Where Should My Family Emigrate to?

Ltexx on 23/02/2018 - 23:41
Last edited 24/02/2018 - 08:47 by 2 other users

So I've received a letter from the Victorian government notifying me that they intend to take my family home for the north east link in Melbourne.

Anyway…….
Slater Gordon, I'm triggered, say we'll get what the house is worth and no more. The guy said, `no one who has their property acquired walks away happy'.
In the several years since we bought our property I estimate that it has appreciated by $350k. When Daniel Andrews comes to my house and tears my beautiful children from their hand made cubby house as they cry, I think we'll have $400k to put towards our new home.

We currently live in an affordable area surrounded by aspirational millionaires. Read: there's no way we'll be able to buy another house within 10kms for under $1mil.

So, my question is where in the world could I move that I can:

  • Buy a house outright
  • Live on the balance
  • Party!

And not:

  • Be afraid for my life
  • Be afraid for my the life of my children and wife
Financial

Comments

  • retiredfeline on 23/02/2018 - 23:46
    +22

    Surely the relevant issue is whether you can legally emigrate to that country, work and live there. We don't know enough about you and your family to say. Otherwise I'd say you're just having a rant.

      • retiredfeline on 23/02/2018 - 23:56
        +9

        It has to do with the conditions of the destination country, not whether you are a citizen of Australia. If for example you had Irish forbears you might be eligible to live in Ireland. But again I suspect you're not really looking for that kind of info.

    • boomramada on 26/02/2018 - 19:29
      +1

      OP could migrate to country Victoria; Don't even need a passport or citizenship and buy a nice house for $400k :)

    • MrFrugalSpend on 01/03/2018 - 20:14

      OP, yes you arent going to be happy on sentimental reasons, but your argument on value doesn't make sense.

      You will be paid market value for what your house is worth which is done by comparison to other homes in the area, so by very definition, if "comparable" family homes in the area are worth $800k then that is what you will get! Thats how the valuation works.

      Being forced to do something you don't want sucks but dont dwell on it, you're only going to make yourself miserable and its only going to effect you and your family. Look on the bright side, you could be in China where they barely even compensate you to flood your house to build a dam.
      Consider it an opportunity for your family to experience something different in your life, be sad to stay in one place for ever, its a big country/world.

      As for your kids cubby, take it with you. Do your research on genuine comparables, look at the positive attributes your house has, ask agents you enquire with to do comparative market analysis with other sales so you know what a comparable is valued at when they put forward a value.

  • mskeggs on 23/02/2018 - 23:54
    +16

    If you have $400k deposit, you will be able to borrow a fair bit.
    If the acquisition is at market prices, why won't you be able to buy a similar property nearby?

    I recognise it is disruptive to have somebody force their demands on you, but I'm not sure why you would want to disrupt your whole life?

    • texx on 23/02/2018 - 23:59
      +3

      Sure, I could borrow a lot. But repayments on a $1mil property is SIGNIFICANTLY more than my current repayments.

      • mskeggs on 24/02/2018 - 00:03
        +12

        If you bought your house for, e,g, $350k with accompanying mortgage, and similar houses now cost $1m (and that is what you get paid for your property), you will have enough to buy a similar house with similar repayments to now if you get a fair pay out.

        If you live in the worst house in a 10km radius, it is still hard to believe there isn't another house available for similar prices.

        Is your concern that the government won't pay a fair price?

        • texx on 24/02/2018 - 00:16

          My home is in a pocket of houses built for army families.
          These houses top out at $800k in a surrounding area of houses where a fixer-uppers start at $1m.
          If I'm competing to buy a new house against the other 100 families who are displaced I can only imagine that the $1mil price is going to blow out.
          There is no way I'm going to be able to buy a property where my repayments stay remotely the same.
          If I'm forced to move….. Can I move to Bali and live off the difference?

