[QLD] First Home Owner Grant $30,000 (20/11/2023 - 30/6/2025) @ QLD Government

3214

[QLD] First Home Owner Grant $30,000 (20/11/2023 - 30/6/2025) @ QLD Government

tempting on 26/06/2024 - 13:37 qro.qld.gov.au (293 clicks)
Last edited 26/06/2024 - 16:18 by 1 other user

Cost of Living for Queensland first home buyers statement

Good news for Queensland’s first home buyers - to ease cost of living pressures, the First Home Owner Grant has been doubled, now offering $30,000! Check your eligibility at https://qro.qld.gov.au/property-concessions-grants/first-hom….

In the last three years, more than $365 million in grants has supported 24,000 households in achieving their dream of home ownership, and an estimated 12,000 buyers will be further supported to unlock their first home by 30 June 2025.

Eligibility criteria

For buying or building a new home, the grant amount is:

$30,000 for contracts signed between 20 November 2023 and 30 June 2025 (both dates inclusive)

$15,000 for contracts signed before 20 November 2023.

For owner-builders, the grant amount is:

$30,000 where foundations are laid between 20 November 2023 and 30 June 2025 (both dates inclusive)

$15,000 where foundations were laid before 20 November 2023.

Financial First Home Buyer

30 Jun 2025 364 days left

Related Stores

Queensland Revenue Office

Queensland Government

Comments

- - - - SS625 on 26/06/2024 - 15:49
        
        @PainToad: short sighted if you think negative cash flow is a poor investment.
        
        PainToad on 26/06/2024 - 16:01
        
        @SS625: If you can afford to cover the short term negative cash flow without leeching off the tax system with negative gearing, then go for it.
        
        But, it’s arrogant to think other tax payers should fund your investments you can’t afford in the short term so you can profit in the long term.
        
        If you can’t afford the investment in the short term, you’re not entitled to hold onto it for the long term.
        
        If you were truely a conservative/capitalist you would agree. But you’ve been exposed that your opinion isn’t really idiotically based. It’s just selfishness and entitlement.
        
        SS625 on 26/06/2024 - 17:03
        
        @PainToad: If you need negative gearing to be able to afford the investment then you shouldn't be buying at all.
- Ghost47 on 26/06/2024 - 21:34
  
  I will most likely get downvoted badly
  
  This always acts as a magic shield to protect you from downvotes.
  
  The government is destroying the future of this country by protecting the housing market. Guess what happened today, inflation went up. Ever since central banks across the world started hiking the RBA has been extremely reluctant to which is why our rates are nowhere near as high as other countries' rates have been. Why? Because everyone is up to their eyeballs in debt and the RBA knows if they keep hiking people will start to default on their mortgages. It is an absolute disaster what governments have done. Just like how they sat on their hands for decades instead of looking into nuclear power, now we're scrambling to either set up some plants or invest more into renewables which — surprise surprise — politicians are pushing hard for because guess what, they all invest in renewables. The irony is that renewables aren't green anyway, you need to mine metals and minerals needed for solar panels and wind and you need to burn fossil fuels to manufacture them, transport them and assemble them wherever you're going to put them.
  
  Last I checked the value of the property market was ~4x the entire value of the ASX. Make it make sense.
  - PainToad on 27/06/2024 - 06:46
    
    The RBA should have gone hard and fast. Would have corrected the house market and brought inflation under control. Instead they’ve been weak thanks to the whingy media.
- greatlamp on 27/06/2024 - 16:36
  
  The tax situation has solutions, as time goes on it seems that the only explanation for inaction is big developers influencing governments.
  
  The value of your home has no relevance to local council rates. The value provided on the invoice is used to determine how much your liability should be in comparison to other land owners in the LGA. If everyone's land was worth 20% less under the current calculation your bill would be exactly the same. The reason council rates continue to increase every year is simply because costs increase every year.
  
  Stamp duty collected by state governments is already seen as an inefficient tax, it places a burden on economic activity and is not applied equally to two people who own the same value of land. An annual land will eventually be legislated when the housing bubble finally breaks.
  - Scrooge McDeal on 27/06/2024 - 16:38
    
    when the housing bubble finally breaks
    
    Will that ever happen in Australia? Do we really want that? The results of that would be very ugly.
    - greatlamp on 27/06/2024 - 16:56
      
      Yes we really want that. It should have happened years ago so that productive economic activity could resume. It cannot be avoided forever.
      
