How Are People Affording Properties?

Ljam-donuts on 18/05/2024 - 21:29
Last edited 19/05/2024 - 10:45 by 1 other user

I am genuinely confused and wondering if someone can explain to me how people in Melbourne and Sydney are affording properties. I rent in the eastern suburbs in Melbourne and see a near 100 percent clearance of houses sold at auction for at least $1.7mil+ around me in the Monash area. That is 11k in repayments over 30 years! You wouldn't be able to afford that even with a salary of $250k.

Where is all this wealth coming from? Is the average income of an Australian $400k or am I missing something? And is the only possibility of homeownership for an average OzBargainer (with a salary of $200k -$250k) to buy a property in crime ridden suburbs on the outskirts of Melbourne or Sydney?

Financial

Comments

- - - - AustriaBargain on 22/05/2024 - 22:36
        
        -1
        
        @infinite:
        
        The private sector doesn't have to worry about that because they hire people based off merit and experience
        
        Eh, in theory anyway. In practice there are plenty of Christian private schools that will hire based on conforming to evangelical values rather than proven excellence in teaching or pedagogy in general. Really depends on the religion. Lutheran schools probably rank up there, but independent baptist schools that are boarded by "some church", like who knows what that board gives a (profanity) about. Guarantee it isn't the protection and success of their students.
        
        infinite on 23/05/2024 - 09:13
        
        @AustriaBargain: They sill hire staff based off merit and experience, only the public sector actively discriminates in it's hiring practices. Not only do they discriminate openly in the public system, they are actually proud of it. The results of that are obvious and plain for all to see.
        
        Not something that's an issue in the private sector, no matter what the faith or absence of faith the school is based on.
  - surg3on on 20/05/2024 - 23:11
    
    Yes. Until the population starts to drop. Once that happens though all bets are off
  - tonka on 20/05/2024 - 23:44
    
    -1
    
    History says the end game is generally a revolution, but there are plenty of countries further a long the wealth divide road than us, so it's still a long way off. An important part of government policy is meant to be maintaining a middle class to prevent this. But we we have something new coming along, automation, nobody really knows how that is gonna impact.
    - AustriaBargain on 21/05/2024 - 20:26
      
      I guess the housing bubble and shortage does accelerate young people voting for the Greens, which is a kind of revolution if they get enough votes.
      - tonka on 21/05/2024 - 21:58
        
        -1
        
        @AustriaBargain: In America where the divide is more pronounced, I think the majority vote for Trump was their initial revolution. The rejection of their political system and election of an outsider. Then the more and more pronounced political tribalism and battles in the courtroom instead of the polling booth. They even lost the Whitehouse to a mob (An absolute joke for the supposed superpower of the world). I'm not saying they're there yet, and I'm not advocating Trump, but they certainly don't seem to be taking it as a warning sign.
        
        AustriaBargain on 21/05/2024 - 22:18
        
        @tonka: I did a tour of the SA parliament and the guide said back in the old days there were dozens of "parties" and parliament was chaos, like constant shouting, emotions, etc.
        
        So I wonder if party unity is actually a net good thing, even if it means we got some of the absolute rotten turds the Coalition has made PM. Morrison giving himself secret emergency powers was absolutely disgusting. Abbott killing the NBN just because he could was foul. But would we even be in a position to roll out an NBN or have a national health plan if our government was just dozens of warring factions for the last 100 years?
        
        tonka on 22/05/2024 - 01:23
        
        @AustriaBargain: Makes sense. I think the best model may just take that stability a step further. Something like an elected Monarch with a 10 year term and a constitution and legal system to provide a fail safe. Nobody can achieve anything on the current election/popularity merry-go-round. And the idea that MPs represent the electorate and not their sponsors/lobbyists/family business is a joke.
reactor-au on 19/05/2024 - 07:54

+3

People who got on the property ladder 10, 20 years ago.
People with inheritance from people who bought property 30, 40 years ago.
- Kangal on 19/05/2024 - 11:42
  
  +13
  
  Worst decision of my life was to not buy a house when I was 8 years old.
  - Jaduqimon on 19/05/2024 - 13:24
    
    Absolutely worst decision. Shoulda took notes from this kid: https://www.kidsnews.com.au/money/australias-youngest-homeow…
    - Kangal on 20/05/2024 - 18:02
      
      So I would've needed parents to in $130,000 given to me as free-cash, and then just top it up with my $6,000 that i then "earned" from doing chores around the house to add to it. Only to then purchase that property in my 8 year old name for $670,000 which is to then appreciate years later into $1M.
      
