Do You Think People from Other Countries Should Be Able to Purchase Property or Land in Australia?

robertm on 28/06/2018 - 12:12

I know there are many difficulties in both wording this question and for any government attempting to implement restrictions on ownership.

I'm just curious about people's overall perception on this topic and what their basic feeling about it is.

Some obvious difficulties:

  • How would you determine who should and shouldn't be allowed? Permanent resident or citizen? Consider number of years of residency? People who are born here?

  • How would you stop people transferring money to other's to purchase by "proxy"?

  • Only allow leasing of land rather than permanent sale?

  • Limit sale of land to people from countries which have reciprocal agreements. If a country doesn't allow Australian citizens to purchase land there then that countries' citizens can't purchase here.

  • Increase taxation for particular buyers rather than just a complete ban? This money could then go into a fund to offset any related problems?

Poll Options expired

  • 145
    Yes
  • 469
    No
Financial Immigration Investment Property

Comments

  • Melb69 on 28/06/2018 - 12:15
    +25

    Just need some proper guidelines and maybe limits. Don't think its fair if locals are cut out of the market. They do also assist with market. Also they need to be rented out or at least used and not left vacant for 12mth or more. Which I believe is what is happening.

    • Baghern on 29/06/2018 - 12:08
      +6

      There are rules, they've just not been enforced… theres been a few big headliners, but thats a drop in the ocean.

      There is a law, very old law, that says students who have left Australia have to sell their property. This is not enforced. That's thousands of property alone.

      The above would be an excellent way of bringing in money/stamp duty and a robust turnover of property if it was enforced. Prices would be lower and there would be more choice.

      What I want to see happen is to stop/heavily tax vacant property, a limit on how many property foreigners can invest in

      • shorewalker on 30/06/2018 - 20:15

        There's not much evidence of huge amounts of vacant property. And for obvious reasons: it doesn't take much to appoint an agent and rent your property out for a decent amount of money. Foreigners understand this as well as anyone else.

      • IVI on 03/07/2018 - 04:17
        +1

        AU favours its Wealthy (current & future):

        AU has accepted imports of Wealth from Overseas
        even when it’s turned out to have come unlawfully
        to those, who brought it in.

        Wealthy people from Overseas can “open the door”
        to Permant Residency in AU by agreeing to “invest”
        a specified amount of $$ in AU.

        The idea is: Jobs will be created.

        (Does this let someone buy a huge house, and
        turn it into a rooming house for Uni students?

        No jobs likely to be created there, if owner runs it.)

        Canadian cities have taken measures in response
        to Wealthy people from Overseas buying property
        there. Eg, Tax on property values.

        Only slight reductions in such purchases (& Rates
        of Increase in property prices) have, so far, resulted.

        Kids born & raised in popular Canadian cities tend
        to be pushed out of their local property markets, or
        “settle” for the apartment/unit’s counterpart to living
        in a “Tiny House”

        I guess that’s Life.

        • whooah1979 on 03/07/2018 - 05:20

          Work harder and smarter. That way you get to become one of the ~65% Australians that either owns their property or are still paying for it.

        • Ti-au on 04/07/2018 - 07:35
          +1

          Not everyone can just work harder/smarter.

          Or perhaps we could if we limited immigration, so multinationals couldn't hire 20 grads with the idea of firing 15 (yes a real, unwritten policy - hence why they don't invest in their people).

        • airzone on 04/07/2018 - 20:07

          @whooah1979: And get a good job

        • airzone on 04/07/2018 - 20:11
          +2

          @TheMostHated:

          Not everyone can just work harder/smarter.

          That's true. One of my cousins is bone lazy, and his wife is not intellectually gifted. Working harder and smarter is beyond them.

        • HighAndDry on 05/07/2018 - 09:41
          +2

          @TheMostHated: You want us to limit immigration because the people here are too stupid? Of all the reasons, this might be the dumbest I've come across yet.

        • megaalc on 13/08/2018 - 21:15

          @HighAndDry: hahaha :D +1

    • MrBear on 29/06/2018 - 13:20
      +12

      It should at least be reciprocal.

      If, for example, Chinese can buy property in Australia, Australians should be able to buy property in China.

      There should definitely be limits, particularly around agriculture and mining properties.

      • HighAndDry on 29/06/2018 - 13:21
        +4

        Theoretically, yes. Definitely.

