Singapore has special units for residents that are price controlled. Can't really compare that to here.
Is Housing Affordability Really a Problem? » All Comments
If we believe that, then we shoudl all agree that nbn was necessary too.
Just because Parliament said so, doesn't make it so.
In other metropolitan cities like Singapore, similar pricing will get you smaller and further unit. Yet their income isn't higher.
@Quantumcat: The tenants that live in housing can also buy the property that they live in after living there for x years.
@whooah1979: The public housing stock has reduced massively over the last 30yrs. It's a policy no state government believes in nor wants to expand. Fundamentally it goes against neo-liberalism which all political parties believe in to it's core.
@whooah1979: Almost 80% of Singaporeans live in public housing. They also have a 91% home ownership rate. The government heavily regulates housing.
@Zephyrus: However…. the 99year lease… wealth goes straight back into the system. That being said, I see a positive in their racial segregation housing plans for racial harmony, however, it would not work here as it is a breach of one's freedom.
In other metropolitan cities like Singapore, similar pricing
But you never own the land in Singapore, its on lease from the gov. So little point in buying.
https://www.99.co/blog/singapore/leasehold-property-99-years…
So but a 70 year old place, that was on a 99 year lease? Well in 29 years that land is no longer yours.
What's the point, I'm gonna die before then.
But I take your point.
My point still valid though, our price held up against other metropolitan cities. Name one that is more affordable, and I'll move there.
What's the point, I'm gonna die before then.
There is a BIG difference between the two.
Here when you die, you can leave the property to your children and so on. The property has 'worth' that doesn't trend down with age.
In Singapore property has a 'end' date, so you die in a place on year 98 of a 99 year lease, you leave them a worthless piece of crap, as it has less than 12 months ownership left.
Property in singapore goes down in value the older it gets, aka the less time left on the lease.
Property in singapore goes down in value the older it gets
2 different components. The value of buildings generally goes down everywhere, its the land value that generally goes up.
2 different components.
yeah but you can't 'buy' them apart and live in it can you….. So when talking property we're talking land/building.
@[Deactivated]: A 99 year lease is not the same as a permanent title.
Nobody in their right mind would lease a $1m property in Australia if they can choose to own it for $1m.
@berry580: in theory, the ACT government may not renew the lease and take the land. no freehold in ACT
The HDB was only started in 1960, so no 70 year old places yet, but it is coming. It will be interesting to see what happens as we get closer to the leases expiring. Apparently there are a few 60 year leases expiring this year. Could be quite an outcry when thousands of people are chucked out of their homes, then again Singapore managed chucking them out of their houses to put into high rises in the first place.
Edit: Replied lower down to a more relevant comment of yours instead
This comment has aged like milk. Coalition has backflipped and is now virtually backing the original NBN plan Parliament approved. Nation would have saved billions and received a huge productivity boost sooner if Coalition left the original plan alone. The only reality preventing the original NBN was the political reality of Rupert Murdoch not wanting it to exist. Rupert Murdoch and now you are crusading against it too, apparently.
If we believe that, then we shoudl all agree that nbn was necessary too.
Just because Parliament said so, doesn't make it so.
we shoudl all agree that nbn was necessary
the only people that don't agree with this are ignorant or want to gut OUR COUNTRY for their own gain.
Our economy would have shut down this year without the NBN.
Why do you think the Libs have hard back flipped on fibre to the home?
NBN should never have been politicised, like global warming. But when two central parties are almost identical, some people will give a voice to the populists to differentiate themselves.
Our economy would have shut down this year without the NBN.
So strange how economy in other countries dealing with everything this year without NBN.
It's almost like they have their own fibre networks and the regions with poor internet service are doing it tough.
@This Guy: My bet regions with poor internet service don't need it that much. One thought comes to mind it's most likely rural places where you can't grow crops from home.
@srr: You realise FttN was deployed to most regional towns, even to significant amounts of major, non capital cities.
And yes, FttN is usually enough for video calls. But I don't live alone. I have had multiple video calls cut out while others were using the internet at the same time. I could buy a more expensive router and set up QoS rules if I cared, but most people don't know how.
it is for people that dont want to move out of million dollar house cities.
Agreed. Looking at real estate listings in cheaper places makes me realise I can feel very well off in many places in Australia. Just not Sydney or Melbourne for a start.
It's a Catch-22 — if you lived in a cheaper city/town, your job probably wouldn't pay as much either. Unless your job can be done remotely.
If you could get your work done remotely, then wouldnt' that lower land value in Sydney and Melbourne? If you own land in either of those cities, then you should probably be campaigning hard against the NBN, so people can't just live anywhere and still work for any major firm in those cities. NBN will cost some people money they felt they were entitled to.
Lol. I live in a town of 40,000 people house prices are still high.
lol at all the downvotes 😂 gl paying 600k for a tin shed.
Landlord and tenant law is Australia is much more pro landlord than in most developed nations.
Lol
I beg to disagree. If you see the rules against the bond claims, it's absolutely in tenant favor.
Have you lived abroad?
You've got to be kidding?
Getting upvotes as most on OzBargain are renters for life…the savers mentality not really working that well…
In what way more pro landlord?
It would be nice if the article was a little less one sided and acknowledged that There's pros and cons for both tenants and LL. A short lease can be a pro as well as a con.
So very true. And political parties want to keep it this way so it encourages ownership, therefore less burden on public housing and eventually less people on the pension.
So very not true. In terms of evictions, maybe. A landlord should have the right to pick and choose who lives in their property. But in a broader sense, absolutely not, it is so much pro tenant.
Potentially tenants could for example-
1. Not pay rent for periods of up to 6 months while the landlord is tied up in the courts for an eviction.
2. Leave the premises in practically any state they wish, requiring possibly tens of thousands of dollars in repair, without any repercussions.
There is a reason why there is an industry blacklisting register for tenants. Landlords can be financially ruined.
The point is, if a tenant wants to be an ass, they can be. Legal options for the landlord are practically non-existent.Looks there are pros and cons on each side. I've rented places where even a mention of asking for holes in the flooring to be repaired has been responded to with threats of being put on a blacklist and never being able to rent in NSW again. No grounds evictions on the owners side, whereas if the tenant wants to leave they have to pay the rest of the lease if a replacement can't be found. I would say "if an owner wants to be an ass, they can be. Legal options for the tenant are practically non existent".
On the other hand, are there nightmare tenants who will not pay rent, destroy the property and disappear, with no meaningful assets to get back from them? I'm sure there are. Which is where a real estate or owner should vet the prospective tenants carefully.
I've lived in a few other countries and its a bit of a mixed bag. In one its rent up front for a year and then you have no ability to get anything done. In another, it was more like European countries where rights are much heavier in renters favour than here. (3 month notice vacation with no other obligations, lease is basically permanent, eviction is only possible in limited circumstances).
@bigticket, land owners shouldn't really be able to discriminate between tenants because they don't own the land. It still belongs to the state. And if things don't start to change we're gonna take it back.
Unfortunately the politicians are land owners, mine owners, poluters, and are happy to destroy the planet for their $$$
Politicians are power hungry not money hungry
It depends.
The cost of housing in many countries, Australia included, will rise to the max level of affordability.
If everyone got a pay rise tomorrow, the house price will increase. Conversely, if everyone got a pay cut tomorrow, the house price drops.
It will not be a proportional increase or decrease as the house and land has an equity value attached as well. Buying a million dollar house doesn't mean spending a million dollars. You can likely get a million dollars for it should you liquidate at any point.
It is a far more complex issue than a price tag.
I agree. It is normal for housing to increase. It is one of the most demanded asset.
Not really. It is just supply and demand. There have been heaps of immigrants and international students for the last 20years or so, which has driven up property.
In international markets with low population growth/falls, property declines in value or grows very slowly. Look at regional Japan or Italy, or the USA outside of a handful of tier one cities.The “in demand” real estate is in limited locations globally, and few are as expensive as Australia.
with COVID closing international borders for Australia, does that mean in the next few years there will be a significant reduction in immigrants and international students. That will be a drop in demand and thus prices?
@nightqueen: If you look you can see it happening. Rents are falling like a tonne of bricks. Apartment investors are selling or gambling all that international students will return in February.
I don’t subscribe to price crash theories, but it seems likely to me that some of the properties that soared quickly to high prices will slump 20% or more.
This probably means something like a 7% decline across the market, but some places will be less, and some more.@mskeggs: with the growing work from home culture, there might be a shift from inner city apartments/high density living to more people wanting more space, a home office in the outer suburbs or even regional locations that have fast NBN.
Yo things aside, I like your dp man. It's good to see your comments.
When some one bought a house for 200k in the 90’s taking out an interest based loan (for example)
At completion of the loan the buyer would’ve paid 400k (money out of pocket)Come time to sell, the owner won’t sell the house for 300k knowing full well they’ll be down 100k. Keeping in mind the next place of living they want to buy is also being sold by someone in a similar boat.
You might come back and say supply v demand, however at this point, the owner can conformably live in the paid off home without a real necessity to leave (think upgrade, downsize, growing family etc) so he is in a position of power to not budge on the asking price (again remembering that everyone else is selling at similar figures)
Now consider the new-to-the-market buyer, seeing artificially inflated homes at 400k, the bank is willing to cover this figure and get the buyer in on a 30 year loan. The cycle continues and we hit 800k very soon.
Banks win, they can seize the properties upon default and STILL make money (if not more money than when organically completing the loan)
The huge issue comes when we face declines in the economy (like now)
We still need roofs over our heads, but we also need movement and money circulation to employ people and allow business to thrive.Banks making money off money and putting people into oppressive markets by their own design is unfortunately the norm, but you cannot deny it is wrong.
If you deny it is wrong then you’re lack empathy for the people, I dare say probably in a healthy financial situation due to the “system”. Being concerned with the success of people and not following the dollarism cult is more honourable.So are you going to sell your house for hundreds of thousands below market value?
When some one bought a house for 200k in the 90’s taking out an interest based loan (for example)
At completion of the loan the buyer would’ve paid 400k (money out of pocket)So house price doubling does not necessarily mean home owner made any profit?
Are pays rising? how much has inflation increased vs wages? houses are debts more than assets. I guess unless dady warbucks bought it for you.
It can't be a good thing to let society slowly separate itself, with rich people living near somewhere and everyone else living everywhere else. Cities should have a certain percentage of rent controlled properties, affordable tower blocks in prime locations, etc. to help balance out the divide. Just being born into a rich suburb gives you a big advantage over being born into a poorer one, even if your parents are just as poor just being in the rich suburb gives you an advantage. Why should that advantage only go to the children of rich parents, what kind of society is that. Kids of rich parents and kids of poor parents are no different to each other, switch them at birth and parents won't even notice most of the time.
Artificially forcing people to behave or do certain things only creates tension. As soon as a loophole is discovered or the law is overturned, the behaviour changes and often becomes much worse than if the law has never intervened.
If the workers lived in one area, the facilities and businesses would be much easier to tailor to the demographics. This means more successful business which will pull the entire population up, albeit slowly.
