Anthony Albanese - How long? -3-

Remove this Banner Ad

*Thousands of young couples chose to borrow an amount, without sufficient understanding of market conditions...

For better or worse, a lot of people rely on the bank to have done their numbers and that the amount they're able to borrow is an amount they can reasonably repay.

The bank has done their numbers, but the amount they're offered isn't an amount they can reasonably repay if conditions change.

Yes, you can argue people should be better educated, but the reality is a lot of people aren't, our education system doesn't really spend a lot of time on it, a lot of people don't necessarily have the education, and for generations that was fine because the banks were pretty conservative in their lending choices.
 
For better or worse, a lot of people rely on the bank to have done their numbers and that the amount they're able to borrow is an amount they can reasonably repay.

The bank has done their numbers, but the amount they're offered isn't an amount they can reasonably repay if conditions change.

Yes, you can argue people should be better educated, but the reality is a lot of people aren't, our education system doesn't really spend a lot of time on it, a lot of people don't necessarily have the education, and for generations that was fine because the banks were pretty conservative in their lending choices.
I agree it should be part of the syllabus at school, but I still think it's a cop out that anyone can think they can walk into a bank and just say "give me as much as I can borrow" without giving any thought to what they can actually afford.

Do we cut people the same slack if they can't get their household spending budget in order??
 
But there not saying this though are they, point me to an article or a statement where either Chalmers or Albo have said it's over.
Point me to an article where they're saying it's still a problem and where they actually propose something in the future to fix it.

I just checked Jim Chalmers' twitter feed. It's complaining about Libs and patting themselves on the back for their tax cut a year ago.

He needs new material and policies or he's going to get turfed. Complaining that the LNP policies won't work is fine for opposition, not for the current treasurer during an ongoing CoL crisis.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I agree it should be part of the syllabus at school, but I still think it's a cop out that anyone can think they can walk into a bank and just say "give me as much as I can borrow" without giving any thought to what they can actually afford.

Do we cut people the same slack if they can't get their household spending budget in order??
Imagine trusting a bank to have your best interests at heart.

People get hung up with having the best house possible, not the best house and quality of life they can afford.
 
Imagine trusting a bank to have your best interests at heart.

People get hung up with having the best house possible, not the best house and quality of life they can afford.
Where's the outrage about people being able to finance vehicles/caravans/jetskis/boats/etc that they can't afford??

You're asking someone to give you (a f**ing lot) of money. A bit of preparation surely isn't too much to ask?
 
I bought my first house about 3 months before the GFC. The bank offered us a stupid amount of money. Because we were entering into a contract for someone to lend us half a million dollars, we actually put time and effort into building a budget so that we could understand what we could afford. We ended up borrowing about 60% of what the bank said we could have.

This RBA thing is the biggest cop out of all time. Rates were at ALL TIME LOWS during the pandemic and could only ever go one way. If that put people into mortgage stress in 2023/24, it was going to put them in mortgage stress in 2026.

Seems personal responsibility is going the way of the Dodo...
100% agree.
I’m just pointing out how the LNP government relaxed lending rules during the pandemic.
We can’t discuss a housing crisis with out discussing the cause.
The GFC happen because of Banks lending practices, people are still homeless from it.

 
Yer Imagine deregulating the banks…
Some people who can't really afford their home when they buy it, can actually come good and pay for it. Some can't. The onus shouldn't be on the bank. It should be on the people signing up to $500k worth of debt, a life-changing amount of money. When I hear some people talk about finances, it does my head in.
 
Meanwhile the backbenchers are not happy: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...mps-to-pass-stalled-bill-20250128-p5l7r2.html

"Labor backbenchers are calling for the urgent passage of contentious green laws that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese scuttled last year".

He really is a pathetic weakling. For the (maybe) sake of a few votes in WA he scuttles a key environmental bill that Plibersek was on the verge of getting parliamentary agreement on. I suppose it's also just coincidence that she's a factional rival and potential replacement leader.
 
Last edited:
Commentators predicting the Federal election will be held in early April. Ross Gittins on the issue that should be front and centre of the major party's policy agenda but won't be - Climate Change.

View attachment 2213657

The final paragraph is the kicker:

"From the perspective of our children and grandchildren, the best election outcome would be a minority government dependent on the support of the pollies who do get the urgency of climate action: the Greens and teal independents"

Agreed. I didn’t vote Labor last time but was prepared to wait for Albo’s government to remember what the ALP used to stand for.

Now I think he deserves minority government and I hope it’s what we get. Some genuine collaboration and negotiation and progress, and a giant Get ****ed to both the major parties along the way.
 
Last edited:
Some people who can't really afford their home when they buy it, can actually come good and pay for it. Some can't. The onus shouldn't be on the bank. It should be on the people signing up to $500k worth of debt, a life-changing amount of money. When I hear some people talk about finances, it does my head in.
regulations to prevent predatory lending practices are a good thing

assuming everyone has the financial literacy to understand the implications of their choices when its not something taught at school is also a bad thing

we also get fun things like the RBA saying interest rates aren't forecast to go up for years less than 6 months before they started record rate hikes

people need housing the biggest reason people are in mortgage or rental stress is because our housing market and banking practices are both ****ed
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

[emoji[emoji6]][emoji6][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]" data-quote="Vindicater" data-source="post: 0" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">
RBA cut incoming before an election. Could be the bump Labor need.

