Comprehensive Solution to Renters Struggling to Pay Rent

techlead on 31/03/2022 - 13:19
Last edited 31/03/2022 - 13:44 by 1 other user

In A Rare Moment Of Genius, Scott Morrison’s Solution To Avoid Rent Increases Is To Buy A House

Did you hear about ScoMo's solution to renters struggling to pay rent? When asked about how his government is helping those struggling with rent, ScoMo said his policies are helping people buy homes. I think he is referring to the 5x increase to the number of spots in his 5% deposit first home buyers program. The program itself is very dubious at best in helping first home buyers and it actually creates upward pressure on property which will further price people out.

Essentially ScoMo is saying, why don't people struggling with rent just buy homes? Then they wouldn't struggle with rent anymore. Then you can combine this genius solution with an equally genius solution from Joe Hockey, if you can't afford to buy homes, just get a better and higher paying job? Guys, how come there are so many geniuses in the Liberal party? We are so blessed, they have solved the housing problem in Australia!

By the same logic, why don't poor people just get more money? Simple. I've done it guys, I've solved world poverty. I'm expecting my Nobel prize this year.

Financial

Comments

  • rektrading on 31/03/2022 - 13:45
    -5

    I tell people that I can teach them to fish but they don't want to hear it.

    c’est la vie

    • plmko on 31/03/2022 - 13:58
      +6

      I'm surprised you haven't recommended borrowing 95% on a home and then redrawing that 95% onto BTC by now.

      • rektrading on 31/03/2022 - 14:10

        People who borrow a 95% LTV are irresponsible.

        I normally don't go any more than 30% LTV but can backup a 50% LTV if it's a flash damp.

        • drfuzzy on 31/03/2022 - 22:44
          +2

          Agreed. 98% LTV everytime.

      • techlead on 31/03/2022 - 14:19
        -1

        That would be quite irresponsible.

        I went to being able to retire after 8 years in crypto without any debt or leverage. In hindsight, if I leveraged up, I could have been a billionaire, but then I could have been rekt from the volatility.

    • djones145 on 31/03/2022 - 14:07
      +1

      I'm interested
      do u rock fish? deep sea fish or off a bridge

      what type of bait do u use?
      do u like hand reels

      should I use 5 pound lines or 6 pound lines?

    • Sum-Ting Wong on 31/03/2022 - 21:13
      +2

      I’m not a big fan of fish. Can you teach me how to catch an eye fillet steak instead?

  • CyberMurning on 31/03/2022 - 13:49
    -5

    Because people depending on centrelink too much.
    Because after pay thing making people spend more
    And ozb for impulse buying
    And phone contracts

    • Quantumcat on 31/03/2022 - 15:41
      +1

      In English?

      • orangetrain on 31/03/2022 - 16:24

        Poor people lazy and dumb

        • Mokr on 31/03/2022 - 18:21
          +2

          I mean I know people on 100k struggle to save. But don't understand you have to cut expenses and lifestyle And put investments in stocks.

          • orangetrain on 31/03/2022 - 18:23
            +2

            @Mokr: OP was saying people on centrelink. Somehow I think they have a little less than 100k

  • djones145 on 31/03/2022 - 14:06

    classic scomo

    considering buying a house or vote Labor :)

  • tsunamisurfer on 31/03/2022 - 14:12
    +1

    That article you linked is heavily biased against the government's initiative.

    The initiative is NOT there to help Renters struggling to pay Rent, how the article author and the OP was able to reach that conclusion should be the subject of a psychological study.

    The initiative is there to assist those on the cusp of being able to afford a home but cannot get over the deposit / LMI hump.

    For the record I hate the initiative, it just creates more demand which is adding fuel to the fire.

    • techlead on 31/03/2022 - 14:24
      +8

      Don't just read the article, that's a secondary information source. Look at the primary source.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOgzdXNIpyU

      Watch the actual interview. ScoMo was asked how the budget helped those struggling with rent. He answered it by spruiking his first home buyers scheme. Hence a reasonable conclusion is that he is telling people the solution to struggling with rent is to just buy a home.

