Coalition's Proposed Plan To Enable First Home Buyers to use Up to $50k in Super Towards House Deposits

brendanm on 15/05/2022 - 20:30
Last edited 16/05/2022 - 15:11 by 1 other user

Well, another genius bit of vote buying responsible fiscal management has been announced. First home buyers will be able to withdraw up to $50,000 from their super, not to be confused with the FHSS scheme, where the money had to be voluntarily added to your super fund first.

So the price of housing increases purely because people will instantly have more money to buy with, same as it did with first home buyer scheme, covid building grant scheme etc. On top of that, we will have people taking out huge chunks of what is meant to sustain them in retirement, missing out on a tonne of compounded investment returns.

Do people actually buy this rubbish? So they actually think this is a responsible thing to do?

Link here thanks to Hybroid

Financial Federal Election First Home Buyer Superannuation

Comments

  • OzzyOzbourne on 16/05/2022 - 13:22
    +2

    Government needs to make sure their investment properties keep appreciating.

    Handing out money or giving access to more money is not going to help with inflation or housing affordability. They need to tackle the cause of inflation or high house prices rather than sticking a band aid on it, which is ultimately going to make it worse.

    Most people see property as a way to get rich and there's many other reasons why the government and banks would want to keep prices going up. They do not intend to deal with affordability in any way that could reduce the prices as there would be a huge backlash. So handing out money is a win win for them….investors are happy, the rich get richer and the poor feel richer…..and will eventually be rich assuming this ponzi scheme continues indefinitely

    • GourmetFoodie on 16/05/2022 - 19:27
      +1

      Yep. And only poor young people will access their super to buy houses and yet the Baby boomers with their property portfolios enjoy the continued gains. So it’s a continuation of wealth transfer to the richest families of Australia (and their children who access the bank of mum and dad and wait for their inheritance). The gap between rich and poor widens…

  • daclaw on 16/05/2022 - 13:23
    +4

    The government needs the ponzi to continue. Sadistic incompetent ****tards

  • Bid Sniper on 16/05/2022 - 13:44

    Lets put out that fire but pouring on some Shell V-powah

    Just another sign LNP is out of ideas and desperate to say anything for votes, another symptom of their near sighted stupidity.

  • monky on 16/05/2022 - 13:50

    Another great way to artificially inflate house prices…

  • GG57 on 16/05/2022 - 13:54

    And now the LNP won't realise their modelling (if they have it).

    Another announcement that sounds reasonable at first hearing, in the last week of an election campaign, from a coalition that is still to deliver what it promised at the previous election.

  • kaleidoscope on 16/05/2022 - 13:54

    This is only going to upset the market even more now that those mongers have a reason to inflate prices because of super investments 😝

  • rinco on 16/05/2022 - 14:27
    +4

    Solve the supply problem by increasing the demand? Vote these numpties out.

  • payless69 on 16/05/2022 - 14:28

    I guess the poor want that fence post turtle and send their hard work to comm Jinpin so he has money to snap up Formosa ah here I run!!! (Jail me!)

  • askme69 on 16/05/2022 - 14:35
    +1

    How about the Government sells first home buyers land for $1, catch is you can never sell it or if you do, you pay 100% CGT on every dollar over the $1 cost of the block and what you spent on the house.

    • Miss B on 17/05/2022 - 02:05

      This would be awesome. I think they could even get valuers to determine the land cost when you sell. Then just when you/your estate sell, the land $$ go to the government.

      As long as you own it and the government can't force you to give it back unless you decide to sell. My issue with the Labor plan is that the government is part owner and it appears they can force you to buy them out/sell when they choose, it's too risky and could leave you worse off.

      Given how awesome it would be for me though, I imagine there are significant issues with doing it.

  • [Deactivated] on 16/05/2022 - 14:40
    +1

    Feed the golden goose more.

  • Cluster on 16/05/2022 - 14:50
    +4

    Government is doing this all backwards by trying to make houses more affordable by boosting the demand side, again and again.

    That's not the way to do it.

    Increase the supply of affordable housing. Encourage developers to produce more compact housing at a lower price. Encourage higher density development. Sorry, not everyone can have a house on 300m2 of land. That's just the way it is.