        Practically it makes no difference. No one who's having trouble affording a property in Australia will be able to afford anything in China. Someone else was commenting about Cambodian laws restricting property purchases… and the whole time I'm just wondering: Who in this thread is thinking of buying property in Cambodia?

        • ed231 on 30/06/2018 - 11:10
          +1

          Not in China but I know several people who have migrated to Asian countries to retire. They married and are now loving the warm hospitality and
          weather. I also know a few who love Australia (lives in Victoria) but are sick of the winter weather because they've been tradies their whole lives and want to buy a property in Asia and just retire there but cannot.So for them I guess it makes a difference.

        • Baghern on 02/07/2018 - 13:51

          umm lots… we accept those laws because its to protect a fragile developing economy… it would be easy otherwise for a few millionaires to go there and buy entire villages and not use it for what its intended.

          The issue with China its a developing economy, but at the same time its upper close though % wise is small… actual volume is huge

        • jjjjjj on 03/07/2018 - 17:51

          @ed231: they are welcome to QLD for a warm retirement life. This one near sunshine Coast only costs less than $250k.
          https://m.realestate.com.au/property-retirement%20living-qld…

        • elcheapoinoz on 04/07/2018 - 10:33

          @jjjjjj:
          There are cheap properties in Australia for sure.
          the problem is most work is in or near large cities. thats the dilemma.

        • [Deactivated] on 06/07/2018 - 12:47

          @jjjjjj: good choice of property-
          A demountable in a converted caravan park ,
          So no freehold title,
          Weekly Site and Service fees $200+
          Good option

        • Eeples on 13/08/2018 - 23:08

          @jjjjjj:

          Village.

          Plus $182/wk site fees.

        • Harold Halfprice on 01/07/2018 - 00:52
          +7

          I think there's a misunderstanding??? you can always purchase property in overseas

          The misunderstanding is yours. Many countries restrict property/land ownership to citizens only.

        • dtc on 01/07/2018 - 20:03
          +1

          @ILikeBargenz:

          But China, Japan, US, most of Europe….doesn’t

          Sure some SE Asian countries do, but they are the minority

        • CocaKoala on 02/07/2018 - 19:43
          -3

          Your post makes me think that we should also have a rule about English language requirements for buying a property in Australia.

        • Ulysses31 on 02/07/2018 - 22:26
          +1

          @dtc: There are countries that deny even those who live in neighbouring counties/states etc. Same nationality doesn’t mean squat. Locking down their traditional owners & landscape/design guidelines.

        • [Deactivated] on 03/07/2018 - 14:33
          +1

          @ILikeBargenz: And further still, they often give preferential treatment to citizens of particular religious affiliations.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/07/2018 - 07:47
          -1

          @CocaKoala:

          Your post makes me think you don't know Australian history. But yes, English was the main language spoken by convicts landing here.

          I particularly enjoy it when "Australians" tell me to 'go back to your own country' because we don't look Anglo-Saxon. I was born here but hey sure I'll return to my ancestral land if you go back to wherever you were from.

        • Ti-au on 04/07/2018 - 07:48
          +2

          i've seen some chinese (not pr not citizens) still able to purchase 2nd hand houses.

          "According to the Ministry of Commerce, ten year-old restrictions that prevented foreign individuals and institutions from purchasing more than one Chinese property after having worked in China for a year have finally been removed.
          (so over a decade of restrictions).

          While expats are now allowed to purchase as many properties as they’d like throughout the country, they are still subject to restrictions in cities like Beijing and Shanghai, where regulations state that anyone without a valid hukou residency are limited to purchasing only one property."

          So a limit of 1 property applies in China's cities = restrictions.

          However you think they own the property? Hahaha of course not:

          For starters, no one - not even Chinese citizens - can own property in China, because the government owns all property permanently. Rather you purchase a leasehold which runs for 70 years for residential property and 50 years for commercial property.

          Considering you bought in China I thought you would know this.

          So really the PRC has lots of restrictions, including the fact you never really own the land! - so its certainly not equal.

          people who invested a lot, want price to go up

          People often fail to see beyond the short term - eg I sell my property and I want the highest price, I now buy another property and because the market has risen I have to pay a higher price.

        • CocaKoala on 04/07/2018 - 10:27
          +2

          @Extremecable: OK, I'll try to explain giving you the benefit of doubt.

