much more about financial law than me say is so remote, it is impossible.

Some around here would do well to remember that the ALP took a pledge to reform negative gearing and the tax arrangements back to what they originally were as well as pledging to not touch any properties bought under Howard's rorting laws but the electorate rejected the ALP and that policy initiative. It's the same as those who are shedding crocodile tears at the Government not pursuing Makarrata after it was rejected by 60% of the population.

The problems we now have with astronomical housing prices and rents, is due solely and wholly to Howard and is being exacerbated by slimy, opportunistic politicians and political parties for political gain: stuff the most vulnerable if there are votes to by gained.

Ummmm... What.... That statement bears no resemblance to what the program will actually do. How many vulnerable people are going to be helped by HTB?

 

[adogsfan5]

Who’s keen for more chips?!

 

[peetoo]

Cashing in your chips

 

[Kram]

Who’s keen for more chips?!

 

[Northalives]

Ummmm... What.... That statement bears no resemblance to what the program will actually do. How many vulnerable people are going to be helped by HTB?

40,000 people; about the same number of people that have died in Gaza. Should we just leave the homeless, the poverty stricken, the people in domestic violence situations to suffer because it's "only" 40,000 that will be helped? Should we let them suffer so slimy political parties can point at them and say, "look, no one is doing anything for them."? The same slimy bastards who take to the streets and criticise Albanese and the ALP for not doing enough for the people of Gaza and the West bank but it's OK to stop critically important legislation to help put a roof over the head of the most vulnerable in this country just so they can milk some votes.

 

[Gralin]

40,000 people; about the same number of people that have died in Gaza. Should we just leave the homeless, the poverty stricken, the people in domestic violence situations to suffer because it's "only" 40,000 that will be helped? Should we let them suffer so slimy political parties can point at them and say, "look, no one is doing anything for them."? The same slimy bastards who take to the streets and criticise Albanese and the ALP for not doing enough for the people of Gaza and the West bank but it's OK to stop critically important legislation to help put a roof over the head of the most vulnerable in this country just so they can milk some votes.

It's not a program to help homeless people
It's capped at 10k a year and the financials for loans pretty much price out anyone not right near the cap ok earning 90k as a single income or 120k as a dual income

That's middle class welfare at best

 

[Northalives]

It's not a program to help homeless people
It's capped at 10k a year and the financials for loans pretty much price out anyone not right near the cap ok earning 90k as a single income or 120k as a dual income

That's middle class welfare at best

The homeless, poverty stricken and those in domestic violence situations don't earn 90k a year. Stop defending the indefensible putrid politics being played by the Greens.

Access to a shared equity loan from the Federal Government is with a 2% deposit and people need to earn less than $90,000 a year for individuals or $120,000 as a couple.

I thought the Greens were against the scheme because it would provide tax breaks to individuals, companies and developers to build these low cost dwellings? Maybe Chandler-Mather, when he's not addressing rallies attended by those who support extortionists, the mafia and organised crime and who don't want to be subject to any scrutiny and investigation, maybe he and Bandt could tell us if not individuals, companies and developers, who else would build these critically needed dwellings?

The original negative gearing which made a massive difference to housing supply and available accomodation did, for all intents and purposes, give tax breaks to individuals, companies and developers with a view towards a long term return on investment. That's what the Help to Buy Scheme basically is but without the possibility of an LNP Government distorting it and turning it into a rort.

 

[Gralin]

The homeless, poverty stricken and those in domestic violence situations don't earn 90k a year. Stop defending the indefensible putrid politics being played by the Greens.

Access to a shared equity loan from the Federal Government is with a 2% deposit and people need to earn less than $90,000 a year for individuals or $120,000 as a couple.

I thought the Greens were against the scheme because it would provide tax breaks to individuals, companies and developers to build these low cost dwellings? Maybe Chandler-Mather, when he's not addressing rallies attended by those who support extortionists, the mafia and organised crime and who don't want to be subject to any scrutiny and investigation, maybe he and Bandt could tell us if not individuals, companies and developers, who else would build these critically needed dwellings?

The original negative gearing which made a massive difference to housing supply and available accomodation did, for all intents and purposes, give tax breaks to individuals, companies and developers with a view towards a long term return on investment. That's what the Help to Buy Scheme basically is but without the possibility of an LNP Government distorting it and turning it into a rort.

What?

 

[Northalives]

What?

What do you mean "what". Do you understand the help to buy scheme or not. People earning over 90k or 120k as couple are ineligible. Negative gearing was all about tax breaks/concessions to supercharge the building of houses/dwellings with long term view to a return on investment. Individuals, companies and developers took up this opportunity in a taxpayer-private partnership to boost housing but along came honest John Howard and turned it into a speculators paradise with the incentive to build, all but destroyed.

The Help to Buy scheme is modelled along the same lines where a taxpayer-private partnership through the incentive of tax breaks/concessions to build affordable housing but without much, if any, opportunity of a future LNP Government being able to distort and deform this scheme like it did negative gearing.

Who builds houses, apartments, dwellings? Individuals? Companies? Developers? Maybe it's baristas or those who sit around singing kumbaya? I know, lets fast track stem cell technology and get Uncle Joe Stalin up from the dead so he can force the proletariat to build their own houses after he has interned all the builders, developers and companies in Gulags in the middle of the Simpson desert (bloody capitalist pig dogs) and if there is any sign of insurrection, we could awaken Trotsky; he'll fix the traitors and then we could all live in the Greens workers utopia .... weeeeee! Free skinny lattes on Brunswick street for all!