Forcing the the rich to accommodate the poor creates resentment. The first analogy that comes to mind is a poor family scraping their savings together to send their kid to a prestigious school. The kid is an outcast, they can't afford the extra curricular activities and they will not benefit from the main reason for prestige schools, networking.
Conversely, I am not suggesting we force the poor to congregate.
People will just move around and find a sweet spot.
Why would living near people richer than you cause tension? And don't rich areas still need low income jobs, who is cleaning their stores, making their coffees, scrubbing their toilets?
Why would living near people richer than you cause tension?
Cause you are proposing that the government impose a rent limit, etc.
What if I said you can only earn $15 an hour from your job. No more. You'd be pissed too.
Just like dictating the returns on a property investment, dictating the returns on your time investment is just as unfair.
And don't rich areas still need low income jobs, who is cleaning their stores, making their coffees, scrubbing their toilets?
It's called transport.
@[Deactivated]: Until very recently there was a lot of public housing in Miller’s Point in inner Sydney, behind the Rocks.
It kept prices sensible in some of the pubs, and generally a mix of sandwich shops/take aways etc.
Now they were all sold for millions and there is no affordable food or drink options, just tourist prices.
A mixed demographic helped keep the place more livable even for the richer neighbours.A mixed demographic helped keep the place more livable even for the richer neighbours.
yea, im feeling for those rich folks who can't get cheap sandwiches anymore now lol /s
@mskeggs: The rich people can pay more for their food and drink. If they don't like it, they can lower the rent of their investment property without being forced to.
What if I said you can only earn $15 an hour from your job
Lots of government jobs basically have this. e.g. teachers, medical workers, soldiers.
@Zephyrus: There's a single employer (for most of them) and set pay scales. ADF are the only employers of soldiers. Most teachers work in state schools, most nurses work for state hospitals.
What if I said you can only earn $15 an hour from your job. No more. You'd be pissed too.
we already do this when it comes to electricity don't we? tightly regulated. Why is this different?
I agree traditional rent control is a poor strategy but they way things are working now is untenable.
the "market" isn't natural with things like negative gearing distorting it, just like every other market. But its in the favor of wealthier people
we already do this when it comes to electricity don't we? tightly regulated. Why is this different?
Power is regulated because it was originally state owned and sold on certain conditions. It is also a natural monopoly.
Housing falls into neither concepts above.
the "market" isn't natural with things like negative gearing distorting it, just like every other market. But its in the favor of wealthier people
I'm on the fence on negative gearing. It definitely helps the wealthy get richer but it also creates value. Value is not a zero sum game. The rich bankrolling development creates jobs for the working class.
If we halt negative gearing, the rich may stop getting richer but the poor may end up unemployed and lack of development may reduce supply of housing.
Of course, when the rich get richer, they tend to also buy up said housing.
No easy answers but most of the time, when the masses want to spite "the rich", they end up shooting themselves in the foot (for which they will also blame the rich).
Forcing the the rich to accommodate the poor creates resentment. The first analogy that comes to mind is a poor family scraping their savings together to send their kid to a prestigious school. The kid is an outcast, they can't afford the extra curricular activities and they will not benefit from the main reason for prestige schools, networking.
Not true. Analysis has time and again borne out the benefits of mixed class suburbs for both wealthy and poor alike. People with money aren't going to leave Redfern, Bondi, Woolloomooloo, Kings Cross/Potts Point, Darlinghurst etc because residences there are inherently limited and very valuable due to CBD proximity. Having housing commission in those suburbs ensures a better mix of incomes than going hands off and letting wealthy property barons come in and build mcmansions.
Doing this any other way creates crap suburbs like the few spots around Mt Druitt, where you're too far from opportunity to really get anywhere and cyclic poverty festers.
Analysis has time and again borne out the benefits of mixed class suburbs for both wealthy and poor alike.
So the rich "segregating" themselves is really bad for them. Oh no, let's do them a favour and force them to have poorer people around at their expense. They will be so much better off.
Poor financial elites. They've been disadvantaged this whole time and they didn't even know it.
It is the way it works. Based on your theory, we should give housing to the poor people in Africa, and we move there.
We do take in some people from Africa and provide them with housing. We are a rich country with a low birth growth rate, so we really should be spreading the love at least a little bit, even a token amount.
We don't just take, it's called refugee. They need help, we give them.
And I said swap, how about you move there and give up your home to one of the refugees?
@[Deactivated]: Ozbargein, you're not arguing in good faith. The inequality of our world is destroying it.
Why should that advantage only go to the children of rich parents
Because they're the only ones who worked hard enough for it.
what kind of society is that.
One where you only get out what what you put in. I can unserstand giving the poor a participation trophy to live a reasonable lifestyle while facing hard times, but there's this strange new trend of giving the poor 1st prize just for participating. 1 free ride to the top of the upper class in Bondi thanks. Windows seat please.
The children worked hard for it?
What did these children put in that made them deserve the advantage of growing up in a rich area. Kids are equally useless, rich or poor alike. I don't think they can even legally work even if you wanted them to.
It's called inheritance, it's something you deserve, either wealth or debt. It's in the Bible.
@[Deactivated]: What about kids of rich parents who just live week to week and won't be leaving them an inheritance? And since when was the great Australian dream/ideals something that gets passed down as an exclusive birthright, like royalty. That's not a fair shake of the sauce bottle for the kids of Australia.
@[Deactivated]: I just think everyone should have the opportunity to get the same amount of sauce out of the bottle as other kids. Do rich kids really need a huge plate full of sauce while the majority of other kids just get watery spray droplets when it's their turn for a squeeze?
@AustriaBargain: So it's unfair that the (rich) parent worked extra hard, so they can give their kids their own bottle of sauce?
It's not a birthright to be entitled to inheritance. But it's the parents right to choose where it goes. You feel like you have or other people have a right to right to someone else's sauce?
@[Deactivated]: You're a bad christian. Love thy neighbor. If somebody gives you cake you give them cake back. it's in the bible. Be kind.
Please why don't you give the house your dad bought you to your tenants. It's the Christian thing to do.
No, the parents worked hard for it, and they have a right to spend their money however they please.
Part of the reason rich areas are so rich is because all the rich people want to move into safe, clean, and low-crime areas. You want to put masses of the lower class in Bondi or Vaclause so they can enjoy a harbourside view on the taxpayer's dime? No thanks. The only thing that will happen is the poor people will eventually take over as they tend to have a lot more kids than the upper class, and in a few decades you've just got yourself another ghetto.
@SlavOz: So rich kids should get the good life and other Australian kids shouldn’t, merely because their parents are rich? And all the poor workers should have to make long commutes to get into the rich areas to work? Sounds very bleak. How would you convince the majority of voters that it’s in their best interests to live as second class citizens in their own country.
@AustriaBargain: Are you talking about Australia or some third world country? Is the definition of a good life being able to live in a mansion, drive a BMW etc? Those poor kids driving a Toyota must have it tough.
You probably earn more than me, it's not fair you have a ps4 and I don't. You should give it to me.
@Ughhh: You're welcome to come to my place and play my PS4 with me. I agree that it's unfair that I can afford one and you can't. You have to wash your hands first though.
@AustriaBargain: It's not fair you get to play whenever you want though. You should buy me and every other poor kid one.
Also not fair you have a car, you should give me yours. I'll take your nice phone too. Thanks
@Ughhh: I don't have a car and my low income neighbour comes over all the time to use my phone to make calls, he doesn't keep credit for some reason. If you know anyone else who wants to come to our PS4 parties then invite them along. They need to wash their hands too.
@AustriaBargain: My friend, don't be a hypocrite, share a post on ozbargain with your address, titles, free ps4 trial for those that do not have one. That's fair.
@[Deactivated]: That's ridiculous damn commi what he should actually do is buy all of the PS4s then have people pay him to use them and since all the kids couldn't buy them in time they will have to come to him so he can charge whatever he wants, at the same time he can also also sell a small amount of them with a massive mark up to other rich people. its just supply and demand so its fine.
So rich kids should get the good life and other Australian kids shouldn’t, merely because their parents are rich?
What's a good life? We all have equal rights and very few people in Australia are suffering from malnutrition due to lack of food.
Sure richer people live in nicer houses and drive fancier cars. Surely that's not a crime given most of them work very hard for themselves and their kids. Are you also appaled at the fact Roger Federer has won 20 grand slams while Andy Murray only has 3?
If you worried about your kids future then work towards encouraging better decisions from a young age. Don't smoke, don't drink, get a job, be honest, and your child will grow up more than ready to tackle the world.
Poverty is virtually impossible as long as you follow these 3 rules - finish school, get a job, and don't have kids out of wedlock or a serious comitted relationship.
All around Australia there are people who don't know where their next meal is coming from. In fact, in the last 12 months, more than four million Australians (18% of the population) have been in a situation where they have run out of food and have been unable to buy more.
If Roger Federer won every single tennis match he ever plays, then absolutely we would change the rules of tennis. There's plenty of examples of rules for sports being changed for the benefit of the sport, just because one person or one team has had unbeatable success. A sport doesn't exist unless the fans are happy, if all the fans switched off then Roger would probably quit tennis because there'd be no prize money in the first place.
@AustriaBargain: Rules of games and sports do not change because there is no change in victor. They change if the strategic options seem limited, ie loopholes that everyone exploits or strategies that cannot fail hence every team does it.
You're confusing tennis with racing games where the losers get a speed boost for them to remain competitive.
When I played basketball, the rings were the same height at both ends. They didn't get the black (African American) kids to wear ankle weights either.
@[Deactivated]: If one person or one team wins every single match up, then there is no sport. People tune out and watch a different sport instead, suddenly those "winners" at that sport don't stack up when they go to play the new sport. Their 20th century skills don't quite cut it and younger, more agile people are now winning at the sport. "No, you can't do that!" the rich people, and you, cry. "We need to make a law to ensure my sport is the only national sport, we need to ban the possibility of the majority of people in the nation choosing another sport to watch!".
It would be fair if voting was based on your tax return do you think? Where each dollar you declare in a year is worth one vote. That would be true equality in your eyes, because every candidate is free to declare however many dollars they wish if they can afford the tax bill.
@AustriaBargain: By your logic, we should make sports winnable for those who don't train and are grossly out of shape.
Usain Bolt keeps winning the 100m and 200m. To make it interesting, we are going to introduce rules that allow Clive Palmer to win sometimes. Mix it up a little.
It would be fair if voting was based on your tax return do you think? Where each dollar you declare in a year is worth one vote. That would be true equality in your eyes
Lol. What?! That's as silly as me claiming - "You want all rich people to be gassed in chambers and have their wealth redistributed to a majority group. That would be true equality in your eyes."
Except I don't because I don't invent a line of argument, assume your conclusion and pass it off as fact. That's just low.
@[Deactivated]: I don't think they are talking about making sports winnable for those that don't train. I believe what they are trying to say, using your hypothetical and linking it back to the wealth disparity is;
8 individuals are competing in a 100 metre race they have all trained as hard as they can and are top level athletes now in this hypothetical you are allowed to pay $1m to start 1 Metre closer to the finish line. 4 of the competitors come from affluential families with long histories in sprinting events so their parents pay various sums of money to have them start closer to the finish line. Due to this advantage, 3 of those four always get the gold, silver and bronze medal.
