Securing a Home Loan with Centerlink Payments

Irate Monk on 06/08/2017 - 15:08
Last edited 09/08/2017 - 17:47

How practical is getting approval for a home loan based on centerlink payments?

With properties getting more and more expensive, the family in the below scenario doesn't want to wait till they are financially better off, to buy their first home.

Consider the following:

ABCD is the typical family (married heterosexual couple, no child or ex-partner support payments outgoing).
A and B are unemployed at the moment; on the dole so to speak.
C and D are their minor children.

Centerlink pays them Family Tax Benefit Part A+B and rental assistance = ~$600 per fortnight
They are renting and the rent evens out with the amount above.

They receive NewStart Allowance = ~ $900 per fortnight.

Even assuming the rental assistance part (around $170 per fortnight, out of the $600 mentioned earlier) from centerlink will stop if/when they move to their own home, rental expenses will be replaced by loan repayments, evening out more or less.

Can the above income amounts can be considered steady if the circumstances doesn't change?
A and B are confident of getting off the New Start Allowance soon (the point being uninterrupted loan repayments with or without NSA).

Will they be able to secure a home loan based on the above financials?
Does the numbers look OK to ensure mortgage payments indefinitely?
Which agencies/ banks are likely to approve a homeloan?
Is the overall picture sustainable?

Have you or anyone you know had experience on similar lines?
Please add your valuable comments.
Thanks.

EDIT

Thanks all for the enthusiastic comments.

Now that the discussion had digressed onto the ethics of home aspiration while on centerlink pay, the gist of the conversation can be condensed to the following question:

The toll on the public exchequer remaining exactly the same, how does it become unethical for a family on Centerlink support, to use that funds on a mortgage instead of as rent?

Financial

Comments

  • whooah1979 on 06/08/2017 - 15:12
    +121

    Securing a homeloan with centerlink payments

    if people on fulltime centerlink payments can save up for a deposit and use that to get a mortgage, then their are paid to much.

    • vtecdohc on 06/08/2017 - 19:00
      +14

      Centerlink payments should be enough to satisfy basic living requirements.

      • whooah1979 on 06/08/2017 - 19:02
        +38

        More than basic living expenses is ok. Enough for a 20% deposit isn't.

        • vtecdohc on 06/08/2017 - 19:05
          -1

          Yes, enough for basic living expenses but not for a deposit

    • Yotta00 on 08/08/2017 - 08:52
      +12

      If you live in the middle of no where and houses costs 100,000 dollars. It is doable and cheaper to buy a house rather than rent. My parents bought a little farm 100acre with a house for about that much (130k). The problem lies where where having more than 10,000 in cash automatically stop your payments until it reaches under that amount.

      • serpserpserp on 08/08/2017 - 16:41

        Not true, if you say you are using the money to buy a house, they'll put a reprieve on your payments (usually).

    • abb on 09/08/2017 - 15:56
      +7

      then their are paid to much.

      Clearly this welfare money should be redirected to our evidently failing education system post-haste.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/08/2017 - 20:14

      where?

  • Baysew on 06/08/2017 - 15:17
    +2

    What amount would they want to borrow?
    What is the value of the property?
    How much of the deposit have A & B saved up?

    • whooah1979 on 06/08/2017 - 15:33

      What is the value of the property?

      the median price in adelaide is $455k. so the deposit could be ~$90k.

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-01/cant-afford-sydney-or-…

      • Baysew on 06/08/2017 - 16:04
        +12

        So they would need to borrow $365,000.

        Even if they were working, based on given income level, they still wouldn't be approved for $365K.

        (Better to buy high yielding car with the $90k)

        Some useful information Home loans for Centrelink recipients

        (Spoiler: Computer says No)

        • serpserpserp on 08/08/2017 - 16:41
          +7

          You only need 80k for a high yielding car.

      • coin saver on 06/08/2017 - 18:08

        They dont have to buy a house at median price there are still houses available in the northern suburbs for under $150k.(even new houses under $200k) With say a $20k deposit repayments would be less than $150pw.

