ABC Article on "Long-Term Renters" and Home Ownership - Ridiculous

CrushJelly on 18/10/2021 - 11:07
Last edited 18/10/2021 - 17:29

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-18/record-house-and-rent…

I find the entire premise of this article absolutely absurd. Granted, the concept that home ownership is beyond reach due to circumstances that are outside of a person's control seems to be something we can all sympathise/empathise with.

That is, until you get to the second paragraph:

The 35-year-old teacher lives in Sydney's south-west and has been saving to buy a property for four years, ever since she moved out of her family's home.
Both she and her husband save 10 per cent of their pay cheque towards a deposit

  1. She only started saving at age 31?
  2. She is only setting aside 10% of her pay?

I might be missing something here, but this reeks of entitlement.
How can anyone choose to spend their entire disposable income until the age of 31 then complain four years later that they cannot afford to buy a home.

I personally started setting aside money when I first started earning money - before I was even 15. I am just over double that age now and have 2 apartments - both with approximately 50% equity and 50% loan outstanding. No help from family or otherwise.

Since @GrueHunter was kind enough to try and challenge my numbers:

To anyone that thinks this couple can't save more than 10% of their income, have a look at a brief weekly budget below, and tell me what else you add that accounts for spending the rest of your disposable income of $1,700 per week after rental expenses.

$160k gross income - let's say $120k clear after tax.
$620/week rent. That's $32.2k/year.
So they clear just shy of $90k/year, which is $1,700 per week for bills and food.

The below expenses total $612 per week. Add whatever you want as monthly subscriptions. But that couple could be saving MUCH more than 10%.

Items Weekly Monthly Quarterly Yearly TOTAL WEEKLY
Electricity $ (300) $ (23)
Gas $ (100) $ (8)
Water $ (200) $ (15)
Contents Insurance $ (1,000) $ (19)
Fuel $ (40) $ (40)
Car Insurance $ (900) $ (17)
Car CTP $ (600) $ (12)
Car Rego $ (300) $ (6)
Car Payments $ (500) $ (115)
Health Insurance $ (397) $ (92)
Gym $ (100) $ (23)
Mobile 1 $ (60) $ (14)
Mobile 2 $ (60) $ (14)
Internet $ (60) $ (14)
Groceries $ (200) $ (200)
Financial

Comments

  • JuryWheel on 19/10/2021 - 12:16
    +1

    The budget you have put there is pretty accurate imo. Even if you bump it up a little to $3k a month, your are still looking at saving close to $1k a week - Now, whether saving 100k over a 2yr period will be enough of a deposit is another thing, but you would be well on your way!!

  • dylan345 on 19/10/2021 - 12:19
    +3

    solution for the above couple? IMO

    Budget better (income to cost of living ratio focus)

    and move to area with the same jobs but low house prices. If they don't want to move they should consider rentinvesting as a method to get onto the property ladder sooner rather than later. In order to eventually get the house they want. Saving for a deposit via cash only can be quite slow.

    My reasoning? this is what I did and it was the best decision I ever made

    OP is right, I meet far too many people that want the expensive lifestyle i.e want to own a home in a high growth city, want new cars, best phones, netflix ect ect
    But fail to learn about money, investing, budgeting, work for or take actions early in life to accommodate this. by the time they hit their 30's usually they just hope for a windfall. I kinda blame their parents and I kinda blame the school system for not connecting long term reward with early life actions. Instead most young people believe the key to everything is getting a good job.

    • timps on 19/10/2021 - 13:25
      +1

      Netflix is the expensive lifestyle? $16-$20 a month.

      Getting a coffee each twice a week would be far more than Netflix.

      • dylan345 on 20/10/2021 - 20:44

        Netflix and other subscription services for entertainment are a small luxury that may cost young people a lot in terms of early life investment options/lost opportunity especially when many optional subscription services are used.

        i.e. couldn't buy a car as early or afford fuel to get to a job interview or god forbid they have a finical emergency but because they were living week to week with 4 unnecessary subscription services and never bothered to make a emergency fund.

        If I asked someone if they would like to buy 30 years of Netflix for 5k upfront people would say that's for rich people.
        The cost over 30 years is actually higher but because its in small payments people see it as a cheap item.

        I agree about take away coffee, hence why I would recommend buying beans and making your own coffee for any caffeine addiction.

        later in life when you are setup with all your needs and have emergency funds and stuff, then go for any luxury items you want at this later stage you have earnt it.

        mind you though imo if you have kids then the cost of entertaining them is kinda a must, if neflix is your only option then sure its no longer a luxury

    • acersaurus on 19/10/2021 - 16:01
      +1

      Agree with all of this, some people can't budget with a high income - quite often it is people who are smart and would be capable of it but have just never learned.

      Moving to a low cost area can also be a good strategy. In the regions incomes can be a bit lower, but depending what you're doing income could be 5% lower (for teaching maybe there's no difference?) with houses 50% lower, it's a lot easier to get by and even buy into a decent school zone.

  • timps on 19/10/2021 - 12:29
    +8

    Oh look it's another post attacking other people with an imaginary budget.

    These budgets always list 8 basic things and then assume no one ever gets sick and needs a doctor, or has an ongoing condition. There's no allowance for a pet, hobbies, or any kind of leisure activity.

    You can never buy xmas or birthday presents, can never replace furniture or appliances.

    You can't buy new clothes to wear or have s night out. You can't give to charity, or help anyone out.

    This bullshit budget is literally a third of my power bill in Tasmania. And half the grocery bill from special dietary needs.

    Not to mention celebrating owning two apartments as some status symbol, but either being deliberately deceitful to leave out how much property prices have changed compared to income, or too stupid to realise it.

    My former rental doubled in value in 6 years. My wages went up 22% in that time.

    Op made this post entirely to throw out an imaginary straw man and attack people by claiming they fail to meet this imaginary, impossible budget.

