Not too much detail out their yet- are there any builders out there with ideas as to what renos might qualify for government cash?
Renovation Cash Proposal from Government
kobrien456 on 02/06/2020 - 15:48
Comments
- 1
- 2
It depends. The government is watching our responses to gauge popularity.
It is only a story in the press; the PM mentioned it the other day, the media have taken it to be gazetted already, and are surmising what may be in the policy when it is eventually announced.
Even then, the policy will need to be tabled in Parliament and be voted upon.Of course, the LNP may have leaked some details so as to understand what the public might / might not like. They do that frequently.
Check this out - https://theconversation.com/government-to-give-25-000-grants… - and check the comments by people who usually know what they are talking about.
Cool.
Yes, many parts of the 'policy' have now been clarified, since my comment.@GG57: The window of qualification is too narrow and complicated to be called a stimulus to a recessed economy. It looks like another rort, shoring up some base votes for the next election while looking to be doing something with headline grabbing announcements. Par for the course with this lot.
It's a win win for SfM and we can expect more of the same, if only to fill the daily news blast.
Mendacious is a polite description.
I thought https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2020/jun/04… had the analysis just right.
@JH100: The main point is the minimum spend of 150K. Already struggling with the mortgages as it is.
Additionally this will "boost" the median house price by 150K, making housing even less affordable.
Better sponsor Solar Panel bit more, but then we do not have a Global Warming problem
Of course, the LNP may have leaked some details so as to understand what the public might / might not like. They do that frequently.
According to Turnbull's book, many such leaks came from Morrison himself, often derailing ongoing internal discussions. Apparently he has a bad habit of wanting to assess public support before considering if a policy is worth implementing.
Why is assessing public support for a policy before implementing it, a bad habit? It sounds like democracy to me.
Here's a couple of quotes.
Morrison “unfortunately nobbled any chance of GST reform becoming a reality by front-running policy options in the media. Time and again he’d float ideas on the front page and monitor the public reaction before determining whether it was good policy or bad policy”.
Morrison also, Turnbull says, “used leaks to front-run government decisions in the hope that by giving them a head of steam in the media, his colleagues couldn’t push back”.
Seems like it's more to do with leaks during policy development, not before implementation.
Surely the government is in place to govern. To make decisions and implement them.
If they get it wrong, or are judged to be incompetent, the next election provides voters with the opportunity to judge that performance.
As an example, the way the State governments have handled the COVID-19 matter may be criticised by some and praised by others, but they announced their decisions and live by them.To me, it seems that some Federal 'decisions' are really just thought-bubbles that the government is undecided about, so they push it out as a rumour or single-sentence comment and then monitor the reaction of the public. Who knows, it may be that (in this case) the finer details were only arrived at after that analysis of those public perceptions, with the details 'fine-tuned'. If so, they seem to have missed even that opportunity in this case, judging by the widespread media criticism.
Same with so-called major policies (e.g. marriage equality). Why even have the public input; the individual reps could have voted based on what they understood the view of their own electorate was. Job done. If not popular, that rep and the government are judged at the next election.
Some governments seem to be more concerned about getting re-elected than it is in actually setting an agenda for the next 20 years.
Sounds like a thought bubble. If they get serious we will hear more.
Free bathroom reno. Where do I sign up?
I read that it's free money for new builds but matched funds for renos. Which means tradies can charge whatever they feel like and drive on the streets like loons in their oversized utes.
Yep. Toyotas media release that Hilux sales are predicted to increase and remain Australia's #1 selling vehicle on the back of this announcement can be found here
Which is why they need to bring a RHD Tundra to Australia!
Previously bath renovation: 20K, with this news the tradies can maintain their salary higher than Doctors, and the renovation will be 50K. But 50K wont give you access to the "Free Money"
So you need a much bigger project, where the tradies can eat you alive.
Pre news cost of renovation: 100K, after News leak: 150K. 150K - 25K = 125K and you still pay more than before.
