Unofficial OzBargain Mortgage Stress Poll

Trying2SaveABuck on 07/11/2023 - 17:24
Last edited 07/11/2023 - 18:26 by 1 other user

So the basket case, house of cards, Ponzi scheme that is the Australian economy that is already in a per-capita recession has just been hit with its 13th interest rate hike - I'm sure this will be in economics text books in a decade or so from now about how over-leveraged borrowers took on way too much debt in a time when the cash rate was effectively zero and got caught in the biggest debt trap anyone who is alive today has ever seen.

HOWEVER - OzBargain is full of savvy individuals, with financially literacy - those of you with home loans I'm sure didn't borrow anywhere near to your max and have a large amount of financial armour to shield them in what is turning into a situation that will be very dire for many Australians.

But I ask the question, are you stressed about your home loan debt repayments/ debt levels?

I'll try to keep 'context' in the polls - let's keep this for PPOR - not investors.

The interest rates are the highest they have been in 12 years, essentially my entire adult life the cash rate has been lower…..I wonder if I'm not the only one….

Update - I'll add an extra layer for those trying to 'buy their own home' as 'somehow' prices are still rising but borrowing power is dropping.

Poll Options

  • 230
    Stressed have had a home loan less than 5 years
  • 118
    Stressed have had a home loan greater than 5 years
  • 685
    Not Stressed
  • 141
    I dont have a PPOR loan
  • 58
    I want to buy my PPOR this makes it harder
Financial Home Loan Loan

Comments

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 07/11/2023 - 17:26
    +58

    That’s my secret, cap. I’m always stressed.

    • Almost Banned on 07/11/2023 - 17:39
      +5

      no cap

    • Groovyuvi on 07/11/2023 - 18:16
      +2

      Ngl, that hits different!

    • Dreamcast on 08/11/2023 - 14:26
      -2

      If you need to talk about it, I'm not here to help.

      • Jimothy Wongingtons on 08/11/2023 - 14:28
        +8

        U already helped with nights into dreams and crazy taxi

        • Dreamcast on 08/11/2023 - 14:40
          +4

          I take it back. I'm here for you any time 🙃

        • serpserpserp on 09/11/2023 - 11:04
          +2

          Nights into dreams was Sega Saturn

          • Jimothy Wongingtons on 12/11/2023 - 19:47

            @serpserpserp: True

            Wouldn’t know, only had Sega genesis till circa 2001 :’)

            Only got to play nights into dreams on steam recently

  • Ozbar Gain on 07/11/2023 - 17:36
    +9

    We're really just trying to get into our own home. On the one hand increased mortgage rates put stress on home owners, hopefully easing up the property market a wee bit. But on the other hand, increased rates affect new buyers' affordability.

    In the end, all is vanity

    • Jimothy Wongingtons on 07/11/2023 - 17:38
      +7

      hopefully easing up the property market a wee bit.

      Cashed up overseas investors: 😎

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/11/2023 - 17:39
      +18

      its probably 'the worst' for people looking to enter the market for the 1st time - assuming you're renting

      you're being hit with rent rises, house prices are still rising according to data but for every .25 percent the cash rate rises reduces borrowing capacity by approx 1/7th and building a new house is getting more and more expensive and risky

      unless your salary is linked to inflation it is renters looking to get their own home that are hurting probably 'the most'

      the only people who probably 'have it worse' are the ones who are already unable to afford their home loan and this just makes it less possible to hold into their own home

      • Kangal on 08/11/2023 - 21:25
        +2

        This.
        There is power in the collective, people always forget that. If everyone banded together and said "No" to any rent increases, the system would start to heal. But we are too dumb. If the government doesn't mandate it for us, it seems not much gets done. So the people will lose while the winners would be the ones at the top of the (economic) food chain. Bankers, Developers, Investors, Politicians, REA, and some owners.

      • field1985 on 08/11/2023 - 21:58
        +2

        "for every .25 percent the cash rate rises reduces borrowing capacity by approx 1/7th"? Huh?

        How does that maths add up? We've had a 13 interest rate rises in a row.

        If each one decreased people's borrow capacity by 1/7th, their borrowing capacity would be 87% less than before rates rose. That's not the case… it's down maybe 20%, not nearly 90%.

    • Drakesy on 07/11/2023 - 18:34
      +8

      increased rates affect new buyers' affordability.