          Some context that might help:
          I'm a not an anglo-saxon, but a brown immigrant (surprise!), and English is not my first language in case it's not obvious with me having stated my skin colour. Neither am I an "Australian", if you were to look at my citizenship.

          Now for the rest of your comments:
          My post was more of a jab at those that are overseas and are "investing" in properties, which simply drives up the house prices for people who are in Australia, and are trying to make ends meet. Just read the message of the so called "investor" that I responded to, and get the crux of it.

          They want nothing but the house prices to go up, and are extremely apathetic about the livelihood of law abiding, tax paying people like you and me living in this country. They want us to cough up more for houses, because they've "invested" in it. What about the generation of young people coming out of universities with a degree in their hands and glimmers of hopes of buying a home, among other things? They will never be able to afford to buy a house because of those rotter "investors" like this one, who buy up all the apartments and houses and leave it vacant to drive up prices.

          Fun exercise: Feel free to highlight the part in my message where I told you to "go back to your own country". But if you can't find that part, I'd appreciate you apologising for accusing me of saying that, and not telling blatant lies should you continue this discussion. Thank you.

          PS: It is also irrelevant what you think about English being the main language of communication within Australia. There sure are communities that speak original languages of the land, but that's not the language the government is being run in. There's probably some Chinese (or is it mandarin), several Indian languages, and some European languages being spoken within Australia, but I'd be deluded to think that English is not the main language in this country, and is therefore an integral part of living in Australia. Look at this discussion - it's taking place in English. Are we convicts who just landed here?

    • VeganJerky on 01/07/2018 - 01:57
      +2

      So true, just look at Melbourne docklands, new apartments everywhere, but where are the people? The place is a ghost town.

      • nikey2k27 on 01/07/2018 - 07:37
        -1

        I never see so much ghost town mate own apartment 50% of unit block nobody live in it.

        • CocaKoala on 03/07/2018 - 13:30
          +3

          Try that again.

    • witsa on 01/07/2018 - 22:16

      why would they leave it vacant?

      • Melb69 on 02/07/2018 - 08:29
        +1

        Purely for capital growth. Only use on holiday.

        • HighAndDry on 02/07/2018 - 09:52

          It's not like people don't do this with properties up and down the coast too though.

        • MementoMori on 02/07/2018 - 10:19

          Purely to hide dodgy money more like it

        • [Deactivated] on 03/07/2018 - 14:35
          +3

          @domcc1: Yeah this. They're not looking for growth, because income growth wise they would be better off renting it out. They're just hiding money they've corruptly obtained in another country, or are simply trying to keep out of reach of their own government. In some cases the people who own the property on paper are not even the real owners, which again is why they're not renting them out, where would they direct the rental income?

        • CocaKoala on 04/07/2018 - 16:28

          @Bargs: Wow, that's chilling to read. And people like us trying to make a living find it hard to buy a house here because of all these unscrupulous elements buying up properties with corruption money.

  • [Deactivated] on 28/06/2018 - 12:29
    +1

    It's a complex issue. If our country is economically strong with steady trade surplus ex. sale of land (which it is not), the ideal would be to not sell land to foreign citizens.

    There is no advantage in selling land when one doesn't require the money.

    Due to over bureaucratizing and our socialist tendencies, we require foreign entities to start industries here. In turn, we have to provide land. We also require capital funding for our own projects, so we sell our land assets.

    The details of how we sell those assets is less relevant. If our laws make it unattractive for foreign investors, we will end up reversing those laws.

    • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 12:32
      +4

      There is no advantage in selling land when one doesn't require the money.

      That's not really true. Strategic land is already locked up by the Government. As to the rest, you can think of it as just an investment. You don't need to 'need' the money, but for example, if:

      1. Land prices increase by 10% per year, but
      2. I have an investment opportunity that'll pay 15% per year,

      Then I can sell the land, invest, and using those profits, buy back the land (or a equivalent) a year down the track and still have a healthy profit.

      • [Deactivated] on 28/06/2018 - 14:03
        +1

        I'm a capitalist by heart but to a small extent, I would identify as nationalist too.

        In your scenario above, I wouldn't mind selling the land to an Australian citizen if the investment opportunity finances Australian businesses.

        Alas, I recognize the idealist in me too.

        • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 14:29
          +3

          Oh I agree with you, and despite being a first-gen immigrant, I've got a fairly wide (Australian) nationalistic streak too.

          Honestly I don't mind there being reasonable restrictions and limits on foreign investment in Australian real property. Problem is - we, as a society and the government - have built up property ownership as this huge and safe wealth-accumulation thing, and you'll absolutely wreck the economy if you even suggest deviating from the current course.

          And I'm not joking either - the entire GFC started as a downturn with the US subprime (property loans) market, whereby as the rise in property prices failed to keep pace with increases in mortgage interest rates, people found themselves underwater, unable to service those loans and ultimately forced to default.

          This is the reverse-edge of the double-edged sword of fiat currencies and the modern economic system. The plus side being - wealth being partially basically intangible (share prices), it's easy for it to increase leading to real investments in things like manufacturing, infrastructure, technological development and scientific and medical research.

          And the negatives being… this. Because it's partially intangible, and propped up in part by speculation, it's also fragile and can be heavily affected by even small shocks to the underlying structure.

        • Harold Halfprice on 01/07/2018 - 01:02
          +1

          @HighAndDry:

          the entire GFC started as a downturn with the US subprime (property loans) market, whereby as the rise in property prices failed to keep pace with increases in mortgage interest rates, people found themselves underwater, unable to service those loans and ultimately forced to default.

          You're not wrong, but it's an oversimplification. The GFC ultimately stemmed from widespread banking corruption and fraudulent activity.

        • HighAndDry on 02/07/2018 - 09:54
          +1

          @ILikeBargenz: Lots of factors, but honestly the solid end of the stick was people buying properties they couldn't afford (no one was forcing them to), and then the property market turning into a huge bubble and then falling off a cliff.

      • Seedy seed on 01/07/2018 - 08:02

        No you can't ROFL… Have you ever actually bought land? You pay tax, agents get a fee ECT… Lol no clue

  • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 12:30
    +7

    Putting aside mid- to long-term theoretical considerations, here's the practical reality:

    If you add any substantial restrictions to overseas purchasers of real property in Australia, the property market will crater. Considering that a large proportion of Australians have the great majority of their wealth locked up in property, this will mean wiping out BILLIONS in the wealth of Australians.

    In any case, for theoretical purposes, what's the goal of such a restriction? To make housing more affordable? Or to make buying a property more affordable? Your approach would depend on what you're trying to achieve. I guess it could just be "To keep Australia in Australian hands"…. but obviously if people agreed with you they'd just stop selling to overseas buyers themselves (and again, obviously they don't because they're not).

    • DemocracyManifest on 29/06/2018 - 12:23
      +18

      The market is overdue for a correction, if not sooner it will come later. Land and property is way overvalued

      • HighAndDry on 29/06/2018 - 12:27
        -3

        The correction is already here. Which is more reason not to completely push it off a cliff. It's better to have a stable slow correction than a crash where properties lose 40% of their value overnight.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/06/2018 - 02:09
          +2

          Changes can be affected gradually without causing a shock by a tax that ramps up over time.

        • ribze1 on 30/06/2018 - 21:27
          +1

          So take it back to what it was a couple of years ago, i don't see the problem.

    • vicosads on 01/07/2018 - 17:31
      +1

      boomer property portfolios is all that matter

    • [Deactivated] on 05/07/2018 - 11:31
      +1

      I'm fine with wiping out BILLIONS when it never should have been BILLIONS in the first place.

      We need a recession and a government will provide small benefits to people who owned a house (note: not multiple houses).

  • Helmuth on 28/06/2018 - 12:31
    +33

    Restrict it to citizens only. That will give a bit of incentive for Permanent Residents to get off their backsides and finish going through the process. Anyone without full citizen has 24 months to divest themselves of property holdings or achieve the required status.

    Rationale: the property market is for people to have a place to live. It's not an excuse for asset speculation.

    • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 12:37
      +7

      Rationale: the property market is for people to have a place to live. It's not an excuse for asset speculation.

      Why is renting not "for people to have a place to live"? I understand why people would want to own property. I don't understand why you would need to own property to have a place to live.

      Also, you might want to look up the international futures market for everything from food crops to textiles, etc. Because using the same logic, those should all be banned under the:

      Rationale: the food crops market is for people to have food to eat. It's not an excuse for asset speculation.

