How Many People Here Are Secretly Scared of an Increase in Housing Supply?

AustriaBargain on 07/02/2024 - 15:07

“We have consistently said, including to the Greens, that the key to the solution for housing in this country is housing supply" - Albanese

If housing supply were raised to such a degree that house values in most areas dropped dramatically and rents stabilised back to where they used to be years ago, that would mean people with investment properties could lose out on hundreds of thousands of dollars that they otherwise would have eventually realised. If supply was aggressively dealt with and the bubble outside of inner and Harbourside Sydney popped for good then some investors could lose millions.

How many people here who own investment properties, or whose parents own some, are secretly scared of house prices being lowered sometime in the future and rents going way down? Do you feel your own wealth, or wealth you stand to inherit one day, is being attacked by talks from the PM and endless talk from the Greens about tackling housing supply and ending incentives for investment in existing properties?

Financial

Comments

  • jv on 07/02/2024 - 15:14
    +143

    If housing supply were raised to such a degree that house values in most areas dropped dramatically

    Keep dreaming…

    • pharkurnell on 07/02/2024 - 15:32
      +30

      More chance of walking on the sun in thongs.

      • Duckie2hh on 07/02/2024 - 15:40
        +89

        More chance of an apartment being built without defects.

        • Jimothy Wongingtons on 07/02/2024 - 15:44
          +13

          i often wonder if site inspections will ever do an ep where they actually find a house where EVERYTHING actually meets the minimum building codes.
          Just to say, hey, this is actually how its done.

        • Creamsoda on 10/02/2024 - 18:56
          +1

          Defects will disappear if the apartment is developed by Coronation Property. Pretty sure site inspections will give their developments a perfect score once his given a few bottles of flammable alcohol.

          It's not like our Ponzi real-estate industry is filled with faecal scummy criminals from tradies on centerlink healthcare card with ford raptors to fresh out of high school real-estate agents with BMWs. Attracting upstanding individuals such as Salim Mehajer and Richard Pusey in this productive industry.

    • payless69 on 10/02/2024 - 18:09
      -1

      Albo's uncle Joe is letting endless ferrals crossing the southern border.

      Looks like we are going to be in for a few 100,000 refugees from the Near East.

      Hope they will all be placed into AustriaBargain's backyard.

    • CalmLemons on 10/02/2024 - 21:32

      Exactly this.

      Our backlog of dev jobs is 2-3 years atm, meaning jobs that were meant to start building 2 years ago are only just starting now.

      My other dev friends who normally build 2-4 townhouses have stopped doing these and have moved on as building these types of houses are no longer feasible anymore.

      Unless you're talking about hundreds of thousands of high rise units being built, you're not going to have an over supply of housing for at least the next 20-30 years - if that ever even happens which is highly unlikely because we don't even have the labour/skills atm to build the stuff now.

      I know private builders doing boutique houses who are literally getting guys off the street for random labour.

  • Gdsamp on 07/02/2024 - 15:22
    +14

    No

  • webtonmoy on 07/02/2024 - 15:24
    +23

    I can't see it going down substantially. May be flatten the price for a while. Also, based on how our government works, there is almost no chance of having an oversupply of houses.

  • hasher22 on 07/02/2024 - 15:30
    +19

    The government won't allow oversupply nor prices of homes will come down due to oversupply.

    I can see rent going down a bit due to oversupply but not home prices.

    Furthermore, oversupply isn't the answer. Other key areas such as people (international and local) buying just to park their money and not renting the homes out.

    There are currently a lot of vacant homes, from memory there's like 50,000 vacant homes in Sydney alone based on the census, the government needs to find these homes and see if it can be habitable.

    Stopping foreign purchase is a start, they want to tax them higher but we all know international investors have money thus taxing them more lines up the governments pockets and it's not a solution to the overall health of Australia.

    • inertia8 on 09/02/2024 - 12:24
      +1

      There is a vacancy residential land tax in Victoria.. I believe it's along the lines of.. if property is vacant for 12 months prior to review date it is 1% of capital improved value, 12 months it's 2% of CIV, 36 months 3% of CIV.