      Not if you're an international buyer and money is no object/using Australia as a property hedge

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 10/11/2023 - 11:55
        +2

        Not if you're an international buyer and money is no object/using Australia as a property hedge

        unfortunately this is 100% correct

  • Kongzi on 07/11/2023 - 17:49
    +3

    A case scenario to always stay in the market 🧐

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/11/2023 - 17:54
      +3

      unless the banks take your house and sell it for you….

  • MS Paint on 07/11/2023 - 18:01
    +10

    how over-leveraged borrowers took on way to0 much debt

    how financially illiterate borrowers took on way to0 much debt

    FTFY

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/11/2023 - 18:27
      +7

      hindsight is 20/20 but they wouldn't of been allowed to borrow that if they couldn't meet the banks stress test at the time - unfortunately the stress tests probably weren't made for such a seismic shift in the cash rate

      • apsilon on 07/11/2023 - 18:36
        +3

        It's not hindsight, everyone looking to buy should've known without a doubt that interest rates couldn't stay at the rock bottom where they were for the next 20+ years while they paid off a loan.

        • MS Paint on 07/11/2023 - 19:16
          +8

          So many people don't understand that the current interest rate is historically the norm.

          Covid rates were an extreme exception and were never going to stay that low especially over a 30 year mortgage term.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/11/2023 - 19:36
          +3

          It's not hindsight, everyone looking to buy should've known without a doubt that interest rates couldn't stay at the rock bottom where they were for the next 20+ years while they paid off a loan.

          i agree no one should of expected the cash rate to remain low but historically this is the fast rise in cash rate in Australian history - it would be unreasonable to plan for something that has 'never happen' before

          in hindsight it is common sense but im a bit more empathetic

        • Odin on 08/11/2023 - 09:01
          +14

          Literally nobody thought they would raise as fast and as high as they did.

          Yes. Everyone expected rates to rise. But over a longer period of time.

            • Odin on 08/11/2023 - 11:24
              +10

              @apsilon: That's total nonsense. It makes a huge difference to people.

              People base their choices on fixed vs variable on it.

              People pay down their principle and then might refinance after 5 years.

              And normal historically is no longer relevant when the last 15 years have been solidly under 5%> and the last 30 years averaging around 3%.

            • DS13 on 08/11/2023 - 12:28
              +4

              @apsilon: It kinda does though, because a 5 year period allows you to build up your offset/redraw more, build equity, and also one would reasonably expect wage increases over a 5 year period to make it easier to make repayments at 5%.
              A 1 year timeframe doesn't allow for any of that to happen, really increasing the financial pressure.

            • azero on 08/11/2023 - 12:44
              +1

              @apsilon: this is nonsense, incomes go up over time. Rates going up in 5 years is very different to going up the same amount within a year.

              Ex. if you are in a lower level position in IT, you will double your salary in around 5 years.

          • Drakesy on 08/11/2023 - 16:37
            -1

            @Odin: NGl, Australian's had the benefit of hindsight,
            We just had to look over at NZ noticed we were tracking the same way just some 4-6 months behind.

          • Chiang on 09/11/2023 - 07:27

            @Odin: Disagree. When the head of the reserve announced.the low rates he was really clear that their mechanism was the purchase of three year bonds. Said about five times during the speech. Also people should know that low rates and looser lending standards make asset prices take off.

            So you knew there was an end date and you also could predict inflation that would need to be headed off.

            Failing that you only needed a thirty year graph to know it was extremely unusually low.

            • Odin on 09/11/2023 - 08:46
              +4

              @Chiang: A thirty year graph shows an average of 3.9%

              Using that 30 year graph our current rates are high and we should expect a drop

              Past performance isn't indicative of future

        • ddilrat on 09/11/2023 - 12:47

          This is truth. I took out my loan at 3.58% variable. Made sure I could afford to pay it off at 15% even with worse case job loss and lower salary than when the loan began (which is unlikely)

      • brendanm on 07/11/2023 - 19:30
        +6

        People don't need their hands held, they should think about things like rate rises for themselves.

  • Drakesy on 07/11/2023 - 18:16
    +37

    Meanwhile those with savings are getting much better returns, thinking boomers who paid off their homes years ago who are now pushing money back into investment properties while those with mortgages eat 2 minute noodles.