Some people get a golden toilet, and others get Oversized Tools Carriages.
Damn, I’m down for some free renovations
the biggest issue with the $25k investment is that you could just hire your tradie mates for a small job, have them inflate the prices dramatically and then get them to give you back some of the money as a 'gift'. I don't think there's much failsafe in place to stop stuff like that. I wanted my trade mates to install a lamp, reckon you could do it for around $50k?
I know I'm being sarcastic as above but "substantial" work is very open to interpretation.
I can see a lot of dumb money being spent…but they will pay income tax on the full amount. so how would it benefit them.
and GST I would say to much risk for to little gain for most tradies
You do the job for your mate for $25k, give him $5k. You're $20k up.
If you're defrauding the government anyway, deduct $10k for materials you never purchased.
Your income: $25k * (1-0.325)+ $10000*(0.325) = $23625.If they're prepared to go to those lengths why would they bother? They'd just claim thousands of dollars in GST refunds for materials never purchased.
Where did you see anything about $25k?
Or "substantial" work?It's obviously speculation for the $25k. But an example of how this could be a poorly administrated.
I know I'm being sarcastic as above but "substantial" work is very open to interpretation.
And really, who would know if anything was actually done in a private residence? Will they scrutinize everything that closely?
Even then, you could repaint the walls and say they were completely patched up. Or give the bathroom a good clean and claim you had the waterproofing redone.
I can hear the builders salivating.
"Free" money, especially industry targetted ones, never end well.
Here's to hoping our government isn't stupid enough to repeat the pink batts, etc.
You're hoping the Government isn't stupid enough? Mate, come on.
I'm glass half full.
I’m glass is dropped and shattered
LOL. Conservatives are by definition more stupid. All the research points towards it
If that makes you feel smart, sure.
I haven't seen a wise government handout in my lifetime. I've seen some particularly dumb ones recently, so wouldn't be surprised at all.
More Money to the unemployed ( unemployed BEFORE COVID ) and the pensioners.
It would be so much simpler to give a once off $2000 to everyone.
What tosh. It is well known that the Rudd Government sheltered us from the worst of the GFC, stop drinking the IPA KoolAid.. The current Government is trying to be half pregnant. It will be interesting to see if they achieve anything.
lol I cannot fathom how you would come to the conclusion that a Government whom literally just fudged their figures up to the tune of $60B is a better economic manager than the Labor government whom steered us clear through the GFC.
Labor gave away the money with plenty of thought, and it worked well. Kept us out of the recession, made us the worlds best performing economy during the GFC.
Now we're well down the list, because the current mob think they're clever by saving a dollar today to spend two tomorrow. Cutting funding and support to anything that delivers long term or indirect benefits, making sure we don't get anything back at all.Now that they might actually have to give away some money, they still can't help but give it to the last people who need it, and requiring that the money is spent on useless garbage.
You can't even say that about Rudd, no matter how brainwashed you are about the guy. Even if his stimulus hadn't been thought out, at least it went to everyone, and at least one person in the country could have spent theirs wisely.
Lol, on Facebook too much and reading Murdoch papers.
Get out of the lying bubble.
Here's to hoping our government isn't stupid enough to repeat the pink batts, etc.
Providing insulation was a good idea that got taken advantage of by dodgy installers.
This isn't even a good idea to begin with.Providing insulation was a good idea that got taken advantage of by dodgy installers.
Having an idea that can be taken advantage of by highly educated and informed people would have passed as a good idea with execution flaws.
This got taken advantage of by unskilled labourers. It was a terrible idea with terrible execution.
Having an idea that can be taken advantage of by highly educated and informed people would have passed as a good idea with execution flaws.
This is a bizarre definition of a "good idea".
Providing insulation is a good idea because it passively maintains a comfortable home temperature, lowering energy usage and freeing up cash on a broad scale.
Being taken advantage of by unskilled labourers is an execution flaw."Good" has nothing to do with the intelligence required to rort the system.