    • Baghern on 09/02/2024 - 15:12
      +1

      from memory there's like 50,000 vacant homes in Sydney alone based on the census

      Another sucker to drama headlines

  • mrkorrupt on 07/02/2024 - 15:32
    +96

    are people really that selfish that they look down on the people without and 'fear' that their privilege is taken away from them so that other can have a chance at buying a residence.

    • fantombloo on 07/02/2024 - 15:54
      +39

      Not really surprising when our current economic system encourages, even glamorises, hoarding.

      • deme on 07/02/2024 - 16:49
        +17

        Do you use Medicare? Roads? Etc

          • deme on 07/02/2024 - 16:50
            +7

            @Jaduqimon:

            why would they want randoms to benefit at their expense?

            How are they funded?

            • Jaduqimon on 07/02/2024 - 16:51

              @deme: Through my tax and car Rego

              • deme on 07/02/2024 - 16:51
                +4

                @Jaduqimon: And who benefits?

                • Jaduqimon on 07/02/2024 - 16:51
                  -4

                  @deme: Me

                  • deme on 07/02/2024 - 16:52
                    +7

                    @Jaduqimon: Anyone else?

                    • Jaduqimon on 07/02/2024 - 16:52
                      -2

                      @deme: Yes everyone that's eligible still not seeing the point.

                      • deme on 07/02/2024 - 16:53
                        +11

                        @Jaduqimon: I know you don't.

                          • deme on 07/02/2024 - 16:56
                            +28

                            @Jaduqimon: 🤣🤣🤣 just look at America.

                            So who's actually selfish

                            You, so much so you'd rather pay more just so others suffer.

                          • AustriaBargain on 07/02/2024 - 20:26
                            +11

                            @Jaduqimon: Almost everyone is a net beneficiary compared to the US system. Insurance administration alone accounts for 15–30 percent of health care spending in the US, vs just 2-5 percent for single payer healthcare.

                            • larndis on 08/02/2024 - 11:16
                              +1

                              @AustriaBargain: If almost everyone is a net beneficiary, where does the money come from?

                          • Randolph Duke on 08/02/2024 - 13:57
                            +2

                            @Jaduqimon:

                            I would elect to pay for my own medical expenses and opt out of Medicare levy if could and most people who can afford it would also.

                            Rubbish - I would wager decent money many people have private health to avoid the 1.5% surcharge, not because they see value for money. Those rubbish policies with barely any coverage are popular for a reason.

                            • Jaduqimon on 08/02/2024 - 14:01
                              -3

                              @Randolph Duke: the reason they are rubbish is because they know you only buy it to avoid the 1.5% surcharge.

                              I'll buy the better plan if i didnt pay the 2% compulsory levy

                              • Exorcist on 08/02/2024 - 20:37
                                +1

                                @Jaduqimon: I hope nothing happens to you or your family, I’d die laughing if it happens

                              • yoshi864 on 08/02/2024 - 23:31
                                +4

                                @Jaduqimon: Absolute loser take. Australia was built on social systems such as Medicare.

                              • Smol Cat on 08/02/2024 - 23:56
                                +6

                                @Jaduqimon: Just hand in your citizenship coz you sound like a shiz cunz. UnAustralian.

                          • Brianqpr on 09/02/2024 - 16:38

                            @Jaduqimon: You pay a lower levy if you have private health cover.

    • Ghost47 on 07/02/2024 - 16:52
      +3

      Oh my sweet summer child.

    • CoreArchitect on 08/02/2024 - 10:33
      +1

      I'm not a property investor - but I know that a fair few of my friends are. TBH - from my observation, they invest for their families financial future. And it aint easy for them, some of them really struggle to fund their investments. So the whole notion that an investor shouldn't fear the capital value of their investment dropping is ludicrous! I can't believe it doesn't sound crazy in your own head…

    • Randolph Duke on 08/02/2024 - 13:55
      +2

      are people really that selfish

      Yes

    • thanatos350 on 09/02/2024 - 15:09
      +1

      It's not even privilege being taken away, it would just be corrected to a point that was already too high to begin with.