        • retiredfeline on 24/02/2018 - 00:21
          +1

          @texx: Most books on living in foreign countries are for retirees or near retirees. For example this book came out a few years back:

          https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/general-books/lif…

          Since you mention kids, it sounds like you're not near retirement. In which case you have the added issue of bringing up kids in a foreign land. But borrow the book from a library and have a look at the numbers in it.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 24/02/2018 - 11:18
          +13

          @greenpossum:

          Most books on living in foreign countries are for retirees or near retirees.

          Does it come in electronic format for young retirees?

        • antzz on 25/02/2018 - 12:31
          +2

          @texx: depend where in bali. But then again 400k is not much in many asian country now adays.

        • idonotknowwhy on 25/02/2018 - 16:29

          @antzz: You can totally live off $400,000 in Asia (not the good parts) just using bank interest (2.8%) with the cash stored in Australia.

          Not with kids though.

        • Matt32 on 25/02/2018 - 18:44

          @idonotknowwhy: Not sure what you imply by "not good parts" of Asia - you can buy a property in Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand etc with $400k. For sure if you try to go to Singapore, Japan and Korea you won't go far with that money.

        • Gauntlet on 25/02/2018 - 21:08
          -1

          @texx: thought you said you wanted to not fear for your life?

        • BartholemewH on 25/02/2018 - 21:10
          +3

          @Matt32:
          OP doesm't want to pay 400k, he wants a property and to kick back on the remainder.

        • MetaphorOZB on 26/02/2018 - 17:15

          To add to this, why doesn't OP just move state rather than leaving Australia altogether? He could buy a nice house in Brisbane within 15kms of the city with $400k to $600k.

    • jjjaar on 24/02/2018 - 07:27
      +7

      They won't be able to buy a similar property nearby because this is happening to hundreds of households. If you lose hundreds of homes the demand goes up and supply goes down.

      • Koolness on 26/02/2018 - 14:40

        In his situation I don't think nearby property will go up much, if at all considering the North East link will make alot of that area undesirable for many due to the increased noise/pollution from the traffic it will generate.
        I'm not going to talk about politics in the thread but when I looking for a property and they were evaluating the options for the North East link, it was pretty obvious the route was decided a long time ago. Glad I avoided the area and bought in another suburb.

    • Baghern on 24/02/2018 - 14:02
      +5

      Government acquisition is always below market rates

  • volcanoeqcycle on 23/02/2018 - 23:56
    +25

    Sounds like this has just happened. Never make a big decision when emotional.

    • ravonda on 25/02/2018 - 13:47
      +13

      I heard that it's wise to beat the meat before making a big decision..

      • volcanoeqcycle on 25/02/2018 - 13:49
        +1

        That induces weariness, bad move.

  • realfancyman on 24/02/2018 - 00:24
    +10

    Forced land acquisitions are so wrong… So sorry for you

    • try2bhelpful on 24/02/2018 - 08:56
      +22

      I tend to agree but, unfortunately, with how urbanized Melbourne is no infrastructure would ever be built again. That said successive governments have sucked at getting the infrastructure built in the right places and the next group come in and change it all, so nothing actually gets completed. I can understand why it has to happen but it needs to be handled better.

    • Unacceptable on 25/02/2018 - 17:51

      Agreed. But as far as gov compensates enough for family to move out comfortably it should be ok.

      • MetaphorOZB on 26/02/2018 - 17:17

        I wonder how much compo these people actually receive. Moving is quite an expensive process when you consider the cost of stamp duty on another property (not to mention other moving costs).

        • Unacceptable on 26/02/2018 - 18:10
          +1

          Agreed. That's why when I purchased my new home last year I clearly wanted to avoid any house near 'M'otorway

        • redvaldez on 28/02/2018 - 09:58

          I can't speak for the OP but I'm a solicitor in Queensland and have dealt with a number of property acquisitions by government. You provide to the government an estimate of your "disturbance costs". This usually consists of your removalist, the transfer of services (e.g. internet provider transfer fees), mail redirect, stamp duty/legals/outlays on the purchase of a similarly priced replacement property, etc. The government then gives you a lump sum that covers the value of the property and the disturbance costs. The value of the property itself can be a bit more complicated but usually both the government and the land owner engage a valuer each and they meet somewhere in the middle.