In this circumstance you could argue that it is all fair as their parents merely worked harder so why shouldn't they give their kids the advantage. and all the other competitors have to do is work harder so they can make up the difference in starting distance but that's a pretty big feet.
Now if you wanted to make it less on the nose the difference would be the rich families gave their child various trainers and special shoes as well as teaching them the optimal path to run whereas the poor individuals just did their best with no help to become fast.
I don't think anyone wants people to get things with no merit as that discourages hard work, I believe they want people to all have the same starting point so what you achieve is purely based on your merit rather than the benefits giving by historical wealth.
Sorry for the wall just my best to to get my point across.
@Bjingo: I know what you're trying to convey and I still disagree to most of it.
When you say…
Now if you wanted to make it less on the nose the difference would be the rich families gave their child various trainers and special shoes as well as teaching them the optimal path to run whereas the poor individuals just did their best with no help to become fast.
… you are diminishing all the achievements of those who have done well but got support along the way.
A lot of people that receive support still fail. There are no guarantees. When they fail, they also lose the invested capital.
The analogy about changing the rules have more to do with equal outcomes than it does equal opportunities. If someone really wants everyone to be start on equal footing, they can lead by example and moving to a mid wealth country. (Of course they won't and will cite reasons of attachment.)
We are all born into different economical and genetic footing. It is ineffectual to equalise this. You can't go around taking money away just as much as you can't go around cutting down the legs of taller folk. The best we can do is equal opportunity and it already exists. I'm not saying more cannot be done but the proposal above is the example of equal outcomes.
@[Deactivated]: You're right in pointing out diminishing the achievements of those with support. that was not a fair statement and not my intention its hard to discuss the issue in a way that does not do so. The best I can think of is having this support is like getting lost in a jungle but having a map because even though you have it doesn't mean you didn't work bloody hard to get out of that jungle.
Regarding equal footing I understand it will never be purely equal mainly due to literal chance upon birth. However I do think we should work towards closing the gap where we can. I think strengthening the education system would be the first thing which would take away the massive advantage going to private schools gives. How much money your parents have should not be the defining point of the quality of your education. Australia does have equal opportunity in a sense, as in you have the opportunity to achieve whatever you can with the circumstances you are given. Which is why we need to reduce the educational gap for those in the best and worst circumstance.
I recently found out Finland made charging school fees illegal which means if the wealthy want their kids to have a better education they have to fight for everyone getting a better education. I am not saying this should be done in Australia as they are two different countries and I am unsure if it would work here. I merely find the idea to be interesting and Finnish schooling is one of the best in the world so they must be doing something right.
Anyway I'm getting sooo off topic.
TL;DR taking money from one person and giving it to another is not a solution, however those with greater means should still be taxed more (current progressive tax brackets).
I think we should aim towards having as equal a start as possible regardless of your families historic wealth and IMO a good place to start is education.I recently found out Finland made charging school fees illegal which means if the wealthy want their kids to have a better education they have to fight for everyone getting a better education. I am not saying this should be done in Australia as they are two different countries and I am unsure if it would work here. I merely find the idea to be interesting and Finnish schooling is one of the best in the world so they must be doing something right.
So they'll just make it free but completely exclude certain groups and expect attendees to make charitable donations to the school. That would make elitism even worse.
Or they'll ban that too and the elite will send their kids to private boarding schools abroad and the money leaves the country. These kids would likely have less attachment to Finland. They're also more likely to be entrepreneurial. They'll take their family money and jobs abroad.
@[Deactivated]: From what I read on the topic, though I am not an expert. I do not believe those things would happen as;
1.Selective administration is prohibited.
the education budget in Finland is around 13 billion Euros which I believe is higher than Australia's
Finlands population is around 5 million. So an education budget higher than Australia's is being distributed among slightly less than 1/4 the population.
school teachers are regarded very highly in Finland and must have a minimum qualification level of a masters degree. Meaning the education standard is very high
So they cannot exclude groups and the education itself is of a standard where sending their kids to a school abroad would likely just be an expensive and non beneficial option.
The reason I don't believe it would work here is Australia does not put enough importance on education that they would be willing to increase the budget for it by 60 billion dollars. In addition the wealthy like their little private school clubs and would by unwilling to get rid of it.
The reason I don't believe it would work here is Australia does not put enough importance on education
I agree.
increase the budget for it by 60 billion dollars.
No. I wouldn't agree with it either. Schools and uni would be (partially) funded by those in the trades who did not benefit from schools and uni.
In addition the wealthy like their little private school clubs and would by unwilling to get rid of it.
I am public school educated. They slow down to the lowest common denominator. If not for private schools in Australia, I would send my kids abroad.
@[Deactivated]: I honestly don't believe the current education system could effectively use an additional 60 billion dollars anyway. Though I am no expert and maybe someone more in the know could prove me wrong.
I am private school educated, and as of currently I too would send my kids to private because despite the vile culture. the level of education at private schools is of a significantly level higher that if I had the ability to send them there it would be the wrong decision not to.
@SlavOz: Sure was hard work being born into one of the best countries in the world to privileged parents that had plenty of cash from their inheritance, with all the good genetics, the best sex and skin colour
Can't believe this smoothbrain garbage is still touted by wider society and ozbargainers in general. Hilariously ignorant of reality
Housing affordability only becomes a problem when people/banks start borrowing sums of money to fund the infinite growth that the housing market seemingly provides.
What they don't factor in is a decrease in wages - A.K.A what happens in a recession when all of a sudden your safety net evaporates and your disposable income gets swallowed by the mortgage.
Yes we could all rent, but property ownership is ingrained in our culture in Australia. I personally don't want to have rental inspections for the rest of my life, let alone what happens when i turn 65 and want to retire yet don't have a stable place of accommodation.
Housing affordability isn't a problem to those who bought their houses some 20-30 years ago when houses were 20-30% of the value that they are today, likely these have been paid off and the land owners are sitting pretty. I can assure you if you speak to many x/y gen's in NSW/Melbourne they'd have some strong words when they can't cobble together a deposit let alone ever consider paying off a house or apartment. The renter's trap is a real thing.
So it isn't a problem now then? As far as what I'm seeing pre covid people are paying their mortgage happily.
At the moment jobkeeper and jobseeker are propping up the economy, largely the renters who are able to keep paying the high rents and hence the investor's mortgage, as this is wound down they will be forced to downsize or move to a cheaper place.
Generally this is a lagging indicator of a recession so its still a few months before it'll become reality.
also Australia's debt to income ratio is one of the highest at ~200% GDP which isn't something to be confident about while in a recession
Well I did say pre covid. Since housing affordability was pre covid topic
You're asking the wrong gen x/y's then.
I'm gen y and can pretty easily afford a house in metro Melbourne. I've saved up, been good with my money, educated and am hard working…same as my wife. Not hard, just that many people here have a lazy and entitled mentality.
Yes, I understand there are those like yourself that can afford to live in a good house with education. I'm lucky enough to be in a similar position, however unfortunately we aren't the majority of y gens.
In the boomer days you could work part time at kfc and amass a housing portfolio on the side. (Average grad wage was $40k with houses $80k back then as opposed to $65k and $500k)
Nowadays you need a degree, own your own business or have 2 strong incomes to even start looking at buying a house. And that's before you think about having kids.
I feel we're heading the same way as Japan where population growth drops along with consumption as working hours increase to service our ever expanding mortgages.
The only winner out of this is the governmentAgree with what you're saying except the boomer wages. They were lower, but the houses were probably cheaper than your figure too.
@StalkingIbis: Let's not forget though that you could effectively buy a house if you saved up for 3 years, bypassing taking out a mortgage altogether
Wow you still don't get it huh? Even with the negs, people responding to you which you choose to ignore, you're still harping on about your stupid mentality. What happened to me having so much time?
If you have such a strong mentality respond to some of these comments, with actual facts. Honestly it seems like you're the one with a weak mentality…
Housing affordability isn't a problem to those who bought their houses some 20-30 years ago when houses were 20-30% of the value that they are today
oh boy, if only it's gone up that much.
When i was born, my parents paid $175,000 for their place, today it'll fetch well over a million. Not much change in the property over that time.
Interest rate changes, income changes, population changes, more cash printed.
Yeah not much at all.
Yeah not much at all.
Exactly
But in Australia you can't even hang a painting on the wall if you are a tenant. You can't paint a wall, change the horrible chandeliers from 1960's or replace the office-style blinds they chose for the main bedroom.
It's really hard to feel at home if you are a tenant. Everything is temporary. You keep buying cheap stuff because you don't know if you will have to leave after 12 months… The owner might want to sell the house, or increase the rent, or you have to fight to have repairs done. Maybe you will just find mould everywhere and you just have to leave before you stop breathing…
You generally can't even think about having a pet… If you are not happy at your place and wanna move to a different one, you have to fight against other individuals for a ridiculously-priced 2-bedroom apartment in a peaceful neighbourhood, and wait for the message saying "It's unfortunate. Your application is very good, but the landlord had other options to consider and had to made a decision based on small details.".
Like what? My accent? The colour of my eyes or skin? My gender or sexual orientation? My profession? My dog? My bank statements?
We will never know…Then, when you are "lucky" enough to be accepted by the owner to give a contribution of $$$ a month for his average place, every six months someone will come to "your" place and take photos of your stuff, and after a few days you might receive an email saying "the landlord appreciates how you keep the house clean, particularly the shower, which used to be a problem with the previous tenant…". WTF?!
Being a tenant in Australia is one of the most unfair, discriminatory, and frustrating experiences someone can have… Even when the outcome is positive, the entire process is still terrible.
Exactly this
Our experience to a T.
Just been told we have to vacate our rented house after 4 years. Problem is now on the Sunshine Coast rentals are as rare as hen's teeth so it'll be a real challenge to find something suitable.
Sure that sucks but what do you suggest we do short of telling homeowners what they can and can't do with their own property?
We're already a massive police state. What's the point of buying a house if the government is just going to control it for you.
You can hang painting, just with 3m.
Physically you can sure, but you still need to ask permission from your landlord to do so. That’s definitely been a clause in all my leases - it specifies that permission must be granted before attaching any picture fittings to the walls.
With 3m? How about blutek? Scotch tape?
@Zephyrus: I have of course. I don't just be born rich, unlike what people think. I work hard to get here.
I have rented a house with 9 other people. Also have rented a 50yo apartment, new apartment. They allow hanging stuff as long as it doesn't use nails or screws. 3m, blutek, tape, all fine. The 50yo one allow me to use nails.
If you rent a car, you can't change the stereo. If you rent it for a year maybe you can, as long as you replace the original back when you return it.
@[Deactivated]: Lol blutak??? I dont believe you've ever rented. All those temporary fixings are explicitly forbidden in standard rental agreements for the past 15 years ive been renting.
Another 5y and ill have a deposit! Cant wait. Will probably be at the peak of the post covid market revival too!