      I'm not even particularly averse to capitalistic perspectives (something along the lines of we all would if we could yada yada yada), but the pursuit of wealth has to at least be tempered by some level of regard for other people.

      I'm not even sure if OP is legit or just writing satire for a bit of a giggle.

  • Drpepper666 on 07/02/2024 - 15:33
    +26

    The scenario you described is pure fantasy and will never happen.

  • Jaduqimon on 07/02/2024 - 15:34
    +6

    there is no way to address supply unless they start building in woopwoop, then people wont want to live there.

    unless you rezone everything within 20km of CBDs to R4, supply will continue to be a bottleneck.

    put it this way, if the economy got to a point of a housing crash, then those without houses will still be worse off than those who do.

    • leiiv on 07/02/2024 - 15:49

      if the economy got to a point of a housing crash, then those without houses will still be worse off than those who do.

      Why is that so?

      There is a way to address supply as long as there is a will. It may take a while, but it can happen.
      As you said, why wouldn't we rezone everything within 20km of CBD? Or even just within 1-5km of every suburb centres.
      So rezoning will address the land supply. The other two things needed to increase supply are reducing red tape (much quicker DA approval) and reducing building costs. I believe someone smarter than me will know how to reduce building material and labour costs.

      • JDMcarfan on 07/02/2024 - 16:06
        +2

        gotta put in the infrastructure before developing.
        not too sure about other cities (i'm sure the smaller ones with forgiving geography like Adelade, Canberra, Newcastle would be fine), but Sydney is crowded in the inner-city area and has a lack of infrastructure to facilitate rapid rezoning (its barely catching up with existing projects as is).
        blanket approving rezoning won't be the best, but relaxing historical use restrictions, freeing up vacant blocks, and replacing existing buildings with multi-use (commercial, office, residential) buildings is a good start and promoted city building policy.

        • Jaduqimon on 07/02/2024 - 16:20
          +7

          yes hence the supply issue will not be solved in the forseeable future in major cities. government should perhaps incentivise employment or businesses to open shop in non-major cities through tax incentives.

      • kiitos on 08/02/2024 - 11:12
        +2

        So rezoning will address the land supply. The other two things needed to increase supply are reducing red tape (much quicker DA approval) and reducing building costs. I believe someone smarter than me will know how to reduce building material and labour costs.

        These factors also can lead to shoddy and dangerous building construction, with subsequent financial impact to the buyers, or all of us due to bailouts.

      • larndis on 08/02/2024 - 11:26

        @leiiv Because a significant fall in house prices would only occur due to a bad recession (a sudden massive increase in supply is not feasible for many reasons).

        The recession would impact those with and without property. Access to home loans would be restricted.

      • Jake D on 08/02/2024 - 12:50

        re-zoning doesn't force development though. It just makes it possible.

    • AustriaBargain on 07/02/2024 - 16:01
      -2

      Convince renters that popping the bubble will cost them more money in the long run. Found the investor I think…

    • JIMB0 on 07/02/2024 - 18:02
      -1

      unless you rezone everything within 20km of CBDs to R4

      Then prices of existing property with land content will rise substantially as opposed to crashing like the OP is hoping for. Prices of existing high density property would likely fall as has happened around Melbourne CBD in the past when supply was increased.

  • star-ggg on 07/02/2024 - 15:41
    +4

    House prices no. Apartment prices yes

  • Drakesy on 07/02/2024 - 15:41
    +23

    Lol, Australia won't have this issue ever.

    Australia is, on a world scale always going to have a net positive immigration given its living standards oh and as long as we're permitting foreign investors won't have cheap housing on offer.

    Developers are artificially witholding releasiing land to always constrain supply (this and investors holding onto loss making houses whilst taxpayers subsidise their poor investment decisions).