      I think the initiative is useless, it encourages people to take on debts which they may not be able to afford (people don't factor in costs of home ownership properly, council fees, strata (if applicable) etc etc) and it just pushes the price up.

      They need to deal with rampant property speculation. The only way to fix that is to change the tax incentives as well as changing people's behavior by adopting a policy against speculation, such as higher and higher deposit requirements for second, third and subsequent homes. You don't need 5 properties.

  • Mokr on 31/03/2022 - 14:13
    +3

    Most young people need to understand they won't buy near their parents in expensive neighbourhoods and there is nothing wrong living 40 minutes away. In a unit. Or something small. First homes aren't supposed to be great.

    • jv on 31/03/2022 - 14:19
      +2

      Most young people need to understand they won't buy near their parents in expensive neighbourhoods

      They can if they start on the bottom of the property ladder and work their way up…

      Remember, there is no capital gains tax on buying and selling the property you live in…

      • Mokr on 31/03/2022 - 16:10

        going the share market with 50% captial gains tax is way less stressful

      • MrBear on 01/04/2022 - 10:40

        Remember, there is no capital gains tax on buying and selling the property you live in…

        Well there is if you don't live in it for at least 12 months (or that's what it used to be anyway).

      • BuyOrNot on 01/04/2022 - 11:50
        +1

        You still have to pay stamp duty.

    • mskeggs on 31/03/2022 - 15:16
      +9

      I really disagree with this.
      The idea you can’t live near your family is poisonous.
      How is it a benefit to our society if you need to drive 40mins to have lunch with your Mum.
      Or to drop off the prescription you picked up for your Dad, or for Aunty to have to drive so far to watch the kids while you go to an appointment.

      The idea we have normalized housing being so costly they break up families is terrible. I don’t disagree you shouldn’t buy a mansion as your first home, but the market is broken if you can’t afford to live near your family.

      • rektrading on 31/03/2022 - 15:35
        -4

        21st century zoom.

        It worked with Rona. It will work going forward.

      • brendanm on 31/03/2022 - 18:30
        +3

        but the market is broken if you can’t afford to live near your family

        No it's not. Your family could live in the most expensive suburb in your area, and you may work as a part time barista.

        • mskeggs on 31/03/2022 - 21:05
          +4

          The broken part is the massive cost inflation of housing has made it impossible for generations to live nearby if they do have similar incomes in the largest Australian capital cities.
          This isn’t something that happened historically in Australia, and it isn’t something that has happened in other parts of the world except some other real estate bubble cities.

          But it is undesirable, and we could adopt policies that discouraged it, that would be beneficial to our community.

      • afah0447 on 01/04/2022 - 17:23
        +2

        Capitalism doesn't care about your family.

      • larndis on 02/04/2022 - 18:14
        +1

        If keeping the family together is the priority they have the opportunity to all move 40 min away. Land is finite, it's entirely unreasonable to think every first home buyer should be able to live in whatever location they prefer.

        • mskeggs on 02/04/2022 - 18:40

          It depends on your priorities, I guess.
          My position is unconstrained property speculation has been terrible for this country.
          One reason is that if you want to live near your family, it is not possible, even if you are happy to live in a little flat or whatever.
          Another is the absurd prices loading debt on people for no benefit.

          If we ran policies that made real estate a poor investment, these things wouldn't happen, and we'd be a country with better lives.

          I'm not suggesting anybody can buy a house on the beach, but when your average income parents bought a house 30 years ago, and their average income kids can't afford anywhere nearby, the problem isn't average incomes, it is crazy house prices.

      • cookie2 on 03/04/2022 - 20:56

        Yup, mental health issues will just become worse. People will be increasingly isolated, time poor and financially strained. Try not to think about it too much, it's depressing.