    • May4th on 19/10/2021 - 12:38
      +5

      i don't disagree that OP's budget is a tad ambitious but 10% savings rate is less than impressive by any measure. if you are not willing to make sacrifices for home ownership you shouldn't pretend society is 100% liable for your woes.

      it's a sense of entitlement to say that you deserve to own your home on an average salary to live in your dream home in one of the most expensive and desirable cities in the world without cutting back on expenditures for a holiday, have an ample budget to pursue all your hobbies and maintain your lifestyle. no one is forcing you to buy a home, and globally it's a similar if not worse situation in places like london, hong kong, singapore etc, why should we be any different? not saying it's right, but this is the world of capitalism that we live in

      some rough calculations here, there are plenty of options for housing in sydney- in the SW you can still buy relatively large blocks with a decent house that can be touched up with a bit of DIY renovation for 8-900k. for the same price larger apartments/townhouses within 20-30min of CBD are also available. a lot of banks are offering 85% LVR for first home buyers, so 150k deposit needed incl. stamp duty- for dual income, saving from working age 22-23 you are looking at saving ~10k per year with 2 incomes, compounded which is very achievable (as an uni student living away from home i was able to save 100 per week studying full time). mortgage on a loan of 800k would be roughly 3k/month which is cheaper than renting in terms of interest (this is P+I so a chunk of it is compulsory saving so to speak)

      • CrushJelly on 19/10/2021 - 13:08
        +1

        Would be interested to know who negged you.
        There was a fair bit of critical thinking in your reply, yet I'm sure there are a few who simply gloss over it as being "too difficult to understand" and revert back to their sense of entitlement.

        And yes, agree my budget was ambitious, but it was a starting point that yielded a $1,700-612 saving, which means you can then play around with the remaining $1,100 for ancillary expenses and lifestyle desires.

        I don't see how so many required explicit explanation of such a simple concept.

        • timps on 19/10/2021 - 13:24
          +6

          "And yes, agree my budget was ambitious, but it was a starting point"

          Despite the fact you waved it around as the be-all and end-all to make a point.

          And still ignoring and glossing over the fact that you bought your properties when the market was lower. And pre the banking royal commission.

      • sir-screwball on 19/10/2021 - 15:30
        +3

        I bought a house in the outskirts of Brisbane that needed some renovations and touch ups a few years ago for 260k.

        The same concept in Sydney or Melbourne is three times the price.

        The confirmation bias with the home owner/investor types on these forums is honestly just hard to watch. I reckon I could pick with high accuracy the home owners and investors in this thread just from reading the heavily slanted bias spewing out of their mouths. So far it's just me and timps that appear to be defending first home buyers whilst still owning a home/investing in homes ourselves.

        Also.. mortgage of 3k a month? Where's the rates on top? You seem to have conveniently ignored 25% of the cost of the ownership experience right out the gate, probably to help you prop up your paper thin viewpoint.

        First home buyers that don't live in the sticks cannot afford to buy in the Sydney or Melbourne, Hobart, Perth markets, and soon to be Brisbane as well, without significant help or completely screwing themselves over by accepting 100k of LMI or some such. It's unsustainable, unfair, and it's forcing multiple generations of people into forced renting for their lives, the irony of which being that they're being forced to pay off the mortgages of the investors who will leave their nest eggs to their kids who will just propagate the ever growing gap in wealth.

        Just admit that you got your foot in the door and now you don't give a crap if most young people will miss out.

        • May4th on 19/10/2021 - 16:23
          +1

          100k of LMI

          now we are just pulling numbers out of our rear
          a mil loan at 10% LVR is only about 20k in LMI, i don't see many first home buyers settling on 5mil properties

          see my example above (which does not require paying LMI), if you aren't a snob about where to live and willing to make compromises it's still very realistic to buy your home if you hav a disciplined saving plan even in the overpriced inflated market of sydney. not many people are born to live in inner city mansions - as a first home buyer you get your foot on the ladder and upgrade when your situation permits, or rentvest in places like brisbane / regional towns where you can afford. there is always a strategy to suit your circumstances and lifestyle if you have the will and put in the hard yards

          "some rough calculations here, there are plenty of options for housing in sydney- in the SW you can still buy relatively large blocks with a decent house that can be touched up with a bit of DIY renovation for 8-900k. for the same price larger apartments/townhouses within 20-30min of CBD are also available. a lot of banks are offering 85% LVR for first home buyers, so 150k deposit needed incl. stamp duty- for dual income, saving from working age 22-23 you are looking at saving ~10k per year with 2 incomes, compounded which is very achievable (as an uni student living away from home i was able to save 100 per week studying full time). mortgage on a loan of 800k would be roughly 3k/month which is cheaper than renting in terms of interest (this is P+I so a chunk of it is compulsory saving so to speak)"

          Also.. mortgage of 3k a month? Where's the rates on top?

          800k at 2.4% (you can get 2% easily at the moment so plenty of buffer there) is 3k per month. it's simple maths, you can plug it into the calculator if you want.
          rates (which you still pay most of as a renter) insurance and council fees may add 5k p/a if we are being very generous, so 3.4k per month. This is still hard yards for most people, but in reference to the income of those reported in the article it's absolutely do-able and probably not much more than what they are paying in rent (keeping in mind actual interest on the loan will come to about $350 per week only with the rest paid into principal which is savings)

          • sir-screwball on 20/10/2021 - 01:50

            @May4th: You've done a lovely job of cherry picking a tiny little point and expanding it into a huge waste of text. It doesn't matter if I made a mess of the math in my imaginary number I pulled out of nowhere because the number is irrelevant to the overall point.

            • May4th on 20/10/2021 - 06:36
              -1

              @sir-screwball:

              You've done a lovely job of cherry picking a tiny little point and expanding it into a huge waste of text. It doesn't matter if I made a mess of the math in my imaginary number I pulled out of nowhere because the number is irrelevant to the overall point.

              So basically: ''i was wrong but don't want to admit it so i'm going to ignore the valid points you made, and call any viewpoint but mine irrelvant''

              Well good day to you sir it's clear you're not looking for a constructive discussion

              • sir-screwball on 20/10/2021 - 09:11
                +2

                @May4th: There's no constructive discussion with the likes of you and the rest of the people in this thread that will defend the commoditisation of housing for their own personal profit at the expense of those around them. You're happy to exploit people for profit and like the rest you won't acknowledge there's a problem because that will force you to hold the mirror up to yourself.

                • May4th on 20/10/2021 - 10:27

                  @sir-screwball: you seem to make a lot of assumptions about my circumstances..it's attitudes perpetuated by the likes of you that are stopping young people get a foot on the property ladder. the system is what it is, sure we need constructive dialogues to address housing stress, but that is not the point of this post. instead of telling them that "the world is against you, woe is me, it's us vs them and the odds are against us let's give up and vent our angst on the internet" whilst pretending to be championing for them why don't you help them work out a budget, pick the right places so they can get a home until systemic problems are addressed? oh wait you've got your own place to live in already, let's ride the high horse for a bit longer shall we?

                  like a lot of things in life it's not fair and it's not easy. you can either do something about it and make your own destiny or we can be the keyboard warriors and vent our angst online, take your pick

                  • CrushJelly on 20/10/2021 - 11:05

                    @May4th: How many people do you reckon even have a spreadsheet of all their weekly/monthly incomes and expenses?