    • tonka on 16/05/2022 - 15:00
      +2

      And build the infrastructure to enable high density to be viable and livable. Maybe some serious future proofing against pandemics so people don't get locked up in those shoeboxes.

      • Boshait on 21/05/2022 - 23:03

        But locking people in their apartments is so much easier.

    • qazwsx on 17/05/2022 - 06:48
      +1

      Fixing supply side is easier said then done. Impacts are many years down the track (it takes yers to redevelop a site). And land is not homogenous - there are more in demand land than others. Unless you convert parks and public buildings into residential land, it is very difficult to increase the supply of higher demand land closer to CBDs. Then there's also the minor issue that planning is a state matter.
      You need to rebalance the demand side, tilt things towards owner occupiers and away from investors.

  • neonlight on 16/05/2022 - 15:08
    +3

    This sounds like Afterpay on your mortgage that liberals are proposing without thinking it’s long term consequences

  • LemonShapedRock on 16/05/2022 - 15:39

    Is there an income limit or house price limit?

    • GG57 on 16/05/2022 - 15:41
      +1

      How would we know. It wasn't a policy or a piece of legislation, it was an 'announcement' of something the LNP may or may not do in the future.

    • brendanm on 16/05/2022 - 15:46
      +1

      From the article:

      but there are no age, property or income thresholds.

    • Scantu on 17/05/2022 - 13:28

      So the harder you work, the less "yours" your money should become?

      • BobLim on 18/05/2022 - 01:15

        Yep that's how the tax system is set up alrighty

        • Scantu on 18/05/2022 - 09:14

          Not what I was saying, super isyour property.

  • HappyPuppies on 16/05/2022 - 16:06
    +2

    Good news for property owners.

    • GG57 on 16/05/2022 - 16:08
      +3

      For some property owners.
      Selling and buying in the same market, unless you are significantly down-sizing, means that your next purchase is as inflated as your sale.

      • HappyPuppies on 16/05/2022 - 16:25
        +1

        Even if you have 1 property, an increase in market value of that property means you have access to more cheap capital to invest.

  • isthatallyougot on 16/05/2022 - 16:17
    +8

    To me the biggest BS policy announced by the Libs was the offer to offer 55's to downsize their homes and stash their money tax free in super.

    Its amazing how much we subsidize the oldies who live in mcmansions but still claim the pension. All because the family house is excluded from means testing.

    • ColtNoir on 16/05/2022 - 16:28
      +1

      I wish the government would move to land tax already, rather than stamp duty.

      • tonka on 16/05/2022 - 16:30
        +1

        You know they'll just move to land tax as well as stamp duty. (or already have for some states).

        • ColtNoir on 16/05/2022 - 16:44

          Well (profanity) me sideways, I didn't know that.

          I thought the land tax + stamp duty was only for investors, not owner-occupiers.

          I have to admit I've only done minimal research on what the NSW gov was investigating to try and help the turnover of houses.

          • tonka on 16/05/2022 - 17:22
            +1

            @ColtNoir: Could be. For me I wanted to keep my house and rent it while I rented closer to work for a while. But would have to pay the tax plus income tax on the rent. Personnally I'd love to be able to deduct rent I'm paying from rent on my primary residence while I'm working elsewhere,

    • GourmetFoodie on 16/05/2022 - 19:23
      +1

      Yep.
      Boomers run this country and every policy benefits them.

      • mdavant on 19/05/2022 - 06:13

        And gen X and younger sit on their computer games and are clueless to the fact that they are being screwed over.

        Where is the political party standing up for young people?

  • gromit on 16/05/2022 - 16:18
    +3

    Just more of the same from both Labor and Liberal, both have policies that will force prices up. They both need to stop meddling and trying to buy votes.

  • cookie2 on 16/05/2022 - 16:21
    +1

    Another wonderful fix to keep us all gagging to buy our own place. At some point, maybe we just admit that the dream is no longer a dream, but a ball and chain for many.

  • ColtNoir on 16/05/2022 - 16:26
    +1

    I'm open to the idea, as I'm ruled out of any other FHOG’s due to my wife having owned before we were married.
    She no longer has the property (family stuff). So even if I wanted to buy a house just on my salary, I can't.
    Super frustrated.

    I'm open to this idea simply because I can't qualify for anything else and I have a good chunk of super (age 34).