      Yeah solid plan. Just missing all of the everything.
  - SlickMick on 19/05/2024 - 15:01
    
    Same story has been told throughout the generations, and will be for at least 1 more. i.e. my children bought houses, so I know it's still possible.
elgrande on 19/05/2024 - 08:21

+2

Outter suburbs of Melbourne (i.e Melton) currently represents the best value property available between Sydney and Melbourne.

Its underpinned by great infrastructure, an upcoming hospital and plenty of upside.

Spanian's visit doesnt accurately represent life in Western Melb.
- TEER3X on 19/05/2024 - 14:34
  
  +1
  
  I thought Melton was a complete shithole?
  
  Lots of inexpensive properties in Craigieburn too, not sure if that suburbs any good either though.
  
  I think the key right now is not to buy a, or near a, tobacconist.
- mrvaluepack on 19/05/2024 - 19:29
  
  Melton? No thanks…
- May4th on 20/05/2024 - 10:22
  
  +2
  
  look outer east around kilsyth / ringwood way as well
Trekky on 19/05/2024 - 09:22

+2

I've seen lots of granny flats going up too in Western Sydney. 10 Years ago, you were lucky to see one but now, in just 5 minutes walk around my house, there is at least 12 with one more going up and another being approved to go up (not started yet).

And the majority of these are rented out.

Then there was another house in my area that was sold 2 months ago and they have also gotten approval to build a granny flat. $860K for the house and the info on Blacktown Council's website, the granny flat is another $160k.
- Minimum chips on 19/05/2024 - 10:58
  
  Yeah, I see the sign for the granny flat builders everywhere in The Hills district.
kingsville on 19/05/2024 - 09:25

+1

$850k will still buy you a 3bdr townhouse in the inner west of Melbourne - well serviced by PT and 15mins drive to CBD in off peak.
- beesider on 30/06/2024 - 21:23
  
  Which suburbs, for example?
CascadeHush on 19/05/2024 - 09:28

+11

Your title says it all. Not “how to afford a home?” but how to buy a “property”. We have turned a basic human necessity into a financial instrument. There is no fixing that. The system is broken beyond repair.
- SlickMick on 19/05/2024 - 15:06
  
  +1
  
  Maybe it's not broken. Maybe ultimately the inner suburbs will be owned by the super wealthy, and the average Joe will either rent or commute from the sticks. I don't see why that would be a bad thing, and I don't see why it would be any other way.
  
  I also don't see why everyone assumes it's thier right to own a $1m property.
  - CascadeHush on 19/05/2024 - 15:10
    
    -1
    
    The property will be worth nothing when the population collapses. It's all predicated on the idea that their will be more people in the future and they will collectively have more wealth, and that is just not the case. The cities will be ghost towns, squatters will move in (it's already happening in NY and LA) and nobody will be around to pay money for anything. The entire system is stealing weath from future generations that won't exist.
    - SlickMick on 19/05/2024 - 15:16
      
      +1
      
      Yeah wait for that, and you can buy all the properties you like. But I thought you said there was no solution? Do you actually believe that is going to happen or not??
    - JIMB0 on 19/05/2024 - 15:31
      
      +1
      
      Dream on.
  - dylanando on 19/05/2024 - 20:30
    
    perhaps because the property isnt worth $1m.
- pogichinoy on 20/05/2024 - 01:39
  
  Residential housing has been an investment vehicle in every country for hundreds of years.
- AustriaBargain on 20/05/2024 - 15:34
  
  +1
  
  It’s a shame Australia doesn’t have anything better to invest in than homes. Apple shares bought 20 years ago would have gone up in value a lot more than any house in Australia. Why don’t we have our own Apple. And why are we practically giving away Bluey merchandising rights. And why do our TV and movies such, why don’t we have our own version of Hollywood.
Dollar General on 19/05/2024 - 09:41