                    Reckon @sir-screwball has one? Doubt it

                    The table I posted was a small sample of a Budgeting Spreadsheet I created over a decade ago. I built it to track my spending vs income and see whether I needed to make changes. I identified that my spending habits were outweighing my savings goals so I tracked through line-by-line to determine what I could live without.

                    Lo and behold, I could make do without buying lunch every day and preparing it at home. Lo and behold, I could sacrifice not eating out every weeknight and limiting nicer dinners to Fridays and the weekend.

                    The spreadsheet has formulas to normalise income/expenses that are weekly/monthly/quarterly/yearly, and it even has columns to normalise expenditure that would be tax deductible.

                    I've shared it with all of my friends and family, who have benefited from it too. But no, according to people like @sir-screwball, I'm a self-entitled prick who helps no one but my own self.

                    • cadwalader on 20/10/2021 - 11:20

                      @CrushJelly: I don't have one, and I didnt feel like I needed. I just take note of my bank balance every 4 weeks or so and I deduct the growth from my income. That was before I had other investments. Now the calculations require a few more steps with removing dividends and growth from stocks and rental income but its pretty much the same concept. I target a 35-45% after tax income savings+investment rate so if I fall within that window I don't bother worrying about what I spent it on. I don't even earn the average full-time income.

                      • CrushJelly on 20/10/2021 - 11:51

                        @cadwalader:

                        take note of my bank balance every 4 weeks

                        Word of advice, don't forget that even though your income would be regular/semi-regular (weekly/fortnightly or monthly), not all expenses are regular. You have a combination of daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and yearly expenses. So just because your net income - expenses figure in July hit your 35-45% after tax savings goal, doesn't mean it will be fine when you have large yearly expenses all hitting in the month of December (e.g. vehicle CTP, registration, insurance, home and contents insurance etc., Christmas presents and the like)

                        If it averages out fine for you, then that's fine. I use my spreadsheet, which normalises the variances in timing, for a more granular approach.

                        • cadwalader on 21/10/2021 - 11:44
                          +2

                          @CrushJelly: If you're just starting out then yes your point applies but I've been doing this for a few years now and my expenditure is spread out enough that they tend fall within the 35-45% savings goal. Anything >5,000 like holidays, cars, home repairs/renovations etc etc would be infrequent or lumpy enough that I can just manipulate and treat them separately (holidays would be added to yearly expenses, cars spread over the expected ownership, home repairs/renovations treated as capital expenses etc).

                    • sir-screwball on 20/10/2021 - 11:30
                      +4

                      @CrushJelly: Are you forgetting that I own my own house? My ability to manage my own budget is above reproach. I live debt free with the exception of my mortgage, I'm renovating without taking out loans or credit cards, I'm about to buy a 40k car with no loan. I'm good over here, cause I made a mess of my financial situation in my teens and 20's out of sheer ignorance and lack of education, then I fixed it and now live with relative financial freedom.

                      I don't really understand how you think perpetuating the broken ass housing situation in this country is helping anyone. You're helping banks and politicians and other housing investors like yourself by empowering your friends and family to buy into it.

                      I've helped several of my friends buy houses, I've perpetuated the system myself as well. I sleep well at night because I can put my hand on my heart and say with all honesty that if the housing market crashed 90% overnight and my house was worth jack shit, I'd genuinely cheer for those around me who could now buy where they previously couldn't despite my own losses. I can afford my mortgage if rates go to 25% which is the calculation I did prior to buying so I know that if the market absolutely dies in the ass I'm good. Those around me whom I don't even know would benefit and that makes me happy. Also people who perpetuated the broken, unfair, cruel system for decades would lose big time and that would make me happy.

                      I don't like property investors. You line your pockets with the misery of other people and it's disgusting.

                  • sir-screwball on 20/10/2021 - 11:21
                    +4

                    @May4th: I make assumptions based on the information given to me. Your staunch defense of renting does not ring true of a person who has been stuck in the rental game for any significant period of time because it's not fun, it's not fulfilling, it's not "freeing" or "liberating". You have a profound sense of being in someone else's space and having to argue with landlords and real estate agents to get your tap fixed or having to defend wanting to hang a picture or something is a mentally damaging way to live. Take it from me, someone who rented for a long long time and hated every minute of it.

                    Your delusional view of renting is just that, it's an illusion you've created in your mind to justify the manner in which you live (and go ahead and correct me if you're not a home owner and property investor, I'll eat my words if that is the case). Arguing with the landlord over a leaky tap, a broken air conditioner, and a garage door that won't lock for 6 months only to be told they're increasing the rent after 6 months is just soul destroying. They don't give a hoot about the renter, they want that money and that's that. It's true for every rental I've ever been involved in.

                    The discussion I've partaken in throughout these comment threads is not one of budgeting and ability to play into the overblown system, it's one of affordability and the systemic issues that have been purposefully constructed to work against the first home owner occupier. I purchased in this ridiculous market and so you can bet your bottom dollar I have my finances in check, I know how to save and budget, I can impart that information to anyone if they're interested to learn, but that's not the point of this.

                    Also, did you just accuse me of sitting in my own home and riding some high horse? Which of the two of us is advocating for first home buyers? The absurdity of that comment is mind bending.

                    You're right, a lot of things in this life are unfair and difficult. I did do something about it, I am making my own destiny but I am also choosing to advocate for those who don't have the means, the education, the assistance around them to effect the same type of outcome I got.

                    You're not. You're berating people for being stuck under a system they didn't build, don't want, didn't ask for and you're telling them to either play into that system or rent for the rest of their lives.

                    • May4th on 20/10/2021 - 11:38

                      @sir-screwball: where did you see me berating anyone? all i've offered is pathways and options and running the numbers for the couple in the article to get where they want to be. where as all you've done is to say the system is shot and you may as well give up now. who is helping them more? you seem to feel you are a saint and a moral compass standing up for first home buyers but apart from sitting behind a screen attacking anyone who looks like they may own a property from their posts and feeling good about yourself are you actually providing any material assistance?