      We are already seeing the results of inaction, decades of low wage growth, the number of new small businesses falling every year while large corporations continue to take market share away, wealth concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. Only the most wealthy can start a construction business now.
      
      The financial barriers created by over inflated land reduces incomes for everyone except the financiers
furiousgeorge on 26/06/2024 - 14:27

Another brainwave brought to you by the Champagne Socialist government.
Skatez on 26/06/2024 - 14:28

-1

It should be an extra $15,000 for each child in the family because you need extra bedrooms.
shaybisc on 26/06/2024 - 14:29

A great initiative, for vendors.
thewiseone on 26/06/2024 - 14:30

+3

Dumb initiative but the ponzi must continue I guess.
bobswinkle on 26/06/2024 - 14:48

-1

This is bad policy, no argument there. But people's idea about the source of our housing market problems and the possible solutions are laughably bad in this thread.

The Grattan Institute has done countless studies on this. The problem is overwhelmingly with supply of housing.

Immigration is a drop in the bucket in terms of price increases, and dramatically reducing it makes us poorer. Negative gearing barely registers in terms of impact, and there's compelling data and a good argument it increases supply at a rate that easily offsets any impact on pricing.

The single biggest problem in this country is NIMBYs who abuse planning laws and kick up a massive stink whether a politician tries to fix dumb planning law barriers. The number of developments every year that get held up in tribunals and other places because of idiots who care more about their view than fellow Australians having a place to live is criminal.
- Ham Dragon on 26/06/2024 - 14:56
  
  -1
  
  OK so if the supply of housing is the most pressing & immediate issue, wouldn't it make sense to reduce the demand until supply catches up by reducing the number of overseas arrivals?
  
  Even if planning laws were suspended entirely tomorrow it wouldn't solve the problem in the short to medium term given the cost & availability of materials and skilled labour.
  - bobswinkle on 26/06/2024 - 15:02
    
    +1
    
    Reducing overseas arrivals by the numbers required to have a meaningful impact on host pricing would certainly reduce prices. Most directly by tanking our economy. We rely massively on skilled labour in a large number of fields which is why even Dutton refused to commit to a meaningful cut. His proposed cuts alone would cost the Australian economy many billions.
    
    Suspending planning laws would actually massively help even with materials and labour. We are constantly building in less than ideal places and using plans that are altered due to planning laws. Not due to safety or the like usually, but to accommodate existing residents' "concerns". Removing those barriers can improve efficiencies, using the same materials and labour to build more.
    - Ham Dragon on 26/06/2024 - 23:54
      
      Are you suggesting the economy is growing to the point we need to continue importing 700k+ people per annum just to fill skilled positions, all while unemployment is rising?
      
      Your comment about materials is all pie in the sky so I won't respond to that.
      - bobswinkle on 27/06/2024 - 10:32
        
        @Ham Dragon: I'm suggesting our economy growing at all is absolutely reliant on current immigration levels. I'm not the only one suggesting it. Every economist says the same thing. There isn't a single serious person who thinks that cutting immigration wouldn't massively impact our economic growth and make us poorer.
        
        I will also just point out an inherent contradiction in your wants. You say we are labour constrained. You're right. We need more labour. Where do you get more labour? Immigration.
        
        Ham Dragon on 27/06/2024 - 10:53
        
        @bobswinkle: That doesn't match the RBA's GDP figures, which show the economy isn't growing. Post COVID immigration goes through the roof, but GDP growth trends sharply downward, which suggests the inverse of what you're saying.
        
        Obviously it's more nuanced that just immigration up = GDP down,and again I'm not saying we shut the border (look at GDP figures 2020-2021 when that happened), but there needs to be a rethink on who comes to Australia, why & when.
        
        We need more labour to build houses for the people who are coming here en masse…seems like a Catch 22 to be stuck in.
        
        bobswinkle on 27/06/2024 - 11:18
        
        @Ham Dragon: With all due respect, stop trying to look at headline figures and build a narrative out of them alone. Read the analysis of people who actually understand this stuff. Don't even listen to me, go read the people whose opinions and views I'm regurgitating. Including the ABS' own analysis of the GDP (The RBA doesn't calculate GDP, the ABS does).
        