    Food for thought is also that the pensioners/boomers are now incurring the highest amount of government subsidies which is the icing on the cake for the younger generation who's literally working to subsidise a pensioner who's paid off their house which is now worth $1 million+ as it's not means tested, utilising private insurance paid for by workers solely trying to reduce their tax bill, and taking meds paid for by the PBS. Oh and get subsidised power, are able to "gift" their money made from shares tax free to their kids so they don't cut into their pension, the list goes on.

    Gotta love this country, kick you when you're down and when you finally reach the pensioner age you likely won't even be eligible.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/11/2023 - 18:22
      +2

      i agree anyone who worked and paid tax for a decent period of time should get a pension regardless of wealth

      Australia should be a system that looks after everyone unfortunately young people are getting screwed but it is 'partly' their fault as they vote for socialism without understanding what it is

      • Drakesy on 07/11/2023 - 18:29
        +24

        Australia should be a system that looks after everyone unfortunately young people are getting screwed but it is 'partly' their fault as they vote for socialism without understanding what it is

        I think your definition of socialism is skewed.
        Almost all the subsidies benefitting pensioners were brought in by the conservative liberals….
        Labor wanted to kill off negative gearing and franking credit refunds, both of which would've benefitted the economy significantly.

        FYI the pension system costs Australia $200 billion a year and it's the only thing increasing at CPI.

          • Drakesy on 07/11/2023 - 19:02
            +2

            @Trying2SaveABuck:

            i know your an ALP voter so ill stick to pure facts without my 'opinions'

            Actually tend to oscillate between a couple of parties, but prefer to be informed and make decisions rather than follow a single party. Scomo was a dropkick though and did nothing for the liberals (personal opinion).

            negative gearing is used mostly by middle income individuals ie working millennials would probably be the biggest demographic - i agree there should be limits to it but keep that in mind it isnt just boomers

            Source/evidence?

            Labor increased taxes for middle income earners that the previous government had put in they also reduce the amount workers can claim when WFH and sole trades instant asset write off - most middle income workers are paying around 1500 more in tax then under the last government - ill also note the federal government is taxing income at the highest rates in history

            Evidence? And yes bracket creep is a real thing, its just more prevalent in the times of high inflation (caused by the liberal's expenditure)

            Franking credits are the main incentive to invest in the ASX otherwise no one would invest domestically as the S and P 500 outperforms the ASX200 consistently.

            Source/evidence? Oh and if you have to incentivise someone to invest in something, maybe then it isn't an investment. This statement is dubious at best though.

            Lets not forget that the previous liberal government spent almost a trillion dollars in handouts over the last 3 years, something that the future generations will be saddled with until they die.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/11/2023 - 19:13
              -2

              @Drakesy:

              Source?

              https://www.fool.com.au/2023/09/28/why-are-us-shares-doing-s…

              there are a few articles this is the easiest to read the sandp does around 11 percent pa over the long term the ASX is around 9 percent welcome to fact check

              Evidence?

              https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/income-deductions-offsets-and-records/tax-offsets/low-and-middle-income-earner-tax-offsets/#:~:text=Low%20and%20middle%20income%20tax%20offset%20(LMITO)%20ended%20on%2030,the%202022%E2%80%9323%20income%20year.

              'Low and middle income tax offset (LMITO) ended on 30 June 2022. This means it doesn't apply for the 2022–23 income year.'

              Table: Low and middle income tax offset (LMITO) for 2021–22 income year
              Taxable income

              Offset

              $37,000 or less

              $675

              From $37,001 to $48,000

              $675 plus 7.5 cents for every dollar above $37,000, up to a maximum of $1,500

              From $48,001 to $90,000

              $1,500

              From $90,001 to $126,000*

              $1,500 minus 3cents for every dollar above $90,000

              Source?

              common sense why would you invest in something if something else gives you a better return i also know a lot of fund managers the removal of franking credits would hurt Australia not help it kind of like the taxes on landlords have hurt renters not helped them - you need to understand what 'net impact' means

              You do remember that the previous liberal government spent almost a trillion dollars in handouts over the last 3 years, something that the future generations will be saddled with until they die.

              do you remember ALP and Greens wanted 'more' money spent including non Australians like Asylem seekers to be given larger benefits

              also the spending was supported in parliament by the ALP…..

              do you remember being in a recession despite going though fires floods covid and a war in europe….do you remember being in a cost of living crisis not seen since the great depression under 9 years of LNP

              im sorry LNP are average im not disagreeing but the ALP is is diarrhea and the proof is kind of in the pudding

              • Drakesy on 07/11/2023 - 19:15
                +2

                @Trying2SaveABuck: The funny thing is that labor is attempting to reign in spending while the liberals were effectively giving handouts left right and centre.
                Which is contrary to their political standing.

                do you remember being in a recession despite going though fires floods covid and a war in europe….do you remember being in a cost of living crisis not seen since the great depression under 9 years of LNP

                I do remember that we were in a recession prior under the liberals, before they showered Australia in free money. We're now more hungover than ever on cheap debt.

                • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/11/2023 - 19:17
                  -2

                  @Drakesy: as i said LNP are not perfect imho they are too left these days but the ALP/Greens rule we have now is worse and if you cant see that when ive actually given you the facts then that is up to you mate

                  Socialism isn't the answer if anything we probably need to be way more capitalitist to improve the wider population of Australians

                  i agree we need to stop the hand outs - but bring 500k people year to fudge the numbers isnt the solution to paying off debt matter of fact it is reducing wealth for Australians per capita having a net negative impact

                  supporting this government will only make you and most working Australians poorer in real terms

                  • Drakesy on 07/11/2023 - 19:27
                    +1

                    @Trying2SaveABuck:

                    Socialism isn't the answer if anything we probably need to be way more capitalitist to improve the wider population of Australians

                    100% agree with you there, socialism would only increase the pain, however we do need an equaliser to stop the runaway wealth gap.

                    i agree we need to stop the hand outs - but bring 500k people year to fudge the numbers isnt the solution to paying off debt matter of fact it is reducing wealth for Australians per capita having a net negative impact

                    Completely onboard here as well, immigration is the only thing propping up our economy and preventing our population from aging, this is to the detriment of organic population growth, we're heading the same way as Japan did some 20 years ago.

                    • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/11/2023 - 19:38

                      @Drakesy:

                      100% agree with you there, socialism would only increase the pain, however we do need an equaliser to stop the runaway wealth gap.

                      what do you propose becuz i dont agree with anything the ALP / Green or LNP want to do - to fix the situation bar reduce income tax

                      if it was me i'd remove income tax all together and have a really high consumption tax but that's just me

              • [Deactivated] on 09/11/2023 - 14:08
                +3

                @Trying2SaveABuck:

                'Low and middle income tax offset (LMITO) ended on 30 June 2022. This means it doesn't apply for the 2022–23 income year.'

                You need to learn what a tax offset is.

                People are still paying the same amount of tax, the difference is the ATO isn't refunding $1,500 as part of a "bonus" offset.
                The offset is applied at the last point in the calculation, reducing the amount of tax owed to the ATO and thus "usually" putting people in to the category of paying too much tax and getting the refund.

                It is NOT a situation of paying more tax. The same amount of tax is still being taken out during and after the low/middle income tax offset existed.

                https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/income-deductions-offsets…

                • Trying2SaveABuck on 09/11/2023 - 14:20

                  @[Deactivated]: People are paying more tax on the same earnings to the federal government in 2023 compared to 2022? Yes or No?

                  Have real wages gone up under the ALP?

                  You need to stop tweaking for a terrible government

                  Spin it anyway you want Australians are worst off under Albo regardless of SES

                  • [Deactivated] on 09/11/2023 - 14:21
                    +2

                    @Trying2SaveABuck: Nope.

                    Tax rates haven't changed.

                    Also:
                    https://www.dolmanbateman.com.au/blog/farewell-to-the-low-mi…

                    The Low & Middle Income Tax Offset (LMITO) was a tax rebate introduced by the Australian government in the 2018-2019 budget. It was designed to provide immediate tax relief for individuals earning between $48,000 and $90,000 per year. LMITO was initially introduced as a temporary measure to provide financial assistance to Australians during a challenging economic period.

                    • Trying2SaveABuck on 09/11/2023 - 14:22
                      -2

                      @[Deactivated]: Incorrect without the tax off set people are pay more tax now….

                      But ignore the facts thats ok

                      The numbers dont lie

                      • [Deactivated] on 09/11/2023 - 14:23
                        +7

                        @Trying2SaveABuck: https://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/Tax-rates---Australian-resident…

                        Tax rates HAVEN'T CHANGED.

                        You clearly have no idea how tax offsets work. The same amount of tax has been taken out regardless.
                        The LMITO offset was a rebate applied after a tax return is lodged.