                      • sir-screwball on 20/10/2021 - 14:52
                        +2

                        @May4th: You provided a loose calculation that offered a 15 year solution for saving a deposit. 150k deposit saved @ 10k per year? Are you kidding? Did I misread that or did you earnestly offer that as an option for people?

                        At the rate we're going, 6-8% growth on average per year your 900k fixer upper (I can't believe I'm not typing that facetiously) is now worth something in the area of 1.6m? So then they just have to save a little bit more, maybe another 5 or so years and they can buy their little fixer upper for a cool, what? 1.8m?

                        You seriously defended this shitheap market by saying that rampant capitalism on a global scale is unchecked and imbalanced so why fight it, just hurry up and get in.

                        Capitalism only works as long as the house of cards is standing. When the GFC hit, when markets fall apart because the model is unsustainable, it's taxpayers (ironically not the high income earners who bury their income in rental properties and refundable franking credits) that foot the bill for these organisations.

                        The whole thing is a circus. I know it's one we can't avoid but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.

                        • May4th on 20/10/2021 - 15:07

                          @sir-screwball: i suggest you re-read my posts, i've said many times i agree that the market is ridiculous and the prices are over-inflated and the odds are stacked against the average earner especially in capital cities, the point of the post is to show people this is still do-able despite all the barriers and give them strategies to achieve this.

                          it's not as fun as spewing outrage and bashing anyone with a mortgage though is it.

                          it appears numbers aren't your strong suit either. 10k per year, compounded over 10 years is $157,836 at a conservative 7% which is below market returns for the last decade, this is between 2 incomes if you start working in your early 20s with the goal of buying a house in your early 30s you only need to put in 5k each per yr- obviously you'll get there a lot quicker if you put in more than 5k, which most should be able to do.

                          the calculations are for the current market, how much it has grown is irrelevant and speculative. in fact i would daresay property prices in the next decade will not rise anywhere near what it has in the last decade.

                          or you are saying we should give up saving because prices MIGHT rise faster than you can save in the next 10 years? that's a big strawman there

                          so instead of listening to you and become disillusioned about owning property being impossible feat and blowing your savings on lifestyle spendings it is still very much possible if you work long and hard enough for it

                          • sir-screwball on 20/10/2021 - 15:18
                            +2

                            @May4th: My misinterpretation of your original "150k deposit" isn't my fault, you didn't put anything in the post about how you achieved that number.

                            Again, this straw man that I'm bashing anyone with a mortgage is just ridiculous. My disdain is very obviously with the property investors not the people buying houses to live in.

                            And no, the point of the post was not to show people it's still do-able in a ridiculous market. The point of the post was to spew outrage at the entitlement of people who dare complain about the state of the housing market. The people coming in to offer advice is a bi-product.

                            I've never once stated that becoming disillusioned and blowing the life savings was the way to go. Quote me. I've spoken only of the situation we're in, not about the idea that it's impossible.

                            In 40 years we went from being able to look at 10 houses and pick the one we wanted based on location, facilities, layout etc to saving for years and years and years (for clarity, I don't have an issue with a 2 or 3 or 4 year savings plan, but 10? C'mon) just so you can buy the bottom of the barrel worst value for money properties on one of the most over-inflated markets in the world.

                            That is my gripe. I might be a hypocrite decrying the system whilst also buying into it for owner occupier reasons but what I am not doing is working on my 2nd deposit for my first investment property.

                            • May4th on 20/10/2021 - 15:29
                              -1

                              @sir-screwball: look i also wish i was born 10 or 20 years earlier and entered the housing market then, but i think it's also unrealistic to expect to be able to afford your dream home with just a couple of years of saving on an average salary. there's not enough resources in the world to sustain that kind of lifestyle and we are already doing better than most.

                              the best way to hedge against rising prices is to get your foot in the door. that 900k bottom of the barrel 'shithole' will give you good equity down the track when you want to upgrade even if prices keep rising which i doubt will for much longer.
                              we don't all need to become hermits and eat baked beans every day but get into a habit of paying yourself first, put it in the bank, in shares, or even bitcoin if that's your thing. keep at it and you'll get there eventually

    • nostalgiaultra on 21/10/2021 - 15:58

      Some of the post and the budget is reflective a bias towards FIRE or it's derivatives (and an implicit money left over fun budget).

      That being said, I feel like it goes both ways. People are gonna struggle to save cause factors like keeping up with the jones, lack of financial education and are focused on short term gratification while refusing to sacrifice. Budgeting is important after all and buying a house for a solo occupant or for dual income couples is still feasible enough.

      But the real kicker is that housing prices are absurd, apartment standards are absolutely in the pits which prevents prospective owners from considering them unless they're willing to compromise with less space/lower build standards and if you want to have kids, yeah it's tough cause of these factors. Doubly so if you live in Sydney.

      An underrated factor that is causing people to not look regional/non-Melbourne & Sydney is that I feel like metro Australia doesn't have the culture of moving long distances unless you're from the country. We go to uni locally for the most part, we stay in the city that we are born in for the most part. That makes it hard and it could be something that shifts if infrastructure such as internet/public transport/services gradually improve.

  • Dowhatuwant on 19/10/2021 - 13:10
    +2

    The amount they want to save is unreasonable based on the current market. But in a reasonable market it shouldn't be far off whats needed for just a deposit. House prices are out of control and have been for decades.

    • andresampras on 19/10/2021 - 14:20
      +6

      2 stories in one article:
      - housing market prices are high
      - couple with enough income doesn't yet know how to make smart compromises to get into the housing market

  • afah0447 on 19/10/2021 - 14:15
    +12

    I have to agree with OP here. The couple in the ABC News article may have a little bit of entitlement about them but its far from their biggest issue. I think they are just a little naive and don't understand what it takes to get a house in the modern world. Especially:

    • 'she and her husband save 10 per cent of their pay cheque towards a deposit'

    This is la la land stuff and will never get you there. This implies they were still spending on luxuries and not serious about saving for a deposit. Realistically the rate needs to be near 50%-55% if they were serious about getting a place.

    • 'We have decent jobs but we've both hit the top of our pay scale so we're never going to earn any more than we are now'

    This is self-defeating thinking and utterly not true. One can always better themselves and make more money. These days more than ever. This implies a lack of motivation to reach difficult goals and their motivation in general.