        It's nuanced and multi-factorial. The current GDP slump is largely attributable to a global slow-down. Australia is not remotely alone and we are a highly integrated economy with the rest of the world.
        
        Immigration is almost always net positive contributor to GDP. That's actually a mathematical fact for skilled labour, because they are either productive or lose their right to be here.
        
        So in fact Australia probably dodged an overall economic recession because of immigration. Without it, we would have dipped.
- Scrooge McDeal on 26/06/2024 - 15:11
  
  +1
  
  How about as an immediate solution:
  
  • Tax those mining and natural resources companies, that make a huge amounts of profits every year?
  And invest that money in housing. Government owned rentals. People can buy government owned shares on those rentals if they want to invest.
  
  There are solutions. But I don't think solutions suits any governments agenda.
  - bobswinkle on 26/06/2024 - 15:15
    
    +1
    
    You should ask Rudd about trying to pass even a modest mining tax in Australia. Australians rejected it and elected a government to repeal it.
    
    The federal government is investing billions in social housing. Letting people buy social housing is a terrible idea. It's been trialed in the past and is now rejected because it just screws over future people who need it.
    
    In Australia the problem is rarely government. We all just like to pretend it is. The problem is the every day person who rejects the solutions.
- Ghost47 on 26/06/2024 - 22:01
  
  +1
  
  Immigration is a drop in the bucket in terms of price increases, and dramatically reducing it makes us poorer.
  
  Um, we are in a GDP per capita recession and reckless amounts of immigration in recent years has worsened that. There is a difference between country-enriching immigration and reckless, country-destroying immigration which is what is happening now and in multiple Commonwealth nations overseas (e.g. Canada, look at their situation, it's a disaster and it closely mirrors ours).
  
  Immigration may not affect house price increases by a lot, sure, but it undoubtedly affects aggregate demand. It's not hard to understand, more people = more demand for everything; groceries, haircuts, Uber eats deliveries, banking, healthcare, transport etc. Think that rents are up because rates are up? Not really, the actual reason rents have increased in recent years is more demand driven than supply of housing, just look at vacancy rates in Sydney and Melbourne, they're <1%. The inflation figures came out today and services inflation is sticky. Again, this is because our population is booming recklessly. 1/3 of people living in Australia are now born overseas, I don't know about you but that sounds absolutely weird IMO.
  - bobswinkle on 27/06/2024 - 10:19
    
    Do you want a recession that's both per capita and whole of economy? Cut immigration then.
    
    Like it or not, the reality is we have a number of industries that are hugely reliant on skilled immigration to function . You can say that's a bad thing and I might even agree with you. We haven't done enough to build the skills we need. But that doesn't change the facts.
    
    Now you might say "cut non-skilled immigration then" but that will either going to tank the tertiary sector (which will have large flow-on effects to the rest of the economy) or you will only be cutting immigration that is both small in number and people who barely affect rents (these are mostly family reunions, which will be people living in the same house as the person already here).
    
    It will make Australia much, much poorer to cut immigration to anything even close to what is needed to change house prices. And there are easier and much more effective ways to help our housing crisis. We need more houses. We need to stop people opposing more houses for dumb reasons.
    
    These are the facts. You might not like them, but it doesn't change them.
    
    I just wish people were actually interested in reading authoritative and well researched information on this, instead of letting their gut instinct guide them. I recommend this as a starting point: https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/HoR-Tax-In…
- greatlamp on 28/06/2024 - 08:23
  
  @bobswinkle
  
  I just wish people were actually interested in reading authoritative and well researched information on this, instead of letting their gut instinct guide them
  
  It's interesting you say that when you misrepresent the Grattan Institute report you linked yourself.
  
  Quoting the Grattan Institute report
  
  The Federal Government can improve housing affordability by reducing demand. It should reduce the capital gains discount from 50 per cent to 25 per cent; abolish negative gearing; and include owner-occupied housing in the Age Pension assets test.
  
  Housing will also become more affordable if more homes are built. Building an extra 50,000 homes a year for a decade could result in Australian house prices and rents being up to 20 per cent lower than they would have been otherwise. Increasing housing supply will only restore housing affordability slowly.
  