        • whooah1979 on 06/08/2017 - 18:17
          +1

          200k

          Is that land and house? If yes, then very affordable.

    • frugal investigator on 08/08/2017 - 19:23
      +1

      If A & B had a deposit - they would not be receiving Newstart Allowance under the liquid asset test/s.

  • Ughhh on 06/08/2017 - 15:22
    +66

    A and B are unemployed at the moment; on the dole so to speak.

    I find this unfair. Tax payers are working hard to save so they can purchase a home. At the same time, working hard to support on the dole people so they can buy food, have shelter, study to get a job and contribute back to society.

    If you can afford a luxury thing like a house, then you are paid too much.

    Unless you are disabled and have a good reason why you can not work at all, go get a job and better yourself.

    • airal3rt on 06/08/2017 - 16:02
      +42

      a luxury thing like a house

      Politicians have actually made people believe a house should be a "luxury", mind-blowing.

      • Ughhh on 06/08/2017 - 17:58
        +79

        Having shelter/sleeping in a house isn't a luxury, but purchasing a house/land is. If you don't have the income to support yourself and you need assistant from taxpayers, rent. Tax payers money isn't for you to buy a house that they can't afford themselves.

        • Ughhh on 06/08/2017 - 18:06
          +16

          @airal3rt:

          Are you saying you can't survive without owning a house and that owning land/house a basic right? Gee those poor renters.

          Do you believe driving is a right too?

        • whooah1979 on 06/08/2017 - 18:10
          +9

          @airal3rt:

          Its an asset that may increase in value and generally generates an income.

          Those that can afford can purchase one, those that can't rent.

        • whooah1979 on 06/08/2017 - 18:12
          +4

          @Ughhh:
          Owning an asset like a property isn't a right. There is a limited supply and everyone has to work and fight (not physical) for them.

        • iDroid on 07/08/2017 - 12:14
          +18

          @airal3rt: Owning a home using someone else's money is a big *%&^en luxury.. How could you possibly think different?

          Now, if they were to find their own land and build a house with their own hands, then maybe you'd sway me. But to sit on the dole and expect other's to buy you a house is total joke.

        • Your Friend on 07/08/2017 - 14:40

          @airal3rt: you aren't entitled to own your own home

        • idonotknowwhy on 07/08/2017 - 15:14
          +2

          @airal3rt: Looks like 14 members of the ruling elite have voted you down :(

        • thord on 08/08/2017 - 12:34
          +11

          "Having shelter/sleeping in a house isn't a luxury, but purchasing a house/land is"

          At first I was in agreement, outraged at the thought of this post. But you know what? I'd rather these people become self-sufficient and buy their own house, than have our tax money going to some landlords for their entire lives.

          At least by buying a home they will reduce their dependence on the gov payments. While renting, their dependence will only increase.

          For societies benefit it would be best for them to own their own place.

          There is no benefit in centrelink payments going to some landlord.

        • iDroid on 08/08/2017 - 13:34
          +10

          @thord: But it makes a mockery of the entire Social Security system.

          The idea is that Social Security is supposed to assist while people look for work. Remove the incentive to look for work and it's now just an alternative income stream.

          Life's luxuries like "owning your own home" are a great incentive to want to work. Give me everything I want on a platter and I might not bother going to work each day either.

        • whooah1979 on 08/08/2017 - 14:23
          +2

          @thord:

          At least by buying a home they will reduce their dependence on the gov payments.

          it sound good saying that out loud, but the feeling will quickly go away once one realises that they'll still queue up the day after they buy it.

        • thord on 08/08/2017 - 15:49
          +1

          @whooah1979:

          I'm thinking long term. Even if they queue up and get their check, there is less incentive to INCREASE payments over time. Whereas if they were renting, rent costs go up = their payments go up.

          Again, it makes sense to me even for the most lazy/greedy of dole bludgers that they own rather than rent.

          Rent payments to landlords are worse than someone owning an asset.