    • 'We can't really move any further south to where it's cheaper'

    Yes you can, you just don't want to. Slight entitlement to current area.

    • 'We'll just probably move from rental to rental so we can keep the jobs we like, stay close to the family, in the leafy neighbourhood here [that offers] great amenities like being a 30-minute train ride away from the CBD'

    Major entitlement to the current area. The market has decided that 'great amenities' and it being a 'leafy neighbourhood' and close to the city demands higher prices. It doesn't care if your family lives there or for how long, its not how capitalism works and they need to comes to terms with that. They should have worked it out by their age.

    • Chael Sonnen on 19/10/2021 - 15:12
      +7

      Absolutely agree with you here, especially this comment:

      'We can't really move any further south to where it's cheaper'
      Yes you can, you just don't want to. Slight entitlement to current area.

      This is unfortunately true for the majority of people who complain about housing being utterly unaffordable. While yes, house prices are much higher, it really is not as impossible as it seems. People just can't forgo the luxury of buying in a great suburb for their first house.

      One of my workmates is in this exact position. She complains not being able to buy her first house and when I ask her what suburb she's looking at, she's looking at 3 bedroom houses within 10km on the east side of Melbourne CBD where the houses are all over a mil. She earns about 70k and her partner works as a part time barista, rents in Hawthorn which is costing them $600 a week and spends close to $50 daily on eating out.

      Myself and my friends are all average income earners (60k range) and we have managed to buy our own homes. Sure, it's not our dream suburb and we have to make compromises with distance and it doesn't have all the bells and whistles, but it was what we could attain realistically. One of my friends has already sold up and moved to a better suburb so it's achievable, just not immediately achievable.

      • RefusdClassification on 19/10/2021 - 15:38
        +1

        Bargains to be had if a person is flexible. Just move to Broken Hill, for instance, median housing price $220,000.

        • acersaurus on 19/10/2021 - 19:11

          Broken Hill has decent houses for like 100k.

          But it's a pretty exceptional for its isolation. After all you know you're in an a very isolated place when you are in NSW but rely on Adelaide for most types of surgeries/medical specialists.

          Dubbo or Wagga Wagga might be more of a middle ground for most people. More population, jobs, infrastructure and services. Not quite as isolated.

      • May4th on 19/10/2021 - 16:39
        +1

        unfortunately the media loves talking to those people to get a reaction out of readers. it's about the clicks. reality is unless you are born into money chances are you are not going to be able to buy your dream forever home at 30 - you missed that train by about 20-30 years (yes, looking at you boomers) - but if you are willing to compromise and make sacrifices you will get there eventually.

      • SkMed on 19/10/2021 - 16:54
        +1

        Hmm, I think most people are willing to make the sacrifice of not buying a nice/large place and instead buy a shithole 1 bedroom unit if it means they can be a reasonable distance to work. Distance from their life and work seems to be the number 1 priority, not having a really nice/massive place.

        But unfortunately the barrier to entry even for a 1 bedroom shithole is too high that this isn't an option. So now to get into the market the sacrifice is actually buying a tiny shithole AND live on the outskirts in more dangerous neighborhoods, away from friends, family, work and amenities etc. Even 5 years ago at least you could buy a decent/large place in these areas, now its not even worth it for most, and I don't blame them.

  • SkMed on 19/10/2021 - 15:26
    +5

    I don't think this article is representative of the average 30-ish year old in Melbourne/Sydney tbh.

    Out of all my close friends in Melbourne around the age of 28-34 only 3 of us out of a group of about 20 have made it into the housing market and I know most make well under 100k per year. The three that have made it (including me) is mostly due to one of our parents dying and leaving us an inheritance. Sadly this is the only way into the housing market for most people nowadays. Most of my friends in this age bracket don't make nearly as much as the couple in the article and the job market is extremely unstable, and if you're on a single income then getting into the housing market is completely unattainable for most.

    I'm guessing the people who think anyone can do it if they just "stop buying coffee's" don't actually have much of a social life/friends and probably spend most of their time with their significant other and/or kids etc. Going out for a coffee or the occasional meal with friends is pretty much one of the relatively low cost joys in life most can actually afford. Also don't forget, house sharing with other random adults can be mentally taxing and doesn't always allow you to have people over at times that is convenient for you/friends/family etc. So more often than not going out for a coffee or food is sometimes the only way to see friends or family realistically.

    Also, cutting out the daily coffee is pretty much pointless, the housing market is still increasing at a rate far greater than this. So cutting out the occasional coffee isn't going to be enough to catch up, something has to change or we will have a whole generation of renters soon.

    • sir-screwball on 19/10/2021 - 15:34
      +4

      It's almost as if this article was written specifically to divide the audience into this precise debate between those who are struggling to save and buy their first home along with those who empathise with those people, and the people who took advantage of markets 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago and now sit atop their pile of money they didn't earn berating people who weren't as fortunate because it would threaten their image of themselves to admit there's an issue.

      • SkMed on 19/10/2021 - 15:40
        +1

        Yeah exactly.

        I'm all for a big crash in housing prices even though I'm now in the housing market myself, ideally bought on by limiting the amount of houses people can buy (1 to live, 1 investment ideally).

        I'd much rather see the value of my place drop dramatically and my friends get a roof over their head to call their own, rather than the value of my place increasing exponentially. Housing shouldn't be for-profit.

        • sir-screwball on 19/10/2021 - 15:43
          +4

          This is what separates you and I from the likes of the OP and his kin. My house has appreciated in value about 30% since I bought it and I'd happily see it drop to be upside down on the mortgage if it meant my sister, my parents, my uncles and aunts, friends and acquaintances could experience home ownership themselves.

          The problem is empathy. The property investor has none.

          • SkMed on 19/10/2021 - 16:23

            @sir-screwball: Yeah it's sad, most friends have just come to terms with the fact that they'll be renting until their parents kick the bucket and then they will finally be able to get into the housing market. The few who don't have an inheritance waiting for them are pretty concerned about their futures at this point (and I'm concerned for them), even buying rural wont be and option at this rate for them, They need to be in Metro Melb to work at the moment, so even if they could move rural in 15-20 years the prices there will be out of reach still most likely as they're also increasing.

            I bought a tiny 1 bedroom unit in a block of 11 because its all I could afford, even with help from my inheritance. Sadly 6 of the 11 units are currently sitting empty (some for more than a year) as the LL's who own them are all asking too much for rent and obviously have the $$ to just leave them sitting empty for over a year. If they were to just sell up (or forced to sell through change of legislation) it would help reduce prices drastically I imagine. But they're all too greedy it seems, I know one owner has 8 other properties.