+5

Start small, build equity and move up the property ladder.
- Kangal on 19/05/2024 - 11:45
  
  +10
  
  Old Soviet Saying:
  
  When I was young, it was rough, I was poor and life was hard. So I worked, and I worked really hard. And now after 50 years of constant hard work I am no longer young.
  - techno2000 on 19/05/2024 - 13:01
    
    I never understood this.
    The big property that you want will also likely double in price when your tiny unit doubles in price if ever.
    - Dollar General on 19/05/2024 - 14:39
      
      I’m not talking about a unit. Start small means take out a small mortgage on a property way out in the burbs. Population growth and urban sprawl means the value will increase over time.
gromit on 19/05/2024 - 10:24

+1

Dual incomes (with our broken tax system 2 people on 150k a year are $1500 a month better off than a single income family on $300k a year.
inheritance
upsizing
larger deposit
parents.

lots of path ways to afford it that don't require massive incomes (though of course that helps).
- p1 ama on 20/05/2024 - 01:13
  
  -4
  
  with our broken tax system 2 people on 150k a year are $1500 a month better off than a single income family on $300k a year
  
  We have a progressive tax system. The idea is that the more well-off pay more.
  
  If the 2 x $150k salary family are struggling, not much more they can do.
  
  If the 1 x $300k salary family are struggling, the other person can get a job.
  
  Being able to afford one family member not working is a luxury. That luxury ought to be taxed.
  - gromit on 20/05/2024 - 09:17
    
    +3
    
    THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. a family with a single income is not "more well-off", they are significantly worse off, the other partner may be not working for any number of reasons yet they are treated as rich despite getting significantly less as a family. The system needs to change to allow splitting of income.
    
    the truly amusing part is this is something the rich or those with businesses already avoid with income splitting, it is only the salary workers that get screwed in this way.
    - p1 ama on 20/05/2024 - 10:53
      
      -2
      
      a family with a single income is not "more well-off", they are significantly worse off
      
      You're making an odd comparison though.
      
      Let's say that we both make $300k. You go and get into a relationship with someone unemployed. Why should you now pay less tax?
      
      the other partner may be not working for any number of reasons yet they are treated as rich despite getting significantly less as a family. The system needs to change to allow splitting of income
      
      Why should society subsidise families who choose to have one member staying at home and not working?
      
      Even taking the previous example, a family with two working parents earning $150k each likely has to pay more in transportation costs to get to work, childcare costs…etc., aren't they the ones who deserve to pay less tax?
      
      the truly amusing part is this is something the rich or those with businesses already avoid with income splitting, it is only the salary workers that get screwed in this way.
      
      How do exactly do "the rich" do this?
      
      Those with businesses are broadly beyond this discussion because the tax implications of owning a business are complex and there are a whole bunch of loopholes which can be exploited by those who own a business which need to be closed. Just because there are tax loopholes for those who own a business doesn't mean that we should open tax loopholes elsewhere.
      - gromit on 20/05/2024 - 11:05
        
        @p1 ama: Its not an odd comparison at all, this has been an issue that has been called out as one of the much needed changes in our system. We constantly make rules around family and household, especially for benefits, yet when it comes to tax we do it on an individual basis. The reason it hasn't been fixed is similar to our broken tax creep problem, fixing it means an a hit to automatic tax hikes that are built into a system and governments like free tax increases.
        
        The rich do this easily as they tend to make their income from assets rather than salary so you can allocate asset income to your partner thus splitting the income.
        
        Why should society subsidise a family. I agree that we shouldn't, except that is EXACTLY what we do, large parts of the tax revenue are used to subsidise families especially in the areas of childcare and education. What I and others would like to see is a tax system that isn't suffering from Schizophrenia and is consistent in how it is applied.
      - richrichie on 20/05/2024 - 11:49
        
        @p1 ama: For the example you provided, if I'm earning 300K and get into a relationship with someone unemployed and form a family, the household deserve to pay less tax than a single income of 300K or be able to split the income, because that unemployed someone would no longer be treated as unemployed (if our imaginary tax changes make sense) and then be off from their original welfare payment like jobseeker/etc if they are not in a relationship?
        