      Or

      Rationale: the textiles market is for people to have clothes to wear. It's not an excuse for asset speculation.

      Or

      Rationale: the dairy market is for people to have milk to drink. It's not an excuse for asset speculation.

      Etc. You get the gist.

    • Amaris on 28/06/2018 - 12:48
      +7

      So you'd want permanent residents to rent for 4 years until they become eligible to buy a place?

      • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 12:58
        +6

        I mean, what if they don't want to be citizens but stay a Permanent Resident? For example, a British expat with his folks back in England, who's looking to work, live, etc in Australia for 20+ years but eventually go back to the UK to look after his folks in their old age, or for his own retirement?

        We have a PR-visa for a reason. If you're going to force everyone to be citizens, might as well get rid of the PR visa.

        • SlickMick on 29/06/2018 - 09:13
          +1

          If we were to want to keep property Australian-owned, then this is a classic example of where those on PR visa should be ineligible. He could be leaving this property to someone in Britain.

          Maybe dual-passport citizens should be ineligible also. If you aren't fully committed to Australia, you can't own it.

          Just for the record, I voted Yes. I'm all for taking foreigners money and let them provide housing through investment properties. And if things go bad (eg. a particular race takes over), we just kick in a sovereign risk policy and the government takes it all back.

    • [Deactivated] on 30/06/2018 - 09:39

      Australian citizens are also people from other countries. You're also a migrant!

      The title on this thread is stupid, it basically implies only Aboriginals are allowed to buy property and land in Australia, which is stupid as they already owned the whole continent 20,000 years ago.

      I just happen few hundred years ago, people can just come off a ship with guns and claim a land for their own.

      These days, the chinese come off a plane with a suitcase of cash and claim a land for their own.

      • RefusdClassification on 30/06/2018 - 23:09
        +10

        Aboriginals are also migrants. They didn't magically grow out of the Asutralian ground. They migrated here just like white fellas did.

        • belongsinforums on 02/07/2018 - 16:02

          Shh someone will call you the r word

        • HighAndDry on 02/07/2018 - 16:24
          +2

          Yup. Aboriginals came here with nothing and claimed the land for their own. Arguably white fellas (with their guns and technology and science), and the Chinese (with their suitcases full of cash), are bringing more with them than Aboriginals ever did.

          Didn't Aboriginals wipe out all the Australian megafauna and mess up the environment by using bushfires as a hunting tactic?

  • dcep on 28/06/2018 - 12:57

    Just look at Germany's realestate

  • altomic on 28/06/2018 - 13:29
    +14

    I'n more concerned about people from other planets being able to purchase land in Australia.

    • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 13:30
      +4

      Looking at you Scotty.

    • dufflover on 29/06/2018 - 23:51
      +2

      Jupiter Ascending got really bad reviews :P

  • altomic on 28/06/2018 - 13:30
    +29

    remember the olden days when you could work in a factory and own a home.

      • altomic on 28/06/2018 - 14:04
        +24

        so the increase in the foreign ownership of Australian property has nothing to do with the surge in property prices - especially in melbourne and sydney?

        • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 14:13
          +1

          I mean - sure it has, but that's by demand to give developers incentive to build more and increase the stock of housing. Plus, ask yourself how much more expensive all your modern conveniences - TVs, washing machines, laptops, clothing, furniture; even cars and building materials - would be if not for cheap foreign imports (and more relevantly, whether this site could even exist).

          Globalization works both ways - you take the good with the bad.

        • Baghern on 29/06/2018 - 12:12
          +3

          Not as much as people think it has.

          People were saying the same back in 2011, that stats showed different… going to Auctions showed it was all old farts looking for an investment as interest rates were going down.

          Despite the rule breakers the majority of foreign investments has been in new apartment buildings.. exactly what we need/wanted

      • airal3rt on 28/06/2018 - 14:22
        +16

        Luxuries used to be, well, luxuries, and the most basic needs like a house were in reach for the common man.

        Now luxuries are affordable and something as basic as a house is mind-blowingly expensive.

        I know which way round I'd prefer.

        • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 14:43
          +1

          But the real world disagrees - consider how many people splurge on luxuries instead of saving up for property. People say they want to own property, but honestly not many of them put their money where their mouths are. Just to put actual numbers on this, Australian savings rates:

          https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/australia/gross-saving…

          Australia's Gross Savings Rate was measured at 24.3 % in Dec 2017

          By comparison (e.g. China):

          https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/china/gross-savings-ra…

          China's Gross Savings Rate was measured at 46.4 % in Dec 2017

        • SlickMick on 29/06/2018 - 09:16
          -2

          Really? You'd rather live in an empty house that you own than rent a nice place?

        • Baghern on 29/06/2018 - 12:14
          +4

          @HighAndDry:

          That's a crap argument, what is commonly looked at is the median wage to median property price…

          So even if you save 100%, you're still taking longer to pay off property.

        • HighAndDry on 29/06/2018 - 12:14
          -4

          @Baghern: It's not an expense though. Every payment you put into the property is essentially the same as putting money in a piggy bank.

        • elcheapoinoz on 04/07/2018 - 10:39

          @HighAndDry:
          Although to add on that, Aus average spending per person is $2200.

          Can you imagine living on anything below that? specially if you don't own and need to rent?

      • Scrooge McDuck on 30/06/2018 - 02:15

        Or having a 19 inch black…

        …and white TV.

        Not where my mind was going.

      • nikey2k27 on 01/07/2018 - 07:46

        What past are you live in? walking school I did that in 1990 now kids today that call child abuse. I live my poor nan at uni I had ringer and copper had to wash my clothes soon learn. i got her washer just after I left uni in 2003

      • BusMan247 on 01/07/2018 - 16:46

        polio and handwashing clothes makes up for not being able to own something to sleep in. Right. Who let this guy in?

      • MementoMori on 02/07/2018 - 10:23
        +1

        Yes - we are definitely better off now that we have bigger TVs and spend 8 hours a day watching them and surfing the net.

    • [Deactivated] on 28/06/2018 - 15:11
      +5

      Pepridge Farm members.

      • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 15:13
        +4

        Poor Pepperidge Farm…. no one even remembers their name.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/06/2018 - 15:13
          +2

          I'm just a sour grape.

    • whooah1979 on 28/06/2018 - 16:08
      +2

      you could work in a factory and own a home.

      you'll be happy to know that our neighbour being a store-man and their partner a homemaker owns one ppor and two ip that we know about. we do suspect that they may have a third ip. australia is indeed the lucky country where someone may work in a factory and own multiple properties.

      • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 16:22
        +4

        I mean, you absolutely can. I think I was doing some back-of-envelope calculations for someone else here. I saved $10k a year (for a car, ultimately) when I was in uni, living by myself, and only working part time (earning something pitiful like $20k a year). If I kept up the same rate of savings, but applied to full time pay, it's easily possible to save $15k-$20k a year to start with, increasing year on year. If you started working at age 21, you could put down 20% on a $500k property by the time you're around 27 or 28.

        Rent that out instead of living in it, keep living frugally and keeping the property positively geared - and with equity from that property you'd be in a position to buy your second property in another 2-3 years, so around age 30. And that's with only moderate increases in pay.

        There's no reason someone on even $50k a year when they're in their 30s, can't have one property to live in and easily another 2 investment properties by their mid-30s.

        • whooah1979 on 28/06/2018 - 16:32
          +4

          saving is the key to owning a property on a low income. our neighbour is a frugal as they come.

          source: we use their bin then ours are full. it's easy to tell how frugal someone is by how much rubbish they discard or what brand of food they eat.

        • misu p on 29/06/2018 - 07:36
          +2

          @whooah1979: I am fine with the bin part… just tell me you do not actually check their garbage to see the brands they eat….

        • Ti-au on 29/06/2018 - 11:02
          +1

          Does it seem a very odd logic that you MUST buy multiple IPs to be able to purchase a home? It almost sounds ass backwards.

        • DemocracyManifest on 29/06/2018 - 12:28
          +3

          Im unsure how you managed that for example when a average wage is about 600, whatever a partner gets and rent is about 400 and chuck in food and bills and shit and boom.

        • Ti-au on 29/06/2018 - 14:19

          @SirMurduck: seem to exclude taxes too.

        • brongz on 01/07/2018 - 23:35

          How much do you pay for rent?

      • SlickMick on 29/06/2018 - 09:20
        +3

        Some people seem to be of the misguided opinion that houses used to be given away. People either saved like crazy or got help, just like today. They probably also had lower expectations.