  And you use this as evidence for:
  "Negative gearing barely registers in terms of impact, and there's compelling data and a good argument it increases supply at a rate that easily offsets any impact on pricing."
  
  Is you day job writing briefs to be fed to our government ministers so they continue to ignore the actual policy advice? What you are proposing is exactly what I mentioned elsewhere in this thread. A biased pro-developer view that will guarantee most Australians never own anything more than a 45sqm apartment. House prices went up by more than 20% between 2020 and 2022. That increase wasn't due to a lack of supply.
  
  Can't cut immigration, that would make "us" poorer? The vast majority do not benefit from wage suppression, but the ASX seems to like it, sorry, "our" economy seems to like it.
  - bobswinkle on 28/06/2024 - 08:51
    
    Lol. No I didn't misquote. I have just read more than one thing on this. Other modelling suggests negative gearing removal will have a less than 1% impact on pricing.
    
    The Grattan Institute says the same thing. That report is talking about three different policies: Capital gains, negative gearing and the asset test for the pension. I'm in furious agreement that all of those changes would change house prices by the 2% they cite, but the political uproar to achieve that 2% would be monumental. "you're kicking grandma out of her home!!!". Negative gearing is one, relatively small part of those three changes.
    
    Nice reading comprehension mate. And love the ad hominem attacks. Very clever.
    - greatlamp on 28/06/2024 - 08:52
      
      Yes, other modelling. Not the authoritative Grattan Institute. My point exactly thank you for revealing the source of your bias.
      - bobswinkle on 28/06/2024 - 08:53
        
        @greatlamp: 2%. They say 2% for all three of those policies being removed. Are you saying that's a big impact on pricing?
        
        greatlamp on 28/06/2024 - 08:59
        
        @bobswinkle: 2% p.a. compounded for 10 years is more than 20% over a decade from increasing supply.
        
        bobswinkle on 28/06/2024 - 09:03
        
        @greatlamp: It's not 2% p.a. though. The report would say that if it was. Because, as you say, that would be a huge result.
        
        It's 2% once off as a result of changing those laws.
        
        Please, practice reading comprehension.
        
        greatlamp on 28/06/2024 - 10:03
        
        @bobswinkle: The source is this report
        https://grattan.edu.au/report/hot-property/
        
        The 2% refers to house prices falling by a modest 2% immediately after negative gearing reforms recommend are institued.
        
        So yes, it isn't saying 2% p.a., because they haven't made a statement on the long term impact.
        
        It doesn't make any logical sense that removing negative gearing would have no ongoing impact on prices. You've already decided negative gearing has no impact. I'll let you pick the word out from the thesaurus that describes that bias.
        
        bobswinkle on 28/06/2024 - 10:21
        
        +1
        
        @greatlamp: It actually does make logical sense that removing negative gearing would have little to no ongoing impact, because any direct impact may be offset by reduced investment in new housing.
        
        But let me clarify something: I would love to see the government repeal negative gearing for housing. I would also love to see them change capital gains tax concessions, and asset tests for the pension. I support every, single policy the Grattan Institute recommends in that paper. Not because of housing prices though, but because it would free up billions of dollars to be spent on better things.
        
        But negative gearing changes are a total distraction when it comes to housing policy. They will not actually solve the problem. That's what I actually care about when talking about this issue.
        
        The Grattan Institute has made their position 100% clear. They consider that housing supply is the main way to impact housing pricing. You can pull out specific little tidbits, you can speculate about what they didn't say. But what they say in no uncertain terms is: tax reform would have a small impact (but is still worth doing for other reasons), reforms that increase housing supply are the biggest and most impactful intervention.
        
        greatlamp on 28/06/2024 - 10:48
        
        @bobswinkle:
        
        removing negative gearing would have little to no ongoing impact, because any direct impact may be offset by reduced investment in new housing
        
        This assumption is based on research by the Real Estate Institute of Australia. This is not research to the standards of the Grattan Institute. The idea that demand from owner occupiers would not be enough to support the housing industry is not something that I accept at face value.
        
        That is why I am calling out what I see as a biased view. When you take that as a fact (which it isn't), it biases what you see as the solution.
        
        bobswinkle on 28/06/2024 - 10:52
        
        @greatlamp: Sigh… It's speculation just like yours, not everything is a conspiracy. I assure you I do not work for the REIV, nor do I think they make arguments in good faith.
        