        The nett tax effect shouldn't be that bad, and we are not penalising families that don't have the luxury to both work.
  - enzioFirenze on 20/05/2024 - 10:48
    
    +3
    
    This is a very narrowminded assertion, may be the partner is in uni learning? may be the partner is sick and cannot work, may be the partner is looking after multiple children; You just cannot generalize like that.
  - richrichie on 20/05/2024 - 11:02
    
    +1
    
    What's the logic behind one family member not working is a luxury that should be taxed? It is still the same total household income.
    
    The other family member could have various reasons & conditions that prevent them from working, yet the family has to pay considerable more tax for the same household income.
Ciderfizz44 on 19/05/2024 - 10:27

Stamp duty sucks donkey balls.. that is all
Grunntt on 19/05/2024 - 10:48

+1

see a near 100 percent clearance of houses sold at auction for at least 1.7mil+ around me in the Monash area

Don't accept those real estate defined figures at face value.

I'm not familiar with Melbourne geography so I just checked total Melbourne auction sales this week.

Domain use Sales/Reported (428/703) which results in 61% clearance rate.
They conveniently ignore any 'not reported'.
If you use Sales/Scheduled (428/921) you get a more accurate ~46.5%

So, even if your suburbs appear to have 100% clearance rate, there's a strong possibility that it's some creative math involved.
- cloudy on 19/05/2024 - 14:09
  
  Where did you find the number of scheduled auctions?
  - Grunntt on 19/05/2024 - 18:07
    
    +2
    
    Where did you find the number of scheduled auctions?
    
    Domain - Melbourne Auction Results
    You'll usually find an even greater disparity in figures for Sydney. This week - 68% vs 45%.
    Also, of note is that somehow they think anything sold at auction between Albury and the QLD border is to be counted as Sydney.
    A couple of examples this week - 337 Prior Rd, Bilbul is included even though it's near Griffith. 59 Shoreline Drive, Fingal Bay (north of Newcastle), 2 Shannon Street, Glenreagh (between Coffs Harbour and Grafton)
    - cloudy on 19/05/2024 - 18:46
      
      interesting, insightful, thanks
      - Grunntt on 19/05/2024 - 18:52
        
        @cloudy:
        
        interesting, insightful, thanks
        
        I don't know too many people that believe real estate agents/salepeople to be trustworthy.
        Why don't people don't spend some time to look at these sales claims that are made by them and their organisations?
        
        A lot just seem to accept whatever is presented without any effort at checking the accuracy of the claim.
        
        I believe many do have a genuine reason to worry about being able to afford a home but blindly accepting these sort of claims just makes peoples stresses worse for no real reason.
        
        cloudy on 19/05/2024 - 18:56
        
        @Grunntt: I wonder if these reported figures get updated later when those unreported results do get reported?? or do they all remain unreported forever??
        
        And is there any incentive to report? It looks like a good 80% do report regularly(even though 2/3 don't sell), so I'm wonder why a good majority do report and some don't.
        
        Grunntt on 19/05/2024 - 19:20
        
        +2
        
        @cloudy: According to a relative who works in that industry there is an implicit encouragement to not report non-sales.
        They are pretty sure the great majority, if not all, of the unreported ones are non sales.
        I tend to believe them about that.
        It would bring the clearance rates down significantly and agents would then find it much harder to convince people to sell at auction if there was a lower chance of selling.
        Sort of a don't ask/don't tell mentality.
        
        cloudy on 19/05/2024 - 20:19
        
        @Grunntt: I had the same suspicions when I first read your comment, certainly follows that agents want to report everything as rosey which help turn over property. The whole industry, government included (with stamp duties making being the top revenue item for some states) rely on property prices going up for a living.
        