  • jv on 31/03/2022 - 14:18
    +2

    The program itself is very dubious at best in helping first home buyers and it actually creates upward pressure on property which will further price people out.

    Any initiative that allows people easier access to purchasing properties will increase demand and very likely to increase prices…

    • techlead on 31/03/2022 - 14:26

      Hence they are tackling the problem in the wrong way.

      Change the tax incentives, so there's no rampant speculation. Homes are for living in, leave the speculation to shares and cryptocurrencies.

      • jv on 31/03/2022 - 14:32

        Change the tax incentives

        What tax incentives ?

        • techlead on 31/03/2022 - 14:38
          +2

          Abolish negative gearing for properties. Keep the free CGT for primary residence.

          Increase the deposit requirements for second, third and subsequent properties, eg, 50% for the second property and 95% deposit required for all subsequent properties.

          • jv on 31/03/2022 - 14:44
            +4

            @techlead:

            Abolish negative gearing for properties.

            You'd need to abolish it for all business transactions then.

            Then see the flow on to our economy and employment….

            Why not just stop foreigners who aren't residents from buying properties? China does it…

            • techlead on 31/03/2022 - 17:13
              +1

              @jv: For one, people investing in property are not businesses. They should not be treated as one.

              What I say negative gearing, I'm referring to the ability for a property investor to take their losses in property investments and offset the tax they pay in their ordinary salary. You can't do that for your shares investments nor your crypto investments, there should be no reason you can do this for property investments. If I made a loss buying and selling crypto, I can't use that loss to offset my taxes from my day job. Property investment should be brought inline with that.

              As for stopping foreigners buying, I don't think that's a big factor in pushing up property prices. Foreigners are already taxed different to try to discourage them, I think that's a good way to push their demand down.

              • jv on 31/03/2022 - 20:41
                +1

                @techlead:

                For one, people investing in property are not businesses. They should not be treated as one.

                They are investors… making a profit (or loss). just like a business.

                • techlead on 31/03/2022 - 23:04

                  @jv: That's a very very loose definition. In which case, let's bring shares and cryptocurrencies in line with that then. My losses in those should be able to offset the taxes I pay from my salary. I'm an investor…making a profit (or loss). Just like a business.

                  • jv on 31/03/2022 - 23:08
                    -1

                    @techlead:

                    My losses in those should be able to offset the taxes I pay from my salary.

                    They already do… LOL….

                    I hope you don't do your own taxes… 😲

                    • techlead on 31/03/2022 - 23:31
                      +1

                      @jv: No, it doesn't, I'm not talking about other investment income, I mean taxes from my PAYG job. Losses from cryptocurrencies do not offset that.

                      I hope you don't do your own taxes lol. You can only negative gear with property, you can't do it with shares either.

                    • techlead on 31/03/2022 - 23:38
                      +1

                      @jv: This is what I'm referring to:

                      https://koinly.io/guides/crypto-tax-australia/

                      If you make a net capital loss then you can deduct the loss from any other class of asset gains, and even carry over the loss to future years. Losses can offset gains made on crypto investments, share investments and even property investments. However, you can't deduct a net capital loss from your other income. (eg PAYG income)

                      However, with property investments, your losses there can offset your PAYG income, which doesn't make sense, that should be abolished or bring the other asset classes, eg shares, commodities and cryptocurrencies in line with property investments.

                      • jv on 31/03/2022 - 23:54

                        @techlead:

                        that should be abolished

                        No it shouldn't. All earnings and losses should be treated the same, there should be no difference between earning money from a job or earning it from investment income.

                        • techlead on 01/04/2022 - 00:01

                          @jv: I think we both agree, but you just don't realise it.

                          All earnings and losses should be treated the same, there should be no difference between earning money from a job or earning it from investment income.

                          I totally agree with that, but that's not the case at the moment. That's not how the rules work with the ATO at the moment.