            • OzHan on 19/10/2021 - 16:58

              @SkMed: I'd venture a guess 1BR unit in Melbourne on avg is $350k? Let's assume a person earns $80k/pa on avg. which would allow him/her to borrow $250k from the bank. I can't see how its so out of reach for the people in their 30-ish assuming he/she has been saving for a deposit since their 20s.

              • SkMed on 19/10/2021 - 17:15
                +1

                @OzHan: Nah, I think you could get an apartment for 350k, but an old 1 bed unit with at least a tiny outdoor space are 400+.

                Most people I know in their late 20's / early 30's still aren't on 80k/pa. More like 60 seems to be about right, some even less still and/or only able to find part time/casual work etc.

                I didn't start actively saving for a home until I was about 27 and was on about 80k/pa (which I honestly never thought I'd reach), and only just now at the age of 33 bought an ok 1bed unit for over 400k.

                I had an unexpected inheritance which helped greatly when time came to buy, but if I hadn't I would have bought this place around the same time and then spent the next 30 years continuing to penny pinch pretty hard to pay it off most likely.

              • SkMed on 19/10/2021 - 17:29
                +1

                @OzHan: Also you can really only find 1br units within the inner city suburbs of Melb (probably same with Sydney). Once you get further out they become pretty much non-existent.

                So people are stuck between finding something further out but bigger than they want/need which are expensive due to their size, or tiny shoeboxes but close to the city where they do want to live and still expensive due to location. There's rarely a middle ground where they can find something small/crap/affordable but further out like many people seem to think are in abundance.

                Just jump on RE and search 1br units. After several km they just become non-existent. Similarly, try find something further out and under 400k close to PT in order to get to work. All that's available, even in the outer suburbs are apartments really. You're still looking at 450+ for a small unit further out, something around 600+ for a house in the outer suburbs.

                • sir-screwball on 20/10/2021 - 01:54
                  +3

                  @SkMed: It's a sad state of affairs when their winning argument is "But there's a 1 bedroom apartment with no car space for half a million dollars, that's not too bad!".

                  1 bedroom. So in other words, you can either have a tiny little apartment with barely enough room for yourself to live in, or you can have a family and pay someone else's mortgage for life.

                  There's just so much choice I can't see what the problem is.

            • afah0447 on 20/10/2021 - 20:49

              @SkMed: There are measures the government can put in place to encourage idle houses to be rented like vacancy taxes. These are easy to setup and monitor and i think there is a version of this tax currently in London. But the chances of these being implemented here are about as likely as the removal of negative gearing. Buckleys to none!

  • RefusdClassification on 19/10/2021 - 15:35
    -3

    Teachers earn a fortune (despite having 3 times as many holidays as everyone else), shouldn't be any problem for them to buy into our overpriced housing market. Government employees so infinite job security, so no hassle getting a loan compared to private sector workers. Living with their parents they should have been easily able to save $20,000 a year.

    • sir-screwball on 19/10/2021 - 15:44
      +10

      Teachers earn a fortune? Are you high?

      • acersaurus on 19/10/2021 - 20:44
        +4

        I wouldn't say a fortune, but it's decent. Something like 110k for a public school teacher in Vic with 10 years experience.

        • SydStrand on 21/10/2021 - 01:06

          It's fair enough pay for an important job. One of my best friends teaches, and apparently it's very hard to get a permanent position at a non-shit public school in inner Sydney, because those teachers know they're onto a good thing and stay for life. All the vacancies are exactly what you think they are: teaching Jonahs from Tonga in Mt Druitt.

    • afah0447 on 20/10/2021 - 20:57

      I call fact check on 'teachers earn a fortune'.

      Id say closer to the average Australian wage of around $80k-85k in a public school once they have a few years experience.

  • IM-Cheap on 19/10/2021 - 17:33

    I think this is down to their choice of lifestyle as its not hard to find cheaper rent. We rent a nice modern 2bdrm in Sydney for $400/wk as its abit far from public transport. I also have an 2bdrm investment property in Sydney that rents for $500/wk.

  • jrvb42 on 19/10/2021 - 17:43
    +3

    Home ownership is only beyond reach for those insisting on living in large cities.
    Ironically, if enough people left the cities for the country, supply and demand would tip the other way, prices would fall, those owning multiple properties would go broke (large borrowings and negative equity), and people could afford to drift back into the cities.

    Of course, it won't happen. Gotta live in the city.

    Those of us in the country can laugh, enjoy a relaxed life, pay off the house quickly, and avoid covid and lockdowns.
    We won't die rich of course - but everyone dies and you can't take it with you - and your offspring are likely ungrateful and waiting for you to die.

    Sorry for the cynicism - but it's only partly tongue-in-cheek.

    Oh, and there's no jobs in the countryside - because people won't move here and create critical mass for them - because there are no jobs in the countryside - because….

    • May4th on 19/10/2021 - 17:51
      +2

      it's all supply and demand. if there were jobs++ in regional areas it wouldn't be so cheap and more people would be complaining. just look at byron or WA mining towns during mining boom

  • jellykingdom on 19/10/2021 - 19:33
    +4

    10% is definitely too low! We make a bit more than average (less than average Ozbargainer apparently) and we save, with 0 effort, one person's entire salary each year

    2 adults, 1 child in daycare, renting a place (moved out of our house to be closer for work, ie investment property), 2 cars commuting, etc

    • TEER3X on 19/10/2021 - 20:48

      Yeah I would think 1 of the wages should be able to be saved and put away for whatever, give or take of course.

      Currently make a fair bit less than average, getting to average wages at some point in the next few years will open up a lot of doors for us for sure, we're doing well with savings even in our current situation .

  • AustriaBargain on 19/10/2021 - 19:37
    +3

    Housing should be socialised. I don't care about owning a home, I just want somewhere nice enough and reliable to live. I'd be fine living in a tower block if it was big enough and had some amenities and was price controlled. Why should the value of a property go up over time? And why should the people living in the property care about owning it? Why can't the state own regular properties for regular people.