@[Deactivated]: I know its fine to use, doesn't change the fact that its forbidden under any modern rental agreement.
Best guess is that the landlord oligarchy are so disguisted by stupid poor people touching their precious investment portfolio assets with their grubby poor fingers, and they couldnt stand the thought of them having any kind of decoration or nice thing to look at hanging from a wall, and so it was.
@ratman: Seriously which suburb do you live and how new is your apartment? So weird.
Sounds like your ll is crazy.
@[Deactivated]: About 20 diferent places, mostly houses, between Newcastle and wollongong, including sydney.
Last place was about 200 years old, paint literally flaking off the walls, and there was even a crack in the bedroom wall which leaked water to the inside when it rained. I asked if I could use 3M sticks to hang a photo of my late mother up for an evening during her wake. I even offered to have the room professionally repainted in a colour of their choosing if it resulted in any unexpected damages, and id foot the bill.
Got a response a day later saying the landlord wont make exceptions to the agreement, modifying the house is forbidden in all circumstances, and requesed i dont hold any parties at the premesis. Attached was a no grounds eviction notice.
Pretty standard landlord behaviour in my experience, there are millions of stories like it. I just live in mould and filth until I can save a deposit and get my own place. Current place doesn't even have a working stove, landlord keeps saying they'll fix it because theyre required to, but only if I can prove to them it doesn't work. Then they cancel every appointment to come and check it. I havent had a warm meal in 6 months.
@ratman: Far out mate, I feel for you.
As an ll myself I have never done that. Instead I got screwed many times by tenant and Rea that releases bond too quickly. Every report says all good. By the time tenant is out, crack in bathtub, paint chips, carpet wine/blood stain, broken blind roller, broken wardrobe door, and most recently cracked tile. Not too mention excessive mould in bathrooms. This is in 12 months of rent, sometimes 6.
I count myself lucky they don't cost arm and leg to fix.
@[Deactivated]: We have excessive mould in the bathroom - all thru the house actually. Took photos when we moved in showing actual furry walls with a lick of white paint over it to disguise it.
There is also no openable windows and no exhaust fan. Only option is to open the front door and stick and fan there to blow steam into the hallway. Isn't too effective.
LL will no doubt try and gouge my bond for the damage that apparently I caused. Hopefully it holds up when I have to dispute…these hearings are famous for auto resolving in favour of LL though. Sounds like you got unlucky.
We recently moved into a new rental. We had to sign a separate agreement to say we wouldn't use any 3M sticky hooks or the like in the property. I understand the idea of not substantially changing a property e.g. changing the colour of the walls, but when there isn't even one hook in the apartment and you are unable to use sticky hooks, it doesn't seem all that reasonable really.
We put in a request within the week of receiving the condition report for a number of things to be repaired (for example the oven no longer has indicators of the temperature, or the setting it is on). We also requested for another set of keys (as we're in a strata building that has a swipe fob to access the building and a security key to access our apartment), we offered to pay for this expense and it has now been more than 3 months of delays, not to mention it is going to cost us over $200 for these two keys and it is non-refundable when we move out.
I'm on good income, I'm good with my money but I've got a number of health issues that have been a drain on my savings. I could service a mortgage, but I can't possibly get a deposit together for the area I grew up and continue to live in, where all my support network is. I support my parents financially, so they are in no way able to help me out.
The issue with being a renter is what was mentioned above, the constant fear that you are going to be evicted. Moving is a huge expense and mental drain.
We need to have better renters rights like in the EU where long term renting is the norm. Australia is at times very backwards.
As people grow older, their income increases, so is their affordability. Having an idea of being able to afford the same suburb as your parents means you have to have the same income as your parents. It's a wild dream.
I feel for you for not being able to hang anything. But why did you sign up and agree? Aren't there other choices?
@[Deactivated]: My income significantly outweighs both of my parents, which is why as I said I've been supporting them financially. Also as stated above I could service a mortgage in the area I live in (which isn't cheap) but it's the fact that you are renting at relatively high rates that makes it difficult to get a minimum 10% deposit, which where I live is about $100,000. I'm sure your response is going to be, well move somewhere else but as I also previously mentioned I've got some health issues and my support network for that is where I currently live.
Why did we sign up and agree, ultimately when you are a renter it's highly unlikely you'll find a property that is going to meet all your needs. In the scheme of things not being able to hang stuff was a lower priority. It still sucks. The reason I brought it up however is because the OP was saying that renting is totally fine and there are no issues with it. There are issues. Some more major than others.
as I also previously mentioned I've got some health issues and my support network for that is where I currently live.
Those could be some of sacrifices some landlords had to make, so you can live there without having to cough up $100k upfront.
@Aureliia: Sorry to hear that. But that is a different problem. It is not the house that is too expensive. It is rental rights that is a problem. It is not housing affordability problem.
You accepted the fact that you can't afford your area. If you can it will either be a economic crisis taht somehow doesn't impact you. Or you suddenly get a massive boost of income.
Price is driven by supply and demand. Rental price so high means demand for rent in your area is high. Nothing to do with someone trying to screw you so that you can't ever afford a home deposit.
As for finding property that will meet all your needs, that is a problem even if you can buy. Especially if you buy apartments. Ask any home owners.
And adding to this - constantly living in fear of eviction when you raise maintenance requests. It may be illegal but it doesn’t stop the landlord from not renewing your lease, or serving a 120day no reason eviction. (I have had this happen twice from landlords who couldn’t afford to make the legally required repairs - broken heating)
I once had an agent mark in the inspection report that I need to take corrective action on the shower, as it was wet when she inspected the house!
The ll also living in fear of you moving out and them losing their income.
If they evict you for small things then they also lose their income and letting fee. Unless your fee is so small it's a great bargain. Then why complain?
It's not your place! The entitlement of some people is ridiculous.
there will come the day landlord will fight for tenants. And landlord will have to keep the place in good condition to attract people. Hopefully this day is really close.
It is today, inner city Melbourne for example has been gutted as students move back overseas and young people moved back to their parents.
So it's like a job interview.
A tenant is borrowing someone's else's property. If a tenet trashed the house, people would say it's LL fault for not vetting the tenant, it's part of the risk.
LL is losing money during covid, its LL fault, its part of the risk.Well, having no pet policy, no paintings allowed to be hanging etc, are they not part of risk management? Damned if of they and damned of they don't. Freedom beyond basic necessities are luxurys that come with a cost and risk.
Yeah… It's like a job interview, when it's OK to reject women because they can be(come) pregnant, or black people, or homossexuals… Right? It's exactly the same thing… Well, the companies are just thinking about their own investment, so not hiring a woman is part of the risk management, right? Because women have periods, get pregnant and all the risk… And clients might not like black people, or homossexuals, or someone with a different accent, so not hiring them is just risk management…
Ops… But it is not OK, is it? 🤔
Since when is not letting you paint someone else house, having a dog on their property part of discrimination?
Psst, ones attitude and entitlement could have also been a reason for not being chosen.
@Ughhh: I thought we were talking about choosing people based on gender, race, etc. That's what a job interview is about. You said it was like a job interview. You can't compare a job interview with painting walls.
I thought we were talking about choosing people based on gender, race, etc.
Lmao. No.
Is it not possible that people are rejected because they didn't have a bubbly personality, the social and communication skills etc the position required? Not saying its not possible that people are rejected because of discrimination factors, but you're saying like that's the only reason why all the time. Do you always pull the race /gender card when you don't get what you want?
Would you rent/sub rent your spare room to a dodgy looking person (drug addict/creepy guy etc)?
Of course you can't paint the wall. Can you rent a car and return it in a different color, or replace the horrible tinted windows and leather seats?
I see tshow suggested this comparison to you, but I've never lived in a car or hired one for more than three weeks. You can't compare renting a house for years with hiring a car for days or weeks. It's pretty obvious that those things are not in the same category, not even close. No one is talking about renting three weeks of Airbnb and wanting to change the colours of the wall or the horrible chandelier. That would be comparable to hiring a car for a few weeks. And yes, I could tolerate tinted windows, leather seats, or even a bad colour choice for three weeks.
You are renting. Don't change anything you don't own. What's so hard to understand about it. It's not about length. It's about ownership.
What's so hard to understand about it.
You asked, it the despicable/blant ignorant LL who fail to differentiate between the right of use and ownership.
Length matters too, just ask wifey.
What's the alternative? Someone builds you a house for free?
Absolutely Spot on
Like what? My accent? The colour of my eyes or skin? My gender or sexual orientation? My profession? My dog? My bank statements?
Choosing tenant that do not have children or pets is a fair call. And if you lose out to someone that is richer, then simply move to cheaper more affordable suburbs. Gender or skin also fair call, girls are cleaner than boys, it's a statistical fact. Some race are dirtier and tend to cook smelly food, which will cause the value of the property less wanted when the tenant moves out.
If you wanted fair, then the rent length should be 10 years and you then can do almost whatever you want. Since by then it will need some renovations anyway.
To me 'housing affordability' means people have to live on the street or live with their parents until 50 because they can't afford rent elsewhere. As far as I can see it is simply people that wanting to live in Bondi but can't afford it.
In that case I also have car affordability problem, I wanted a rolls Royce, but hey can't afford one.
Some race are dirtier and tend to cook smelly food, which will cause the value of the property less wanted when the tenant moves out.
Whoa whoa whoa. Dude.
Someone is trying to collect negs and pick a fight with everyone.
What's actually wrong with that statement? Heavy greasy cooking means that the entire kitchen/apartment will smell like food until it's repainted a few times, especially if it's every meal.
In the covid lull here a few months ago (June-July) we were looking for an apartment, and it was plainly obvious who lived there before us, even if the apartment was otherwise spotless. There were specifically two places we decided to avoid solely because of the smell, and it was pretty obvious that everyone who walked in counted it as a negative too by the looks on their faces, just an instant eww factor.
I'd imagine it'd be next to impossible to get bond to pay for a full repaint/scrub, so the only way to remedy the situation is to discriminate at the start isn't it? Either get more rent to cover it, or get a tenant who mostly eats frozen or boiled meals.
Imagine that's something that could be fixed if 5 year leases became common here, since you'd need a repaint anyway so who cares, wonder when we'll get to that stage.
Well… I don't know if someone was richer or sexier, do I? Competition is even harder when the property is more affordable. That's when you see twenty families queueing for the inspection on Saturday morning. I'm not talking about $5000/month houses…
According to you, everyone who is living on the streets or with their parents should just move to somewhere else, as far as it is affordable… Maybe even Northern Territory? I'm sure we have enough space for everyone in Australia, we can just send away everyone who cannot afford a house in Melbourne or Sydney. Problem solved.
Sorry, but I can't even comment on your other observations.
According to you, everyone who is living on the streets or with their parents should just move to somewhere else, as far as it is affordable…
According to me such group of people do not exists or rare. Hence no problem.
I am sorry that you feel unlucky as a renter.
But landlord don't enjoy any advantage either. They have the risk of house value, difficult tenant, either in non paying or damaging the property, intentional or unintended.