        • ZloyKrys on 08/08/2017 - 18:11
          +6

          @thord:

          I'd say the real solution would be public housing. Then money paid as rent would not prop private individuals but rather the entire public housing system and creating incentive to go back to work and get your own house

        • nieza on 08/08/2017 - 22:33
          +5

          @thord: +1

          Why not build social housing and provide the homes until people can get back on their feet and buy a place?

          Rent assistance is basically just a scam to deliver even more money to the well off.

        • RefusdClassification on 09/08/2017 - 00:50
          +1

          People who are paying off a home are also far less likely to trash it,than a home owned by the government or a landlord. Home ownership helps give people pride in their local community. The government really ought to help poorer people to acquire property. That way, when they have retired, they will no longer need rental assitance or government housing. Putting excess cash into a home loan is far better for everyone, than people squandering it on alcohol, cigarettes, pot, and gambling.

          And how about land rights? Aboriginal tribes get given huge swathes of land for free. White fellas have to pay half a million for a tiny parcel of land in a city.

        • BobLim on 09/08/2017 - 09:42
          +2

          @Thaal Sinestro: "The government really ought to help poorer people to acquire property"

          The Government ought to stop spending huge amounts of public money to further inflate the already ridiculously high costs of basic shelter for people on a normal salary (both rental and purchasing).

          Rental subsidies and homebuyer grants, coupled with insane tax treatment for investment properties all make everything more expensive for everyone and increase the amount of tax needing to be collected from other sources.

        • thord on 09/08/2017 - 11:46
          +1

          @ZloyKrys:

          Agree, public housing is good too. But public housing won't work in every case, and in the cases it doesn't. I have no issues with money going to a home purchase for the poor/less fortunate.

        • ZloyKrys on 09/08/2017 - 13:52

          @thord:

          This approach will have issues with scalability though. Investment with public housing will likely benefit more than one family, hence more reliable investment

        • helloeatty on 09/08/2017 - 15:54
          +1

          Most people having choices, people choose living rough is their choices, and shouldn't be other people's burden , especially to TAX PAYERS. Yes housing should be considered basic thing, but you should earn it but not sit on doles. It is so disgrace seeing so many homeless , I found many of them are Caucasian and young in good health.

        • ItsMeAgro on 10/08/2017 - 11:57
          +1

          @Thaal Sinestro:

          Aboriginal tribes get given huge swathes of land for free

          I think you mean "returned" (and only if nobody else really wants it)

      • SydStrand on 06/08/2017 - 21:10
        +19

        Politicians have actually made people believe a house should be a "luxury", mind-blowing.

        Home ownership is a luxury. If you cannot afford to purchase, you rent. If you cannot rent, you find others to split costs. If you cannot afford that, there's low income and public housing. Since when has home ownership been a guaranteed right in any society?

        Australia is among the softest countries in the world, but having tax-payers (millions of whom do not own the home they live in) to pay for yours, is ridiculous. If you can squirrel away tens of thousands of dollars from welfare cheques for a home deposit, then you're receiving too much.

        • alxr0101 on 07/08/2017 - 07:37
          +8

          So it's OK for tax payers to subsidise a negative geared housing investment?!

        • SydStrand on 07/08/2017 - 11:35
          +1

          @alxr0101: No? Which part of my comment suggests it's an either or?

        • iDroid on 07/08/2017 - 12:17
          +7

          @alxr0101: No, it's not.

          So just to be sure we agree.

          1) It is a luxury to have other's pay for your home while you sit on the dole.
          2) It is unfair to subsidise negative gearing for housing investment.

          See how those are not mutually exclusive.

        • Serenixia on 07/08/2017 - 13:01

          @iDroid:
          Of course it's mutually exclusive

          House investment is like a business that generates revenue, some people may choose this path instead of opening a business for their investment.

          As with any business that earns money, any losses or expensive can offset tax. So how would negative gearing be any different to how businesses claim tax?

        • iDroid on 07/08/2017 - 13:07
          +4

          @Serenixia: My only point here was that negative gearing has no relevance to the idea that it's ok to purchase a home using dole money.

          I'm not sure what question you're asking.