    • ribze1 on 25/02/2018 - 22:05

      Is the possibly of forced land acquisitions always outlined in the contract of sale?

      • MITM on 25/02/2018 - 22:31
        +10

        Enshrined in law, all property is subject to government acquisition.

    • Cluster on 26/02/2018 - 12:08
      +5

      Forced acquisition is unfortunately required. There should be good compensation of course. Fair market price, payment of all moving costs, plus extra for the hassle. Most people put a huge amount of work into landscaping that they don't have an invoice for.

      Without forced acquisitions we'd be forced with dealing with nail houses. People who absolutely refuse to move no matter how much money you throw at them. One house can hold up an entire project benefiting millions of people. Would that be fair?

      • misu p on 27/02/2018 - 09:46

        It is quite important to have market prices, in my country it usually is above market price, that creates an entire mafia that knows about projects before they are even announced and buys properly in the area for the some purpose to get more money from the government when they get "acquired". Or even worse, they buy the price before they decide where a project will happen (they make the rules in this case).

  • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2018 - 01:03
    -4

    decide if frankston or broadmeadows is better and move there.
    give up on toorak

    • JIMB0 on 24/02/2018 - 10:17
      +21

      And not:
      •Be afraid for my life
      •Be afraid for my the life of my children and wife

    • rbrb on 24/02/2018 - 20:06
      -1

      Frankston is perfectly fine now. Moved here from Sandringham because you get way more bang for your buck.

      • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2018 - 09:12
        +12

        bang

  • CheapSticks on 24/02/2018 - 05:13
    +2

    Wud u consider Qld? Shud be able to pick-up a house for less than what you will get in Vic and pocket some balance

    • gooddealmate on 24/02/2018 - 09:49
      +6

      Another vote for QLD, 4-500,000k will get you a house and land package on your own block on the Northern Gold Coast.

      • userid007 on 25/02/2018 - 00:32
        +4

        Also there is 400 rebate for 4 star ac, $1500 rebate battery and 0% interest free loans !!

      • iSamurai on 25/02/2018 - 19:51
        +2

        I'd also suggest Queensland (I live here so I'm a bit biased), but I have a mate who moved from the Central Coast (and worked in Sydney) a few years ago and never looked back. He said he could get a 4 bedroom house for the wife and kids and can't get anything like that anywhere near Sydney.

        Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdOwFTo4Q3I

      • macrocephalic on 26/02/2018 - 11:47

        $400-500 will get you a 3-4 bedroom generic brick house on a ~500M^2 block of land in my area - just under 20km from the Brisbane CBD by road. It's not a known nice area, but every time someone new comes to my house they comment on how nice the area is (in that the neighbours are friendly, nice views, and there's a lot of green space - not that it's fancy).

    • dsp26 on 28/02/2018 - 09:08

      I did this, but moved out west where development is.

      The bigger factor is employability. It costs more to have an office lease in the city with shitty brown river water than it is in Melb… And they wonder why theres over supply in apartments

  • [Deactivated] on 24/02/2018 - 07:55

    Was the new road proposal an issue before you purchased? Ie did your solicitor reviewing your contract search for future proposed roads etc

  • Adster01 on 24/02/2018 - 08:01
    +18

    NZ with gigabit fibre!

    • Diahreabombb on 25/02/2018 - 16:39
      +2

      Anywhere but Auckland with that 400k budget. And I'm not too sure if you can get gigabit fibre outside of Auckland where houses are only 400k?

      • Wellington on 25/02/2018 - 18:32
        +10

        Most of the country has affordable gigabit fibre available, we are doing this much better than you lot across the ditch ;)

        • Diahreabombb on 25/02/2018 - 23:18
          +1

          Was unaware of the gigabit fibre network but the first part of my statement is still correct. Anywhere except Auckland with that 400k budget for the housing. Also, I'm a kiwi myself who moved to Australia not too long ago.