I'll be happy to ignore ones gender or skin or pets, as long as we double or triple their bonds and change some laws regarding the bond claim such as if it smell, they pay cleaner. Also would like a longer term lease like 2 or 3 years and at least 90 days notice.
First rule of investing is "your capital is at risk". The second rule is " only invest what you can afford to lose". The third rule is "don't invest if you can't handle the first two rules".
Choosing tenant that do not have children or pets is a fair call.
I know a few landlords who never choose tenants with children. Don't blame them. It's their right to not have their house trashed by crotch goblins.
Recently lots of brand new apartments. Those new investors would be crazy to lease their property for 6m or 12m for a bunch a kids.
They would prefer a single middle aged Caucasian female, large income, no smoking, no pets (except fish).
If it were old 50+ years old building, go ahead, bring your toddlers, fill the apartment with 10 people, and your elephants are welcome too.
OP, I agree with the general feeling about tenants vs landlord, probably nowhere near as much in favour of the landlord as you, but nonetheless…
However, the way you are presenting your argument is not doing your cause any favours. It is irrational and at times tainted with racial prejudice.
In fact, your post could pass off as a sockpuppet for tenants. You're setting someone up to win ridiculous arguments.
Someone pointed out that they cannot paint the walls. Instead of addressing that comment, you went on to talk about sticky tape. You could easily have pointed out that you don't borrow/rent a car and return it in a different colour.
For those who are pro-tenants - this dude is not representative of the counter argument just as I wouldn't call a squatter a representative for tenants.
(In politics, what I'm doing is called making an opponent of both sides. :P)
You can't compare renting a house for years with hiring a car for days or weeks. It's pretty obvious that those things are not in the same category, not even close. No one is talking about renting three weeks of Airbnb and wanting to change the wall or the horrible chandelier.
You can't impose a cost on the owner to undo your changes without expecting there to be additional cost.
I'm sure if you paid more in rent to cover undoing your changes, they'll oblige.
Imagine if someone left the walls a hot pink. The owners will either have to pay and get it painted over or the new tenants will live with it. Then the new owners will be jumping up and down with the availability of rentals without ridiculous wall paint.
I agree with you here. Tenants should be able to paint the walls providing that they re-paint to the previous colour when leaving. That is reasonable. What happens is that in most cases they can't do that even if they accept re-painting the walls. I couldn't replace a horrible chandelier that had 8 light bulbs altogether. I would pay someone to replace the chandelier for something else, and I would put it back before leaving, but that was a NO… So, I had to live with the chandelier but replaced all the 60W bulbs with 5W ones (and obviously returned the old bulbs when I left). When I wanted to install two cameras, I didn't ask, and that seems to be the most appropriate thing to do.
@this is us: You should have done it if your contract included permissible changes. It's absolutely wrong for the landlord's to go in and make changes to the wall colour and lighting after you inspected and agreed to the rental as per your inspection.
I can give you an example. I rent a 2 bedroom unit. If I were to buy a 2 bedroom unit my mortgage would be $400 less than I pay in rent.
1 - I live far from the city, not an affluent fancy neighborhood.
2 - the property (unit/apartment) with 2 bedroom I am talking about would cost between $280-300k. (yes greater Melbourne you can find them)
3 - my rent increase every year (so other bills), except my wages.
The real problem is, people find hard to save while they rent and pay other bills and actually try to live a bit. But if you had a mortgage less than your rent, then you should be able to afford all other bills and live a bit and still save a bit.
Rent is real expensive.
Nothing at all for sale in your area? Seems odd to pay more in rent than you could buy. Bit of a waste of money isn't it?
Nothing in my area. But as I said it is available in other places, and I will move where I can afford to buy!
Have you factored in all the cost of ownership of a unit? Body Corporate, rates, maintenance cost, insurance? People can claim negative gearing because well the rental income doesn't actually cover the cost.
@[Deactivated]: No you don't break even that is my point.
Edit: unit might break even but unit in certain area is a depreciating asset. You will notice the apartment/units with higher yield will not hold up in price.
The fact is that rental price is increasing at slower rate than the price of the property itself (this is a well known stat). People buy because they speculate on the price not to get rental return
What area is this?
Have you considered negotiating your rent? seems oddly expensive.
Areas closer to city are very affordable depending on where you are..
Yes I have tried. And although I have been on the same place for 7 years, the owner didn't want to hear about it.
Postcode 3138.
And this landlord owns properties all over here, around 40 I hear.
and you would spend more than that $400 you save in rent on maintenance, rates, body corporate, insurance etc. Many people mistakenly compare mortgage payment to rent, it is not an accurate comparison.
not necessarily. unless you find a place falling a part, otherwise how often you would do maintenance?
body corporate and rates, you need to look for section 32 to be sure you can afford this.
The example I said above, it would break even.
People who are landlords tend to say others can't afford owning their own place because of rates. not true.
maintenance includes the depreciation of items, carpets, servicing heaters/air con etc. Personally I allocate $300 a month for this on my 15 year old house, very easy to spend that, this year I am well over that.
So for me. $100 a month insurance, $220 a month rates, $300 a month maintenance.
You're right. The secret is to suck it up for a year or 2 to get a deposit together.
Live at home, share a house with a friend, rent with another couple who is also looking at doing the same as you. Gotta sacrifice if you want to get ahead. It's not going to be comfortable but it'll be worth it.
that is one thing I agree. you do need to make sacrifices to get a deposit. and that is what I have been doing.
but I understand not everyone is in a position to do that. and I empathize with it.
You must be joking :)
for $280-300k property you will need about $30k deposit.
That's $600/week for a year or $300 for two years.
we are talking about different things.
i said the mortgage repayment will be less than my rent. 1400-1000 = 400.
I didnt say 400 a week would be enough for a deposit!
So you can't save $300/week for the last 2 years?
This is required for deposit and most of the banks will give you 90-95% of the money.@localhost: you are still not understanding what I am explaining.
I gave an example about my rent.
Not my financial situation.
@[Deactivated]: Believe me, I know what you mean - I was in the same situation like you.
$2400 rent per month, after that got a loan with repayment $2800/month.Now 7 years later loan is $1500 :)
So you can save 10% deposit and buy a property - if rent is same/similar to monthly payment it's ok.
you guys should live in tassie, rent about $200 a week
You should live in Sydney, average income $200k per year. :)
$200 a week in Hobart will get you a bedroom. If you're lucky enough to get it.
https://www.domain.com.au/rent/hobart-tas/?excludedeposittak…
The housing affordability issue in Australia lies solely with those who cannot afford it and feel they are entitled to it.
You realise there's now probably millions of people around Australia that aren't sure if they can still afford to pay for a house, either renting or mortgage. Even if they're renting people who have lost their job or been downgraded heavily will struggle to pay for a home that has enough bedrooms for everyone in the family. Nothing to do with entitlement. Majority of Australia has nowhere near the job pay rise or government benefits to sustain living, when everything around them is constantly moving up in value
You've just proven my point. You think everyone in the family should have their own room.
If you cannot afford that then find a smaller place or a place further away from the City or rent or share a house with others.
There are just so many options.
I don't think you understand the premise. If you're stuck paying rapidly increasing rents while your wage has stagnated for years then you have a problem. If those that have already bought a house continue to invest back in houses pushing up prices further then you have a crisis. It's not about entitlement, it's about people literally unable to leave the rental trap as the affluent few snatch up properties left right and centre.
Shelter is a basic necessity, when it becomes the plaything of investors at the expense of regular Australian's is when the system is broken.
@Drakesy: I understand perfectly.
I too have started on a low income and struggled.
But the notion that rents and income are outside of a person's control is misguided.
One can reduce rent by renting a smaller place or in a more economical location. One can share with others significantly reducing the cost.
One can find a better job. One can find a second job.
@tsunamisurfer: I get what you're saying but in perth we're in a very different situation. We're still able to afford a house within 30 minutes of the cbd. Its a different story in victoria/melbourne where houses are still 750k+ 1 hour out.
You can't tell these people to just move further out because they're already spending 2 hours a day commuting just to afford to live 1 hour out of the city.
On top of this 1 bedroom entry level apartments are 500k plus to live within 30 minutes of the city - not a viable outcome when rents are proportionally higher to match the unit cost
Unfortunately its very narrow minded to apply perth's conditions nationally.
@Drakesy: I do not care how many hours out they are. The issue is home affordability, and there are affordable homes full stop.
You have outlined opportunity cost, I am aware of opportunity cost, it applies to Perth, and Melbourne people the same.
@tsunamisurfer: Totally agree we are only discussing affordability in this discussion not standard of living or distance from workplace/city. With regards to affordability I believe park benches and underpasses are free, so of course its affordable.
@Drakesy: Start a business. Do something outside the box…so many options here in Australia. We have too many options, we have won the lottery ticket living in Australia and still people find reasons to complain.
If you don't like your current situation (not directed at you Drakesy) then change it, don't look for reasons or excuses why you can't do this or that. Take responsibility and make a change. Others far less fortunate have done it.
@SelfMade: Oh hey you just solved the poverty problem, start a business. Let's get these low income families to invest what little savings they may have and probably be at risk of bankruptcy to start a business where more than 60% fail within 3 years and if you google the statistic it even says 97% but I'm not sure what that refers to. Honestly, you're the one that sounds entitled here. You got lucky, because there are many others who try and fail and I'll emphasize luck again. Many businesses are crumbling right now because of covid and it's got nothing to do with them. Just because you made it doesn't mean you can just expect people to do the same thing. As I said before, housing should be a right, just because you come from a third world country where you'd be lucky to eat, doesn't mean it should apply here. Just because you're poor, less skilled and disabled doesn't mean you don't deserve a roof over your head. It's people like you making this country worse. Again, we have the same background but you brought YOUR mentality that made the country so poor in the first place here. That everyone who wants a basic human right is entitled and should just work harder
@[Deactivated]: So much negativity. Please use the extra time you have to do something productive and provide value to the world instead of constantly arguing with someone you don't even know. No sympathy for people who have such a mindset. I'm a fool for even engaging in conversation with you.
@SelfMade: You don't even see the hypocrisy do you? You're the one who's posted 3-5 comments on this thread arguing with people you don't know and yet I'm the one with extra time? I'm not asking for much mate, people took the time to respond to you and if you think they're wrong, tell them why. I've used facts and statistics to substantiate my point and what do you say except 'have the right mentality'?
You say- start a business
I say- most people cannot afford to start a business and if they can doesn't mean they should
Then you say- oh you're the one with so much time. You're negative. You don't have the mentality etc etc
It's garbage mate. You're spout nothing but utter garbage but for some reason you refuse to believe it and I'll keep calling it out when I see it.
By engaging in discourse, the world can change for the better. You're not interested, you post comments then run away. You don't spread positivity. You spread blame and false meritocracy. And value to the world? You don't even know what I do my friend
No sympathy for people who have such a mindset.
Of course you don't. You're narrow minded and can't see any other mindset than your own.
You sound like one of our politicians. You want everyone to live in absolute poverty. A family sharing a house with another family and all the kids and parents have to share rooms? What drugs are you on
@Whisper Quiet: If the renters cannot afford a place of their own, what would you suggest is a practical solution?