@crentist: The intent can almost always be seen as "good". Even this renovation grant can be seen as providing better living standards to some. I'm sure we are imaginative enough.
So my definition of good has nothing to do with intent, it is about effectiveness and execution.
If intent is the qualifier for what a good initiative is, then by that measure "free money for everyone, as much as you want, no questions asked" would be an initiative of ultimate good.
@[Deactivated]: A really bad idea can be be done with “effectiveness and execution”; it happens all the time and with some very extreme examples. It is no use continuing with a bad idea just because you can implement it very effectively.
What should happen, with a good idea that has execution flaws, is you overcome the flaws and continue with the idea.
@try2bhelpful: I see. You're looking at the word "good" from a moral point of view.
So, what is bad about an initiative that is attempting to steady the economy?
I'm against this grant and I made my position clear - it is at tax payers expense and gives power to a non-elected position (builders) and is open to exploit. Bad initiative.
It's pretty much pink batts all over again except change economic stimulus to better insulation. There is good intent in both but everything else is just silly.
Having an idea that can be taken advantage of by highly educated and informed people would have passed as a good idea with execution flaws.
I see how this was taken so poorly. I did phrase it terribly. I meant to say that an otherwise effective initiative could still be poorly executed if it is open to some to exploit. A terrible initiative by extention to that statement would be one that could be exploited by virtually anyone.
If intent is the qualifier for what a good initiative is, then by that measure "free money for everyone, as much as you want, no questions asked" would be an initiative of ultimate good.
But that's not a good idea because money isn't some ultimate good that gets better the more you have. It's a way of directing productivity. You may be confused by the argument for universal basic income, but that's about living standards, not money.
ie We may have reached a level of productivity as a society that we could comfortably reduce it a bit in order to raise minimum living standards. Not so everyone can drive a Bentley.
In this case, the idea could be good only if there can be a reasonable balance between reduced productivity reward and increased minimum living standards. Execution would be about reaching that balance in a stable manner.Insulation was a good idea because it's an inexpensive way to plug a hole in the flow of money and hence productivity. And it is very relevant that it also made sense as part of a larger economic stimulus package.
ie If someone is spending all their money on power bills, their productivity-derived income is unable to be reinvested to further improve their own productivity, or raise someone else's.
And in the face of financial crisis, it already made sense to stave off widespread unemployment and welfare payments by creating more jobs. Insulation just happened to be a good long term cost saving to take care of at the same time.So, what is bad about an initiative that is attempting to steady the economy?
Because beyond maybe saving a few builders from bankruptcy, it's unclear what the actual economic benefit might be. It's targeted money that slightly brings down the cost of something expensive.
It's unlikely to create much new work or add much value because people still need to be willing to spend at least $125k of their own.
If anything this might encourage people to send more of their personal savings to this targeted industry, which might make the economy less steady as it would reduce the ability to spend elsewhere.@crentist: You seem to have applied double standards. You have found everything wrong with the renovation grant (which I agree with 100%) but is completely optimistic with the issue of insulation.
Stimulating the economy, a statement taken in isolation, isn't bad thing and neither is insulation yet you chose to expand on the first and not the latter.
But that's not a good idea because
moneyinsulation material isn't some ultimate good that gets better the more you have… You may be confused by the argument foruniversal basic incomereduced household expenses, but that's aboutlivinginsulation standards, notmoneyjust adding material.I am not sure why you defend an idea that has empirically failed yet criticize another. Perhaps because one is from a party you align with and the other not.
There is no shame in taking a position that both these initiatives are ineffective and poorly executed.
As for intent, you clearly believe that one is altruistic. I take the position that all political moves have one intention - to gain or retain power. Since that is a common denominator, what is left is outcome.
So back to the insulation program, the outcome is terrible so it is a terrible program.
I am not sure why you defend an idea that has empirically failed yet criticize another. Perhaps because one is from a party you align with and the other not.
No, it's because one of them was a stimulus package dressed up as an environmental program, and the other is a pointless handout dressed up as stimulus. I thought I spelled that out pretty clearly, but let me simplify it more.