          Edit: I still know people in AUCKLAND that are on ADSL (not even VDSL) so yeah.. I know internet in NZ is on the whole better than in Australia but saying that most of the country has it when not even the biggest city in the country offers fibre/VDSL all over is a slightly exaggerated statement.

        • Ethernia on 26/02/2018 - 02:37
          +1

          Not even close to all of nz has gigabit fibre 😂😂😂

        • macrocephalic on 26/02/2018 - 11:49
          +1

          @Ethernia: I think it's planned to be rolled out to any township with more than 10k people. Unless Malcolm sticks his nose in there, they'll have it decades before most of Australia.

  • EightImmortals on 24/02/2018 - 08:21
    +7

    I'd get a couple of real estate agents to give you a proper valuation. I know you wont get what the castle is worth to YOU but it would be good to find out the true market value and not what the thieving government tells you it is.

    As for places to live, my bro lives in melbourne as well and he and his missus are sick to the back teeth of pretty much everything down there. He's looking at Finland ATM, ticks all the above boxes except it is cold there (which he likes). He has a mate who built a 4 bedroom home there recently which cost 120K (AUD) plus land.

    Otherwise you might get some ideas/help from this site: https://internationalliving.com/au/

    • GregMonarch on 25/02/2018 - 01:46
      +6

      If he wants an accurate valuation forget real estate agents. Look for "Quantity Surveyors" in the yellow pages.

      Then contact everyone in the same situation, have them do the same, contact media outlets - and ALL OF THEM scream at the top of their voices (until dragged out of their properties by police anyway).

      • EightImmortals on 25/02/2018 - 07:41
        +4

        True. But at this point in our history the ANZAC spirit or the memory of Eureka has been well and truly crushed from the common psyche and that which once made us unique is no longer there. Instead of defying the authority, most people would be more likely to pay them for a 'permit' to protest. lols.

    • abb on 26/02/2018 - 10:12

      He has a mate who built a 4 bedroom home there recently which cost 120K (AUD) plus land.

      Wha?!

      Is that near a decent size city or the middle of nowhere?

      • EightImmortals on 26/02/2018 - 10:28
        -1

        I didn't ask, but Finland isn't that big.

        http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/AU/FI

        Some scary stats right there…54.55% more likely to be murdered in Finland that in Aus?? What's up with that?

        • macrocephalic on 26/02/2018 - 11:50
          +1

          Cabin fever.

        • EightImmortals on 26/02/2018 - 12:53
          -1

          @macrocephalic: "Alcohol" was the only thing I could get a google on?

        • pizzip on 26/02/2018 - 17:30

          From wiki:

          In 2015, Finland had a murder rate of 1.28 per 100,000 population. There were a total of 70 murders in Finland in 2015.[1]

          Half of murders involve men of marginalized groups (unemployed, undereducated, drug and alcohol problems) in heavy drinking situations. Thirty-five percent of homicides are committed by family members, and ten percent of homicides are classified as youth violence.

  • TheBilly on 24/02/2018 - 08:26
    +4

    Id be ropable, I feel angry for you man… I can sure as shit tell you, had your house been owned by Meritons/Frasers/CBRE and they needed to build a road through there, the government would've spent whatever value the companies want to buy it off them. You just get a shit value, because your one guy and they know you can't do squat.

    • texx on 24/02/2018 - 08:37
      +12

      It's extra galling because they are extending the tunnel at the other end by 1km at a cost of $1billion to save some private schools' footy fields.

  • myusername on 24/02/2018 - 08:27
    +3

    north korea?

    • texx on 24/02/2018 - 09:51
      +6

      nkbargain any good?

      • Scrooge McDuck on 24/02/2018 - 11:26
        +16

        Not really. Most of the deals are for free portraits of the Dear Leader and the forums are cluttered with wood and bark recipes.

      • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2018 - 09:15
        +2

        The deals on food can be assumed to be insufficient quantity.

        Non essentials deals are always only targeted offers

  • ChrisLevo on 24/02/2018 - 08:41
    +9

    Watch "The Castle" a few times.

    • WreckTangle on 24/02/2018 - 08:45
      +1

      Live in Bonnie Doon?