        • DemocracyManifest on 29/06/2018 - 12:26

          It should be easier to get a house, like for example ive paid at least 40k in rent over 2 years and have zero capacity to save really for a deposit or be approved for a 100 percent loan. Gotta live somewhere and would rather pay off my own place

        • SlickMick on 29/06/2018 - 13:34
          -3

          @SirMurduck:
          Why should it be easier? It wasn't easy for my grandparents or parents or me, but suddenly it's supposed to be easier now?? I just don't get that.

          If you don't like paying rent, I can't see you enjoying paying off your own place.

          It was cheap to get some land back in the day if you were willing to leave everything and start from scratch in an undeveloped place. I've heard of some towns still doing that.
          But if you want to own part of an established city, that's going to cost you.

          How would you go being born in a city like New York. Do you think people there expect it to be easy to own a home? Australia just hasn't let go of the "lucky country" mentality. I don't think it actually ever came down to luck.

        • Ti-au on 29/06/2018 - 14:22
          +4

          Houses weren't $1.5m (for a average house). Thats $55k+ per yr After Tax. (include costs of ownership inc maintenance + rates + insurance).

          Previously you could buy a house on 1 income. The only hard thing previous was saving for a deposit.
          Now you save for a deposit and basically give up an income to buy a house (you need dual income).
          Wait until they introduce 35 year mortgages as standard (actually they have 40 year loans).

          And it was much easier for older generations - you had job security and wage increases. Self employed people / small business had less competition (fewer people - ie.e 1 Chinese restaurant in a suburb - how many now?). The hardest thing was getting the bank manager to give you a loan.

          Singapore helps young people buy houses - I wonder why?

        • SlickMick on 29/06/2018 - 23:09
          +1

          @TheMostHated:
          I wouldn't be trying to buy a $1.5M house. If I couldn't find something cheaper I'd rent or move.

          We bought a house on 1 income. But I went without other stuff.

          My granddad was self-employed, and certainly didn't get wage increases. Judging by my dad's final salary it's hard to imagine he ever had an increase. I don't know where you get your information, but my experience is vastly different.

          When we first bought a house, we had no internet, mobile phones, pay tv, I didn't spend much on coffee or eating out. My observation is we are living in a big-spending society now, and buying a first home may well require some sacrifices, just like everyone else.

        • Ti-au on 01/07/2018 - 02:45
          +1

          @SlickMick:

          My granddad was self-employed, and certainly didn't get wage increases
          Judging by my dad's final salary it's hard to imagine he ever had an increase.

          People who run business do not get wages, they get profits. So no increase in revenue or profits? Father - 40 years working life: 1978 Average wage p/w approx=$200.00 / 2018 Average wage p/w approx=$1,200.00. So your father worked for $200p/w for 40 years? Did he have an average of 12-15 jobs during that time? Or did have very steady earnings?

          I wouldn't be trying to buy a $1.5M house. If I couldn't find something cheaper I'd rent or move.

          Its called a rent trap for a reason. Or would you move from the city your were born in? Where all your friends and family live? Where your job is? Where you imagined you would live and where your future was? You might see it as unimportant, our politicans may see it as unimportant, but I just find it odd that one of the most developed and successful asian countries, that has three diverse populatons sees it as very important, as well as the biggest economy in the world also sees it as important. I mean a house at Mount druit still costs $700k (takes 1hr+ to get to the city - using freeways & toll roads!).

          When we first bought a house, we had no internet, mobile phones, pay tv, I didn't spend much on coffee or eating out.

          When did you buy your house? What price was the price a house then? What is the price of a house now? Has your wage gone up?
          My point is that if house prices have moved faster than your wage, then it will take a larger and larger % of your wage, coupled with the fact that if house prices move up so do rental prices you will not be able to save as fast as previous generations no matter how little you eat out or how much internet you don't buy (also you could argue many of those services are offset in the savings provided with cheaper electronics, appliances, cars, and other manufactured goods, etc).

          buying a first home may well require some sacrifices

          Yes - now it takes a whole partners income, or you move away from family and friends, or you don't give your kids what you had (declining standard of living).

        • nikey2k27 on 01/07/2018 - 08:48
          +1

          @SlickMick: Yep if you want house make it number one thing you want. it will happen.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join