          Note, my post was replying to alxr0101, not you.

        • Serenixia on 07/08/2017 - 13:08
          +1

          @alxr0101:

          You have it completely wrong. Other Tax payers are not subsidizing the property owner for negative geared house investment, due to the revenue lost through expense, the house owner pay less tax, others are not paying for his house. =_=

        • iDroid on 07/08/2017 - 13:11
          +6

          @Serenixia: If they pay less tax (due to what ever rationale you give) then that is using money that would have been paid as tax. It's still tax payers money regardless of whether it's used before it's been paid or after.

        • Serenixia on 07/08/2017 - 13:16
          +3

          @iDroid:

          As I mentioned in an earlier reply, it's like a business for some people, so are you saying businesses are not allowed to claim tax for their expenses?

          It's like your saying we the tax payers are paying for all the businesses out there, with that logic rofl.

        • ZloyKrys on 07/08/2017 - 14:12
          +2

          @iDroid:

          Nope that's not quite correct. this is the same taxation as with business and shares (look up at the ATO website)

          If I have a house (business, shares) and spend money to keep it up and amount of money spent is less than rent (income) I receive, I pay tax on amount above my expenditure. If I earn less than I spent on the property (shares, business) - I claim it as taxable loss. If I have another income (say other business) to offset these losses from, I will get them offset, otherwise I will carry these losses over till I have surplus income or asset sale where these losses will be offset against capital gains.

          This is how our progressive tax system works.

          If you want to remove negative gearing, you have to create a different class of tax for the property and rules about it. However I am wondering who is going to build new housing for that crowd of 200,000+ new migrants who land our shores every year besides other habitants of the island. Clearly, first home buyers who buy off-plan are not going to do it (according to the ABS)

        • SydStrand on 07/08/2017 - 17:11

          @iDroid: let's just agree that negative gearing isn't cool, but buying a house on the dole is even less so.

        • OzWizard22 on 08/08/2017 - 09:24

          @Serenixia: Don't know how expensive that can is though.

        • iDroid on 08/08/2017 - 10:12
          -1

          @Strand0410: Why all the negs on you? Yep I agree with you :)

        • nieza on 08/08/2017 - 22:41
          +1

          @Serenixia:

          But a house is not like a business. It doesn't actually generate anything, investment in it's purely based on speculation on capital growth.

          Businesses offset expenses because they are incurred in the process of actually doing something productive - creating goods, delivering services, etc. These goods, services, which are being produced FOR consumption, keep people alive by feeding them, clothing them, educating them, etc.

          How could anyone think that negative gearing is in any way similar!?

        • Serenixia on 08/08/2017 - 23:18
          +5

          @nieza:

          Of course it is a business, the rental revenue from the tenants GENERATES income, if your rent exceeds rental expenses, you have to declare it to ATO and pay tax on that income. If you own the property outright by paying it off completely, any rent you gain is passive taxable income.

          How is that not a business? The SERVICE you provide is accommodation. Just like any other hotel/motels/Airbnb but long term. This SERVICE provided keeps a roof over some family's head. Your logic is completely flawed. So you are telling me hotels etc. are not a business?

          By far the easiest example. Chadstone shopping Centre, purchase land and builds a huge complex, leases it hundreds of shops, generates rental income, and the company pay tax on that income [business]. Can't you get your mind around if it's a person that bought a land, built a house and rents it out to a family and received rent, he then must pay tax on that rent. [Business] simple basic logic

          Funny that in your post you suggest that putting a roof over someone's head is not considered productive lol. I would think a place to stay is bloody important in the top human basic need category, as you put it in your post to "keep people alive".

        • Melong on 09/08/2017 - 07:35

          @Serenixia:
          On top of this, when the property is liquidated, the government will collect cgt in most cases

        • Hikko on 09/08/2017 - 13:38
          +2

          @Serenixia:

          Holy moly…. this is a very interesting discussion. I'm leaning here and there, but ultimately I'd agree with Serenixia.
          I'm appalled by what OP is asking, but it's bringing about a interesting discussion here about Australia's current housing environment.