      • holdenmg on 24/02/2018 - 09:14
        +4

        How's the serenity…

        • Scrooge McDuck on 24/02/2018 - 11:43

          OP should hit 'em with the big artillery.

        • holdenmg on 24/02/2018 - 11:54

          @Scrooge McDuck:
          The problem with Jindalee is that it is OTHR.
          They certainly won't anticipate anything from within Australia…
          Maybe I have said too much. lol

        • daleyboy79 on 26/02/2018 - 13:57

          @Scrooge McDuck: nah … just call Farouks friends lol

    • timmysbiscuits on 24/02/2018 - 12:22
      +7

      Slater & Gordon: it's the vibe

      • RobMel on 28/02/2018 - 02:51

        Slater and Gordon have close affiliation to the current government. Go and find a firm with integrity.

    • Wilko81 on 27/02/2018 - 16:00

      Tell him he's dreaming…

    • derrida derider on 27/02/2018 - 21:48

      But The Castle was being resumed by the feds and the feds are bound by the Australian Constitution with its "acquisition on just terms" clause (usually interpreted, I believe, as "market value plus 20%"). State governments are not necessarily bound by that - theoretically they could just pass a law to take your land without compensation.

  • peterpeterpumpkin on 24/02/2018 - 09:17
    +22

    I always tell people that you never really own anything outright since the government can do what they want. And that's any government.

    And "foreigners" have properties confiscated all the time, and that's literally everywhere in the world. And it's not just in South America and Asia. Australia and the UK famously had major crackdowns less than 2 years ago.

    Asset-protection trusts and offshore corporations can falter when host governments come crashing down or push through reforms. And corrupt governments aren't exactly trustworthy to begin with. There are a few idiots that think having an untouchable currency would solve all their problems but your tangible assets and freedoms of movement are always at the behest of the local jurisdiction. And you'll quickly turn over anything at gunpoint.

    So the best way to think of it is that the majority of the world's population would love to be in your shoes right now. It could all change one day but being an Australian over the last century has been a relatively easy ride by world standards.

    • EightImmortals on 24/02/2018 - 10:15
      -1

      I suspect there would a difference in rights between those who own property under 'fee simple' as opposed to those who are on Torrens titles. Been a while since I've looked into it. (And obviously too late for the OP. )

    • Zarcady on 24/02/2018 - 11:12
      -7

      Its people like you who cannot imagine a society where the government is not the dictator of the monetary system. So long has this idea been entrenched that noone questions why the money belongs to the government and not the people. So clueless and infuriating to see old normies like you call it a fad or a scam without a shred of understanding of why crypto and blockchain was invented. Sift through all the bullshit thats going on right now and you will see that we are heading towards an era where old dogs like paypal/moneygram will become obsolete and the monetary system will fundementally change within the next 10 years

      You okay with not being able to do anything while the government forcefully take your money away from you? Just resigning to the fact that its the 'government' and you are powerless to do anything about it?

      • peterpeterpumpkin on 24/02/2018 - 11:27

        I don't think you understand my point. Read it again. Will cryptocurrency allow you to buy a cottage and lifelong residency in North Korea because "old dogs" like PayPal are holding you back now? Are you saying monetary concensus is mightier than the sword?

      • freakatronic on 25/02/2018 - 10:37
        +7

        Crypto has no backing in the oldest, most important commodity; violence. Every state and government has a total monopoly on violence, force, and coercion. Cryptos exist because governments so far allow them to. When push comes to shove though, a government will simple kill the founders of the crypto, jail the users, and go back to printing its own money. No crypto will prevail against a government for this simple fact.
        PS. If you want people to take you seriously, swallow your junior high school rage and don't use the word "normie".

    • Scrooge McDuck on 24/02/2018 - 11:48
      +2

      And you'll quickly turn over anything at gunpoint.

      Except maybe if you had a gun of your own.