    I still wouldn't vote liberal though.

    • gromit on 16/05/2022 - 16:51
      +1

      From my reading this also requires you to be a first home buyer, so if your wife is on the pruchase then you won't qualify, also requires you to also already have 5% deposit.

      • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 17:12
        +1

        Simple 🔧.

        Get rid of the wife and then buy the 🏠.

        Taking her back is optional.

        • gromit on 16/05/2022 - 17:34
          +1

          Smart, practical and money saving.

          • ColtNoir on 16/05/2022 - 17:37

            @gromit: Haha, oh my.

            Not the greatest if you actually like your wife.

            Is it so hard for pollies to just fix housing affordability. NG and CGT discount on housing need to go.

            • gromit on 16/05/2022 - 17:50

              @ColtNoir: trying to fix it just adds fuel to the fire. NG and CGT going will not fix it, it will just create a rental crisis.

      • ColtNoir on 16/05/2022 - 17:34

        I'm definitely a first home buyer :D

        I'll be waiting a couple of years before I take the plunge anyway. Need to see how this WFH stuff goes and if it ends up having an impact on regional prices.

  • GG57 on 16/05/2022 - 16:35

    Looking to the future under this "policy" (if ever implemented), when people want to trade up to their 2nd (and likely bigger) house, they may not have enough money to buy that place because they have to repay their super fund from the sale of the first.

  • Vote for Pedro on 16/05/2022 - 16:41
    +4

    How to tell people you want to increase the cost of buying property without telling people you want to increase the cost of property.

  • Assiduous on 16/05/2022 - 16:47
    +3

    The Liberal Party only puts up policies for the benefit of their big business donors - Property Council of Australia approved.

    https://twitter.com/RizviAbul/status/1525950877970092032

  • tomcat83 on 16/05/2022 - 16:52
    +4

    We really need supply side policies rather than demand side which both the major parties seem to have neglected.
    I'd start with a decently funded public housing initiative for those at the bottom of the property ladder.

  • Max P on 16/05/2022 - 17:12

    If these parties really want votes they should promote providing properly affordable housing (or god forbid even free) for all Australians. Unfortunately this would never happen with all our corrupt politicians.

    Problem with these obvious accessibility issues is not only high rent we have been paying but you also see so many of us having negative health (including mental health), education, employment problems along with so many other consequences of this crisis.

    The solution to this crisis is easy. There would be policies implemented where there is no private ownership of housing. Then if we decide to continue with a system that still involves rent, we see it fixed at a maximum of say 10 percent of family/individuals income. We would then implement formed committees that would oversee rational and fair use of accommodation. There you go problem solved.

    The bottom line is as we should all have adequate housing provided by the government and all land should be used/divided in an egalitarian way. But unfortunately creating a society that values all people as such will never happen as it doesn't align with the agenda of the rich and greedy

    • tonka on 16/05/2022 - 17:26

      We'd all have to evolve a bit before we could make that work. As a species we're still still struggling to convince kids not to shoot strangers in supermarkets. The fair and wise distribution of resources is still beyond us.

    • brendanm on 16/05/2022 - 17:35
      +2

      or god forbid even free

      Where do you get the money to pay for this?

      There would be policies implemented where there is no private ownership of housing

      Yeah, no thanks. I don't want to live in a pod, or a Soviet bloc apartment.

  • MindGrenadius on 16/05/2022 - 18:04
    -3

    I have been renting for 13 years and have never missed a single payment. Until very recently the only access to any sort of capital close enough to resembling a deposit for a house (aware rental history can help with purchasing a house) has been what's in my super account.

    If I were able to access my super, I could have been paying off my own mortgage instead of someone elses and frankly had a very good asset under my belt worth far more than what my super is now, better establishing my future than holding the stonks etc in my super fund has provided or would provide.

    While I hate that the property market has been turned into such a casino and homes into profit making assets over homes to live in that it would even necessitate this and I do think this will just inflate the bid side of the housing market and drive prices up further, I hate more the idea that I don't have more control of access to my own money that I have worked for. I welcome being able to access my own money more than some ignorant fund manager.

    I also bought BTC in 2013 for ~$300, and all I could afford was around $600 worth. It was everything I had at the time and had no real other way of making money, but I did have some super. I would have loved to have taken a part of my super at the time (from an age where I absolutely could have weathered and replaced a $5K loss from my super at 19 years old) and made a lot more than I did. At the time SMSF did not even get close to recognising it as an investment even I could afford the $1000 setup.

    But no, I'm only allowed to pump up the ASX or whatever the fund managers decide the money is worthy for. I hate the super system, and seeing ~15% returns on my super instead of the 15,000% (call me lucky but I did an immense amount of DD and got in and out at the right times) I was able to manage really doesn't help the situation.

    • plmko on 16/05/2022 - 19:03
      +2

      Errr in case you weren't aware the Government will guarantee your mortgage. You don't need a complete deposit.

      Seem you aren't helping yourself in the right way.

    • pais on 16/05/2022 - 19:46
      +7

      I would have loved to have taken a part of my super at the time (from an age where I absolutely could have weathered and replaced a $5K loss from my super at 19 years old) and made a lot more than I did.

      Exhibit A of why super exists; to stop people gambling it away.

      • MindGrenadius on 16/05/2022 - 20:07
        -2

        Are the fund managers gambling? They don't always get it right.

        I managed 15,000% vs the 15% I did get in super. Even a little bit of my super (that now with my current income I could replace in less than 3 months without a worry, with returns) would have enabled a drastically different life for me now.

        It would have been a managed risk, with my own money - which you can now do under SMSF anyway - not just "gambling it away".

    • PabloHorteg on 18/05/2022 - 18:06

      Labor can't touch negative gearing because the boomers would vote them out.

      Look at Bill Shorten. Lost the unloseable election because he was going to reduce negative gearing and some boomer tax scams.

  • GourmetFoodie on 16/05/2022 - 19:20
    +5

    Well I was a swinging voter in a crucial seat and this policy put the nail in the Libs coffin for me.

  • theangryman on 16/05/2022 - 19:22
    +3

    Taking money out of a productive investment into a non-productive investment is great for all!

    • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 21:14
      +1

      May be young people prefer to buy a home instead of pamping boomers retirement bags.

    • Scantu on 17/05/2022 - 13:29

      Your money is invested in realestate.. a classicly very well performing asset. You can also invest in realestate inside your super.

  • dufflover on 16/05/2022 - 19:42

    The new and improved First Home Owners Grant … from their point of view anyway, this time you flip bill yourself in their goal to keep this ponzi scheme going.

  • Senatekill on 16/05/2022 - 19:55
    +2

    Good idea, super is your money not an industry funds.

    • netjock on 18/05/2022 - 10:34
      +1

      Construction industry is heavily unionised so you're $50k is going to the unions anyways.

      Would you rather give you money to investment managers, accountants and lawyers or your builder. Your choice.

  • Jaspa7 on 16/05/2022 - 19:59
    +2

    not a fan of this at all and think it's a way for a lot of people to financially screw themselves… that being said, they should probably have the freedom to do so

    • netjock on 18/05/2022 - 10:35

      they should probably have the freedom to do

      How else you going to keep wages down? By getting 65yo+ into the work force. Everyone under 30yo is crypto millionaires.

  • McSquintus on 16/05/2022 - 20:40
    +4

    Can't we just have even one of the major political parties with a decent plan around house prices? People are going to get rekt with higher rates regardless who wins as neither want to look after Australians, just keep house prices on an uphill slope.

    If they don't want to scrap negative gearing or do something meaningful, the next best thing to do would be to pull their upcoming housing policies and let the house prices naturally decline when rates rise.

    • netjock on 18/05/2022 - 10:36

      Can't we just have even one of the major political parties with a decent plan around house prices?

      Simple policy for simple people who just wants a bribe. If everyone was part of MENSA then we'll all be millionaires.

  • dylan345 on 16/05/2022 - 21:52
    +1

    Once again it's another policy to increase demand for homes.
    Yet lack of polices increasing supply of homes?
    You can literally just add a condition that it needs to be for a new build bam! suddenly money is being directed into supply. But this wouldn't win enough votes would it?

    I like that this allows first home buyers more chance of getting into the market but it will just increase prices in an already over inflated property market.

    The government should be focusing on cultivating innovation, quality and supply in Home building. Stuff like 3D printed homes, Energy efficient homes, less man hours, better fire ratings, better flood ratings, better skyscrapers, better city planning ect ect.

    Our standards are behind a lot of other countries with these pop up weak frame plaster board homes with no back yards crammed into a block with 50 other homes 2cm apart. that flood every 5 years, yet these blocks are surrounded by open paddocks ready for use waiting for some rich developer to repeat the process.

    • Korban Dallas on 17/05/2022 - 00:04

      New homes cost a lot more than established homes these days.

      I bet that 50k won't go far.

  • IanC on 16/05/2022 - 22:17
    +6

    Desperate last gasp dying breath ridiculous policy from Morrison boffins.
    It will never come to pass as the Libs will be wiped out next Saturday.

    Morrison will weep during his resignation bleat as the faithful chant no no no.
    What a farce as the ever smiling Dutton takes over.

    • tonka on 16/05/2022 - 22:24

      'Dutton takes over', surely not. That suggests a really long Labor innings. I'm OK with that but we'd almost need some kind of Albanese scandal just so we can remember who the PM is.

      • IanC on 16/05/2022 - 22:38

        I am assuming Joshie baby will lose his blue ribbon seat.

        If he survives Dutton is way to smart to take the poison chalice and will support Joshie 100% before challenging three months before the next election

        • Korban Dallas on 17/05/2022 - 00:02
          +2

          100% joshy boy losing his seat.

          • IanC on 19/05/2022 - 10:33

            @Korban Dallas: Having just watched a totally nauseating press interview by
            Albanese for the last 30 mins I am beginning to think that Morrison will rise from the dead once again.
            The interview was AWFUL for the ALP and will cost them massive votes.
            At one stage he stated the minimum wage was 20.33 a WEEK with no correction.
            Last time around the unloseable election was lost by Chris Bowen with his stupid advice to retirees to go vote someone else if they like his franking credit policy. They sure did.
            Just wait till the costings are released later today when all is revealed.
            Albanese is so lucky 6 million votes have already been cast.

    • IanC on 22/05/2022 - 22:13

      Apologies for being wrong about Morrison.

      Blubbered in church instead.

      Big upside that whinging Kenneallys parachute failed to open but huge downside is I will have to look at Dutton much more often.

      .

  • berry580 on 16/05/2022 - 22:33
    +2

    Excellent way to boost house prices

  • Korban Dallas on 16/05/2022 - 23:01
    +6

    This actually excludes a lot of people and benefits avo eating rich asshats on the northern beaches.

    LNP are totally retarded. It actually helps rich young people, moreso than those trying to crack the market.

    Have a look at the average super balance of young people.

    On average 25 to 34 year old men have about $42k and women about $32k in super savings

    Which at 40% would equate to 30k that a average couple could withdraw.

    You need 125k in super to withdraw the 50k max 🤣

    • qazwsx on 17/05/2022 - 05:48

      Not everyone looking for a home to buy and live in are young people. Some are older and finally have some sort of financial footing to be able to look at ownership, some are families who need more space for their growing brood and need to upgrade.

  • TheMindsetTraveller on 16/05/2022 - 23:20
    +4

    Liberals have gone bonkers, letting (poorer) people use part of their super will only makes house prices higher hahaha good riddance ScoMo is gone so he can return to Hawaii and drink mai tais until he gets drunk. That's his Gods will after all.

  • duluxe2000 on 16/05/2022 - 23:37
    +5

    I'm not the target of the policy but personally I would dip in my super without second thought if I'm allowed to. It is because I know I can maximise my contribution to take advantage of tax benefits and have both (super and whatever the gov lets me buy with my super money, in this case: house)

  • darkmoss on 17/05/2022 - 04:32
    +3

    LNP is beyond a joke.

  • Breno785au on 17/05/2022 - 06:15
    +1

    Struggling to save for a deposit (will get there eventually) but still wouldn't do this.

    • Scantu on 17/05/2022 - 13:30

      On a policy level, this is bad.

      On a personal level, for you, if this legislation passed, you would be actively disadvantaging yourself by not doing it.

  • DarkOz on 17/05/2022 - 06:22
    +2

    Just as the Australian property market is "cooling down" just add more fuel to the fire. What could go wrong?

  • qazwsx on 17/05/2022 - 06:29
    +2

    My thoughts, you may like it you may not.

    • None of ALP/LNP policies will fix housing affordability because it just touches minor assistance for a certain group of buyers. Apart from that, home buyers are still totally exposed to the laws of supply & demand in the property market. The problem is someone at the start of their career looking for a place to live in is going to be outgunned by investors at the end of their career with their accumulated wealth. What you need is a system that puts owner occupiers in a privileged position versus investors. Something like the additional buyers stamp duty (ABSD) in Hong Kong or Singapore (tldr: those who buy multiple residential properties in the same city need to pay more stamp duty; foreigners (non citizen/PRs) would also need to pay more stamp duty for all residential properties). This would be blasphemous for someone who defers to the free markets by default, but housing for own occupation is something that needs to be somewhat protected.

    • Between ALP & LNP policies, I prefer LNP's. I am not comfortable with government co-ownership - this is essentially using govt funds to invest in private properties. I don't believe this is appropriate, and it takes gains away from the individual who owns the property. The forced buyback when your income hits a certain level can have weird reprecussions on those who just fall over the income threshold. The quota for the ALP system just ends up creating a system of winners and losers.
      LNP's super policy at least allows the person (either directly or through the super fund) to keep all the gains. Not perfect, def needs adjustment though - for a start it should be restricted from certain people, particularly those with investment residential properties in the same city. Need to draw a line in the sand, if you have rental properties you don't need a further leg up in your own residential proeprty - try living in that property instead, or divesting your rental properties if you need that leg up.

    • Both ALP & LNP policies stimulate the market when it really doesn't need more; LNP's policy seems to have more of an impact, more because of the scale of their program. There should be an offsetting policy to deflate the market a bit to keep the net impact neutral. This is where changes to negative gearing or ABSD (see my first point above) should be considered. Otherwise it is going back to Rudd's $21k home owner's grant which didn't really help much because more than half the grant was lost to higher prices that the grant stimulated. Unfortunately LNP won't touch negative gearing because too much of their base benefits from it, presumably they won't consider ABSD for the same reason.

    • Big fright campaign about withdrawing from super. Super funds not happy, of course they have a massive vested interest in keeping more funds in the super ecosystem. But property is a valid investment class, and makes decent returns over the long-term. And since funds need to be returned into the super fund together with the share of capital gain, the withdrawal essentially is a self-investment in property. I see two main outcomes: (1) someone keeps owning the property and never returns the funds to super, in which case they are presumably retiring with a property which is already an advantageous position to be in (less money in super, but then with the property the funds required to retire is lesser), or (2) someone sells the property and returns the funds withdrawn plus its share of capital gains into the fund, which presumably would have a similar outcome to if the withdrawal had not happened in the first place. Both outcomes are reasonable in my opinion. I don't see it as a withdrawal, more of a change in investment asset; still maintains the integrity of super. It definitely isn't the covid super withdrawal, which was wrong policy - should not have let that happen.

    • cwongtech on 17/05/2022 - 10:36
      +3

      Good thoughts

      I prefer LNP's. I am not comfortable with government co-ownership - this is essentially using govt funds to invest in private properties. I don't believe this is appropriate, and it takes gains away from the individual who owns the property

      My only disagreement is the ALP's policy addresses the housing affordability directly, and yep, it does cut into the gains (but pro-rata'd), however the gains are meant for investment properties/ those intending to capture cap gains only.

      This isn't really an issue for those who are intending to permanently live in their homes - for the primary purpose of living, not HODL'ing for capital gains.

      • qazwsx on 17/05/2022 - 16:28

        Hmm…
        Both ALP and LNP address the problem as directly as each other, which is to say not very directly. They both involve arming home buyers with additional money.

        • Seems to be very much for first home buyers. People who need to upgrade are as deserving of support as well. Kid in mid-late 20s who buys his first 1 or 2 bdr apartment may have a need to upgrade after 5-10yrs when you add 2-3 kids to the picture.

        • Capital gains will help you afford your next home to upgrade to - at least in theory the rate of growth in your home should be more or less equal to the rate of growth in your next home. But if the govt takes a cut of your cap gains, then you'll fall behind. So in that sense, cap gains are also important to owner occupiers, not solely a domain for IPs

        All up, the ALPs policy will help you get into your first home, but it's also more likely to keep you stuck in that first home. Hence I still think LNP policy is superior. Both are terribly incomplete though without further demand side management from investors.