 

[Gralin]

What do you mean "what". Do you understand the help to buy scheme or not. People earning over 90k or 120k as couple are ineligible. Negative gearing was all about tax breaks/concessions to supercharge the building of houses/dwellings with long term view to a return on investment. Individuals, companies and developers took up this opportunity in a taxpayer-private partnership to boost housing but along came honest John Howard and turned it into a speculators paradise with the incentive to build, all but destroyed.

The Help to Buy scheme is modelled along the same lines where a taxpayer-private partnership through the incentive of tax breaks/concessions to build affordable housing but without much, if any, opportunity of a future LNP Government being able to distort and deform this scheme like it did negative gearing.

Who builds houses, apartments, dwellings? Individuals? Companies? Developers? Maybe it's baristas or those who sit around singing kumbaya? I know, lets fast track stem cell technology and get Uncle Joe Stalin up from the dead so he can force the proletariat to build their own houses after he has interned all the builders, developers and companies in Gulags in the middle of the Simpson desert (bloody capitalist pig dogs) and if there is any sign of insurrection, we could awaken Trotsky; he'll fix the traitors and then we could all live in the Greens workers utopia .... weeeeee! Free skinny lattes on Brunswick street for all!

yes I understand the help to buy scheme

do you understand how to read what is written because your responses generally have nothing to do with what is written

I'll go through it again for you

the help to buy scheme has nothing to do with solving

homelessness
helping vulnerable or poor people
helping people dealing with domestic violence

you keep mentioning those things like they are related to the help to buy scheme

you keep mentioning building houses like this program is going to help increase housing supply

you also keep ranting about the greens when nothing I have written mentions them


I also never said anyone over 90k or 120k I said it would only potentially help people near the cap

the math doesn't add up

Now the 'Help to Buy' bill is returning to parliament, here's how shared equity works for first home buyers

Help-to-buy schemes were a "useful ingredient" to ease the housing crisis but needed to be teamed with tax reform, the Australian Institute of Housing and Urban Research managing director said.

www.abc.net.au

Lets look at 90k

For a new build the government will put up 40%

mortgage stress is when you're mortgage is over 30% of your income

for someone on 90k that is $1760 a month
that means they can borrow maybe $280k

If they can build for $500k house and land they can get get $200k of the loan covered by the government

They need to find $300k themselves between deposit and loan so if they don't have over $20k saved they're starting in mortgage stress now

if they are buying an existing property they only get 30% off the government meaning on that same $500k place they need to find $350k themselves

do you reckon there are a lot of places available for $500k that people on 90k might be able to have a reasonable mortgage on?

I mean there doesn't need to be that many places because its only going to help up to 10,000 a year

now you've said this will lead to affordable housing being built to meet this demand

how do you figure that will work?

 

[Carn The Berries]

yes I understand the help to buy scheme

do you understand how to read what is written because your responses generally have nothing to do with what is written

I'll go through it again for you

the help to buy scheme has nothing to do with solving

homelessness
helping vulnerable or poor people
helping people dealing with domestic violence

you keep mentioning those things like they are related to the help to buy scheme

you keep mentioning building houses like this program is going to help increase housing supply

you also keep ranting about the greens when nothing I have written mentions them


I also never said anyone over 90k or 120k I said it would only potentially help people near the cap

the math doesn't add up

Now the 'Help to Buy' bill is returning to parliament, here's how shared equity works for first home buyers

Help-to-buy schemes were a "useful ingredient" to ease the housing crisis but needed to be teamed with tax reform, the Australian Institute of Housing and Urban Research managing director said.

www.abc.net.au

Lets look at 90k

For a new build the government will put up 40%

mortgage stress is when you're mortgage is over 30% of your income

for someone on 90k that is $1760 a month
that means they can borrow maybe $280k

If they can build for $500k house and land they can get get $200k of the loan covered by the government

They need to find $300k themselves between deposit and loan so if they don't have over $20k saved they're starting in mortgage stress now

if they are buying an existing property they only get 30% off the government meaning on that same $500k place they need to find $350k themselves

do you reckon there are a lot of places available for $500k that people on 90k might be able to have a reasonable mortgage on?

I mean there doesn't need to be that many places because its only going to help up to 10,000 a year

now you've said this will lead to affordable housing being built to meet this demand

how do you figure that will work?

Not to mention it will do slim to SFA to help reduce rents, which is one area where assistance can actually be provided to the most vulnerable.

The policy itself is ok-ish (in the sense that it's trying to do something). But it has absolutely no relevance to the cohort of people Northalives referenced

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Not to mention it will do slim to SFA to help reduce rents, which is one area where assistance can actually be provided to the most vulnerable.

The policy itself is ok-ish (in the sense that it's trying to do something). But it has absolutely no relevance to the cohort of people Northalives referenced

The answer has always been the same.

Build more public housing.

Remove negative gearing on established (not new) builds.

Introduce a proper vacancy tax.

Nominal caps on rental increases.

If we want to decomodify existing housing stock, prevent investors just opting for vacancies and encourage + fund additional supply, there is a clear blueprint.

 

[sdfc]

Costello's capital gains discount should be given its due credit for its contribution to housing unaffordability.

 

[peetoo]

And the baby bonus currently producing 10% extra school leavers that no one seems to care about

 

[sdfc]

And the baby bonus currently producing 10% extra school leavers that no one seems to care about

Probably a stretch.