      • Quantumcat on 24/02/2018 - 16:01

        Civilians with guns are more likely to be killed when facing a criminal with a gun (who is there for non-murder purposes like burglary, armed robbery etc) than civilians without guns

        • Scrooge McDuck on 24/02/2018 - 16:06
          +1

          I was referring to the government oppression discussed in the comment to which I replied.

        • abb on 26/02/2018 - 10:16
          +1

          @Scrooge McDuck: Civilians with guns are also more likely to be killed when facing a government employee with a gun…

          You're not gonna defeat the state police force, let alone the entire military single-handedly.

    • TheBilly on 24/02/2018 - 15:14
      +1

      And you'll quickly turn over anything at gunpoint.

      I dont get this. Because; Not really, you're going to die anyway. The only 2 variables are how and when. I would probably turn things over at rape point.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 24/02/2018 - 16:08

        Do you value the rest of your life, or are you indifferent to dying at any point from now onwards?

        • TheBilly on 24/02/2018 - 16:11

          Indifferent. But that has no bearing on value, theyre both exclusive, because you have so many people who would shit their pants, yet not value and vice versa.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 24/02/2018 - 16:15
          +2

          @TheBilly:

          Indifferent. But that has no bearing on value, theyre both exclusive, because you have so many people who would shit their pants, yet not value and vice versa.

          I can only understand the first word of your reply.

        • TheBilly on 24/02/2018 - 16:20

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          The attitude to death (the amount of difference / or indifference towards it) is separate to the amount of value you have for life (alot or a little).

          Do you value the rest of your life, or are you indifferent to dying at any point from now onwards?

          You asked the question in a way like they were linked

        • Scrooge McDuck on 24/02/2018 - 16:25
          +1

          @TheBilly:

          But death precludes the continuation of life. Therefore a value of one's life should cause one's aversion to death.

        • Aniseed Steed on 24/02/2018 - 16:25

          @TheBilly: What about the pant-shitters? Where do they fit in?

        • TheBilly on 24/02/2018 - 16:31

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          Kind of, but instead of pursuing an aversion of ones death, they can accept that with indifference amd pursue a further improved life, as the death is guaranteed anyway.

        • TheBilly on 24/02/2018 - 16:32

          @RoughMetaphors:

          On the indifference difference scale, they are on the difference end towards death. On the value scale - depends on whether they clean up the poo, or continue to walk around with it in their pants.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 24/02/2018 - 16:48

          @TheBilly:

          You're conflating mortality (being subject to death) with death itself.

          You can accept mortality, but you should be averse to death if you value your life.

          So coming back to the original point: If you are threatened with death, such as at gunpoint, you should be averse to the prospect of that threat being enacted if you value your life.

  • singlemalt72 on 24/02/2018 - 09:51
    +4

    If emigration is a real option then surely moving to a rural area is too. If you can just uproot and move then your job must be mobile or you are in a sector where you can easily find work.

    Or are you just being facetious?

    • Dadidalol on 25/02/2018 - 21:54
      +3

      Agree with this. I just bought a nice 4 bed place on a quarter acre block in regional Vic for $400k, it's 20 minutes drive from a large regional town centre where I'll soon be working. I'm really looking forward moving there and ditching the 1hr+ commute to the CBD.

      • singlemalt72 on 26/02/2018 - 07:48
        +4

        Living in a regional city - It's a 6 min cycle to work or a bit less if I have to drive.
        25 years city-free and loving it!

      • Rhubarb Jones on 26/02/2018 - 11:50

        Do you mind saying what the regional town center is? I ask because I'm also considering this option.

        • Dadidalol on 26/02/2018 - 13:02

          Warragul. Less than 2 hours drive from Melbourne. Lots of house and land packages avaliable in the town or existing homes in the outer areas.

        • Rhubarb Jones on 26/02/2018 - 15:52

          @Dadidalol: Thanks. Yep nice town. Another place to think about..

        • singlemalt72 on 28/02/2018 - 09:18

          Armidale NSW here, but I have lived in a number of regional areas
          Wangaratta (Vic)
          Horsham (Vic)
          Tumut (NSW)
          Wagga Wagga (NSW)

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join