                        You're the one clearly ignoring facts and talking out of your ass.

                        • Trying2SaveABuck on 09/11/2023 - 14:24
                          -3

                          @[Deactivated]: No you are just spinning it becuz your refuse to admot your wrong Australians are worse off under this government

                          This is a fact please dont comment against i cvf with people who refuse to admit they are wrong when the numbers dont lie

                          • [Deactivated] on 09/11/2023 - 14:25

                            @Trying2SaveABuck: Haha. You're right, the numbers don't lie, which is why I presented the FACTS with all of those links showing the tax rates are the same between 2020-2024 financial years.

                            You're an idiot.

                            • Trying2SaveABuck on 09/11/2023 - 14:27
                              -1

                              @[Deactivated]: Yes call someone an idiot when youre clearly wrong

                              Go back to year 10 mate and Complete general maths

          • SBOB on 08/11/2023 - 07:31
            +6

            @Trying2SaveABuck:

            Labor increased taxes for middle income earners that the previous government had put in

            Not extending a temporary tax measure is not the same as increasing taxes.
            What happened to sticking to 'facts'

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/11/2023 - 15:27
              -3

              @SBOB:

              Not extending a temporary tax measure is not the same as increasing taxes.What happened to sticking to 'facts'

              please give me a source pre-election when the ALP said they would remove this temporary measure?

              Albo said he would increase 'real wages' ie wage increase over inflation and taxation

              this is 'facts' i have been sticking to them - wages have no increased inline with inflation and with the 'removal' of those 'temporary' measure - net take home pay has dropped considerably….please tell me 'factually' where i am incorrect on this matter?

              Pre-election i liked most of what the PM said but factually speaking he and his party have pretty much not delivered on most of their promises

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 09/11/2023 - 14:23
              -1

              @SBOB: We arepaying more tax under this government is thay not a fact?

              Please answer truthfully!?

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 09/11/2023 - 14:29

              @SBOB: Paying more tax is a tax hike you can spinit anyway you want id say the same thing if it was the LNP taking power

              Your net income is better off in 22 then 23

              There has been no improvement in real wages and if anything take home salary HAS gone backwards

              These are FACTS
              The numbers DONT lie but ALP try hard seem to lie a fair bit

          • ForkSnorter on 08/11/2023 - 08:53
            +4

            @Trying2SaveABuck:

            negative gearing is used mostly by middle income individuals ie working millennials would probably be the 2nd biggest demographic - i agree there should be limits to it but keep that in mind it isnt just boomers

            A quarter of Australia’s property investments held by 1% of taxpayers, data reveals
            (Taxation office figures also show a clear majority of those investors are over the age of 50)

            Middle Australia earns $100,000 and has a negatively geared property? Not true
            (The benefits of tax cuts and deductions remain skewed towards higher income earners. It’s a distortion to say otherwise)

            Negative gearing and capital gains tax discount set to cost the budget $20 billion a year within a decade
            "Negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts work together to artificially inflate house prices, and turbo charge inequality, funnelling tens of billions of dollars into the pockets of the top 10 per cent of income earners in Australia,"
            "These tax concessions alone mean it is often easier for a property investor to buy their fifth house, rather than someone to buy their first home, and that's deeply unfair."

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/11/2023 - 15:33
              -1

              @ForkSnorter:

              A quarter of Australia’s property investments held by 1% of taxpayers, data reveals
              (Taxation office figures also show a clear majority of those investors are over the age of 50)

              the BULK of investors are middle income earners - and outside of the top 1% according to this….

              the issue isnt negative gear the issue is there is 'no limit' to negative gearing - as i said there needs to be 'limits' on properties a person can gear i would cap it would cap it at 2 properties this would stop the hording of >3 investments but would allow the middle income earners to still get benefit to the scheme and proved rental accommodation

              based on the article you post 75% of investment properties are owned by people outside the 1%

              Also the current PM has 5 investment properties…he isnt going to limit or remove negative gearing - but in all honesty if i didnt think it would kill the rental market i would support limits even the 'somewhat' removal of negative gear and/or the ability to claim depreciation on a PPOR

              LMAO

              for the record we are seeing 1st hand how making properties investment un-attractive to investors influences the market and it has hurt renters the most Victorian changes to land tax are a prime example of 'dumb' people who think taxing investors more will fix the market

              • ForkSnorter on 08/11/2023 - 15:50
                +8

                @Trying2SaveABuck: I think the question is why we need negative gearing at all. The problem is that increased activity in the market by investors has clearly pushed up property prices massively, negating any effect of negativing gearing making property more affordable to investors. It is a massive weight in the budget, and it's a massive concern for people who cannot, and perhaps will never be able to, afford to buy a house.