        I put it forward as an argument because it has economic logic and is a plausible reason you might not see long-term impacts. I don't know if it's true or not. These things are infamously hard to model accurately. But it is fairly clear from every model that has been run on it that the impacts would be very small.
        
        Not everything is a conspiracy. Not everyone is a hack. I'm actually just interested in good policy.
        
        greatlamp on 28/06/2024 - 11:08
        
        @bobswinkle: I never said anything about a conspiracy.
        
        I don't honestly believe you are spreading misinformation intentionally, I think you are one of many educated people that take information from multiple sources to draw a conclusion, but you have lost track of the details of which information is reliable and which is simply an assumption. It's not a personal attack (although I admit it may read that way, it's frustrating seeing the people most educated on the topic seemingly accepting biased information as true without realising it)
        
        The fact that the Real Estate Institute produces reports that supports the organisations that fund them isn't a conspiracy, it's something you should be anticipating in the first place.
        
        bobswinkle on 28/06/2024 - 11:12
        
        @greatlamp: Sure. But you made an assumption that I was regurgitating their view without thinking. I was actually just making an argument from first principles as to why you may see a very small impact from repealing negative gearing over the long-term. They make the argument because it is actually logical.
        
        You also made an argument from first principles, because you had nothing to cite that said you would see a long-term impact from repealing negative gearing. Because these things are infamously hard to model over the long-term. The best we have is "The impact from these changes would be very small".
        
        The REIA also exaggerate the impact of their argument because they don't want negative gearing repealed. I think it should be repealed. I don't listen to or cite a single thing commissioned by the REIA. But I see merit in the fundamental economic argument.
        
        greatlamp on 28/06/2024 - 11:18
        
        @bobswinkle: That is not true, you are repeating REIA talking points, you just don't realise that is what they are.
        
        You hold the view that investment in new housing is driven by investors. Apart from dog box apartments, are there other forms of housing where owner occupiers demand would not support the industry?
        
        Do you see the point yet? This view is spread by the giant developers because it supports their business model - building tiny apartments at scale. It is not consistent with what the citizens actually want.
        
        bobswinkle on 28/06/2024 - 11:25
        
        @greatlamp: But… I'm not repeating their talking points.
        
        Honestly, read what I wrote. I have said that: "It actually does make logical sense that removing negative gearing would have little to no ongoing impact, because any direct impact may be offset by reduced investment in new housing." It was speculative. I have also said that any such offset would be modest. I have also said that we should still repeal negative gearing but we should be realistic about its impact. None of these are remotely REIA talking points.
        
        You are putting such a strong lens on this whole thing you need to step back and read what I actually wrote.
        
        bobswinkle on 28/06/2024 - 11:31
        
        @greatlamp: By your logic, the Grattan Institute themselves are 'repeated REIA talking points' when they say:
        
        "Over the longer term, lower after-tax returns to investors could slow new housing construction and put upward pressure on rents."
        
        Like me, they also say that the impact would be small and not worth worrying about.
        
        bobswinkle on 28/06/2024 - 10:37
        
        @greatlamp: I didn't say no impact. That's total verballing. I said 'barely registers'. The Grattan Institute Report says it would offset about 7-8 months of price growth.
        
        I also support its repeal, but I'm realistic about the impact.
        
        You, on the other hand, just assumed that the 2% in the Grattan Institute paper was p.a. because that confirmed what you already believed. You didn't even think about the possibility it might be otherwise. I think only one person has a bias here. I just like looking at what experts actually say.
moges79 on 26/06/2024 - 14:58

Good way to increase the price of houses by $15 000. Which clowns do these clowns listen to for policy decisions?
hankbiggums on 26/06/2024 - 15:02

This isn't new. It was announced and has been in place since November of last year.
Froot Loops on 26/06/2024 - 15:06

-1

Queensland is racking up the debt. I feel bad for future generations that will have to pay it back.
Eugklng on 26/06/2024 - 15:14

Give the grants only to those who are building so it at least helps increase the supply of homes to keep them affordable. Simply just giving this grants for any homes being bought will only increase the prices of homes further.
- hankbiggums on 26/06/2024 - 15:30
  
  +1
  
  That's exactly what this is, only for new home builds. You didn't bother to even read the description?
  - Eugklng on 26/06/2024 - 15:32
    
    I read this
    
    For buying or building a new home, the grant amount is:
    
    $30,000 for contracts signed between 20 November 2023 and 30 June 2025 (both dates inclusive)
    $15,000 for contracts signed before 20 November 2023.
    