    No amount of Domain & Realestate fearmongering will result in a net oversupply.
    We had it in perth briefly however that's purely mining based as it's boom bust. The east coast is largely constant.

    Only ones scared are the investors & house hoarders. TBH have no sympathy for either of these.

    • mskeggs on 07/02/2024 - 16:03
      +19

      Every time I read somebody saying immigration doesn’t impact home prices, I remember the ghost villages of Italy, Japan, France etc. where there is more homes than people. You can buy an apartment for 30,000euro, because the towns are shrinking as people leave or die.
      If we dropped immigration to just 200,000 per annum, slightly below the outbound numbers, houses would reprice in a few years.

      Someone will come along and say, what about during COVID? To which I respond, prices did fall when the outlook was very uncertain, but once it became clear the government would resume usual migration as soon as possible, prices lurched up again.

      • Drakesy on 07/02/2024 - 16:05
        +11

        Yup,

        Government's infrastructure and health system was already straining under the population, so why not add another 500k a year and throw some fuel on the fire for good meausure!
        Unemployment is starting to uptick whilst people's standard of living is plummeting. Even my friends who were immigrants from some 15 years ago agree that we've cooked it and should cap it asap.

        • moar bargains on 08/02/2024 - 13:25
          +3

          Unemployment is starting to uptick whilst people's standard of living is plummeting.

          Free market will sort it out. Once our living standards have dropped below that of the next best place to live, all the migrants will want to go there instead, and the problem will be solved.
          ~ Australian Government, probably

      • Jaduqimon on 07/02/2024 - 16:14
        -2

        why drop immigration? I don't see a problem getting people to come to AU if they are a net contributor to the country. Refugees, no, skilled migrants yes please.

        • mskeggs on 07/02/2024 - 16:54
          +6

          I’m probably the opposite, I’d prioritise humanitarian immigration over commercial/financial.
          The problem is people arriving in excess of those leaving need accommodation from the first night, and at best, maybe their increased labour can result in more house building later on.

          So we’ve seen house prices grow unreasonably high.
          By all means add further migrants later if the resource limits are addressed. And the biggest of those is the house prices impoverishing young people.

          • Jaduqimon on 07/02/2024 - 16:56
            +3

            @mskeggs: So you'd rather migrants come and become a drain on our economy than to contribute?

            • mskeggs on 07/02/2024 - 16:59
              +20

              @Jaduqimon: Why would a refugee be a drain? Heaps of refugees have contributed mightily. I just judge their need much greater than someone not in dire straits.

              • Jaduqimon on 07/02/2024 - 17:00
                +3

                @mskeggs: Yes some refugee on an individual basis no doubt will be contributors but in aggregate a bunch of screened, skilled migrants coming to au will in aggregate benefit au more than a bunch of refugees

        • brendanm on 07/02/2024 - 17:25
          +5

          Yes, I too love a worse standard of living.

          • Jaduqimon on 07/02/2024 - 17:45
            +2

            @brendanm: Are you saying skilled migrants lower your standard of living?

            • brendanm on 07/02/2024 - 18:03
              +7

              @Jaduqimon: All do. More people equates to higher house prices, more traffic, and more strain on services.

              • CoreArchitect on 08/02/2024 - 10:39
                +3

                @brendanm: I don't think it has to be that way. We just need to manage population growth better, and regulate it based on our ability to develop infrastructure.

                I guess the first step of that is to stop electing numties. However, the challenge is how to attract the bright, experienced minds to politics - that's the tougher thing to figure out in democracy.

              • larndis on 08/02/2024 - 11:28

                @brendanm: @brendanm what about the skilled migrants delivering those services?

                • brendanm on 08/02/2024 - 11:42
                  +5

                  @larndis: You don't have to tag people if you are already replying to them.

                  what about the skilled migrants delivering those services?

                  What about them? They still put upward pressure on everything. Half the "skilled migrants" we get in are doing ubereats.

                  • larndis on 08/02/2024 - 11:51

                    @brendanm: They put upward pressure on everything? So a newly arrived doctor consumes more healthcare than they provide?