                If a policy aimed at making investing more affordable has the opposite effect, and the majority of negative gearing benefits and CGT discounts are skewed to the wealthiest Australians (I'm not going to continue to post evidence on this, because you seem to think your opinion is better than evidence) who don't need it and who are going to invest in property anyway, why not abolish it?

                • Trying2SaveABuck on 09/11/2023 - 14:34
                  -4

                  @ForkSnorter: Yes im the one who is ignoring the evidance….

                  Everytime i post evidance i get with dumb comments like its not a tax hike ur paying more tax but it wasnt a hike….

                  Or negative gearing bad even though most investors are middle income earners…..

                  I have said i think neg gearing needs limits but you look at the taxes and its effect on rents in Victoria and you realise removing negative gearing would do way more harm - it needs to be limited

                  I get tired of arguing with stupid people

                  If negative gearing is so great why don't you buy a property you can afford in whatever state and do it? Got and leverage yourself to stupid levels! Risk going bankrupt! Why not? Negative gearing it going to save you? Right? RIGHT???

                  • ForkSnorter on 09/11/2023 - 16:23
                    +3

                    @Trying2SaveABuck:

                    even though most investors are middle income earners…..

                    What do you define as “middle income earner”? A recent survey found that the median household income can only afford to buy a median-priced house in one state in Australia. That obviously means they can’t afford to buy an investment property on top of that.

                    The evidence shows that negative gearing and CGT benefits are skewed to high-income earners and the wealthiest Australians, funnelling tens of billions of dollars into the hands of the wealthiest Australians, meanwhile increased investor activity artificially inflates property prices, further driving inequality.

                    I just posted a bunch of evidence for this, which you ignored, and I doubt you read it.

                    you look at the taxes and its effect on rents in Victoria and you realise removing negative gearing would do way more harm - it needs to be limited

                    This is an opinion. There is no evidence for this.

                    There is a myth that removing negative gearing leads to higher rents. A fact-check that looked at all the data refuted this myth.

                    Another thing to note is that not all investors are placing their investment properties in the rental market. Some are putting them part-time on airbnb, so they can use the house themselves occasionally, while charging up to $3000 per night (depending on the area) as short-term accommodation, and negative gearing it.

      • DS13 on 08/11/2023 - 12:39

        Without any conditions? That is very generous minded of you.

      • R4 on 08/11/2023 - 15:49
        +2

        I'm not sure that's a good idea but that's how the UK does it - everyone gets a state pension (if they've contributed) regardless of whatever else they have. Their system works but their underfunded liabilities going into the future are enormous - national insurance goes nowhere near covering the outgoings.

        Agree about socialism. Socialism is loser politics - a mediocre system for mediocre voters.

        • thesilverstarman on 08/11/2023 - 17:30

          We are a socialist democracy. That's why we have public health, schools and social welfare. If you think that loser politics, you are clearly the loser.

          • R4 on 08/11/2023 - 17:36
            +2

            @thesilverstarman: We are ATM, but we've been the opposite in the past and will be again in future. You can have public health and welfare without being socialist - the US has welfare for instance. Only countries that have a strong private sector can afford those things in the long term anyway.

            Please keep your personal comments to yourself - we can discuss and debate without that sh1t.

            • thesilverstarman on 08/11/2023 - 17:40
              -1

              @R4: mediocre voters? Loser politics?
              I am not a mediocre voter. I have been involved in politics and ran for preselection for a federal seat for the Libs. A pure socialist doctrine is not good, but a socialist democracy with controlled capitalism is fair and equal.

              • R4 on 08/11/2023 - 17:50

                @thesilverstarman: Those comments were not directed at you or any other individual, therefore not personal - just my general musings on what I think about politics. Your comment was directed at me me personally. There's the difference. Please don't go personal - play the ball not the man.

                A socialist democracy is not that great. In theory it is but never underestimate the ability of government to f*** it up and start interfering in peoples lives too much - and overtaxing them - Australia in 2023 in other words. The best system is a low-taxing capitalist economy with a small government that can therefore afford to provide its people with all the gravy - medical, welfare, infrastructure etc.