                        • TooSerious2 on 01/04/2022 - 10:11

                          @jv: Why is that a rule? If anything, the CGT 50% rule favours earnings from capital (saved effort) rather than labour (ongoing effort).

                          • rektrading on 01/04/2022 - 10:23

                            @TooSerious2: CGT discounts incentives people to save rather than waste their money on junk.

                            • TooSerious2 on 02/04/2022 - 18:24

                              @rektrading: Ah, is that what it's about. I just thought it was a way of helping those who have already. Couldn't put asset sellers to the trouble of working out inflation and factoring that in to true capital gain — let's just call it 50% if you've had it for a year or more (which was Howard's rationale)

              • jhaley3180 on 01/04/2022 - 08:05
                +4

                @techlead: You absolutely can negative gear, shares, crypto or another investment class. The difference is the LVR and risk profile that lenders will accept. Housing is considered extremely safe by most lenders, hence they will allow significantly more LVR. Margin loans against shares are available but shares are considered less safe, as such a lower LVR is typical. But you can absolutely offset losses against PAYG income.

                • techlead on 01/04/2022 - 17:46

                  @jhaley3180: Have you checked with your accountant on that?

                  My accountant said I can't do that. My cryptocurrency and shares CGT losses cannot be used to offset my PAYG income, hence I can't negatively gear with cryptocurrencies or shares. You can't offset your capital losses against your PAYG income, except with property.

                  • larndis on 02/04/2022 - 18:38

                    @techlead: @Techlead, you seem to be confusing negative gearing (deducting EXPENSES to reduce you taxable income) with capital gains/losses. These are separate aspects of the tax system and apply to many types of expenses and investments. You can borrow money to invest in shares/crypto and claim the interest as a deduction, the same as an investment property. Capital gains/losses are also treated the same for both types of investments. Capital losses cannot be deducted (from income) or offset (against tax payable). Suggest you speak with your accountant (or get one) to explain this to you.

                    • techlead on 03/04/2022 - 00:08

                      @larndis: I get what you mean. Its very hard to negatively gear in cryptocurrency, I have been trying to think of an example, eg with mining to see if it can be negatively gear, but it can't, its too profitable lol.

                      Negative gearing is not worth it for me, there are much much better investments and my net worth is a testament to that.

            • cookie2 on 03/04/2022 - 20:59

              @jv: Agreed. Lots of countries limit buying from non residents. We've got a housing crisis here in Oz so why isn't this being done? Bottom line, the gov don't give a sh$t enough.

          • brendanm on 31/03/2022 - 14:46
            +2

            @techlead:

            Increase the deposit requirements for second, third and subsequent properties, eg, 50% for the second property and 95% deposit required for all subsequent properties.

            Yes, just what we need, more government overreach.

            • techlead on 31/03/2022 - 17:14
              +2

              @brendanm: How's that government overreach? Its just changing policy. Just changing rules of the game, that's the government's role.

              • brendanm on 31/03/2022 - 17:28
                +1

                @techlead:

                How's that government overreach?

                Controlling the terms of a business lending money to a private party? How is it not overreach?

                • techlead on 31/03/2022 - 17:40
                  +2

                  @brendanm: They already have a rule where you need a 20% deposit. Tweaking that rule is not overreach. Banks can't have 0% deposit mortgages for a reason.

                  • brendanm on 31/03/2022 - 18:22
                    +2

                    @techlead:

                    They already have a rule where you need a 20% deposit.

                    What? The lenders impose that rule, so they have some leeway. You can get a mortgage with less than 20% deposit, by paying LMI, which protects the lender if you can't make payments, and they have to sell the property at a loss.

                    Banks can't have 0% deposit mortgages for a reason.

                    You can get a 0% deposit mortgage with a guarantor. This is because the deposit is not to protect the borrower, it is to protect the lender. A few years back you could also get approx 2% or less deposit loan with no guarantor.