                    • brendanm on 08/02/2024 - 19:28
                      +1

                      @larndis: It's almost like there is more to it than just healthcare.

                      • larndis on 09/02/2024 - 07:09
                        +2

                        @brendanm: Of course, does my example apply less for other professions? Skilled migration addresses skill shortages but more importantly boosts the tax base so the Australian government can continue to afford the age pension, Medicare, NDIS, etc. It's not going anywhere without very significant cuts to government spending.

                        • brendanm on 09/02/2024 - 23:39
                          +2

                          @larndis:

                          Of course, does my example apply less for other professions?

                          You simply missed the point completely.

                          Skilled migration addresses skill shortages but more importantly boosts the tax base so the Australian government can continue to afford the age pension, Medicare, NDIS, etc.

                          How's GDP per capita going?

                          • larndis on 10/02/2024 - 08:07
                            -1

                            @brendanm: How's the budget going?

                            • brendanm on 10/02/2024 - 10:08
                              +2

                              @larndis: Poorly? Same as GDP per capita.

                                • brendanm on 12/02/2024 - 15:36

                                  @larndis: Imagine thinking that having a surplus means the budget is good 😂😂😂😂

                                  • larndis on 12/02/2024 - 20:41

                                    @brendanm: Well, governments tend to favour surpluses as they are generally popular with voters (among other reasons).

                                    What's your ideal deficit then?

                                    • brendanm on 13/02/2024 - 17:27

                                      @larndis: There is no "ideal deficit" or "ideal surplus". Funding to education, policing, health sector etc is more important.

                                      • larndis on 13/02/2024 - 17:55

                                        @brendanm: Sure, those things are all important. And skilled migration is one of the ways we cover the ever increasing costs of government services. It's a Ponzi scheme, and Ponzi schemes generally don't end well when the cash inflows dry up.

                                        • brendanm on 13/02/2024 - 18:23

                                          @larndis: If we stop, and reverse, all migration, there isn't the strain on services, housing etc that we currently have.

                                          The Ponzi scheme is endless migration to prop up GDP.

                                          • Jaduqimon on 13/02/2024 - 18:24
                                            +1

                                            @brendanm: Nahhh who's gonna deliver my Uber eats and doordash?

                                          • larndis on 13/02/2024 - 21:43

                                            @brendanm: I haven't heard any suggestions to make up for the lost tax revenue, you seem to be conveniently ignoring that part. If you're happy to pay higher taxes every year then your plan might work.

                                            • brendanm on 14/02/2024 - 00:12
                                              +1

                                              @larndis: It's very simple, they start actually taxing corporates, rather than allowing them to make billions here, while avoiding tax. God forbid the government have to actually do any work though, much easier to just take more from the working populace.

                                              • Jaduqimon on 14/02/2024 - 00:14

                                                @brendanm: Which corporate that made billions in profit and is not being taxed?

                                                • brendanm on 14/02/2024 - 00:14

                                                  @Jaduqimon: Is that how you read that?

                                                  • Jaduqimon on 14/02/2024 - 00:23
                                                    +1

                                                    @brendanm: "rather than allowing them to make billions here, while avoiding tax."

                                                    How else do I read that?

                                                    • brendanm on 14/02/2024 - 08:22

                                                      @Jaduqimon: There are two options. The first, is that I was referring o to each company making billions. The second, is that I was referring to them as collectively making billions.

                                                      • Jaduqimon on 14/02/2024 - 09:15
                                                        +1

                                                        @brendanm: Either way, 1. Name the companies that are making the billions and not paying tax.

                                                        1. Give examples of the companies in the collection that have made profits and paid no tax.
                                                        • brendanm on 14/02/2024 - 12:21

                                                          @Jaduqimon: Have a look at apple, Microsoft, google, dp world etc.

                                              • larndis on 14/02/2024 - 08:06

                                                @brendanm: Yep, the tax system is 'very simple'. You're obviously a subject matter expert, maybe you should work for the ATO.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join