            • us3rnam3tak3n on 09/11/2023 - 13:21

              @R4:

              You can have public health and welfare without being socialist - the US has welfare for instance.

              Whether you like it or not, public health and welfare are socialist policies. Also non-toll roads, public libraries, fire brigade etc.

              • Trying2SaveABuck on 10/11/2023 - 09:18

                @us3rnam3tak3n:

                Whether you like it or not, public health and welfare are socialist policies

                untrue the idea of public health started becuz 'poor people' where getting sick and making rich people sick thus it was worth the wealthier lords to provide clean water, basic health care to the poor population to protect themselves.

                Also ensured workers were less likely to take days off etc so it was overall better for businesses and rich people

                it is a totally capitalist idea and it is fantastic - it is another great thing capitalism brings to humanity - the USSR didn't have universal health care but the UK did

                • us3rnam3tak3n on 10/11/2023 - 10:38

                  @Trying2SaveABuck:

                  public health … is a totally capitalist idea

                  Wrong again. It is a socialist policy implemented by a predominately capitalist state (in your example). The motivation is irrelevant.

                  Not every action by a communist state is socialist and vice versa. Try to see past your own bias.

      • CowFrogHorse on 10/11/2023 - 09:14
        +1

        You obviously dont live in the real world, where not everything is perfect and hard decisions have to be made.

        Pensioners take a lot of benefits from the community its only fair they give back and pay for some of those benefits.

        WHy should Australians pay for their medical and more so they can gift their house to their kids ?

    • brendanm on 07/11/2023 - 19:27
      +8

      The "$1m house" was probably a piece of crap in a crap area back in the day, the value of their house has no bearing on their current standard of living.

      • Drakesy on 07/11/2023 - 19:33
        +1

        There's that,

        But on the contrary someone can sink their life savings, say $2 million into a house and qualify for the pension.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/11/2023 - 19:43
          +2

          But on the contrary someone can sink their life savings, say $2 million into a house and qualify for the pension.

          sure they can 'do that' but on a 2m house in Vic you would pay about 110k in duty [plus other fees] and your rates would be around approx 1-2 percent of the property value…..

          if that person was selling to move they would also need to pay an agent 1.5-2.5 percent of the sales fee for the house they are selling plus advertising…..the issue with your hatred of boomers is you read an article written by people who are too young or too stupid to understand how things work 'practically'

          it would probably take a decade of the pension to 'break even' on the upscale in property maybe longer and that is assuming that person lives that long

          • Drakesy on 07/11/2023 - 20:04
            +2

            @Trying2SaveABuck: I don't hate the boomers per sae
            Its the system thats design largely to support them which is the issue.

            I think liberals though may have a tough time getting back in as their voter base literally disappears.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/11/2023 - 12:58
              -4

              @Drakesy:

              I think liberals though may have a tough time getting back in as their voter base literally disappears.

              there is 'no such thing' as a 'voter' base and anyone who religiously supports a party is an 'stupid' - your not supporting a football team mate

              Bill Shorten was a shoe in according to polls …..but he was destroyed becuz his policies where garbage.

              Albo pre-election promises where poll opposite and actually (mostly) 'good promises' ie improve 'real' wages, reduce cost of living (energy), establish a Voice to Parliament (only thing i was against), establish an ICCA and improve aged care with 24/7 nurses - he has not achieved any of these things if we're being honest - he has about 12-18mo to come though otherwise i reckon he will lose the next election or at least loose a majority.

              Morrision promised and ICCA and didnt deliver it was one of the major broken promises that hurt him in the election in 2022 - If you think Albo is immune to promise break you're going to get a shock…

              I don't hate the boomers per sae, Its the system thats design largely to support them which is the issue.

              source? evidance?

              i reckon the system has screwed them the MOST bar the ones who horded properties and got 'lucky' from the housing boom boomers have been f—ked over. Essentially they worked in a time when taking sick leave could get you sacked, they were screwed by the destruction of manufacturing in which if you cold up-skill you ended up a factory pleb….they mostly didnt have super so most of the ones who are retired are now living on under min wage on a pension system that punishes you for saving a few dollars.

              The age care and health care system is the worst it has ever been just as they are hitting the ages in which they need it most…..