        I’ve wondered for over a decade now if this ponzi will ever collapse.
        
        gromit on 20/05/2024 - 12:36
        
        @Grunntt: I don't get why the agents would want to go to auction then. Realistically an Agent wants a fast sale, hanging around for weeks to go to auction if the clearance rates are low is not in their best interests. For reference I just sold a house, the agent seemed pretty "honest", he advised against Auction as the price range we wanted was easily achievable and Auctions scare at least a percentage of buyers away and he said he could get us above that we wanted with an offers over advertisement (and he was right, got us an additional 60k).
        
        tonka on 20/05/2024 - 13:39
        
        @gromit: I suspect in some cases it's to help out their builder mates. I had my house sale locked under contract with the deposit in trust but transferable for use as a deposit. I wanted to buy a particular house at auction and it just wasn't possible as I couldn't provide the cash deposit on the day as it was a Saturday. The real estate agent practically chased me off.
        
        gromit on 20/05/2024 - 18:58
        
        +1
        
        @tonka: I don't quite get that, you do realise they rarely take cash deposits at Auction anymore, it is all through transfers with a system that works fine on weekends and if you talk to the agent/auctioneer beforehand they will generally approve the transfer happening the following monday if really needed as the reality is once you buy at auction you are legally tied to providing the deposit anyway and unless huge amount of bidders they always want another in the mix.
        
        tonka on 21/05/2024 - 22:06
        
        @gromit: Yes I expected a functional process like you've described. I got an absolute refusal to accept a transfer from my solicitor on the Monday, as a cash buyer. They would only accept an immediate bank cheque. I don't know if that's normal on any level, but how would you even have a bank cheque on a Saturday if you didn't know the price and that you were gonna be successful. Agents are just too often shonky I reckon, I actually caught one hiding in a bush ease dropping once..
        
        gromit on 21/05/2024 - 23:11
        
        +1
        
        @tonka: With a bank cheque what you do is organise it on a friday (or saturday morning if you have a bank open on a sat). Obviously you can't know the exact amount so you get it written for the 10% of the maximum you are willing to bid on the property (or 5% if you have prior approval which most will accept).
        
        Drakesy on 20/05/2024 - 16:58
        
        @Grunntt: bingo, in WA when there's 15 auctions planned and only 7 get reported on of which 2 sold, that's a big difference in clearance rates.
        
        2/15 is much less than 2/7
Sal in SA on 19/05/2024 - 10:55

Just needs more earning good combined income vs properties available.
And there are a good amount earning well over avg full time wage.
dlakers3peat on 19/05/2024 - 11:24

+5

Bank of mum and dad
Odin on 19/05/2024 - 11:25

+6

Massive debt.
mrvaluepack on 19/05/2024 - 11:53

+1

Apartments are pretty affordable in Melbourne.
- JuryWheel on 19/05/2024 - 12:06
  
  +2
  
  Almost worthwhile buying two apartments next door to each other and making a door between them (seems to be much more common in the states…)!
  - mrvaluepack on 19/05/2024 - 12:28
    
    True, only downside is having to pay for 2 sets of utility bills.
  - ChickenAdobo on 20/05/2024 - 19:31
    
    Is that even legal? Knock a wall down to create a passage way or one big lounge
- hasher22 on 19/05/2024 - 15:10
  
  I've always wondered if we can do this. I've seen people in USA buy a floor and they can renovate it to make it one large unit.
  
  I mean, I know it's a door but can it be done with strata approval?
Thinkscape on 19/05/2024 - 12:01

+2

According to recent stats, it's mostly 2 cohorts:
- cashed up boomer investors, buying their 3rd, 5th, 10th property and leveraging the hell out of their existing properties.
- foreign investors, buying cash, overbidding, often just parking money (re: a lot of those places esp. in Syd and Melb end up unoccupied, some of the buyers require a knockdown clause so that they just own the parcel).

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/foreign-investors…
- SydBoy on 19/05/2024 - 12:54
  
  +2
  
  The real issue is property investor not the foreign buyers that much as foreign buyers if not tax resident in australia may not get similar capital gain tax relief as other australian.
  
  50% discount to capital gain for more then 1 property should be removed so investor can't buy more then 1 property to claim capital gain benefits.
  - enzioFirenze on 20/05/2024 - 10:50
    
    you just need to improve infrastructure and release land more efficiently; that's the only solution. Should scrap all of these FHB grants etc etc and use all that money to improve infrastructure and release land.
- LFO on 19/05/2024 - 13:42
  
  The elephant in the room is politicians & family.
  