          • drfuzzy on 01/04/2022 - 17:25

            @techlead: Supply of new housing dries up completely as it is not commercially viable to build.
            There is no investor demand to buy new rental properties.
            Any increase in home buyer demand is offset by other negative forces on the economy (including all the people unemployed by the destruction of the residential building industry).
            Rents sky rocket as there are less properties for rent
            You trip over homeless people just to get to the shops.

            • techlead on 01/04/2022 - 17:38
              +1

              @drfuzzy: The residential building industry shouldn't have gotten this big in the first place. Changing the incentives will bring demand and prices down to a more sustainable level.

              There is also a societal cost to having high property prices, it is a drag on the economy to have so much of one's wealth tied up in property. This is very vividly demonstrated by China. This phenomena is also exacerbated by the culture there where if the male don't have property, females wouldn't marry him, hence that creates a very bigger drag on the economy as property ownership continues to be out of reach for many people and for those who can get in, it requires inter-generational wealth (eg, pooling of funds from parents and grandparents). So if one cannot buy property, that delays their start to having kids, which will have negative impacts on the economy. China's birth rate is at a record low, we will start to see its impacts in the coming decade. The government knows this, this is why they've implemented many of the measures I have been talking about, restricting rampant speculation by both retail investors and property developers. Its a very good approach, property prices are free falling even in tier 1 cities (Beijing, Shanghai and GuangZhou) and none of what you said is happening.

              There can be an equilibrium where property prices are brought back to a more reasonable multiple of annual income AND have the residential building industry thrive. This has happened before. Right now, the developers and property investors are making super profits and sooner or later, there will be a reckoning.

              One overarching principle which underlines all of this should be, "Properties are for shelter, not for speculation". Before this rampant speculation and risk taking, developers were doing just fine, albeit with lower profits, but there was still supply. I don't buy this argument that if we implement policies to rein in property prices, then suddenly the sky's going to fall, that's the line that existing property investors who are up to their eyeballs in debt want to push. Let the property prices fall, the economy and Australia as a whole will do just fine, sure there will be losers, but that's how any investment goes, you can gain and you can lose.

  • holdenmg on 31/03/2022 - 14:35
    +1

    If I had a Nobel Prize, I don't think I'd need a house. I figure I could go on the Lecture Circuit, stay at Five Star Resorts and order Room Service.

    When you receive your Nobel, don't forget to mention Ozbargain in your acceptance speech.

    • jv on 31/03/2022 - 14:48

      If I had a Nobel Prize, I don't think I'd need a house.

      If you had a Nobel Prize, you could buy a house with the prize money…

    • techlead on 31/03/2022 - 17:26
      +1

      Sure will, I will not forget my Ozb Bros.

  • tsunamisurfer on 31/03/2022 - 14:50
    -3

    If you are struggling to pay rent, then ownership should never be in your scope of thought.

    There are many options to paying less rent, move to a cheaper location, share with others, move back in with family.

    • cookie2 on 03/04/2022 - 21:02

      These options are not options that everyone has, especially the family one.

  • Drakesy on 31/03/2022 - 14:54
    +1

    I think this is apt

    I think the election will more be a funeral
    But with added fun

  • SF3 on 31/03/2022 - 15:44

    Because they have a Oversized Perspective gap with those people they are trying to help.

  • orangetrain on 31/03/2022 - 16:34
    +1

    Why are there hundreds of thousands of houses are allowed to go empty? Why are there so many wire fences surrounding empty grasses very close to CBD? All those shopkeepers and small businesses next to empty shops are also struggling to pay rent too despite same landlord?

    Right, because the land is an investment. Okay, if they want to hoard the land, then please pay a 10% property value vacancy tax. A tax is needed because otherwise no income is being generated from empty land. Or could call it a land underutilisation tax.

  • mitchalbrown on 01/04/2022 - 09:32
    +1

    No one makes any mention of the Greens idea to build affordable government housing… what's your take on this idea?