        • imurgod on 10/08/2017 - 20:42
          -1

          @Serenixia: Completely agree. I worked very, very, very hard for my two investment properties AND I have a business. I pay a ton of tax and I assure you, I don't live a very extravagant life.

          I merely keep my family fed, my kids in school and roof over our heads. My car is a piece of crap, I don't spend thousands on my clothes or holidays and I rarely eat out.

          I don't get how people don't understand that investment properties are essentially a business and like any business, you claim losses and expenses against the income earned.

          Why doesn't anyone complain about the capital gains tax I have to pay upon the sale of a property or indeed all the other taxes I have to pay? personal tax, payroll tax, company tax, GST, etc?

          It's amazing how so many people immediately put down people who work hard and make smart choices instead of pissing their money away.

        • nieza on 10/08/2017 - 22:07

          @Serenixia:

          Serenixia, in spite of your impassioned use of bold caps, I can assure you that a house is very much not a business. It is actually property.

          If you own property and take rent for its use by others, you are a landlord. It does not make your house a business any more than your car would be a business if you hired it out for a fee.

        • Serenixia on 11/08/2017 - 01:36
          +3

          @nieza:

          It definitely can be considered a business of rental property if the criteria are met.

          Feel free to read:

          http://www.wolterskluwercentral.com.au/legal/property-law/ho…

          Quote:
          In the 2013 Guide for Rental Property Owners, the ATO reviews the position of partners carrying on a rental property business.

          The ATO gives an example of a couple who jointly own twenty-six residential rental properties. They spend considerable time to manage the properties personally and derive most of their income from rents. The ATO says that they are carrying on a rental property business.

        • Serenixia on 11/08/2017 - 08:22
          +2

          @nieza:
          So I can assure you that it can very much be a business, unless you are saying the ATO is wrong? Lol…I hope something got through…otherwise there is no hope lol

        • nieza on 12/08/2017 - 17:30
          -2

          @Serenixia:

          The article itself makes the disctinction that I'm making.. The business that the couple-with-26 carry out is managing the properties. They could run that business even if they didn't own the properties. That's why the couple-with-3 are't classified as running a business. So, how do you explain that?

          Oh no, wait, you're right no matter what lol

          Edit: In case you still don't understand the distinction I'm making.. If a house was a business, then every house-owner would be a business-owner. Clearly, that's not true.

        • whooah1979 on 12/08/2017 - 18:00
          +3

          @nieza:

          The only distinction that matters is the ato's. If they make a private ruling stating that a rental property is a business, then it is.

        • nieza on 17/08/2017 - 21:04
          -1

          @whooah1979:

          But that's exactly what the ATO did not rule… is anyone even reading the article? sheesh!

  • holdenmg on 06/08/2017 - 15:32
    +2

    Check out http://www.homestart.com.au/calculators/how-much-can-I-borro…

    Remember, to be eligible for a home loan with HomeStart you must:

    Have a regular income, this can include your Centrelink benefits
Be over 18 years of age
Be an Australian permanent resident or an Australian citizen
Be purchasing a home within South Australia
    • serpserpserp on 08/08/2017 - 16:45

      Gee, 3% margin for homestart on the size of your loan is a great basic margin for a lending business. I assume there are other fees on top of that too!

    • smartazz104 on 10/08/2017 - 20:08
      +1

      Be purchasing a home within South Australia

      Probably better to be homeless…

  • mick123 on 06/08/2017 - 15:39
    +29

    So, you want your own house by doing absolutely nothing and making everyone else pay for it…

    Always knew this country was whacko with the amount spent on welfare, but you're just taking the piss..

    • Diji1 on 06/08/2017 - 16:01
      +16

      Don't take being delusional for reality.

      OP is on $765 week assuming I maffed right (after taking away rent assistance) and that OP isn't hiding some other form of income. That's $765 to feed, cloth, school, pay bills etc etc. a four person household.

  • whooah1979 on 06/08/2017 - 15:50
    +9

    A and B are unemployed at the moment; on the dole so to speak.

    ahh. this post makes sense now. so to speak means in other words cash work.