              THe CHILDREN of Boomers might be 'wealthy' due to property inheritance but Boomers imho actually had it fairly shit (not to mention all the wars they were needlessly part of)

    • JIMB0 on 07/11/2023 - 20:52
      +9

      Most boomers aren't nearly as well off as people on here like to make out.

      • Nugs on 08/11/2023 - 06:18
        +8

        Yep, my mum has near zero assets, just a 20 year old Toyota Echo and survives on her super.
        .

        • iCandy on 08/11/2023 - 09:27
          +3

          I’m a boomer and thanks to my exhusband not giving me any of his super when we split (my mistake, I trusted him), my son had to go halves with me to buy a 1 bedroom unit for me to live in or I’d be homeless.

        • Eeples on 11/11/2023 - 20:11

          Her super is an asset?

          Isn’t it?

    • 2esc on 08/11/2023 - 09:01
      +5

      I remember my parents (boomers) having to deal with interest rates in the late 80s nudging 20% they worked their guts out.

      The vast majority of pensioners in Australia don't have million dollar properties!

      • Some Human on 08/11/2023 - 09:49

        My best mate said the same thing (gen x). Sure his house only cost 90k house, but interest was at 17% and he was only earning $300 or $350pw. He had to take all the overtime just to make ends meet. After bills and other expenses, there wasn't much left at the end of the week.

      • Drakesy on 08/11/2023 - 10:16
        +1

        Interest rates may not be as high but affordability is just as bad if not worse now

    • R4 on 08/11/2023 - 15:54
      +2

      On the other hand, the upcoming wealth transfer from Western boomers, as they die off, to their children and grandchildren is going to be unprecedented in human history. The sums involved are truly mind-boggling.

    • RefusdClassification on 09/11/2023 - 08:48
      -2

      Retirees should be taxed on income at the same rate as workers. If someone withdraws $100,000 from superannuation in one year, tax them the same as a worker earning $100,000. Why should somebody who does nothing pay no tax, while someone who contributes something useful to the country gets heavily taxed.

      • MITM on 09/11/2023 - 12:46
        +3

        Retires have already paid tax during the working life and saved through Superannuation. Now you're suggesting his savings should be taxed again - double taxation. No body would bother saving.

      • R4 on 10/11/2023 - 17:12

        Nonsense. Rightly or wrongly, super is taxed at input and is tax free on withdrawal. Other countries, like the UK, do it the other way round but you can't do it both ways (well, you could but it would be stupid and counterproductive).

        • Eeples on 11/11/2023 - 20:12
          +1

          Tax free 60 or over.

  • Some Human on 07/11/2023 - 18:28
    +12

    No, I bought a house I could afford.

  • bobbified on 07/11/2023 - 18:29
    +1

    Check the classifieds section. There's going to be a few backsides on sale!

  • apsilon on 07/11/2023 - 18:38
    +2

    Does "I dont have a PPOR loan" mean "I don't have a loan because I rent" or "I don't have a loan because I own out right"?

    • MITM on 09/11/2023 - 13:07
      +1

      Correct

  • thatonethere on 07/11/2023 - 18:46

    I'm stressed but most annoyed as previously my extra payments are now the exact payment and i have had to slow down some of my other ETF investments to keep paying more than required.

    • brendanm on 07/11/2023 - 19:24
      +8

      That doesn't sound stressed.

      • thatonethere on 07/11/2023 - 19:34

        Well i feel the money is going into an ever widening hole. And im not saving as much.

        • brendanm on 07/11/2023 - 19:42
          +12

          Being able to easily afford your repayments, as well as make other investments still, is not mortgage stress.

  • tsunamisurfer on 07/11/2023 - 19:13
    +6

    No one should be stressed.

    Everyone should have been making repayments at 5% or more from Day 1 to build a buffer and to condition yourself to making financial sacrifices to paying it off faster.

    I was paying off my loan at around 7% and I didn't feel any movements of rates.

    In a 30 year commitment you cannot expect it to be at 0.25% RBA / 2.15% mortgage rate.

    • knobbs on 08/11/2023 - 10:36

      You shouldn't be stressed that your buffer has already lost 4% of the total 5% buffer you allocated and are only 1% away from not being able to meet it anymore? Jeez

  • brendanm on 07/11/2023 - 19:23
    +26

    Cost of living sky high.
    Living standards falling.
    Bank profits through the roof.
    Corporate profits through the roof.

    RBA - "Another rate rise will fix this"

    😂

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join