1) Whinge that society doesn't pay them enough.
2) Whinge that the market values their skills at low rates.
3) Take personal responsibility and get what you can afford?
@tsunamisurfer: You have no empathy for people? See people struggling to eat and survive and even get a home to live in. Been said that there's a job available for 1 in 13 people who need it right now. Maybe you've been looking too long for that final wave. There's alot more than those 3 options! All kinds of different industries get many millions of dollars in tax breaks for their products and how they sell them. Prices go up so they can keep the same profit margin for their billion dollar empires. While the normal worker isn't getting an increase. Maximum price locking at least for a certain time can make people know how much products will cost on a consistent basis. Lowering tax rates for people earning smaller amounts per annum, tonnes of options to make sure we don't turn into Detroit or even Brazil if it gets too far.
You realise there's now probably millions of people around Australia that aren't sure if they can still afford to pay for a house, either renting or mortgage.
It is what happens when people borrow all they can afford, rent all they can afford. Really nobody has savings and it is just a country inflated with debt.
I am keeping fingers on the pulse how bad this biff with China blows up. A lot of China money have been inflating everything and if you stop pumping in money the balloon needs to deflate.
I'm the poor guy who is giving 50% off rent to my tenant in one property and pretty much 40% off another for the last 6 months and when I paid a lump sum, bank rang up to check "source of your wealth" and they were surprised it came from my salary.
Yes it's a problem, we need government to control the rent by negative gearing…. oh wait….
Yes purchasing housing is very expensive in Australia, relative to almost all other places in the world, and all other times in Australia's history. By every objective measure I can think of. Also, many if not all organisations taking a look at the Australian housing market call it overvalued. Any more questions?
In b4 (or way way after): No because my personal income is 3x the median and I can service the loan on a 1br apartment in Sydney with only some nights eating 2 minute noodles.
In b4 (or way after): it's all too hard and I wont bother trying to save money on rent, I'd rather convenience now than saving for a deposit tomorrow.
Both groups give me the proverbials.
I think it is now clear that it is not a problem.
Classy.
It is a sector artificially inflated to give the perception of worth and you allowed it to occur by facilitating and participating in this sham.
Now look where you live, 20k from town, no public transport, no infrastructure, no shopping centre… may as live in a graveWhat shanty town are you talking about that doesn't have infrastructure or shopping centres 20km from the cbd? Dramatic much.
Edit: Thank you all for your reply. I think it is now clear that it is not a problem.
Lol, so you ignored just about the comments that explained why it was a problem and concluded it wasn't because…reasons? Pro tip: if you already have a strong opinion and won't change your mind, don't bother 'asking a question' online - you just look stupid when you reject everyone's reasoning and stick with your pre-conceived views.
Here is my pro tip, if you can't afford it, don't cry and whinge like a baby. Look elsewhere.
I can imagine Donald Trump opening a brief discussion on global warming, and after 24 hours the discussion is over as it's clear that global warming is not a thing.
Maybe the President has become fascinated with the OzB community and has created an anonymous account to ask questions that he already knows the answers to - like housing affordability in Australia :D
Even Trump can't make money as a property developer. Bankrupt multiple times. POTUS is a trade down.
This is my very first post so don't know if I am doing it correctly. I just wanted to say good luck in getting public housing. It is like catching a unicorn. I know from personal experience.
Yeah it's not easy at all. I don't have first hand experience but I've heard the waiting list is years long. It's not a good outcome for people who are unemployed, going through family violence, disabled, already homeless and other public health issues.
Yeah lmao I had a co worker who said she had to give proof about her going to be homeless… Do you just take a picture of yourself sleeping on the streets? How do you prove you are homeless?
Housing is affordable if you a. have parents who can give you a leg up b. if you have been lucky enough to obtain stable and well paying employment.
It's really easy for well paid people who come from backgrounds where it's either normal for you to live at home until you get married so you can save up for a deposit and/or your parents really push you to get a well paid job and/or they then give you a leg up into getting into the housing market. But not everyone hails from that background or culture.
Housing is a necessity, not a commodity. But unfortunately it has been made into a commodity, for people to speculate on and invest into for profit.
Everything is commodity. if it is a necessity, it makes it an even better value.
Food is a necessity. Is it affordable? No if you don't have a job. If your parents don't feed you, then no, you will die stillborn. Government can give u food, yes, is it good? No, but it keeps you alive.
Clothes, is a necessity. Is it affordable? Yes, if you have basic job, yes you can buy from donated clothes. Is it nice? Depends on how much you earn.
Housing, is it affordable? Again, yes, if u have a job, you can afford one. Is it nice? Depends on how much you earn.
I agree parents giving you a leg up is luck but getting paid well is in most cases not luck, there are a lot of sacrifices that have to be made and continue to be made.
Whether it be as an employee or business owner, many, contrary to popular belief on OzBargain, actually make it on their own accord.
It's a cop out to those who've made enormous sacrifices to get to where they are to think that they have all got there with luck or a leg up from someone.
Tall poppy syndrome is alive and well in Australia and especially on OzBargain.
You can play with preapproval on most bank websites, its like 170k loan for 60k a year salary for normal lifestyle without a car loan.
Not sure about other states, but that allows you to buy and pay off a unit in 10 years (say putting 350 a week into loan).
Even more affordable with a housemate or partner. Gives you sub-10 years to have that 200k unit to finish off and put towards a house.170k loan for 60k a year salary
Is that from current covid times or since last 5 years?
What are you gonna get for 170k? I've played around with figures and based on my current rent I could afford to borrow $400,000k over 30 years, and thats if the 20% deposit is saved up, and you can't really buy much with that; in NSW for a family home theres 4069 choices. Greater Perth 3485, Perth seems to be where its at if you can make it work.
For a family in Melbourne CBD or Sydney CBD? Nothing by Australian standards. Sub 200k houses in the country, can get a 3 bedroom home for $170k in Mildura or Broken Hill any day.
For a single person or couple, there are a ton of sub 200k apartments/studios available in inner Melbourne as well, I'd imagine Sydney too.
Nothing fancy, but it really highlights how affordability is an expectations issue not a supply issue.
Housing affordability is only an issue if your expectations far outweigh wat you are capable of affording.
A box, haha
When you need to talk about affordability it is already a problem.
Problem with housing is people see it as an investment, people are just being fooled because you buy it for $100k and someone told you it will double every 7 years, because salary inflation means people can borrow an extra $4 for every $1 they have as deposit and the bank is willing to lend you more money because interest rates keep on going down. What do they call the scheme where new investors keep on paying higher price to buy in while existing investors cash out?
House prices keep on going up to give people confidence they are richer but if you redraw your equity to invest in more houses you find most of them are just as expensive as yours.
That is totally different to business where you invest in a machine so you can produce more and sell at a profit. Unfortunately no matter how many houses you invest in, it doesn't produce more houses to sell at a profit.
I have property but I don't view it the same way as most people do.
If you look at Japan. Central bank zero interest rates, massive amounts of QE, high property prices, stock market that's crashed. What is missing from US, UK and Australia? Stock market crash.
Don't let Japan stop you. You just need to keep dancing until the music stops.
A crash is what the doctor ordered. It's the best time to grab bargains.
You know in Japan things have never really recovered right?
I didn't know that.
The first rule of investing is "your capital is at risk". The second rule is " only invest what you can afford to lose". The third rule is "don't invest if you can't handle the first two rules".
There is also the rule not to get emotional when investing.
So true
Australia definitely has declining affordability in the housing market which has seen a reduction in the number of home owners. Judith Yates an honorary associate professor in economics at the University of Sydney wrote a great article on this subject in 2015 called; "Trends in home ownership: causes, consequences and solutions", which outlines a lot of interesting information regarding this topic. If you are open to a bit of reading it is quite an enlightening article.
Why would I look bother reading well considered research backed by facts and data when I can read ozbargain comments?
It would be kind of nice to live in a house that I own, but I actually prefer to rent.
- My rent is much less than the interest component on a mortgage would be if I was to buy this place.
- House prices haven't increased in my area in the last ten years so not missing out on any capital gain. (the last 5 years has actually been a decrease)
- I can move to a new area when my situation changes and not get stung with crazy stamp duty each time.
- Don't have to pay council tax, water tax, or any plumber, electrician, etc bills.
I treat this house like it's my own, have changed all kinds of stuff around, put in new gardens, planted trees, put hooks etc up wherever I want, changed curtains, etc
All done to a good standard of course, and the landlord has never said a word. The place is looking much better than when I moved in, so nothing to complain about I guess.
Except to say that in 30 years you'll have rented and will own nothing at the end of it.
I didn't necessarily want to buy a house because I needed it for some type of self validation or because I wanted to be able to hang hooks or any of that. I wanted to buy so that when I paid the bill for the place, it was money I could recover by selling the place later.
You are paying off some other persons mortgage and when you retire and have to spend your retirement on rent because you never locked anything in, you'll probably regret it.
- I say this knowing nothing of your personal circumstances but I am directing this to all readers not just you.
Common issue I see. People sell house while younger and working. They rent and all good. Then money from selling home is gone after several years. Then person retires and stops working. Suddenly their income drops back to pension rate. The rent on their house keeps going up outstripping any CPI increase of their pension. They suddenly realize they made a huge mistake selling their home all those years ago. It's a recurring theme I see.
My parents house is worth almost 100x what they paid for it. So yeah that was a great investment, but that house price boom is not going to happen again. Unless you seriously think normal residential houses are going to be $100million in 30 years lol
Also houses aren't the only investment, my parents would be billionaires now if they had put their money in to Apple, or Google instead.
As I see it, their mistake in this scenario is that they don't have a retirement plan. If they sold their home and invested the money for retirement they probably would be fine.
It's possible to have a retirement plan that doesn't revolve around home ownership, but it would necessarily require extra funds to cover rent during retirement.
You are paying off some other persons mortgage
But that's not true though is it. I am paying much less than the mortgage interest would be.
So it's actually the landlord who is subsidising my rent. :D
It's nice that you have been able to change the place and feel at home, but I wonder if you have asked for permission to do those things, and if you did, what would be your reaction if the owner had told you not to change anything. You might be lucky, but most tenants can't do anything, not even improvements, and it is not like there is usually a big number of nice properties available (maybe there is now, but not before COVID-19).
Moreover, you might find a nice place that you wanted to improve, and you get permission for that, spend some money, and after 12 months the owner decides to sell the property and you have to leave. Long-term contracts solve part of the problem and might benefit both owners and tenants, but, again, that's usually not available.
I never ask first - they might say no! haha
Exactly. :)
Our market is artificially manipulated by government subsidies for property investment. This makes buying 2nd and 3rd properties attractive for those that have the means thereby pushing the price for property, within reasonable distance of employment centres, out of reach for many.
This makes buying 2nd and 3rd properties attractive for those that have the means thereby pushing the price for property
This is why a crash or two may help redistribute the wealth. Landlords with debts up to their eyeballs will be forced to sell.
this is a real problem in a post COVID world what people dont realise it will hurt the poorest people the most
Can you explain how?