I don’t think people can forget the other rises on his watch.. the bats are still waiting for him


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
I don’t think people can forget the other rises on his watch.. the bats are still waiting for him


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

It has been repeatedly shown that alot of people make their decisions on who to vote for in the last few weeks before an election.

If rates come down and people have more money in their pocket in the lead in to the last election it will help him win votes.

Much like the rate going up just before the last election helped him as well.
 
regulations to prevent predatory lending practices are a good thing

assuming everyone has the financial literacy to understand the implications of their choices when its not something taught at school is also a bad thing

we also get fun things like the RBA saying interest rates aren't forecast to go up for years less than 6 months before they started record rate hikes

people need housing the biggest reason people are in mortgage or rental stress is because our housing market and banking practices are both ****ed
Regulations on predatory lending and misleading etc is good.

But most of the problems people get themselves into are their own doing. It's not for the bank to try to convince them to borrow less than they can theoretically service according to the bank's calculator.

Maybe everyone who pays $30k or more in Stamp Duty gets something for their money and gets a free hour with a Govt-funded financial planner to really talk them through it.
 
It has been repeatedly shown that alot of people make their decisions on who to vote for in the last few weeks before an election.

If rates come down and people have more money in their pocket in the lead in to the last election it will help him win votes.

Much like the rate going up just before the last election helped him as well.
That's why the election won't be until May. They could have two rate drops by then, and people will have started to notice.
 
But most of the problems people get themselves into are their own doing. It's not for the bank to try to convince them to borrow less than they can theoretically service according to the bank's calculator.

That’s all good if Prices aren’t rising at double figures… the fear of missing out and the market getting out of reach forces a lot of people to borrow more than they can afford.
The point is when the banks RELAX the lending rules prices GO UP!!!! Banks win… it’s in their interest to lend as much as they can.
The system is broken.
My parents bought an average house with a 15 year loan on very modest incomes.
The single driver of house prices is what banks are allowed to lend. Increase terms and increase prices.
Tighten that and you’ll solve most of the housing crisis.

But we are in a Ponzi scheme and banks create more money into the economy than governments.. do.
There is an argument that private debt created inflation.

 
Regulations on predatory lending and misleading etc is good.

But most of the problems people get themselves into are their own doing. It's not for the bank to try to convince them to borrow less than they can theoretically service according to the bank's calculator.

Maybe everyone who pays $30k or more in Stamp Duty gets something for their money and gets a free hour with a Govt-funded financial planner to really talk them through it.

The bank can control the output of the calculator though, which is what people use to decide how much they can afford, since they (wrongly) assume the bank is far more able to assess their ability to repay a loan than they might be.
 
The bank can control the output of the calculator though, which is what people use to decide how much they can afford, since they (wrongly) assume the bank is far more able to assess their ability to repay a loan than they might be.

If banks could lend out 100 year loans they would.. intergenerational loans is their wet dream.
 
The bank can control the output of the calculator though, which is what people use to decide how much they can afford, since they (wrongly) assume the bank is far more able to assess their ability to repay a loan than they might be.

If people can't get the money they want from a major bank, they declare the bank mean or unfriendly or something, then go and get the loan from a more dubious organisation with even higher rates.

The calculators really aren't that controllable. They use maths.
If you borrow this, you will pay this.

Borrowers also seem to forget that just because the rates are low today, they can't be double in the near future.
If they are on 1% they may easily end up on 2% or 3%.
So you scrimp and save to and get the loan you need, and you can just meet the payments, then they double.
 
If people can't get the money they want from a major bank, they declare the bank mean or unfriendly or something, then go and get the loan from a more dubious organisation with even higher rates.

The calculators really aren't that controllable. They use maths.
If you borrow this, you will pay this.

Borrowers also seem to forget that just because the rates are low today, they can't be double in the near future.
If they are on 1% they may easily end up on 2% or 3%.
So you scrimp and save to and get the loan you need, and you can just meet the payments, then they double.

They use maths, but the variables and limits are controllable when considering borrowing power.

They don't let someone on $50,000 p.a. borrow $1,000,000.

Do the calculators line out the repayments at different interest levels to show people what they're in for when circumstances change?

Most of what you're demanding is a level of knowledge and education that not everyone has, but the bank lending them definitely does have. Most buyers are also at the mercy of the market itself, if you want to buy a house with any level of proximity to Melbourne, it's not cheap or affordable by any historical measure.

Rightly or wrongly, when people see the bank say 'you can afford to borrow x' they assume they can. People lacking financial literacy are the most deeply impacted by this stuff, who are mostly going to be low-to-middle income earners.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Anthony Albanese - How long? -3-


Write your reply...

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top