  Apparently half a trillion AUD worth in properties is own by politicians and family.
  
  The not-too-smart Premier of QLD allegedly owns more than +20(?) properties (acknowledged when promoting the $1000 QLD electricity thingy).
  
  And he is the not-too-smart one. Imagine the astute ones …
  
  Mod: Comment edited to remove inappropriate language
  - Grunntt on 19/05/2024 - 20:05
    
    +3
    
    Premier of QLD allegedly owns more than +20(?) properties
    
    If true, it will be interesting to see how that is reconciled with the Register of Members' Interests that lists only Principal Place of Residence and 3 investment properties.-
    
    Subclause 7(5)(e)
    Interests in real estate (location, size,
    purpose and nature of interest)
    Alderley, 700m 2, investment house, joint tenants;
    Yeronga, 2BR, investment unit, joint tenants;
    West End, 3BR, investment unit, joint tenants;
    Mango Hill 495m 2, principal place of residence, sole owner
    - MrThing on 20/05/2024 - 13:23
      
      +1
      
      Shhhh stop with the facts!!
      - Grunntt on 20/05/2024 - 14:19
        
        +2
        
        @MrThing:
        
        Shhhh stop with the facts!!
        
        I really should stop being annoyed every time I see one of these comments that are just regurgitating some click-bait headline and somehow thinking they are actually contributing to the conversation.
    - Drakesy on 20/05/2024 - 15:16
      
      +3
      
      Still 3 investment properties would definitely be classified as a conflict of interest regarding any matters concerning negative gearing etc.
      - tonka on 20/05/2024 - 15:31
        
        @Drakesy: "Conflict of jnterest", it's not a courtcase.
        
        Drakesy on 20/05/2024 - 15:32
        
        @tonka: It is if you're making a decision that affects your holdings directly.
        
        Hence why i can't buy shares in a company that i know will put out positive/negative news.
        
        MrThing on 20/05/2024 - 18:52
        
        +1
        
        @Drakesy: sorta right. you can buy and sell, but you cant buy or sell within the time period that the information is confidential
  - tonka on 20/05/2024 - 16:39
    
    +4
    
    Mate, using the condition of disabled people as an insult is something we moved past decades ago.
    - LFO on 21/05/2024 - 16:29
      
      Retard
      verb: retard; 3rd person present: retards; past tense: retarded; past participle: retarded; gerund or present participle: retarding
      /rɪˈtɑːd/
      delay or hold back in terms of progress or development.
      "our progress was retarded by unforeseen difficulties"
      
      Retard
      Pejorative. In modern usage, retard is a pejorative term either for someone with an actual mental disability, … or for someone who is considered stupid, slow to understand, or ineffective in some way. The adjective retarded is used in the same way, for something very foolish or stupid.
      
      Loosen up mate.
      - tonka on 21/05/2024 - 17:41
        
        +1
        
        @LFO: Yes congrats mate, inappropriate language and usage is included in dictionaries. I guess it helps civilised people understand what neanderthals are harping about. Why don't you look up the N word and start using that in conversation too.
        
        LFO on 22/05/2024 - 19:18
        
        +1
        
        @tonka: Feels very close and personal for you.
        Is that what they call being woke?
        
        Life must be utterly awful.
        
        tonka on 23/05/2024 - 16:24
        
        +1
        
        @LFO: Yes mate, I am awake, are you asleep? You wanna call me an sjw or white knight next so you can use all your kiddie words?
        
        LFO on 23/05/2024 - 18:36
        
        +1
        
        @tonka: Awake you are? Not sure, but very touchy for sure.
        
        This thread and my post is about housing affordability, not you.
        Not you, houses.
        
        Contribute within the topic.
        Contribute about the premier of QLD and his "houses". Not grammar, not language, his houses. Stay on topic.
        
        And take that chip off your shoulder …
        
        tonka on 23/05/2024 - 19:12
        
        @LFO: omg. Dude I am so far beyond your gaslighting that you are actually funny.
        
        LFO on 24/05/2024 - 16:40
        
        +1
        
        @tonka: House affordability.
        
        Not you. Not me.
        