@pinchies: Lack of a buffer? Sure your Sydney yuppie whos seen their property price go up 2000% since they bought it might lose more on paper when they downsize, but the renting single parent is the one who has to work 2 jobs, never see their kids, risk their health and go without food to try and survive.
@tarb: Thanks, but won't a housing crash reduce the single parent's rent? As long as they have a job (yes, that's a serious concern) they should be better off?
I reckon it will probably be the middle income person who has overextended themselves to buy an off the plan 60km from CBD is going to be worst hit.
@pinchies: Right now, in VIC at least, rent is sliding, anything real estate is at a pause because of covid restrictions. People think it's a good thing for renters, because less rent. Yaay!
Landlords at this time, may think of unloading some investment properties, the government rule about no evictions during this period doesn't help with the decision making either.
Once demand and supply balanced out,, rent is stabilised, there is less rental supply. After covid situation eases, government opens its doors, more demand, thus difficult to obtain rental for the bottom of food chain.
Of course, with macroeconomics, so many factors at play here. Lots of things can happen.
Property prices could be down 30% like the media titled, but who do you think could better take advantage of this opportunity? People with means ,,, or people without means? Can the poor afford to buy even with the huge price dip ?
Joe Hockey said just get a higher paying job. Problem is people not wanting to be paid more.
Then you can join the government sponsored ponzi scheme that is housing.
We dont make anything in this country but we have million dollar fibro shacks with asbestos.
My landlord is the bank that owns my mortgage.
Less a problem of housing affordability and more a problem of lack of foresight and terribly poor investment decisions. With a population of 25 million and 7.69 million square kilometres there’s enough land for every person to have 307680 square meters each.
What makes your 80sqm dog box in the centre of Melbourne worth a million dollars? It ain’t supply and demand - there’s enough for us to have 4000x that amount each! It’s a lack of infrastructure and diversification. We build cities in some of the best farming land, and force farms out to some of the best places to build.
Covid has shown the majority of jobs can work from home. Those that can’t are generally tied to/supporting those jobs that can work from home (your local restaurant, your local Sparkie, etc are only there because he population is there) or FIFO (mines, etc.) anyway.
What would happen if you built high speed rail from say Albury to Melbourne? Your commute time from Albury is now around 30 minutes. Are the units there still worth $130k? Are the ones in Sunbury with the same 30 minute commute still worth $500k?
Lock people in to something they spend their life paying off and they’ll vote for people who promise them it’ll make them rich, while the people they vote for do nothing :)
well my parents bought a small house by the beach in adelaide in 2002 for $250,000 around $350,000 in todays money. Just recently a identical house sold for $800,000 just recently. So it's gone up an extra $500,000 above inflation which is ridiculous. If they moved to this country now we wouldn't be living anywhere near here.
I bought a house 4 minutes from the beach in Adelaide in 2018 for $240,000 so that logic isn't really valid.
brighton is why
live somewhere else? a house is only worth what someone is willing to pay and can afford - if your parents moved here now they simple would of moved to a difference area that suited there budget
yeah so affordability has gotten worse in certain areas. I could build a house in the outback for $50,000 so affordable yes but not so good for opportunities
Thus as i said in another comment it is not a housing affordability crisis it is a lack of jobs and employment opportunities crisis
Government didn't stand up to the banks soon enough, let them print money and decide what properties are worth. And now everyone is paying the price for their fat profits, grubby tactics and stupid bonuses over the years.
Government and the reserve back and two sperate entities they are independent of each other
Reserve bank doesn't regulate lending practices. Nor does it influence what responsible debt levels are for households.
If you don't think housing affordability in this country is a problem you've got a problem in your head.
When you have negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts to make it a hugely beneficial tax loophole for the wealthy, of course it's a problem.
Interestingly if we didnt have those 'loop holes' the 'crisis' would be significantly worse….
Please, explain that statement.
if there is no investment properties where do ppl live if they can only afford to rent ?
@Trying2SaveABuck: Who said anything about there being no investment properties?
If negative gearing wasn't a thing (for example, if deductions were quarantined against the rental income so the net rental income could only be $0, but income from other sources were assessed on their own) or if the capital gains tax discount wasn't a thing (you pay the full marginal rate of tax on the capital gains made from property, again isolated) then the housing market would not have exploded like it did. People were buying houses for 150k and selling them 5 years later for 350k and up. That kind of growth is unsustainable.
Also they need to make property much more expensive for overseas investors.
If the loop holes used to reap massive income tax benefits and discounts weren't there, people would still invest. It just wouldn't be anywhere near as aggressive.
Yes and No we have more of a jobs/employment crisis in which it is difficult to find suitable work outside of the major cities
We have so much land that we wont run out of space like Singapore, China etc but we dont have a lot of work so people are forced to live within a reasonable commuting distance to the major cities.
Well, ill say in Melbourne/Victoria this is the case i havent lived anywhere else
Maybe in a post COVID world this will change for a large number of people working from home will become a permeant part of there job
It is important to note not everyone wants to 'own' a home. Some people like to rent and in the current market it is probably a better option. The reason why buying a property has been an attractive proposition is becuz of the historic capital gains. However for the 1st time in 30 years the economy is shrinking and the government has essentially bankrupted us to try top the stem the destruction of a recession if not full blown recession. We will not see the doubling of property every 7-10 years for a long time matter of fact the values of homes are shrinking.
Renting has always been looked down upon becuz 'rent money is dead money' but so is paying the interest on a mortgage - and if your asset is losing value then it is better to rent then buy in some cases
IMO there isnt anything wrong with renting many years ago i rented and i enjoyed it i was young and up for adventure opposed to now im settled with a family. But to anyone out there that is renting there is NOTHING wrong with it
Being honest, do you own any investment properties?
yep 1
my wife and i both owned a property then we met
Right, so hopefully you understand that you have no right to dictate to people about how they should feel about being forced into a life of perpetual renting. Your self-interest in this whole discussion is so obvious it's borderline obnoxious.
Totally agree even in opposite circumstances. Bought a place before having family and fully paid. Now with family decided to rent instead. Great adventure with the kids. Most of the time renting is a superior financial decision (as long as you are financially discipline to invest what could have been paid as mortgage) but owning more so emotional decision.
to anyone out there that is renting there is NOTHING wrong with it
Other people disagree with you. Quite a few limitations about renting that restrict what you can do to the place, and what you can do in the place. Far fewer restrictions when you own.
There is freedom in renting you dont need to worry about paying rates, building and repairs, depiction, insurance (other then contents), if you get over the area or circumstances change ie kids it is much easier to move and you can invest your money that would be in the equity of your home in other places ie VAS.
Of course there are major negatives the biggest one being you cant do what you want with your property without approval and paying the rent itself is endless unlike paying a P+I loan eventually you own the property
There is a lot of land on Mars but nothing there. Fact is Australia can’t support many more people. The govt will introduce rent seeker for ‘mum and dad investors’
Australia cant support people people there isnt anymore work,
funny enough both major parties will floor migration to combat this recession they have been doing it for you years despite the majority of the population being strongly against large migration
YES! you can’t convince me rent and house prices aren’t linked.
Housing is all about the endgame. A retiree with a 1.5 million dollar home gets the same pension as a retiree who has rented their entire life. You are in a world of pain if you have to pay rent on a $450/week pension.
Add in the fact that interest rates are almost 0 whereas housing are appreciating in value by 10% per year on average. Renting is for losers.
I would rather rent $450/week for a house worth $1.5m.
Care to explain how it is clear it's not a problem? I had a quick read and most comments are saying it is a problem. Looks like you posted a thread that basically said "I'm right, aren't I" and then ignored everything you disagreed with.
I replied to all who thinks it is a problem, you should read them.
Basically there are available affordable houses out there in every capital cities on any level of full time income. However people seem to prefer somewhere nicer closer that is not affordable. They also prefer to buy than rent and whinge about it.
I made comparison with how much I wanted a rolls Royce, and have to settle with Toyota. I don't complaon about it, do I?
I don't ignore them, I replied and win the argument.
"I replied and win the argument."
It could be Donald Trump or any other narcissist, but it is OzBargein…
LMAO
Appreciate your compliments.
I did and I saw the sheer amount of negative down votes you received. Nuff said.
"Houses are totally affordable, you can buy a decent house for a low price very easily, you just have to give up your job, your lifestyle, your location, your proximity to friends and family, and move out to a more remote location where employment is harder to find, for lower money."
Yeah well done you worthless troll
This is just like high school, teh moments I won argument, people start calling me names.
@[Deactivated]: Are you referring to high school as a period of time in the past or something you did earlier today?
If you can't afford housing, do things so your children can afford it.
If you think your children can't afford it, work with your children so their children can afford it.
It might take time but It'll work out eventually, just maybe not in your lifetime. Life is about your children and their children, and their children…etc..
One could say that not having children might increase the chances of affording a house.
Anyway, not very motivational to think that we need two generations to make housing affordable.
Scenario 1: You don't have kids and can afford housing -> Great outcome, problem solved for you as an individual.
Scenario 2: You don't have kids but can't afford housing -> back to my initial comment.If everyone could stop and consider that life is more than just themselves, I think everyone would be happier in general.
Sure it may not happen in your lifetime, but life continues.
When I graduated from university, I bought myself a $350k 1-br apartment about 30km from Sydney CBD. Back then people said that is a crazy price. But now it is worth almost double.
With the same salary then, I wouldn't be possibly afford the same property now. But there are options although much further away from the CBD and worse conditions.
I think rather than hoping for the same property to drop in price, it is better if the government help people to purchase/share a property together.
Also some laws with renters may need some changing. If renter have lived there for years and years, they should be allowed more than 30 days notice. This would benefit LL as well.
The government needs to stop inflating prices first.
I am a big supporter of coop properties, or community owned communities. the land managing itself and people being there in harmony.
No if you go rural Australia, actually houses in Australia are pretty cheap, very cheap, it's the CBD hubs of Australia that are way way waaaay over priced, and a reluctancy of people moving rural…
Word of wise, marry a Canadian or something and buy into a different market, because if your not keen on moving out to outer regions, maybe try another country… 🤗 No really the prices might be better, and change is good.
I'll go rural, don't know about another country. It's not that I don't think it'll be fun or anything but I was born and raised here so I would like to contribute rather than bugger off when I think there's a problem. Nothing gets done that way.
Actually no offense to females in Australia, no really, it's just females here are aggressive and controlling in Australia, so finding someone opposite to you maybe a key motivator (that is if your single) to invest in a new region of the world…(yes risks are everywhere) You would never regret it.
No what I mean is, live in Australia, but invest in another region, and gave the best of both worlds…
Oh right, invest in another country haha. Yeah I just find that if I have enough to eat and a roof over my head I'm happy. There's more than enough resources if people just take what they need rather than what they want, greed is infinite.
Dunno much about Australian women, sorry :)
@[Deactivated]: if I have enough to eat and a roof over my head I'm happy.