    • May4th on 19/10/2021 - 19:45

      singapore has a good system - subsidised housing for owner occupier local residents + if you want to invest and buy a second home you're on your own. then again.. their housing market is even worse than sydney

    • lddv04 on 19/10/2021 - 19:55
      +5

      Australia's OBSESSION with home ownership is unsustainable and needs to change. There are millions of people in many countries who don't own their home and are not looked down on as OP, and most Australians do.
      Every person has their story, don't be so quick to judge.

      • OzHan on 19/10/2021 - 22:04
        +2

        Just wait until you hit 65 and still live in a rental home you may change your mindset on what is unsustainable.

        • rektrading on 19/10/2021 - 22:16
          +1

          There is nothing wrong with living in a rental at 65Y, 18Y or 35Y. People rent where they want to live and invest in assets that suit their risk profile.

          • OzHan on 19/10/2021 - 22:20

            @rektrading: Nothing wrong with living in a rental, but you would be at the mercy of landlord.

            Your landlord has decided to sell up and giving you 2 months notice to move out, and now what?

            • rektrading on 19/10/2021 - 22:32

              @OzHan: "c'est la vie"

              The tenant can also give the minimum notice, pack up and move after the contract expires. What will the landlord do then?

              It's not personal, it's just business.

            • 91rs on 19/10/2021 - 22:32

              @OzHan: You mean just like being at the mercy of a bank if you're suddenly unable to continue repayments?
              So you can't make the payments, and now what?
              Maybe you can sell, maybe break even, maybe pocket some cash, maybe lose it all and be in no different position to renting.

              • OzHan on 19/10/2021 - 22:44

                @91rs: You mean at 65 you still have not paid it off?

      • afah0447 on 20/10/2021 - 21:05
        +1

        It is an obsession in Australia unlike any other OECD nation. Well maybe NZ but the government there has had the guts to do something about it and abolish negative gearing and stop new foreign ownership of residential real estate. The tax system is totally skewed to benefit investors overs renters and as history shows it is nearly impossible to wind back taxes that favour the rich.

    • brendanm on 19/10/2021 - 21:27

      Not everyone wants this. I don't want to live in a tower block, so I will pay more not to. The joys of choice.

      • AustriaBargain on 19/10/2021 - 23:03

        If i had a choice i’d own a mansion across the road from the theatre in my city.

  • [Deactivated] on 19/10/2021 - 20:07
    +3

    Yes let's all save 50% of our after tax incomes just so we can have a deposit for a house and then spend the next 30 years putting 40% of our income into paying it off. Sure going well for China and Japan.

    I honestly think we should encourage spending, I think it's great. The more people eat out, the more restaurants there will be and the more options we have. Actually spending money, especially locally, creates jobs and a better society. But OP thinks it's better to put it all into housing and the stock market that only make the rich richer.

    • OzHan on 19/10/2021 - 22:29
      +3

      I paid off my first PPOR (a very modest 3BR house built in 60s) well within 10 years, you don't need to spend the next 30 years to pay it off if you are willing to save whenever possible. Now its a good time to do it with the record low rates.

  • drprox on 19/10/2021 - 20:55
    +1

    Lol I saw this one too and like you simply calculated their cost of living is obscene. My guess is two car loans, new phones all the time, subscribed to everything, too much uber eats, too many nights out etc etc.

  • P Plater Panda on 19/10/2021 - 21:18
    +1

    Essentially it's the economics question about allocation of limited resources we're answering every day, and the choices we make today will have consequences tomorrow. Choices about what we want in life and how to get there is within our control, whether we change jobs to increase income or cut spending to save more, it's entirely up to us.

    I was lucky that mum lived the example of the importance of savings and taught me about regulating my wants in my earlier years by denying me toys. I acknowledge that not everyone has the same experience with their parents. Perhaps it'd be beneficial for schools to start teaching basic personal finance concepts.

  • gravel on 19/10/2021 - 21:18
    +1

    "I personally started setting aside money when I first started earning money - before I was even 15. I am just over double that age now and have 2 apartments - both with approximately 50% equity and 50% loan outstanding. No help from family or otherwise."

    You should listen to Monty Python's The Four Yorkshiremen.
    And I say you are an absolute champion.

  • moggott on 19/10/2021 - 21:29
    -1

    The abc is the equivalent of cnn…. just ignore their bullshit.

    • gravel on 19/10/2021 - 22:10
      +2

      Yes my go to media in terms of truth and unbiassed reporting is in order of truth

      Sky after dark
      Fox news
      2GB
      Sky News
      All other Murdoch press

  • Chong on 19/10/2021 - 22:23
    +1

    You are right, reeks of entitlement, they want to have below average income living in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

    • their pay is below average for a full time working adult, from memory is about 90k+ each, so they are already below average in arguably one of the most expensive cities in Australia… (you can search this on ABS)
    • they can't move much further south because of where husband works, so he is not getting paid enough at work to live where they live… maybe getting lower pay and/or a career change where they can live somewhere cheaper should be on the table?

    The media coverage of housing affordability is generally very off… this is a poor example, to make a point which maybe valid…

    The simplest way to rein in house price is to:

    • increase supply
    • invest in infrastructure so people can travel greater distances faster (high speed rail + light rail systems)
    • SkMed on 19/10/2021 - 23:27
      +3

      Simplest way to rein in house prices would be to put limits on how many houses people can buy. There's already enough housing, a lot of it is just sitting empty while the LL's sit on them waiting for higher rent's or get turned into AirBNB's (also currently sitting empty!). 6 of the 11 units in my block are currently empty, many for more than 12 months as the rent's are too high and LL's refuse to decrease rent's or sell up.

      • Chong on 20/10/2021 - 03:10

        I disagree with that notion, as there is no easy way to apply this limit, as you can't apply this to companies, so people with more means will be able to snap up, aka the rich who already have companies/trusts setup for investment.

        Councils can apply penalties if they want for empty properties, a few do it, one nearby to me, Moreland council does it for shop lots, so it works out cheaper to rent out than leave it empty and pay the penalty.

        there is also a state level vacant land tax in Victoria, which covers empty residential property. which I hope by now every state has this. Unsure how successful they are at implementing checks for this.

        It is not enough that the property is available for occupation, such as by listing on a short term rental website. It must actually have been used and occupied for more than six months.

        It is not enough for the property to be used intermittently or on a casual basis by friends or family of the owner. The use and occupation must be either as a PPR or subject to a bona fide lease or letting arrangement.

        https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/vacant-residential-land-tax

        however, nothing fixes a supply issue, other than increasing supply, or improving options by living further away.