The main benefit of the insulation was the job creation. Homeowners would not have installed the insulation themselves, yet over a million installations were performed that year (up from 67k the previous year). People got a job instead of unemployment, it just happened to also be while doing something a little helpful to homeowners and the environment.
But this new scheme, no jobs are being created, and the money lacks the incentive to alter behaviour. Homeowners still need to front up at least $125k, which sets a massive hurdle financially and for scope of work, which makes the extra $25k insignificant. No one is rebuilding their house just because of this scheme. So this amounts to the government putting a little cash into transactions that were going to happen anyway, which by definition is not stimulus.
OTOH, it would be quite different if the numbers were 1/10th of what they are. Far easier to imagine $2.5k towards $15k jobs leading to some actual uptick in the number of smaller renovations. Trouble is, actually stimulating the creation of work creates administrative difficulties and higher risk of deaths and injury. But you can't have more trade work without more risk.
And sure, back to the failure of the insulation program. Interestingly, despite all the hysteria, during the scheme the rate of fires and deaths actually dropped quite a bit.
@[Deactivated]: The difference is the current Governments initiative isn’t one to steady the economy. The Government would achieve this, a lot better, by putting the money into social housing. They can provide the builders with work, they can improve the social Housing stocks, and they can keep control of the money use. The pink batts is a valuable initiative because insulating housing has measurable benefits. I agree the scheme was not well executed but if we can reduce our need to generate power and improve people’s well-being and comfort levels, then there are many benefits and few downsides. This isn’t a “moral” argument it is a factual technical based one. Bang for buck insulating houses has large returns.
The idea of providing insulation was good. There are lots of a government systems that get “taken advantage of”. That is why the taxation office seems to be having a continual fight with people who find ways to dodge tax. That doesn’t mean you get rid of the concept it means you refine the systems. People will always try to take advantage of a situation, often it is done by the top end of town. This was just particularly unfortunate because the people doing the insulation were particularly dodgy. It is, unfortunate, because properly insulating houses would be a good way to reduce power usage which would be good for the environment and reduce power bills. However, due to the politicisation of the idea it is not something that is likely to be proposed again. Hence baby out with bath water. An intelligent educated person knows that any proposal is a set of refinements. Most things don’t leap out fully formed. However, a rabid opposition to an idea can kill it cold dead.
The idea of providing insulation was good.
Decent enough idea, crap implementation tends to be par for the course.
(Maybe we should try not building crap houses in the first place…)
This is a dumb idea. The first home owner grants are a dumb idea. Baby bonus too.
I'm not too keen on the household solar power stuff either.
@try2bhelpful: Eh, Christmas is alright, I guess.
The ones I listed are dumb for different reasons, but pink batts was a rort for the cowboys, and home grants simply pushed up prices.
(Hey look, giving people money causes inflation! Go figure!)
The reno scheme looks like a twofer, inflation and rorting! Hot dog, gotta get me some of that! Where's me saw!
@D C: I want the government to pay for my coffee in the morning. This provides stimulus for all the Coffee Shops ( seems we have 1 shop for every 50 people in the CBD, before COVID ) that had to close.
I got the insulation back then, the company sent some backpackers to install, charged me exactly $1600, coincidence.
They did install it mostly correctly but I reckon close to the end the would of started running out and started ripping then in half.Maybe I can get $25000 worth of insulation installed again.
@fredk1000: Yeah, I do agree the execution was the problem. Which is what really annoys me because the idea for the scheme had a lot of merit. I think the scheme being proposed here is, mostly, pointless. If they have the money, and want to keep builders employed, then build social housing; including properly insulating them. This is, probably, the best chance there is to do this.
@fredk1000: It is about keeping a tight rein on the management. Just because there is a chance that some people will try to rort the system doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do something that is useful. You just need to be clever about it.
The Toyota HiLux and Ford Ranger Grant 2020.