  • Sweet3st on 06/08/2017 - 15:55
    +3

    Are you eligible for Newstart if you have $90,000 in the bank???

  • Findo on 06/08/2017 - 16:02
    +24

    You're trolling right? While you're at it please apply for a westpac altitude platinum credit card, because your combined income is over $30k.

    • [Deactivated] on 06/08/2017 - 16:19
      +4

      Yeh, trolling or seriously misunderstanding the purpose of Centrelink benefits.

  • mskeggs on 06/08/2017 - 16:10
    +28

    I knew a woman in this scenario in western Queensland.
    There were numerous properties for sale that would have cost her less in repayments than she was paying in rent.
    She was unable to source a mortgage, and the Centrelink rules restricted her from saving a (even the modest size) deposit required.

    There are plenty of regional places with excess housing stock and/or a large transient population where renting in less economic than buying, so I don't judge this question as being trolling or in some way ridiculous. I think the OP might want to consider their options for employment in a more economically vibrant location if the local community has such depressed housing prices.

    • aerom on 07/08/2017 - 15:25
      +3

      now that is a sensible reply. Thanks Mskeggs for keeping your head

    • serpserpserp on 08/08/2017 - 16:49

      Interesting you say this, I know someone who came into 200k on a full pension and they said they were going to buy a house with the proceeds so centrelink allowed them to stay on the full pension.

      I guess the point here is, maybe your friend is better off stashing the cash under the mattress, then coming back to centrelink after the deposit is saved.

      Ask for forgiveness not for permission yada yada etc.

  • tsunamisurfer on 06/08/2017 - 16:15
    +7

    If I were A and B, I would not go into a mortgage whilst on NSA.

    If I were a bank, I would not lend to a couple who's sole income is NSA.

    Why?

    It only takes a few basis points movements from what are historic lows now for A and B's household to go into delinquency then default.

    Interest rates move, Centrelink payments do not.

    The only way is if A and B already have significant savings for a deposit, which would make them qualify under the Assets test anyway for NSA.

  • trustnoone on 06/08/2017 - 17:07

    I think the thoughts are a bit skewed, one of the problems is that rent has become quite high, its getting closer to paying off a mortgage price in some areas. You also discuss a family here, while impossible as an individual having more adults means sharing the price so it can bring it down a bit.

    Still I don't think its possible though, a house at the very minimum is like $400,000 in Sydney that won't even get you a studio not to mention for a family. Checking the NAB loan calculator, I can choose a rate of 4.17 percent (which seems lowish?) and I'd have to pay $899 a fortnight for 30 years.

    Now I'm 26 so working 30 years means until I'm 56, if I was a bank I wouldn't give the money for it, that also means you and your significant other has no money at all for anything for 30 years. Seems impossible? (You won't get rent assistance as you're not renting as well). The other problem is centrelink benefits could change in the next 30 years, who knows whether you'll still be getting it in the future.

    Maybe if one person buys it, then the other person pays rent that person can get rent assistance? While one person pays the mortgage (not sure if thats legal).

    Other problem will be whether the assets test will mean you will be taken off centrelink as well.

    • LadyCocoa1234 on 06/08/2017 - 19:43
      +1

      fairly sure you can own a home whilst still being on centrelink

      • alxr0101 on 07/08/2017 - 07:39

        but you are means tested on the cash in bank for a deposit.

        • kazoomyn on 07/08/2017 - 08:17
          +1

          Per Centrelink website the current asset cutoffs for NSA are (a) for a couple who own their home already $380,500 (which excludes the home that's being lived in as an asset), and (b) for a couple who don't own/live in their own home $583,500 (which could include money saved for a deposit). Money in the bank might hit more due to an income test though ie the interest/income the money in the bank/savings is assumed to be making.

  • chumlee on 06/08/2017 - 19:47

    Not impossible but risk to the lender is they may be breaching responsible lending obligations

    • serpserpserp on 08/08/2017 - 16:51

      Depends on how much the P&I payments are per week, if they are under 40% of the borrowers cash flow (or whatever the percentage is) should be fine.