Imagine that with a investment portfolio, one that isn't tainted or corrupted in Australia, one where your love is cared for, and you can continue to:
to eat and a roof over my head on both countries…
Example Canada for a rural area is much much better then rural areas of Australia(excludes costal areas, )in Asian regions especially Japan, or philipines those areas have very cheap affordable rural beautiful areas, you can stil return to Australia (at anytime, not now tho) same cannot be said for America… Unless you want guns in the street after opening the mail box.
But that can only happen if you find someone special.
Worst case scenario buy this:
https://ecoliv.com.au/bedrooms/one-bed
If I recall it's 8000 per square meter in a average measurement for building a home, that's kinda pricey…
our public transport is ratchet though
I'm pretty sure the canadian housing market is terribly inflated.
I dont think there is a problem with affordability of a house.
The problem I see is an issue in getting a house at a distance where you don’t spend 2 hours each way commuting to work. New houses are built further and further away from city but the capacity of trains/ busses/ roads/ parking spaces are not developed along with it. So either you rent at a place closer to city as buying one is too difficult at that closeby or be prepared to spend close to 3-4 hours per day commuting to and from work.
True that, but now since it may be possible to work from home continuously. People may be more inclined to buy much further away from their office.
My rent is costing me more than a mortgage would. More fool me!
Yep, if banks would consider rent paid as a component of savings in terms of loan serviceability, it would go a long way toward allowing people to buy in.
Like, if you need a $100,000 deposit, you've saved $50,000 cash, and you've spent $60,000 in rent in the prior 3 years, at the same house, on time, without being late or anything like that, I feel that you should be able to loan the 90% LVR without LMI on account of the fact that you've saved cash whilst still paying rent.
I saved the deposit myself whilst paying rent, and now that I can pay the mortgage/rates/insurance for less than my old rent, I am saving money hand over fist. Buying my 2nd property would be hands down easier than the first.
The government is bringing a new scheme, similar to the banks, death liquidation, no mortgage repayments… Either the property goes to the government and its community based i think…
I used to live in a suburb that became full of houses/townhouses owned by investors. The place is crap now. Dense housing itself might eventually be the norm due to population, but as it is places are being built deliberately to cram as many owners/tenants (i.e. dollars and sales) into an area, not because that area is designed to as there has been zero investment in the surrounding areas. Anyway to the point, the area is crap because so many people there are renters, little investment into maintaining the area, improving the properties, landscaping, etc. I mean no landlord will do that, minimum cost maintenance.
Most of the time now "affordability" = "price is too high", and the price is too high because people are jumping on for capital gains only. i.e. the price is high for the wrong reason. That Block auction a while back illustrated things so obviously; as soon as the celebrity and overseas investor were out, the sale price tanked, to probably what it should be. Housing should not be a cash cow; inner city perhaps for rental demand, but not your ol' suburban townhouse.
The house prices in Australia (especially in Sydney) are ridiculously high for a poor quality home. $1m could get you a top quality well insulated double storey house in US or Canada in a good locality but in Australia you can still keep on dreaming.
You are not comparing apples with apples. Compare with new York. And try find one with 1m.
Sydney with Vancouver is a good comparison I believe. NY and London are shit anyway.
No compare with Houston, a city with a higher population than Sydney. No city in Australia has anywhere near the density of NY.
Yeah but the people there don't earn the same income do they?
Can't just compare with the pop.
You must compare biggest city of a country with the other one.
Compare Sydney to Jakarta or new delhi for example, it's more populated yet cheaper.
Project builds are pretty crap in Australia. Many of them start oozing efflorescence after a few years.
Er… 2 hrs by public transport? Who are you trying to kid?
@[Deactivated]: 30 mins by car on google maps, probably the middle of the night though. Regardless it’s 35km from the CBD, feel free to post something similar in Sydney for a mil.
Ooof, last guy burnt $650,000 in 1 year on that place.
if it can happen in America it can definitely happen here.
House prices are correlated to the number of immigrants. The higher it goes, the higher the prices.
Uh, yeah I'm going to need for you to back that up with some actual sources and none of this correlation shit. Demonstrate how house prices rise as a result of immigration.
Yeah I don't buy that for a minute. Less than half of the migrants that come here buy a house, by a long margin. They quote the highest uptake of home ownership by migrants as Chinese at ~55% and Indian at ~39% with 34% of "other migrants".
This is the correlation codswollop I was talking about. They're talking about price rises of x% per year being somehow correlated to immigration yet their entire article hinges on "compared to if there'd been no immigration" in 10 years between 2006 and 2016.
Housing prices are affected by a huge list of different things and to attempt to frame immigration as a significant factor is just bad writing. Further, what dystopian idiocy are they attempting to manufacture as the alternate option? ZERO immigration? This isn't Germany in the 30's and 40's, immigration is a thing so to even present that as reasonable is baaaaad writing.
I guarantee that the affect of tax benefits for home ownership, the lack of discouragement of leaving a house purposefully empty to drive up demand, the accessibility of our market to overseas investors is far more responsible for house prices being so ridiculously overblown than immigration.
Here's an article outlining some other factors and you'll notice that whilst overseas investors are mentioned, jack shit is mentioned about migrants buying up property: https://blog.realestateinvestar.com.au/infographic-residenti… (it's from 5 years ago but covers major ground on how pricing got to where it is now).
@sir-screwball: Dude. Immigration per capita in Australia is double the US. You wanted sources and you got them. It is basic supply and demand. Add a million people to Sydney and you don't think house prices will go up?
Calling for the reduction of immigration doesn't make you a Nazi.
The migrants who don't buy straight away are renting and driving up rents.
Plus international students drive up prices significantly and ruin apartment complexes with their 4 bodies in one room slums.
@Emerald Owl: Ok so you're suggesting that if we limit migration options into the country, that will rectify the housing affordability issue?
@sir-screwball: You do know permanent migrants have higher salaries on average than natives?
Again, immigration has added millions of people to Sydney and Melbourne. If a million people left Sydney tomorrow, house prices would nose dive. This is the primary reason for high house prices. It is supply and demand, economic fact, not scapegoating.
House prices are not going up atm because of reduced immigration.
@sarahlump: I detest the immigrants and poor people scapegoat. I have to admit that there appears on face value to be a small element of truth to Cobalt Owl's argument but after all the engineering and taxpayer money the LNP has funneled into he housing market I cannot fathom that any more than a negligible amount of the overall bubble is reasonably attributed to immigration.
Demand?
Where is the poll? Lol
One might suggest there isn't a poll because the OP wasn't really interested in hearing anything other their own opinion.
The OP then confirms that by editing a conclusion that goes against the general consensus of the discussion.
Basically OP is a troll and/or looking for validation/confirming own biases. The wall is painted black and OP thinks it's white. OP asks community to confirm their delusion however no matter what facts are presented to them, they continue to believe the wall is white.
This was never intended to be a discussion.
As you said one might….
4 pages and counting…
Maybe not really a problem if you don't mind paying a large mortgage. With the interest rates going down for years many people with small wages can get a big mortgage. When times get tough again the government will bail people and indirectly the banks with job keeper, jobseeker and the like.
Also I've seen some of your comments, you seem too dumb to realise without government subsidisation rents will go up as house prices go up while wages have not and will not keep up.
Average income is around $5k pm, average home loan around $2300pm, definitely mortgage stress. However it's said affordability has improved…. The primary reason however is that people mostly buy a home to live in when they are a couple, and couples generally have to both work full time to afford a home especially when you have kids. Never mind the stress and impact on family life of both parents working full time, the key thing is house prices keep going up even with stagnant wages and high unemployment.
Next step to improve affordability, is to get the kids working and paying for the mortgage, or having multiple generations in the house contributing.Ridiculous in my opinion, but it's important to keep investors happy by keeping prices going up.
Ridiculous in my opinion, but it's important to keep investors happy by keeping prices going up.
Is that sarcasm?
Yes
2700 is a lot though. That's 32k a year. Enough for new note 20 ultra, ps5, xbox x…
Thank you all for your reply. I think it is now clear that it is not a problem.
Hahahahahaha.
Oh god, thats the funniest thing I've read today
Oh god, thats the funniest thing I've read today
I know, its too stupid to even warrant a response. Everyone will be so relieved to hear that housing affordability is no longer a problem. Everyone go forth and buy a house!
Banks are the problem, letting borrow 30 year loans. It's a modern slavery, both parents work day and night just to get a roof and some food.
If the houses cost something resembling a reasonable amount, and wage growth was a thing, sub-30 year mortgages would be easily attainable.
TIL you can only dish out 5 negs in 24 hours! Thanks OzBargein, without you i'd never have known.
Gonna answer this based on my own experience.
Wife and I were renting for first 8 years after getting married.
House 1:
After 18 months, owner wanted to move in, we had to move. Throughout the time, would constantly clash with the landlord over stupid things, like specs of dust in vents unreachable, and a stupid windows we couldnt clean because it was literally about 5-6 meters off the ground, which to access, we would need to place a ladder on the platform half way up the stairs. which there was no chance i was going to do. Owner kept constantly popping around every couple of weeks to ask when we are going to do the front yard, which was in fact maintained every 2 weeks. The house was always immaculate, and the real estate agency always sided with us, to the point that they rejected all his claims after we moved out.House 2: After 6 months, owner decided to sell house. (contracts were 6 months, initially intended for more long term)
House 3: Exactly same situation as above.
House 4: We moved temporarily into a seperate unit behind relatives house. A few months later they decided they were going to sell.
House 5: Temporarily moved in with my parents for a month whilst we were waiting on new lease to commence.
House 6: This house was our longest stint. We were here for about 4 years, however, like the first one, would constantly be having disagreements with the landlord. Landlord was a professional gardener, and had a rather exotic backyard and front. even though everything was maintained immaculately, with the agency again agreeing with us, it was never good enough for him, and he stated that the garden "needs one hour a day" in order to maintain it. We agreed to have him come around and show us what we were doing wrong… apparently we werent measuring the leaves before trimming, we werent buying the right brand fertiliser, and we had to replace an inch of top soil every 3 months. This guy was a nightmare.
House 6 was the final straw. after 6 moves in 8 years, and CONSTANT issues with landlords to the point it was leaving my wife in tears, we were finally able to afford our own place.
Long story short, buying your own house is worth it to save your sanity. And if you have kids, its a fantastic investment for your family's future. We just couldnt deal with it anymore. With rental properties, you never have any sense of housing security, have to put your life on public display for them during inspections, need their permission for every little thing, are dictated as to wether you can have a pet, have to advise them who is staying in the property whenever theres a change, they always have keys to the property…. i could go on for days.
Do you mind advising what suburbs/areas of Melbourne you were renting at?
Sorry to hear you had lots of issues finding a long term rental but good to know you now have your own place.
I have an investment property in the Eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Never really bothered the tenants much, fixed issues in a timely manner and never raised the rents. Probably why I've had lots of long term tenants.
In some areas I would certainly say so, I don't believe this is a new phenomena. Although do to globalisation and increase in population the "unaffordable" areas are getting larger and effecting more people.
Most people don't want to rent forever, and thats understandable.
How do you set a user to ignore on here?
Yes it is
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart…