Australia's Housing Affordability Crisis

squeeze on 16/04/2023 - 23:02

The average income in Australia is 92K pre-tax. This equates to around 4.7K monthly take-home. To buy an apartment in a desirable suburb in Sydney or Melbourne you are looking at spending AT LEAST $600,000 for something small but liveable (2 bedrooms if you're lucky). The monthly repayments assuming a 500K loan (assuming you have saved 100k deposit) is 3.4K over 30 years (7% interest rate). This leaves 1.3K leftover for body corp fees, car expenses, holidays, food, utilities and life which is not enough to live comfortably.

In other words for a single person to buy their first home without the bank of mum and dad it's really not achievable without making big sacrifices. I wonder where this will leave a generation of low income earners who never make it into the market.

What can be done to address this and get first home buyers / young people into the market?

Personally I think there should be more tax on property investors and restrictions on foreign property investment. In other words - more owner occupied homes. I am interested to see what Labor do with the first home buyer shared equity scheme.

An interesting watch from Friendly Jordies on the housing affordability crisis - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJE3B_ra3lY&ab_channel=frien…

Financial

Comments

  • Caped Baldy on 16/04/2023 - 23:16
    +114

    Good luck making changes when basically all politicians have investment properties and won't make changes to legislation that goes against their interests.

    Personally, I'd like to potentially see a vacancy tax, limits on rent amount and/or changes to yearly increases, long term leases and better rights for tenants.

    • orangetrain on 17/04/2023 - 09:54
      +14

      I agree. In fact, LNP and Labor have promised no vacancy tax. Goes to show they only care about land hoarders over renters.

      Time to vote for independents.

      • chartparker on 17/04/2023 - 10:45
        +18

        Who's to say that Independents don't also have their fingers in the same pie?

        • orangetrain on 17/04/2023 - 12:41
          +8

          Maybe, maybe not. At least it's certain that LNP and Labor like to make promises to fix Australia and yet make it worse.

          Why not try giving someone else a go?

          • Papa Huggies on 17/04/2023 - 13:24
            +4

            @orangetrain: Probably a simple fact that to be a high-ranking politician you'd likely have to have a middle to upper-middle class upbringing, have a law degree and have some financial backing from donors.

            That is, you're likely to at the very very least have a mortgage on a PPOR. Most likely you'll have a little real estate empire on our own right. Your donors definitely have real estate tied to them.

            • orangetrain on 17/04/2023 - 13:29
              +2

              @Papa Huggies: To be a high-ranking politician, you need more votes than the others.

              • Papa Huggies on 17/04/2023 - 13:31
                +3

                @orangetrain: Ignoring the fact that to get more votes than the others, you need to fund a campaign that gives you more outreach than the others, you need to be a more convincing (read: educated and trained) orator than the others, and have professional connections that get you into the circles of politicians who get these opportunities presented to them.

                So… money does buy votes. Money also buys property.

              • Harold Halfprice on 19/04/2023 - 22:51

                @orangetrain: If that's your take on how politics works, then… well I won't ruin it for you

      • ThithLord on 17/04/2023 - 10:46
        +68

        In fact, LNP and Labor have promised no vacancy tax

        Labor have gone to two elections with policies to address housing in this country and the country rewarded them with an unequivocal f^^k you for even suggesting it.

        • borrisz0r on 17/04/2023 - 10:56
          +66

          100% this. People have very short memories, they actually elected scomo as our prime minister, a guy who left the country during the bushfires, shirked responsibility for anything to do with covid over a fairly decent plan to address housing issues over the long term… Let that sink in.

          The Labor changes would've been better for housing, and if implemented back in 2016 we would be in a very different position right now.

          Full disclosure: I own numerous investment properties, so I'm actually on the other side of the fence as the proposed changes probably hurt my financial position. In saying that, they are better for the greater good… It's a shame we will.never see them.

          • ThithLord on 17/04/2023 - 11:12
            +12

            @borrisz0r:

            Full disclosure: I own numerous investment properties, so I'm actually on the other side of the fence as the proposed changes probably hurt my financial position. In saying that, they are better for the greater good… It's a shame we will.never see them.

            You're a good lad/ladette. A true Aussie.

            I'm getting a little bored of the old:

            POLITICIANS OWN INVESTMENT PROPERTIES! WHY WOULD THEY FIX IT?

            Bruh, they're on six-figure salaries. They're savvy investors, wooowww, news at 10!

            • Breno785au on 17/04/2023 - 13:35
              +1

              @ThithLord: It's called a conflict of interest.

              • ThithLord on 17/04/2023 - 13:45

                @Breno785au:

                conflict of interest

                Absolutely. Absolutely, mate. But how about lets live in reality and look at the situation objectively: what are you suggesting, we somehow ban politicians from owning investment properties? I don't even know how the heck that could ever be accomplished.

                It just isn't based in reality.

            • borrisz0r on 19/04/2023 - 13:34

              @ThithLord: Thanks for that, but there is no need. We are all in this together.. the best way forward is for people of all walks of life to forget personal benefit and think of the greater good for us and future generations.

              Otherwise, we are all stuffed.

          • Worf on 19/04/2023 - 06:45

            @borrisz0r: Don’t forget the granite bench top grant during covid (home builder scheme) which helped to worsen the homelessness crisis.

            • borrisz0r on 19/04/2023 - 13:32

              @Worf: The list of cluster f-$ks that happened on scomos watch is too long to list them all.

              I truly hope the LNP stay out of power for 15 years or more. It should force a change of leadership and a rethink of party policies.

        • techlead on 17/04/2023 - 11:18
          -2

          Shorten went to the 2019 election with a pretty robust package of reforms and he was defeated, so we get what we deserve I reckon.

          I'm glad I don't ever need to deal with this craziness ever again in my life, I bought Bitcoin in 2013.

          • ThithLord on 17/04/2023 - 11:20

            @techlead: 'king oath we get what we deserve. But also, msm (including the ABC) is to blame for a lot of the misinformation that was fed to the Australian public.

            I bought Bitcoin in 2013.

            Cheeky bugger. Glad that paid off for ya

            • techlead on 17/04/2023 - 11:25
              -4

              @ThithLord: I considered buying an investment property or Bitcoin in 2013. I'm so glad I chose the latter.

              What I saw in 2019 was eye opening, people in poor areas voting for ScoMo because they want the property gravy train to continue, people who have zero chance of ever getting on the gravy train. I'm very glad to be able to catch the train on top of the Bitcoin rocket.

              What Shorten proposed wasn't too radical, just abolish negative gearing.

              I hope Albo will try to introduce it again after the ALP wins the next federal election with an increased majority which is very very likely. Dutton is a dud.

              • ThithLord on 17/04/2023 - 11:33

                @techlead:

                I hope Albo will try to introduce it again after the ALP wins the next federal election with an increased majority which is very very likely. Dutton is a dud.

                I, personally, don't. Not for selfish reasons; just being realistic.

                Any faux-tax policy announced by Labor is harangued by the MSM and the populace will eat it up.

                We cannot afford another 4 years of the LNP steering this ship. Maybe after the next election, once the dust settles from Labor straightening the path Australia is currently taking.

                • techlead on 17/04/2023 - 11:37

                  @ThithLord: The super changes are a good little baby step start, but they need to do wayyyyy more than that to take wealth inequality.

                  There's alot of corporate welfare and loopholes that benefit the rick, close them.

                  • ThithLord on 17/04/2023 - 11:47

                    @techlead: Yep. Australia can't handle radical change; they can stomach progressive change, though. Labor is a progressive government (IMO)

                    • orangetrain on 17/04/2023 - 12:44
                      +18

                      @ThithLord: Australia can't handle radical change as suggested by MSM.

                      Spending billions on jailing refugees offshore? MSM: Cool.

                      Pork barrelling billions? MSM: Cool.

                      Saving billions while reducing cost of living with removing negative gearing? MSM: Holy shit, too radical! Communism!!

                      • ThithLord on 17/04/2023 - 13:46

                        @orangetrain: The MSM will slowly start to care more, now that the LNP aren't in government

                        • orangetrain on 17/04/2023 - 14:02
                          +5

                          @ThithLord: lolno, MSM's assets:

                          domain.com.au

                          realestate.com.au

                          Higher prices/turnover = $$$$$$

          • GregRust on 18/04/2023 - 15:17

            @techlead: Cool story.

          • Korban Dallas on 18/04/2023 - 19:29
            -3

            @techlead: I was so sure our country didn't want scomo in because it was quite clear even then he was retarded. I bet a heap of money on it. But luckily the bookies paid out early.

            I also put money on Tony Abbott losing his seat and shorten to wear a red tie.

            Overall it was great.

      • sir-screwball on 17/04/2023 - 11:52
        +15

        Actually no, this is bullshit. You're correct in saying that they've promised no vacancy taxes but if you believe that's only in the interest of self serving, you're off your head.

        Bill Shorten went into 2019 campaign with two notable policies around housing affordability. One was grandfathering out negative gearing and the other was the removal of the capital gains tax discount, both of which are significant factors in the housing affordability crisis and they lost that election partially due to the LNP and their media mates managing to convince idiots to vote against their own interests both in this area of policy and in the area of franking credits (aka the death tax or retirement tax, as they called it).

        Don't pretend like Labor doesn't want to introduce this type of policy. They do, they just can't because it's political suicide.

        • orangetrain on 17/04/2023 - 12:04

          Didn't LNP also lose votes too? It seemed like a very negative election.

      • Based Bargainer on 17/04/2023 - 16:10
        +4

        Greens have policy for a vacancy tax

    • Scantu on 17/04/2023 - 12:01
      -1

      when basically all politicians have investment properties

      Yeah I bet you that also pollies have TWO LEGS and they shouldn't be able to make decisions about people with TWO LEGS

    • Based Bargainer on 17/04/2023 - 16:11
      +5

      Everything you listed is Greens party policy

    • CalmLemons on 17/04/2023 - 22:26
      -1

      This has nothing to do with it.

      It's demand that drives up the price, not whatever concessions the government gives.

      There's going to be huge demand over these few years and also reduced housing supply as builders and developers are going to be less inclined to build given the rising costs.

      • greatlamp on 21/04/2023 - 07:39
        +1

        That ignoring the entire investment market. Demand isn't an inevitable force. Investors don't demand housing, they just want an avenue to make profits and will move to something else if housing didn't keep delivering on it's promise of 'always going up'.

    • bex000 on 18/04/2023 - 01:00
      +2

      I'm not an expert economist but I would like politicians to look at this from a capitalist free market. Policies that look at the factors that drive house price and rent down. Agree on driving down vacancies, increasing supply of houses its associated driving forces, reducing demand for rental perhaps by increasing ability for people to be mobile and live where rental demand is lower.

      Mass market manipulation like capping prices or artificially inflating low prices may have undesirable effects that prop up or penalise certain things beyond natural market equilibrium. Obviously, we need to still look after the small vulnerable population somehow in an ethical manner for both tax payers and the marginalised vulnerable people.

    • amsaini15 on 18/04/2023 - 03:03
      +5

      Labor did try to introduce tax on investors but every mum and dad voted them out.

      • rbrtsluk on 19/04/2023 - 20:15
        -1

        So are you blaming the mum and dad investors that just want to retire with something other then a shitty $80 week pension or the the others (governments, banks and real estate agents) that help drive the demand and sell the bs dream to the mum and dad investors?

        • amsaini15 on 19/04/2023 - 23:08
          +2

          No but some tax to discourage multi property investor is a must requirement. Ok lets not penalise 1 investment property investor but anyone with more than 1 investment property should be discouraged.

      • Toph Beifong on 25/04/2023 - 23:17
        +1

        Exactly. 2019 election Labor lost because they tried to make changes to negative gearing but "mum & dad" investors didn't like it. Well if the majority of ordinary Australians want to continue on the current trajectory…then so be it.

    • Spamazon on 18/04/2023 - 07:05

      This is what happens when governments use population policy to prop up the economy.

    • supersabroso on 18/04/2023 - 19:52
      +1

      Yep, just gotta suck it up and get a better job, work harder, move further out into the suburbs, find a wife who works full time or all 5 of those things. You'll be able to afford a house in no time. I don't know why people insist on buying a property right next to the CBD, the price of an old 3 bedroom apartment is the same as a brand new double story 5 bedroom house 20 minutes away.

  • Cluster on 16/04/2023 - 23:27
    +17

    Only one third of home owners have a mortgage. Two thirds don't, and they vote. They'll strive to keep the status quo: ever rising housing prices. Equity mate!

    If Sydney and Melbourne are too expensive for your income, there is something you can do right now: move to a cheaper city. Australia is a very big place, yet we have almost half the population trying to cram into just two cities. Don't wait for politicians to lower the cost of getting into the housing market. You'll be old, retired, and still living in a rental.

    • AustriaBargain on 17/04/2023 - 00:40
      +18

      I think the whole idea of getting into the housing market before it's too late sounds like a pyramid scheme and like any good pyramid scheme it is already too late to join in and come out ahead. And like any good bubble when it pops you could be left with a house that is worth a lot less than you paid for it. The 100 people you see lining up for a rental in Sydney and Melbourne, they vote too. And maybe one day they might feel like voting for high density residential towers. When they are all living and settled into those towers instead of lining up for that rental, what do you think will happen to the value of that "investment property"? You'd feel pretty foolish if you bought it at the peak of the housing crisis.

      • JIMB0 on 17/04/2023 - 04:53
        +31

        Housing has nearly always been at an all time high. It's caused by a continuously increasing money supply. Same goes for share markets. Once you get your head around this you'll see that timing the market is pointless.

        • eddyah on 17/04/2023 - 21:38

          Yep -> And once you're in you're part of the pyramid and you want it to go up up up!

          • Hasbulla on 18/04/2023 - 15:42

            @eddyah: you think you're not part of the pyramid scheme? Or any other scheme for that matter?

      • brendanm on 17/04/2023 - 07:17

        When they are all living and settled into those towers instead of lining up for that rental, what do you think will happen to the value of that "investment property"?

        It will still be high, as no one actually wants to live in Soviet bloc high density living towers.

        • orangetrain on 17/04/2023 - 09:45
          +4

          People from tent cities around Australia would like a word

          • brendanm on 17/04/2023 - 10:17
            -2

            @orangetrain: People in tent cities wouldn't live in Soviet bloc apartments if they weren't built in a "desirable" suburb.

            • gakko on 19/04/2023 - 16:25
              +1

              @brendanm: I think the desirable suburb factor is material. People complain about prices in inner city. Part of it is that services in outer city suck, but a lot of it is just that people want to live someone cool and fun.

      • supersabroso on 18/04/2023 - 19:31
        +1

        It's not a pyramid scheme because people have the basic need to live in a physical house. As the growth rate of people is more than the growth rate of new houses/land, the house price goes up. Simple supply and demand. If you hold onto this long term, you can't go wrong unless you're really unlucky with your tenants. Issue is that lots of supply has been bought out because of people owning multiple investment properties. We should definitely not be subsidising the investment properties at 100% of the tax "loss" for that year and then taxing them at their profit but by giving them a 50% discount.

        This falls apart in countries like Japan where they have a falling population and thus their house prices have gone no where.

        • AustriaBargain on 18/04/2023 - 19:40

          Yes it's supply and demand, but the demand isn't just driven by people's need to live in a house. A big part of the demand is investors looking to make money. The number of people looking to rent or buy a house could be the same, but if most investors believe that the house will go up in value then they will be willing to pay more and they will pay more because they are competing against other investors. If you believed a house was going to be worth a million dollars but right now it's selling for 500k, you could pay an extra 250k in interest and you'll still be ahead 250k when it comes time to sell, on top of the rental income. So maybe someone else would offer 700k for the house because they also believe it'll sell for a million dollars later on, and maybe you'll bid 750k because you think it could be worth more than a million even later on. You're not bidding against renters or potential owner occupiers, you're bidding against "property investors" which drives the price up. If you were the only property investor in the country then house prices would be a lot lower, and you probably wouldn't want to be a property investor because there would be no investment bubble promising massive returns.

          • greatlamp on 21/04/2023 - 07:46

            @AustriaBargain: With tax incentives an investor can purchase a 600k home with 200k deposit, and not have to pay anything else - the rent will cover it.

            Home buyers have to compete with significantly lower borrowing power, and a mortgage they need to cover for 30 years. The bubble will never be too big until this changes

          • pizzaking on 25/04/2023 - 17:54

            @AustriaBargain: If there was an excess of houses it wouldn't really work, it would have to crash. The prices would fall once there is enough excess of supply. None of these restrictions people are suggesting fix the underlying problem which is a shortage of property development. Who cares about the investors and whether they make profit as long as the prices go down

    • AdosHouse on 17/04/2023 - 10:22
      +26

      "If Sydney and Melbourne are too expensive for your income, there is something you can do right now: move to a cheaper city."

      That's called shifting the problem, not a solution.

      Plenty of people came to Brisbane from Sydney and Melbourne and now the problem is just as bad here.

        • corvusman on 17/04/2023 - 16:49
          +5

          Lol, as if they have jobs there.

          • OzHan on 17/04/2023 - 21:20

            @corvusman: yes, as if only when you live in Sydney or Melbourne can you get a job.

            • Jazzyau1973 on 20/04/2023 - 00:01

              @OzHan: In Melb , hard to find a job. Impossible!! Coz hearing people are utterly pain in the neck and want to get rid of ppl with disabilities. Im on the Sunshine Coast

          • brendanm on 19/04/2023 - 16:33

            @corvusman: Yes, Sydney and Melbourne are the only places with jobs, everyone outside these two places is on Centrelink.

        • FatBlanket on 17/04/2023 - 21:00
          +1

          Move to a cheaper city and earn less / be employed less. Yay.

          • OzHan on 17/04/2023 - 21:22
            +2

            @FatBlanket: or keep on whinging and wait for the desirable suburb in Sydney to become affordable. Yay.

            • FatBlanket on 21/04/2023 - 19:46

              @OzHan: Well I already own in a desirable suburb, just showing empathy for people in an unlucky situation due to no fault of their own.

          • cadwalader on 19/04/2023 - 18:36
            +1

            @FatBlanket: But you spend a smaller proportion of your post-tax income on owning a house. Yay.

      • brendanm on 19/04/2023 - 16:33

        So your solution is just to continue putting more and more people into Sydney or Melbourne?

    • Eeples on 17/04/2023 - 16:23
      +10

      This is incorrect information by cluster.

      It is a little over half of home owners have a mortgage. (Not one third of home owners as you stated).

      Here are the correct figures…..

      “In 2021, there were nearly 9.8 million households in Australia (ABS 2022a). Where household tenure was known:

      67% (6.2 million households) were home owners
      32% (2.9 million households) without a mortgage
      35% (3.3 million households) with a mortgage

      31% (2.9 million households) were renters
      26% (2.4 million households) were renting from private landlords
      3.0% (277,500 households) from state or territory housing authorities
      2.4% (223,600 households) from other landlords.”

      https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/home-owne…

    • Korban Dallas on 18/04/2023 - 20:15
      +1

      Facts matter

      More than a third (35%) of Australia’s 9.8 million fleet of homes are owned with a mortgage, while just under a third (31%) are owned outright, a 2021 census has revealed. Thirty per cent (30%) are rented.

      https://www.mpamag.com/au/news/general/how-many-homes-in-aus…

      • mandelbrot on 18/04/2023 - 22:27
        +1

        So who owns the 30% of house that are rented, and are they mortgaged?

        • nobro25 on 20/04/2023 - 16:32

          It's kinda irrelevant. Odds are renters are covering the costs of any mortgage and fees associated with it. Even if the off chance the property is vacant. Tax back. That's why property is so lucrative.
          Vacancy is so low that people are eager to pay to have a place to live in.

          • Kangal on 20/04/2023 - 18:36
            +1

            @nobro25: "Captive Audience".
            I would say it's actually relevant, because it highlights that (Major) Banks potentially own 68% of properties through mortgages. That highlights potential that the real losers are renters, the real winners are The Bank, and landlords are somewhere in-between.

    • ThadtheChad on 19/04/2023 - 00:09
      +2

      This is a very good suggestion, however there is a key pitfall to this. For a long time, Australia has neglected infrastructure development and polity have not pushed for decentralisation of the two big cities.

      Outside of Sydney and Melbourne - which are proper world class metropolises, Brisbane and Perth are viable options as well.

      Infrastructure issues:
      Excluding these cities and moving to the smaller capital cities or moving to regional towns you're looking at a much reduced infrastructure availability and a fairly significant impact to quality of life. The infra in the boonies for the most part is comparable to that of developing nations and is not a good option for someone used to living in a city.

      Job Market:
      Furthermore, given that most corps are headquartered in Syd/Melb, you're going to find the job market to be lacking as well especially for professionals.

      The R word:
      Lastly there is the racist elephant in the room. As a non-caucasian, I've found it quite uncomfortable (and in certain cases downright unsettling) when driving through/visiting smaller communities. This sentiment is echoed by a fair few people I know. So, for many, this is pretty much a non-starter.

      As a result, I think while the suggestion has merit, there needs to be a concerted and substantial effort to spreading out the metropolitan regions by building more infrastructure and corpo incentives.

      • cadwalader on 20/04/2023 - 15:58

        As a non-caucasian, I've found it quite uncomfortable (and in certain cases downright unsettling) when driving through/visiting smaller communities.

        How small? I have been living in a small city for more than five years and also a non-caucasian. Haven't found it to be any different from living in a bigger city other than having access to ethnic grocers and cooked food services. My workplace is pretty multicultural. I'll probably hazard that my immediate department has probably the same make up of general cultures back when I was in a bigger city but I'll concede the number of employers in my industry much fewer in a smaller city.

        • ThadtheChad on 20/04/2023 - 17:42

          So smaller towns - in say rural NSW/VIC/WA (my experiences would be centred around these states). If you have a multicultural office, then your small city is definitely bigger than the townships I'm talking about. The ones I'm referring to, are as "monochromatic" as they come. :D

          As an example, some of the podunk towns in rural NSW on the way to Port Macquarie as an example. Where eating sausage rolls/meat pies from a servo constitutes as eating out.

          • cadwalader on 21/04/2023 - 12:12

            @ThadtheChad: Right, you mean rural. Haven't lived rural but it felt okay driving through and experiencing them short-term. I couldn't live in a place where the sausage roll/meat pie constitutes eating out.

            That said, I've been to a couple where the largest and only restaurant or biggest restaurant was a Chinese/Thai establishment. A lot of 15,000+ pop places would easily surpass that "sausage roll/meat pie" definition. Most of these places would have 2 or more multicultural dining options. Even then, people aren't talking about going as far as these places when they talk about moving out of Sydney and Melbourne for affordable housing on a locally average typical/normal salary.

            Anything more than 100,000 pop (starting from Bendigo) to Perth and Adelaide would be affordable and multicultural enough to alleviate most if not all concerns about the R word issue. I live in the lower end of this and in my years of living here, the only act of outright R word I've encountered was a bumper sticker saying something like Chinese people caused COVID. Cannot say if I would have encountered this in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane but the most R word stereotyping I've experienced from Australians would most likely be online among self-styled "progressive" from the bigger capital cities.

    • Nedkellyinthebush on 19/04/2023 - 11:37
      +1

      Good luck finding a high paying job outside the big cities. You may pay less for a house but you’ll be earning less too

  • vince088 on 16/04/2023 - 23:28
    +13

    1st use https://paycalculator.com.au/

    92k salary is $5,811.67 take home pay

    • Kangal on 17/04/2023 - 00:11
      +41

      What's the median income for a full-time employee?
      That figure seems too high, shouldn't it be closer to $60k? There's a couple whales/millionaires out there that skew the results greatly.

      edit: lmao it's $52k according to latest ABS.
      edit2: actually on a different report its $65k and it's based on last years/newer data.

      edit summary: the OP is not correct, things are even WORSE than stated. First home buyers, without Mum+Dad, they cannot make "big sacrifices" to buy a home. It's just not achievable from a practical sense, they're blocked off the market, used as cannon-fodder to fuel the rental system. Again it is not achievable, math doesn't add up, it only makes sense to achieve it by doing something against the grain (ie Raising your income potential).

      • vince088 on 17/04/2023 - 06:59
        +23

        Im just pointing out that OP said 92k pre-tax is 4.7K monthly take-home. Which is incorrect.

        • FlyingMiffy on 18/04/2023 - 08:15
          +3

          And interest rate is not 7%… paying anything more than 5.5 for a 500k borrowing and the OP should be seeing a broker

      • mandelbrot on 17/04/2023 - 10:52

        Outliers (e.g. a few whales, billionaires) don't skew median (mid point). They affect the mean (average).

        • Kangal on 17/04/2023 - 14:23
          +26

          That's why I used "median". The OP used "average" which is a far less accurate measurement, hence my post.

      • Name on 17/04/2023 - 21:30
        +4

        I thought $92k seemed way too high when I first started reading the post. Thanks for doing the research for us!

      • buckethat on 17/04/2023 - 22:02

        I'd hardly say that ie Raising your income potential is doing something against the grain..

        Are you saying the norm is to lower your income potential?

        • Kangal on 18/04/2023 - 14:50

          Usually "making sacrifices" comes with the lingo as you lower your expenses; eat rice/noodles, no holidays, no luxury items etc etc.

          Whilst "raising your income" is somewhat part the parcel, but that's usually keeping up with inflation and cost of living.

          What I meant with that, for the nuance, is to go against the grain. You need to do something extra and really jump up the money ladder and increase your income above that. It's not solved by making sacrifices to get there… you need to study, work, and get promotions in your field (usually by jumping around). Once your income is sufficiently high enough, it is much higher probability of securing your own property.

      • eek on 18/04/2023 - 09:39
        +1

        Those who are company directors, take cash payments or work under some kind of company structure are VERY likely reporting a much lower income than their actual take-home pay or overall financial position. I believe the figures are skewed, yes. Only those who are working as employees are reporting their actual income by those statistics. As an example - I know people who have kids in private schools with over $25K in fees each year yet they receive Centerlink payments and have a health care card for being a low income earner. How does that happen?? Cash :)

        • yoquierotaco on 18/04/2023 - 14:16

          I’d be curious how they really get Centerlink…we have single income but still aren’t qualified 🤷🏻‍♂️

  • Unorthodox on 16/04/2023 - 23:45
    +29

    Similar with the Medicare and health crisis, to really make significant change will require significant policy changes and time.

    People complaining about long term investment in infrastructure like transport, rail etc are the reason why the problem has grown like a cancer.

    Looking to what's achievable in the near term and paving the way for longer term:

    Federal budget

    1. Reduce immigration so that the rental crisis doesn't keep worsening
    2. Limiting of short term rentals through the likes of Airnbnbs and removal of tax incentives/taxing them more for vacancies
    3. The states have a vacancy tax, start enforcing it
    4. Claims on negative gearing compared to market rent
    5. Limit on # of investment properties allowed for negative gearing etc
    6. Stricter building standards - too much to go into detail here but everyone should understand what I'm getting at
    7. Public housing triaging needs to be reviewed and tenants accountable for upkeeping and actually taking care of their provided housing
    8. Partnerships with PPPs that build for University accommodation to build out community living instead of residential developers simply building out single apartments etc there needs to be better utilisation of community builds where apartments, housing etc are in communities with adequate infrastructure

    A bit of a random type up on mobile but there's definitely a lot that can be done which can lead to things actually moving into the right direction

    • Based Bargainer on 17/04/2023 - 16:12
      +2

      2,3,6, are Greens party policy
      probs 4,5,7,8 of some variation

      • Protractor on 19/04/2023 - 09:55
        +1

        Judge the policy, not the author. This country is stuck in football team mode, when it comes to elections.

        I would add cracking down on foreign ownership, and revisiting the mining magnates who use foreign money and dodge local tax.
        I would also denounce Murdoch as an enemy of Australia.On his climate change agenda alone he has cost us trillions and enabled irreversible harm, now and going fwd. Now that Fox has coughed up for peddling BS, we should sue Rupert before he croaks? Buy a house for everyone.

        • pizzaking on 25/04/2023 - 18:09

          How about a solution that results in more development. Nothing will be solved without it and we will have a bunch of extra taxes and regulations which make it even more shit than it already is

          • Protractor on 26/04/2023 - 09:35

            @pizzaking: Your logic is upside down. Development got us in the environmental mess we can't breed our way out of.
            A future where having a house on a dead inhabitable planet is social justice?
            Capitalism doesn't create resources,it consumes them. And resources are finite.

            You're right about one thing. It's all going be more 'shit' going fwd.Housing being way down the list.Surviving at the top.Half of fit ppl under 30 will be living in barracks in a few years if the warmongers have their way. It looks like they will.

            Uncle Sam needs YOU!>

    • leiiv on 17/04/2023 - 18:36
      +2
      1. Reduce immigration so that the rental crisis doesn't keep worsening

      That's like a band aid short term solution. Instead, the immigration quota should be heavily shifted to construction industry. Eg, make building cost much cheaper.

      • Minimum chips on 17/04/2023 - 19:03
        +1

        This would help and I like it, but it will be very difficult to discern who the genuinely skilled tradespeople are. Our current systems are designed to assess professionals with degrees, not who can safely install insulation which has to last 60yrs.

        Not impossible of course, but a tricky adjustment that will require flexible creative thinking from a buerocracy which some would say lack those skills.

        • leiiv on 17/04/2023 - 21:25

          Other countries can do that (Singapore, few Arab countries) to build their mega projects. Australia do that too (importing slave cheap labour) for the agricultural industry.
          Both the major parties don't have motivation to fix the problem, because they won't lose vote anyway.

          • RefusdClassification on 18/04/2023 - 06:58
            +1

            @leiiv: The Gulf state model is great. Let people in on temporary work visas but prevent them from ever becoming citizens (and thus qualifying for the myriad of expensive welfare programs that states provide for their citizens). If Visa workers become unable to support themselves financially, they get a plane trip back home.

            The problem Australia has is that there are enough potential workers but most of them are university educated job snobs who don't want to work in blue collar jobs like in construction, farming, nursing homes, and hospitals (as nurses). Import Visa workers for these positions.

            • greatlamp on 21/04/2023 - 07:54
              +1

              @RefusdClassification: The high proportion of degree educated Aussies is also a result of policy. It was never backed up with the 'good' jobs that education was supposed to open up.

              Getting any sort of degree in science is a path to unemployment in this country.

              So here we are, working a trade now pays more than most white collar jobs, and white collar jobs have had no wage increases for more than a decade

        • Protractor on 19/04/2023 - 09:57
          +1

          You would want to be picky where you get the proper tradies, not the general overseas standard crap

      • Unorthodox on 17/04/2023 - 19:14
        +1

        Yeah I would have expanded on the whole skilled workers list etc if I had time and the mind to write it up.

        We definitely need to stop the whole visa for oversaturated roles like accountants, engineers etc when their experience and degrees aren't going to lead to them actually utilising it.

        We should bring in more tradies and expect better quality, in fact we should play on that whole 'immigrant mentality' and push for higher effort leading to visas, residency and public housing.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join