Banter TRTT Part 14: 2022 Goodbye (To 2023)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just had one of those rubbish cups of coffee that permeates through the body & feels like it gives you bad breath until you bath in colgate.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Jonts 4 step plan to fix housing

Remove negative gearing- Look at new zealand, prices still actually continued to rise

Money spent on negative gearing then gets spent on government housing

Make foreign ownership of single residences illegal - grandfather in current ownerships

Tax the s**t out of empty residences that are investment properties (Airbnbs)
Not bad, not bad at all, Professor Jonts.

Following the tax national summit in July 1985 the Hawke/Keating government disallowed negative gearing interest expenses on properties bought after 17 July 1985. It meant that taxpayers could only offset interest expenses against rental income. It reinstated full negative gearing 2 years later in response to criticism that it created a rental supply crisis.

Claims that removing negative gearing created a shortage of rental properties in Australia have subsequently been proven wrong . What did happen though was that it did not fix the lack of available rental properties in the 2 markets that already had rental shortages at that time - Perth and Sydney.

So yes we need to re-tighten restrictions on negative gearing (and other government rebates) for investment property but it needs to be done in concert with proper efforts to fix both the rental accommodation and housing supply crisis

i.e. - a proper integrated national housing policy.

Been waiting a long time for that pen of pigs to fly.
 
Just had one of those rubbish cups of coffee that permeates through the body & feels like it gives you bad breath until you bath in colgate.

So like all coffee
 
No - they are a select handful of carefully crafted 'leading' questions

Questions based around selected historical facts to suit a particular narrative.
No, they are facts bub. Blaming negative gearing is a narrative.

The main issue that Australia has is that 90% of the population wants to live near the major capital cities which are incredibly spaced out. There is a shorter distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles or New York and Boston than there is between Sydney and Melbourne or Sydney and Brisbane.

People will move to more regional areas thanks to remote work, which will force governments to spend more money on infrastructure in those areas, which will in turn attract more people and you'll continue to see population growth in Australia. The name of the game is going to be decentralisation - the exact opposite of globalisation.

It's at that point in time - when regional centres that were once drive through towns become major cities in their own right thanks to a growth in population - that concepts like high speed rail between major capitals becomes less of a fantasy because there are cities along the route that need to be serviced that make it feasible. Then you can get workers who have to go into the city 1-2 a week for office meetings moving out to those regional centres as well, which lowers the asking price of urban housing.

It's why the national energy regulator says Australia needs double the amount of energy production it currently has by 2050. It's why you need leaders who have a plan 100 years into the future and not making bullshit promises they can't deliver based in the current economic environment just to get elected.
 
To say Covid exasperated it is an understatement. I would say it put the issues in to warp speed, but even fictional space ships come out of warp speed after a while, when they arrive at the destination - house prices are not going to stop rising. There's no destination. It can go to infinity.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
 
Ah negative gearing, Schrödingers upper middle class welfare.

Those in favour claim it makes a difference and simultaneously doesn’t make a difference to suit whichever argument.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

No, they are facts bub. Blaming negative gearing is a narrative.

The main issue that Australia has is that 90% of the population wants to live near the major capital cities which are incredibly spaced out. There is a shorter distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles or New York and Boston than there is between Sydney and Melbourne or Sydney and Brisbane.

People will move to more regional areas thanks to remote work, which will force governments to spend more money on infrastructure in those areas, which will in turn attract more people and you'll continue to see population growth in Australia. The name of the game is going to be decentralisation - the exact opposite of globalisation.

It's at that point in time - when regional centres that were once drive through towns become major cities in their own right thanks to a growth in population - that concepts like high speed rail between major capitals becomes less of a fantasy because there are cities along the route that need to be serviced that make it feasible. Then you can get workers who have to go into the city 1-2 a week for office meetings moving out to those regional centres as well, which lowers the asking price of urban housing.

It's why the national energy regulator says Australia needs double the amount of energy production it currently has by 2050. It's why you need leaders who have a plan 100 years into the future and not making bullshit promises they can't deliver based in the current economic environment just to get elected.

Decentralisation?

Yes please. I personally love the idea.


Is it going to solve house prices and rental squeeze?

Of course not.

Why? Who are the ones who need to make it happen? Rich people and politicians.

These guys don’t stick their necks out for any other reason then it’s going to make them and their friends rich.

Dropping realestate prices doesn’t help them, they want to make more money.

Unless they can profit from it, it’s not worth doing. That’s capitalism.

Besides the fact that prices outside of metro cities are often already insane in any place that’s properly liveable, we’ve already got a great case study of how they would do it.

They’ve been releasing land north of Elizabeth for the past 3 decades, did that influx of new land and houses lower prices? Hell no, prices have sky rocketed. They just drip fed packages of land in sections at a time, priced to all buggery.

You think there’s going to be cheaper land packages for sale in regional places like robe or wallaroo in your decentralised Australia? Lol, they would price that shit to buggery, and push up the prices of established homes.

there’s no such thing as a free market when it comes to land / housing. They get to set the price, and people have to pay it. What else are we going to do? Not have a home?
 
I fully expected my rent to sky rocket at the end of my 12 month lease, but they kept the rent the same for another 12 months! Very grateful
Very fortunate.

Housing costs for renters, who account for about a third of the population, were already near record highs before the RBA started lifting rates.

St George (which owns Bank SA and is owned by Westpac) are forecasting an 11.5% lift in rents through 2023 – after a 10 per cent jump last year – equating to a $10 billion increase in household rent bills. Which is on top of the average $5 billion increase in households’ 2022 rent bill.
 
HAPPY BRAZILIAN “NEW YEAR”!

Soccer Kiss GIF by Atlanta United
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top