  • 91rs on 19/10/2021 - 22:28
    +12

    OPs posts are proof that boomer is a state of mind, a lifestyle not just a DOB to fall in to that generation.
    That seems to go with his budget prices for living in Sydney too, something from 10-20 years ago not current day.
    Could they save more? Sure, no doubt but that's not the real issue here as much as you want it to be.

    I've also enjoyed the many comments aimed at how the people in the article (which isn't a great article let's be honest and can easily be extended to anyone else who doesn't have a mortgage) haven't done what others here have from birth, to save for a house and are looking down on them with a large serving of judgement for these perceived failures.
    I've seen this take place IRL in the workplace by others who fell in to money and property or are just a-holes who seem to think they have the right to dissect every bad decision people have made and tell them why they're in the position they're in, even if they never asked in the first place. Much like OP has.

    Very few comments about the much larger problem which is the state of the housing market and everyone's expectation that housing should be a luxury item that everyone must pay top dollar for rubbish properties, that everyone seems to rejoice that others should be saddled with a million dollars+ in debt like its a badge of honor.

    Decades of TV programming has convinced far too many that they need one or more investment properties, that housing is the never ending boom and if you buy something, paint it, do some often shoddy "upgrades" you can slap another couple hundred k on the price in a years time and profit off some other sucker.
    Housing has not been considered an essential item but turned into a luxury item for a very long time in Australia, at the cost of many who grew up here expecting they could achieve what their parents had.

    I also think there is some kind of rose coloured glasses going on with talk about what banks will or won't lend in the current environment, again this isnt 10, 15, 20 years ago where banks were throwing money out there. It's a much more difficult process with much more justification for every dollar you spend (that will be a downfall for those in the article), your employment risk and values of the property you're looking to buy (those cheap small apartments banks are often refusing to finance without more upfront due to risk) and during covid (still happening) banks changing product offerings to customers while a pre-approval was in place, if it couldn't be settled before their deadline (often very short notice) then you get a slightly worse deal or start the process again with another lender.

    Not to mention these fixed rates and offerings are only good for a few years, in the USA and Europe I know people who have refinanced and had a fixed rate set for 15-30 years while at record lows, meanwhile back here in Australia. We overpay for everything.

    So enjoy your not so humble-brag about how you've done everything right in life and have not one but two apartments, these posts from people or discussions IRL have become more than tiresome especially when it doesn't really offer any real assistance, guidance or educational value to those who read it.

    • SlavOz on 20/10/2021 - 09:44
      +7

      Honestly at this stage, I can't help but cringe at people who make home ownership their life purpose. It's a toxic attitude that has infiltrated far too deep into Australian culture. People complain about it yet they still support it by buying a property and adding $300k on top when they decide to sell.

      What nobody tells you is that owning a home is a glorified slave trade. You're tied to the mercy of the bank for 30 years during which time you're not allowed to get sick, change career paths, or even go on holidays without doing some serious budgeting first. It's a crappy way to live, and due to the ridiculous over-abundance of laws in Australia, you hardly even own the damn thing anyway. You still need to pay rent to the government in the form of council fees, taxes, etc. Want to chop down a branch or remove a fence? Nope, you have to ask the government for permission first. They are your landlord and rightful owners of the property. The only thing you own when buying a property is the financial value of it. It's essentially like a $100 note - you don't actually own it, the government does, you're just entitled to the economic value behind it.

      • [Deactivated] on 25/10/2021 - 17:03
        +1

        Takođe.

  • DiscoJango on 19/10/2021 - 22:32
    +3

    lol saving 10% of your income towards a deposit, oh how they must be struggling

    ive got a mortgage and can save more than that after all repayments

    • kaleidoscope on 19/10/2021 - 23:21

      Isn’t 10% is very subjective though?

    • sir-screwball on 20/10/2021 - 01:55
      +3

      Uh, they have rent and save 10%, you have a mortgage and save 10%, what's your point?

      • DiscoJango on 20/10/2021 - 20:30
        -1

        I said i save more than that. Learn to read. I have a mortgage and after all my monthly repayments i can easily save 30% or more.

        These whingers living on a dual income and only saving 10%, im sure they will blame everyone but themselves.

  • kaleidoscope on 19/10/2021 - 23:18
    +4

    Without singling out the person in article, not everyone has the luxury to start saving a decent amount till early or mid 30s. I know that because I did not. Not because I had bad habbits or not any plans, its because of other commitments but most importantly for me I was completely debt free till I applied for my first home loan.

    • saltysalt on 20/10/2021 - 11:13

      Exactly, not to mention HECS / student loans etc.

  • Baghern on 20/10/2021 - 01:48
    +10

    Arrogant delusional posts like this ignore the fact that, if everyone did what op did… op wouldn't have two apartments…

    Congrats you're a 1%…

    May as well respond with

    "just get a better job"

    • hothed on 20/10/2021 - 09:47

      "Just get a better job."

      • techlead on 21/10/2021 - 20:03

        Why doesn't poor people just get more money?

        Problem solved

  • pompompom on 20/10/2021 - 10:49

    The real issue is that median prices jumped by over 20 percent in the last year.
    Therefore a 750k house now costs 900k.
    Can a couple earning 160k pre tax, save an additional 150k to compensate for the 1 year increase in a year ? It's an obvious no.

    • Miss B on 20/10/2021 - 16:49
      +3

      They're not paying for the house upfront, they'd need to save an extra $30k, which is still substantial, but with how little they're saving it's not even part of the equation. Or they need to adjust their expectations if they can't afford that anymore and get a smaller place, or a place further out, or a place that's not quite as nice (that they may be able to fix up).

    • pogichinoy on 21/10/2021 - 20:26
      +1

      It is an unfortunate byproduct of people not being able to spend their disposable income overseas so they instead spend it here.

  • saltysalt on 20/10/2021 - 11:10
    +1

    I think the bigger question is who does inflated house prices benefit? We know that dirty money from overseas is being laundered through the Australian property market and causing unsustainable growth, so what is the current government doing about it? I think it's complete BS that I need to work an additional 10+ years to afford to pay off my home because we have created a haven for international buyers to park their money.

    • acersaurus on 20/10/2021 - 12:14

      It benefits property investors.

      Owner occupiers can't cash in generally speaking.

      Gov never seems to do much about it. There is probably room in the political landscape for a housing affordability political party that would do quite well in Sydney in particular.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join