        • cwongtech on 17/05/2022 - 17:09

          Hence I still think LNP policy is superior

          It draws out of your super, there's opportunity cost there though.

          ALP's policy isn't limited to how much you have in your super (if you have 125k in your super to get a 40% withdrawal, or the max 50k, means over your working life you should have had 1M in income already unless you salary sacrificed)

          ALPs version also lets you pay back the governments portion of you're that concerned about the capital gains (so is the issue "I can't afford to own a house" or "I can't afford to get into the property game for capital gains"?)

  • Dowhatuwant on 17/05/2022 - 08:52
    +3

    No worse than Labor's plan tbh. Neither address the problem.

    • Aureus on 17/05/2022 - 11:12
      +2

      Yeah the problem is supply and demand. Doesn't feel like either party is looking to solve the problem, just looking to tick a box on housing affordability policy.

      Supply more land, work on the crazy construction costs, fast public transport from outer suburbs and FTTH to regional areas to allow people to move from the cities and still work from home.

    • ThithLord on 17/05/2022 - 11:28
      +1

      You need at least $125k in your Super to access the LNPs proposed scheme.

      On average 25yo to 34yo have $42k (men) and $32k (women).

      ALP's policy stipulations:

      Are an Australian citizen of at least 18 years of age.
      Earn $90,000 or less per annum for individuals, or $120,000 or less per annum for couples.
      Live in the purchased home as your principal place of residence.
      Not own any other land or property – either in Australia or overseas.
      Have saved the required minimum 2 per cent deposit of the home price and qualify (and can finance) the remainder of the purchase through a standard >home loan with a participating lender.
      Pay for any associated purchase costs like stamp duty, legal and bank fees. Homebuyers will also be responsible for ongoing property costs like rates, strata and any other bills.

      • Scantu on 17/05/2022 - 13:30

        You need at least $125k in your Super to access the LNPs proposed scheme.

        source?

        • ThithLord on 17/05/2022 - 13:45

          When I said this:

          You need at least $125k in your Super to access the LNPs proposed scheme.

          I should have typed: *You need at least $125k in Super to access $50K worth of your super for a house deposit.

          Under the Super Home Buyer Scheme, first home buyers will be able to invest up to 40 per cent of their superannuation, up to a maximum of $50,000 to help with the purchase of their first home.

          That's from the LNP's website. I slightly misunderstood the scheme - but in order to get $50k from your super you would need $125k in super (40% of $125k would be $50k).

          • Scantu on 17/05/2022 - 14:32

            @ThithLord: 👍 correct, there are no limits in that regard

    • netjock on 18/05/2022 - 14:52

      No worse

      One is to use tax payer money.
      The other is to use people's own money.

      People will vote whether to use other people's money or their own. I would suggest vote for other people's money. Jack and bean stalk kind of stuff. Notice I left political parties out of this because it really isn't about parties but where the money comes from.

  • Callison on 17/05/2022 - 13:13

    Is it financially responsible to dip into superannuation, which is largely blue chip shares, to sell them at an all time low for cash; to buy a home when housing is at all time highs? It has potential to add another 10 years onto a young persons working life assuming 50k super saved from ages 18-28.

    • Scantu on 17/05/2022 - 13:31
      -2

      Yes, it largely is. Real estate is a good investment.

      • Callison on 17/05/2022 - 14:44

        Buy high, less low - but at least it's good for investors!

        Watch this grow.

        • Scantu on 17/05/2022 - 16:15
          -1

          Did I claim it was anything other than a good investment though?

      • gromit on 17/05/2022 - 16:02

        5 or 10 years ago real estate was a good investment. taking out of super now while stocks are in a slump to buy into a market that is at all time highs and appears to be turning is at best a bit of a questionable investment. Most likely will be a very bad investment once you factor in the 50k will also pump up the lower end price as well.

        • Scantu on 17/05/2022 - 16:14
          -3

          Your statements demonstrate that you do not understand how investing works, and you should probably stay out of these conversations.

          How you "feel" about an asset class does not correlate to its price.

          • gromit on 17/05/2022 - 16:14
            +2

            @Scantu: perhaps you should look in a mirror as I would say clearly your statements demonstrate exactly that.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join