If the government had any balls they'd actually spend the money on lifting energy efficiency of Australian housing and get renewable sorted (because the grid can't take much more solar due to mismanagement). But as always for the government it will be miscalculated and wrongly administered.
Well, they shouldn't even be spending the money on that. They just need to change the standards and enforce the new standards. If people cannot afford the new standards then taxing the people to give them their money back, minus cost of administration, doesn't achieve anything either.
Electricity infrastructure is a pain in the ass. I wish we had underground power supply to buildings.
Transgrid is in planning stages for a project to upgrade capacity from Potts Hill to Alexandria in Sydney. Quite a few other upgrades too.
https://www.transgrid.com.au/what-we-do/projects/current-pro…Like Pink Batts?
The idea was good, the problem seemed to be dodgy installers. I agree the management should’ve been better but the baby got thrown out with the bath water. Insulating homes is a good passive way to reduce energy use.
Yeah I agree on both points. I remember a bloke came to my house and asked if I had insulation, then said I had bad insulation and could get better insulation for free, if I ripped it up myself. I did not take him up on the offer.
@ilikeradiohead: Pink Batts should have been only available to established companies (operating for more than 12 months) and a quota for each company like 1 installation per week up to value of $5k.
Like grants for solar you need a CEC approved installer you can't just get CEC overnight.
If the government had actual descended balls, they'd spend that money on building social housing. Pre-covid, 50 out of every 10,000 Australians were homeless or living rough. If this pandemic has taught us anything, it is that everyone should have a roof over their head.
Absolutely. It is hard to “stay home” when you don’t have one. This will be another shambles of an initiative. Reading the rules reminded me of the Daffy Duck insurance claim with the “one baby zebra” at the end of all the clauses.
If you house the home less who else is going to scare the crap out of the poor and middle class to keep working otherwise they will end up out on the streets.
The sad part is almost anyone can end up homeless. One of the big issues is mental, and physical, health. Me, I’d rather the safety net was in place. I’m doing OK at the moment but nothing is certain.
@try2bhelpful: I agree with you. There is very little security whether you are owner / investor with a mortgage or tenant. The cost of housing is too high and out of touch with reality much like the US stock market.
Lies by successive government about how foreign investors help increase supply of housing is just they can't figure out how to give away profits without saying something that makes sense.
@netjock: Amen. I was lucky enough to buy and convert my, current, place in the 1990s. I don’t know where anyone gets the cahones to put a cool million down for a house. I remember in the early 1980s when my other half’s brother paid $53,000 for a house in Richmond and I was appalled at how expensive it was. Real estate as a form of investment is counter productive. It locks a lot of money up that is not creating any meaningful “wealth” for the Nation. I can see the point of one house, maybe one investment property but after that it should be geared around investments that provide jobs and growth. Owning your own home is the best feeling of security you can have.
@try2bhelpful: You are right. It is best described by the idea that $1m spent on a house, you having an electrician / plumber visit for maybe 1 day per year and maybe someone to mow your lawn a few hours once a fortnight.
If the house was $200k and you spent the $800k on services (eating out or yoga classes) and those people kept spending the money the circulation of that money say once a week would create $41.6m of value. Using Gordon Ramsay's saying that it is 1/3 profit, 1/3 labour and 1/3 cost. Just taking the 1/3 labour it is $13.8m at $40k annual wage about 346 jobs.
The counter argument is if you're paying the interest on that capital to the bank then a few bank employees are getting a job.
In old language sitting on a property (land banking) to make a profit is rent seeking. You are right, zero value. Unless you own it and waiting for that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Unfortunately like most pensioners who want to trade down. After they pay real estate agents. Then having to pay stamp duty on their new property etc they would have a lot less money. Say $1m property, cheaper town house in a capital city would be $600k. By the time you pay your agents then stamp duty on the new place (say a round $100k) you've got $300k left if you owned outright. Stamp duty and agent fees just took out 25% of your profit.