    "for buying OR building" What did you read?
    - hankbiggums on 26/06/2024 - 15:37
      
      The keyword is new home. New is in not previously existing, not one you didn't previously own. The "buying" is there to cover turnkey house and land packages that have already been completed.
      - Eugklng on 26/06/2024 - 15:40
        
        @hankbiggums: I interpret this as (buying) or (building a new home)….buying here for house already completed does not increase supply and thus should not qualify. Give grants for those who will actually increase the supply of homes. That better use of taxpayer's money.
        
        hankbiggums on 26/06/2024 - 15:46
        
        +1
        
        @Eugklng: I don't care what you interpret it as, it's not the case.
        Eligibility for the first home owner grant
        You must be buying or building a new home valued less than $750,000 (including land and any contract variations).
        The home:
        * must not have been lived in or sold as a place of residence at the time of completion
        * must be one of the following eligible transactions
        - new home
        - off-the-plan purchase
        - substantial renovation
        - contract to build
        - owner–builder.
        
        Is a builder building a new home without a buyer not increasing the supply? This is usually done when there is a shortage of new build contracts to keep their employees/contractors working. It is functionally identical to a house and land package, they've just bought the land themselves and already started on the build.
        
        Eugklng on 26/06/2024 - 15:55
        
        -1
        
        @hankbiggums: I don't care that you don't care. Honestly you care enough to comment that's for sure.
        
        I comment only based on what I saw in the description which is probably not a descriptive. If this only applies to only brand new homes then that's better and I would edit my original comment (if I could). Does that make you feel better now? But there's that grey area for built houses that have not been lived in. I think that category shouldn't be there and would like it stricter to better increase home supply where one must actually build from scratch to qualify.
        
        Anyway bottom line is still a bad idea no matter how you cut it.I'm also not alone here commenting on how this will only increase the price of homes even for new ones as guess who can charge higher to build those new homes?
Alistair79 on 26/06/2024 - 15:34

+3

Was $15k, now $30k, next stop $45k, then $60k etc etc. Basically the same as a doctor prescribing more and more morphine for your broken leg instead of addressing the actual problem.

It will be interesting to see if/when we hit a tipping point where property in Australia literally becomes completely unaffordable for anyone who is not already in the market.
Frozensage on 26/06/2024 - 16:25

why not just pay that money to developers?
IBendTrolls on 26/06/2024 - 16:51

+1

It might be good for newcomers.
Here a well-known comer Julian Assange coming home
https://www.flightradar24.com/VJT199/35db3268
ECE on 26/06/2024 - 16:54

How about in other states?
pharcyde on 26/06/2024 - 17:42

Unlimited Milesbucks paid for by the extortionate royalties from the Bowen Basin
Kas on 26/06/2024 - 18:11

+1

Do you think this $30,000 going to first home owner,,,, BS…
once they informed this grant, Builders increase their price by this amount, and land owners also increase their price… at the end, first home buyer has to pay more than $30,000 than normal price if it is without grant.
noshopping on 26/06/2024 - 21:02

+1

Inflation data in today, more pain for everyone. Gov keeps making it worst.
Appreciate the post update OP.
Ghost47 on 26/06/2024 - 21:41

Echoing other people's thoughts on this being cringey policy. Might as well subsidise some Hollywood movies instead and pay celebrities' salaries, at least then we could be entertained a bit. The government is just kicking the can further down the road, if/when things implode it's going to be devastating. But hey maybe we can import more people to buy and rent housing, I'm sure everyone wants that.
sarge_017 on 27/06/2024 - 10:50

Stupid policy. Only adds to inflations and drives prices up. Fix the broken system first
coolsteps on 27/06/2024 - 20:22

theres no minimum age rule is there? so can one buy one in a childs name?

[QLD] First Home Owner Grant $30,000 (20/11/2023 - 30/6/2025) @ QLD Government

Cost of Living for Queensland first home buyers statement

Related Stores

Comments

Top Deals

New Deals