  • Chookt on 06/08/2017 - 20:02
    +7

    The correct spelling is Centrelink

  • SydStrand on 06/08/2017 - 20:57
    +21

    Is this a joke? Millions of tax-payers do not own their homes, and should not have to pay for yours.

    • alxr0101 on 07/08/2017 - 07:40

      The tax payer is paying to negative gear my landlords though. Fair?

      • ashikk on 07/08/2017 - 21:42
        +2

        @ alxr0101, Your -ve gearing landords pay tax in some other form, these people don't!!!

        • serpserpserp on 08/08/2017 - 16:52
          +1

          They might actually not pay any tax.

  • thechemist on 07/08/2017 - 01:01

    OP should read http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/forums/index.php?/topic/5018…
    "buying a hosue on centerlink payments" explains everything

    On a different note, you can still have newstart if you own a house so the government doesn't force you to sell it and I am sure a lot of government benefits are going towards paying someones home loan.

    Just saying if someone only had 200K left on a mortgage if they went interest only this would be under 10k per year which is doable for a period of time with the numbers stated by OP

  • RockyRaccoon on 07/08/2017 - 05:51
    +3

    Fair crack of the sav fellas

    They live in Adelaide, according to th OP's profile.

    They expect to get Government handouts, its the SA thing. Submarine and Car manufacturing keeps SA alive

    Its all political, no subsidies no votes

    Its what they have been born into, so dont criticise, its the SA thing.

    If you dont like it change the constitution, where those in small states can now run the country.

    We live in a smallstateocracy, where 100K people can elect a senator vs 1Million in the larger states.

    1 vote does not equal 1 vote

    • ilikeradiohead on 07/08/2017 - 15:32

      Your numbers aren't quite right. In the 2013 election (the last half senate election) the quote was 34,000 people in the NT (for their two senators) and 625,000 in NSW for their six. So the disparity is closer to 20x rather than 10x.

      In WA a similar thing happens with its upper house, with a quote a 7,000 in the Mining and Pastoral region vs 49,000 in the South Metropolitan region. WA is the only remaining State with malapportionment.

  • Gershom on 07/08/2017 - 08:22
    +11

    I am utterly disgusted by this. Get jobs for God's sake. How can you live with yourself sponging off tax paying citizens like this? Leaches!

    • aerom on 07/08/2017 - 15:29

      Yeah like they said if they think houses are expensive get a better paying job isn't it?

    • vetopower on 08/08/2017 - 10:08
      +1

      You are easily provoked by a simple troll post. Are you this gullible in all of your dealings in life?

      • Gershom on 08/08/2017 - 10:41
        +7

        Yes.

    • NEEDHELP on 08/08/2017 - 19:37
      +1

      All those freeloaders in parliament are the same!

  • Stoozer on 07/08/2017 - 08:43
    +2

    You could buy this house. The mortgage repayments would be affordable on benefits

    https://m.realestate.com.au/property-house-tas-rosebery-1189…

    • RockyRaccoon on 07/08/2017 - 09:05
      +8

      But the real question to be answered, is how far is it to the nearest centrellnk office

  • ireadtermsofuse on 07/08/2017 - 12:18
    +6

    Jeezums. It took my fiancé and I 1 1/2 years of hard savings to even reach $45k (and the first home owners grant really helped as well). This includes going to the Sunday markets every fortnight and selling our junk just to get that extra few dollars.

    This topic just makes me wanna 🤢

    • whooah1979 on 07/08/2017 - 17:09

      selling our junk just to get that extra few dollars.

      junk? hmm.

  • Amanda3724 on 07/08/2017 - 12:20
    +5

    A mortgage is generally 25-30 years. Surely you're not planning on living off the welfare for that long? Work towards getting jobs and plan your future home purchase on a working wage. I'd be shocked if welfare payments were enough to purchase a house and if they are, that's a real kick in the guts for those working full-time and struggling to buy.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join