@try2bhelpful: Don't get me started on that Mental Health BS, PTSD, Depression, Anxiety. That's what we get for "cotton padding" kids and young people.
I have been told so many bad words, been bullied even by Teachers, grown up with just a mother as my father died before I was born, seen my best friend lying on the road after a car accident that just happened 2 minutes ago, bleeding out of nose, ears mouth, and later died having witnessed a 30 year old man slowly succumb to cancer when I was teenager, but here I am kicking, shouting, singing, and enjoying life with my family
There are several research , notably one by Harris and Fiske , that showed that many of us do not perceive the homeless as real human beings. Harris and Fiske analysed brain scans of regular people looking at objects and at human beings. When looking at human beings, the medial prefrontal cortex , which is involved in social cognition, was activated. When looking at objects, the medial prefrontal cortex did not light up. That same reaction was observed when the test subjects were showed photos of heavily marginalised groups, including the homeless. Their brain did not recognise the latter as human beings.
How can anyone be scared by someone that they can't even see?
@[Deactivated]: Humans are a scary lot aren’t we.
“All your life you live so close to truth, it becomes a permanent blur in the corner of your eye, and when something nudges it into outline it is like being ambushed by a grotesque.”
- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are DeadIf you haven’t seen the play, or film, I would thoroughly recommend it.
There must have been a moment, at the beginning, where we could have said — no. But somehow we missed it.
@[Deactivated]: The little bits of business with the accidental Scientific Experiments in the film are hilarious.
I really wish someone would do a film of Arcadia. I saw the play in San Francisco and it was fabulous.
Their brain did not recognise the latter as human beings.
Studies are based on statistics. You just need a statistically significant enough sample.
If it is black and white then we don't really give to charity but there is just a minority that gives a lot of money that keeps charities going.
@netjock: Those studies were about marginalised people, not charities. Charities spend quite a bit on marketing to get your attention. Most people donate to support children (orphans, seriously ill children, children with disabilities) causes and medical research anyway, so not exactly what I would call marginalised groups.
@[Deactivated]: Just wondering if you have heard of Mark Steele? pommy Comedian. He did a series of lectures and one was on why Charity should be abolished. Charity is a way for Governments to abrogate their responsibilities to their citizens.
@try2bhelpful: Mark Steele is pretty good. Comedy is a good way of bringing attention to things that would otherwise be forgotten.
I actually don't believe people don't see homeless as non human rather they just rather repress those feelings.
It is not a bad idea to help a homeless person. But we never fix the problem of why they are homeless in the first place, that is the number one problem. It is like throwing money at a poor problem gambler, if you don't address the addiction you can give them all the money in the world and they will still be broke.
@netjock: It is a chicken and egg situation but being out on the streets is not safe. The studies do tend to find that if you give people housing, and support services as well, you can help at least some people. Unfortunately there are others that have complex needs and society does “complex” very poorly. We do have to try.
if you don't address the addiction you can give them all the money in the world and they will still be broke.
The top 3 reasons young people are homeless are family breakdown, family violence and sexual abuse and mental illness.
Giving them a roof over their heads would be a good start rather than paying for those renos.
Source : My wife was a social worker in another life.
@[Deactivated]: While you are at it look at Mark Steele’s revolution and episodes on people in history. YouTube seems to have a few examples up there.
I am planning a reno, it's already full funded with money in the bank.
This is the WORST news I could every hear, this will mean all trades, all materials jump up in cost.
You've still got time before any actual announcement to lock in a few competitive quotes.
Who will then need to requote after its announced, how stupid do you think trades are.
Can't jack up the price after it's been offered just because of this. Seeing as though you asked, I do think some tradies will be so stupid as to try though.
@Some Guy: Until a job has been accepted and at very least a deposit has been paid a tradie doesnt owe you anything just because you've been given a free quote.
His materials could have gone up in that time, he could have better work to take on, or he could have just realised your one of those clients thats going in the too hard basket and just moving onto the next job :)
- 1
- 2
is this state or federal government?