        House affordability. Stay on topic.
        
        tonka on 24/05/2024 - 20:52
        
        @LFO: You really don't understand that adding your political bias was off topic, do you?
        
        LFO on 25/05/2024 - 09:56
        
        +1
        
        @tonka: House affordability.
        
        Not me. No post nit picking.
        
        House affordability.
        Stay on topic.
        
        tonka on 25/05/2024 - 12:05
        
        @LFO: The excellent QLD premier is on topic though. I'll certainly be voting that gov't back.
        
        LFO on 26/05/2024 - 10:47
        
        +1
        
        @tonka: House affordability.
        Not government preferences.
        
        The post in question was politicians owning massive Real Estate portfolios that negatively distorts housing affordability.
        All government politicians, local, state and federal.
        QLD premier was one self-acknowledged example.
        
        That is the topic.
        Not the individual person and/or your own preferences but rather the effect of them owning about half a trillion dollars worth of Real Estate.
        All of them.
        
        That is the topic.
        
        tonka on 26/05/2024 - 11:19
        
        @LFO: The post even specifies Sydney and Melbourne. Nothing there at all about QLD politics at all. I responded to a post about QLD politics, so I guess I was mislead by some clueless knob that didn't understand your rules.
        
        LFO on 27/05/2024 - 09:49
        
        +1
        
        @tonka: My post was about ownership of Real Estate by government politicians and its effect in housing affordability, citing one publicly known example.
        
        Your initial post was centered in criticizing the semantics of my post not the ideas behind.
        
        Commenting about ownership of Real Estate by government politicians and its effect in housing affordability will be on topic, not the semantics that, unfortunately, I used.
        
        tonka on 28/05/2024 - 21:51
        
        @LFO: There is never and not gonna be rules against correcting people that are being mean to the disabled.
        
        LFO on 29/05/2024 - 13:29
        
        +1
        
        @tonka: Your initial post was centered in criticizing the semantics of my post not the ideas behind.
        Hence Off-topic.
        
        Commenting about ownership of Real Estate by government politicians and its effect in housing affordability will be on topic, not the semantics that, unfortunately, I used.
        
        tonka on 29/05/2024 - 15:09
        
        @LFO: Using disabled people as an insult is inappropriate. Keep defending it, try and deflect with weak ( weak as in next level limp) arguments about 'on-topic'. That's fine, it reflects on your character not mine.
        
        LFO on 30/05/2024 - 19:45
        
        +1
        
        @tonka: Personal attacks are not allowed, please desist.
        
        If you wish to discuss/comment about you choosing to feel offended by my semantics please use private messages.
        Not this thread as it will be off-topic.
        
        Commenting about ownership of Real Estate by government politicians and its effect in housing affordability will be on topic, not the semantics I used.
        
        tonka on 30/05/2024 - 21:30
        
        @LFO: Are you saying you don't think you should have implied I was disabled then? And I think you should report me, really. I'd love to see the mods face trying to figure out the imagined personal attack, as well as all these rules you're declaring for someone else's website.
        
        LFO on 31/05/2024 - 10:42
        
        +1
        
        @tonka: If you wish to discuss/comment about you choosing to feel offended by my semantics or what I meant to say or not to say then please use private messages.
        Not this thread as it will be off-topic.
        
        Commenting about ownership of Real Estate by government politicians and its effect in housing affordability will be on topic, not the semantics I used.
        
        tonka on 31/05/2024 - 12:10
        
        @LFO: Glad you agree now your senantics were off topic. Also inappropriate as the mods have noted.
        
        LFO on 01/06/2024 - 10:58
        
        @tonka: Now, how about you commenting/contributing about ownership of Real Estate by government politicians and its effect in housing affordability.
        That will be on topic.
        
        tonka on 01/06/2024 - 13:24
        
        @LFO: I already did when I upvoted the guy saying your comments were incorrect.
        
        LFO on 03/06/2024 - 17:13
        
        @tonka:
        
        I already did when
        
        Care to elaborate a bit more than that?
        
        tonka on 03/06/2024 - 18:13
        
        @LFO: Nope.

How Are People Affording Properties?

Comments

New Forum Topics