    • Some ideas that have been floated is a rent to buy where after 25 years or so a payment can be made which transfers ownership from the government to the long term renter.
    • Building heavily subsidised housing which lowers the cost of purchase to an affordable amount ($300k - $400k)
    • Even just the traditional rent controlled housing for low income earners

    These don't all need to be built together in a specific part of town either - New York has a city planning policy which requires 25% of dwellings in building be "affordable housing"… The US's and particularly - NY's version of capitalism has taken this and exploited loopholes but with hindsight we could do it better.

    I heard back in the 50's, government housing was a big part of the real estate make up… I suppose that would make sense… boomers getting free education and paying rent controlled rent would set them up for life…

    • rektrading on 01/04/2022 - 09:52

      Building heavily subsidised housing which lowers the cost of purchase to an affordable amount ($300k - $400k)

      This sounds like a plan to 🖨️ 💵 to buy real estate and sell at a loss (-60% to -70 of market value) to people that can afford to buy property.

      MMT is the best way to rekt people's savings.

      • mitchalbrown on 01/04/2022 - 10:10

        Can you explain this further? I'm not refuting, I don't understand what you're saying enough to. Genuinely interested

    • Grunntt on 01/04/2022 - 12:10
      -1

      heard back in the 50's, government housing was a big part of the real estate make up… I suppose that would make sense… boomers getting free education and paying rent controlled rent would set them up for life…

      If you heard about that then I assume you also heard about that little event a couple of years before that had a small impact on their lives? Maybe use Google to look up the impact of World War II.

      All this envy of how good the boomers had it. If you really want the same 'advantages' they had feel free to get civilisation back on it's feet like many had to.

      • mitchalbrown on 01/04/2022 - 15:02
        +1

        The post-Second World War economic boom was an era of considerable prosperity that followed the recovery period and ended with the 1973-1975 Recession. These years are also referred to as the "Golden Age of Capitalism" in the West, although Eastern Europe and parts of Asia also saw significant growth in these years.

        • Grunntt on 01/04/2022 - 16:32
          -1

          By quoting directly from Wikipedia without a skerrick of commentary from you shows that you have absolutely no knowledge of what it was actually like for any of the individuals who went through it.
          By the way did you notice the dates of the recession? Any idea if it was the boomers who went through that too? Just to help - baby boomer is often defined as people born from 1946 to 1964.
          Interesting that you seem to believe that the ability to quote Wikipedia somehow makes you knowlegeable about things you demonstrably have no idea about.

          • mitchalbrown on 01/04/2022 - 17:01
            +1

            @Grunntt: whoa! chill grandpa!!!!

            Yes - taken directly from Wikipedia… I didn't think i needed to insult the intelligence of everybody here by explaining to them that the boomer generation went through one of, if not, THE most prosperous and equitable time in human history. I'm happy for that generation to have enjoyed the benefits of "a golden age of capitalism" but as the sun sets on that golden age you have to look forward and consider what that means for the next generation born outside of that time. Do the economic and social conditions look as promising for them?

            you can't deny this shift in outlook for our society on a macro-economic level.

            • Grunntt on 01/04/2022 - 17:12

              @mitchalbrown: Chill yourself youngster (I assume).

              You make a sweeping unsupported generalisation and assume that your opinion is that of the majority.

              eg "paying rent controlled rent would set them up for life…"

              From a real academic study for comparison for you

              "….from the 1960s, with public housing an established, if less preferred part of social liberal government, a new movement of social scientific investigation, both internationally and in Australia, began to uncover the persistence of poverty amidst the prosperity of the post-war period."

              Doesn't sound too much like setup for life to me.

              you have to look forward and consider what that means for the next generation born outside of that time.

              From your preferred source -

              "…the transfer of wealth between the baby boomers and their children, the millennials, will prove highly beneficial to the latter compared to previous cohorts…"

              This sounds more like you are one of the ones who missed out so therefore lets blame the old people no matter what they went through.

          • Quantumcat on 01/04/2022 - 17:09

            @Grunntt: The boomer generation did not go through world war 2 - their parents did.

            • Grunntt on 01/04/2022 - 17:14
              -1

              @Quantumcat:

              The boomer generation did not go through world war 2 - their parents did.

              As a matter of fact many of their parents went into the war but did not go through it - over 80,00 deaths and casualties in Australia (over 1% of the population).
              How many families were affected?
              So you think the effects of WWII were all not evident when the boomers were born and growing up? Everything was sunshine and light within a few years of the war?

              Look at Ukraine right now and tell me the children born in the next 5 or 10 years will have some sort of brilliant life ahead of them.

              • mitchalbrown on 01/04/2022 - 19:00

                @Grunntt: "…the transfer of wealth between the baby boomers and their children, the millennials, will prove highly beneficial to the latter compared to previous cohorts…"

                Yes… generational wealth is society's greatest equaliser /s

                what of those people who can't just sit around and get arts degrees until mum and dad kick the bucket and pass their 7 properties on?

                • Grunntt on 01/04/2022 - 22:15
                  -1

                  @mitchalbrown:

                  what of those people who can't just sit around and get arts degrees until mum and dad kick the bucket and pass their 7 properties on?

                  This is why I can't take much of what you say as coming from anyone with actual knowledge rather than someone just using hyperbole to support an opinion. I have posted this here earlier.

                  your assertion does not seem to have resemblance to the reality - from an ATO report -

                  Here’s how many properties investors hold
                  1 investment property – 71% (1.57million)
                  2 investment property – 19% (418,000)
                  3 investment property – 6% (129,784)
                  4 investment property – 2% (47,469)
                  5 investment property – 1% (19,861)
                  6 or more investment property – less than 1% (20,756)

                  They are percentages of investors, not percentage of the population.

                  • mitchalbrown on 04/04/2022 - 09:29

                    @Grunntt: Does this figure only count people or properties bought purely for the purpose of investment or does it count those houses bought 40 years ago for $100k in Bondi as family homes and are now being used as equity to secure loans for children of owners (bank of mum and dad)?

                    Anyway… my point ins't to say that Boomers are the root of our issue… only that the critical financial conditions which face milennials in the early part of their life are not the same and with the way wealth compounds over time (as well as debt) someone who gets a free university degree is going to be much better off in their 30's than someone who is lobbed with a $40k debt at age 22.

                    Even for someone who chooses not to go to Uni, the reduction of local manufacturing and a lack of diversification in our economy leaves less unskilled careers to persue. Again, not blaming boomers for this… It's just how it is now and not how it was back then.

                    Ultimately, this is not good for any of us - whether you're a boomer or a milliennial… 2 speed economies lead to stagflation and no one wins in that situation.

  • Waltervp on 01/04/2022 - 09:55
    +3

    We need a radically different system. People don't need to buy homes if we can rent. Today if you rent you are likely to move every few years, just because the owner wants to sell or move in, or renovate or end of lease. Finding a new rental is very difficult with kids and pets and often means school changes.

    If we had tenancy protection and renting a home means you can stay as long as you like and rents can only go up with CPI only then will we solve problems. It means properties will lose value, real estate prices will stabilise.

    Tenants will then look after the house and do their own renovations and paint etc I have friends in Holland and I asked them why put in a new kitchen into a rental… and they said because its their home! In Australia we treat rentals like rentals because we don't care about homes that we need to move out of every few years. Imagine renovating your rental here and the owner selling the home for a premium because of your costs and effort. If we had tenancy protection we wouldn't have all these over committed people going bankrupt.

    In other worlds…

  • Existenz on 01/04/2022 - 16:09

    Just stop buying smashed avocado for breakfast, simple.

  • OzHunterNSW on 01/04/2022 - 17:41
    +2

    If you are struggling to pay rent, get another job, or more out to a cheaper abode

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join