When Will There Be Affordable Housing?

Ldatscheap on 13/08/2024 - 12:51
Last edited 14/08/2024 - 07:33

Background - I outright own my own home, and have kids approaching adulthood. Have previously been a landlord but now only own ppor.

Pre Covid there was always a opportunity to buy a cheap family home. Cheap meant a long drive to work/school and the house was tired. And you may not be able to live in a major city.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is: when/if will low end housing get affordable? And what will make it better?

Is it greedy landlords owning multiple properties causing this? Lack of public housing? No sting of 10%(the 90's) interest rates to trigger a sell off? Too much/too little immigration? Elevated labour costs to build new? Other factors?

As a gen x, it feels like when my boomer parents pass away all the inheritance will go to house deposits for the grandchildren - which will make the situation worse in the long run as people without family money will rent forever. Another options is to buy investment properties now and pass them to the kids later, but again thats just making the overall problem worse.

It seems kinda grim. Any thoughts?

Ed: I removed my realestate search as my-bad, sorry, my search included a filter that limited results.

Poll Options

  • 12
    Dollar is being devalued
  • 169
    Greedy landlords owning multiple properties
  • 13
    Lack of public housing
  • 2
    Soft interest rates
  • 363
    Too much immigration
  • 5
    Too little immigration
  • 21
    Elevated labour costs to build new
  • 229
    Not enough houses being built to meet the growing population
  • 21
    There are loads of Cheap/affordable regional areas
Home & Garden

Comments

          • Drakesy on 13/08/2024 - 19:49

            @mitt: Yep and the taxpayer gets to subsidise something like 75% of those costs as its pretty loosely means tested. Have a $1.5 million property but you dont want to liquidate because you'll lose your pension?

            Sounds ok to me!

    • bargaino on 13/08/2024 - 16:51
      +3

      Also, if investors were somehow buying too many investment properties (e.g. due to tax incentives), that would drive up house prices, but also increase supply and drop rents.
      Rents are not low! If anything, we need more landlords, building more houses to rent.

      A shortage of housing is a problem no matter who owns them, public housing, private landlords or owner occupier. Our population is simply growing faster than we can manage.

      • Ghost47 on 13/08/2024 - 17:19
        +1

        If anything, we need more landlords, building more houses to rent.

        Yep, but materials and labour costs are through the roof so it costs too much to build and if something does get built they'll just charge insane rents in line with the market because houses are an investment first and foremost these days, unless somehow millions of new dwellings are built overnight to flood the market with supply.

        We are in deep shit. I don't think most people realise how bad things will get.

      • Drakesy on 13/08/2024 - 17:43
        +1

        we need more landlords, building more houses to rent.

        Only thing is that 75% of all investment properties are bought pre-existing. Only 25% are built.

        Basically they're stifling population supply by taking existing dwellings off the market of people looking to buy PPORs

        • bargaino on 13/08/2024 - 18:16

          Considering how many times a typical house changes hands in its lifetime, 25% does not sound bad.
          It does not matter how you slice it, there is a shortage. A combination of massively rising demand from immigration, and high cost of new land and construction.

          One factor sometimes overlooked is that high-rise apartments cost far more than similar sized houses to build. Especially when perfectly good houses are being demolished for blocks of flats because land is so expensive.

      • AG_ACT on 14/08/2024 - 07:29

        I 100% agree with you, but A 4 bedroom house is a 4 bedroom house, it doesn't really matter how old/new it is. Rents, only marginally increase for better properties, that cost significantly more.

        If I was looking to buy something to rent out (i.e. becoming a supplier), I would be looking for what meets maximum demand, i.e. the cheapest thing that ticks the most boxes). At least in Canberra, I sure as hell wouldn't be encouraged to build when I could buy an older property within a 3km radius for 500k less than what I would pay for a new one.

        I don't have an answer, but we need to incentivise people to build newer houses. The costs at the moment seem prohibitive.

  • mrdean on 13/08/2024 - 16:27

    The WEF's slogan "you'll own nothing & be happy" by 2030, comes to mind.

    • Miami Mall Alien on 14/08/2024 - 12:17
      +1

      Can't believe I had to scroll down this far…

      It's simple: they're pricing a normal existence out of reach for a majority of the population instead of taking it away by force so they say "the free market did it/you don't like it move somewhere else" while maintaining (barely) plausible deniability.

      • mrdean on 14/08/2024 - 12:31
        -1

        Precisely.

      • Ughhh on 14/08/2024 - 20:09

        Would you suggest the Gov regulates this industry/market heavily, maybe through restriction of certain purchases or other means?

  • Hvrd on 13/08/2024 - 16:46

    politicians and the powers that be have multiple properties, so never

    • mrdean on 13/08/2024 - 16:47
      +2

      I hear tiny homes are all the rage these days.

      • Ghost47 on 13/08/2024 - 17:01
        +3

        My mind boggles at the fact people have glamourised living in a van.

        • FireRunner on 13/08/2024 - 17:55
          +2

          Gotta make the most out of a bad situation

  • ihfree on 13/08/2024 - 16:52
    +1

    I think the only way out is to vote outside of the two-party system. Either of the two major parties would face some major criticism in the media if they tried to change anything and likely wouldn't be elected again.

    Australians are obsessed with property. Every second person seems to have some story about selling their house at a profit or speculating on property.

    The price of housing also has a number of knock-on effects. For example, there's much less opportunity to take risks with entrepreneurship due to housing security.

    Yet another example of us being "the lucky country".

    • mrdean on 13/08/2024 - 16:55
      -2

      The only sane logical choice when voting is One Nation. I agree, housing should never have been used for speculation.

      • ihfree on 13/08/2024 - 17:02
        +3

        ON is too aligned with the LNP. Looking at their policy, It's pretty vague.

        I strongly doubt One Nation would have the ability to execute should they miraculously get government. They're basically protest vote to influence the LNP. Similar to the teals, but in a different direction.

      • Ghost47 on 13/08/2024 - 17:02
        -1

        Never in my life did I ever think voting One Nation would be a sensible choice, but as each day goes by it's really becoming the only logical choice.

      • SBOB on 13/08/2024 - 17:04
        +7

        The only sane logical choice when voting is One Nation

        Said no sane logical person ever.

      • Drakesy on 13/08/2024 - 19:49

        *sustainable australia party

        • greatlamp on 15/08/2024 - 20:36
          -1

          I keep seeing this party mentioned, they are not a serious party. They don't propose policy, they don't attend Parliament. They are grifters and you would be wise to recognise their astroturfing

          • Drakesy on 15/08/2024 - 20:39
            +1

            @greatlamp: Kind of difficult to attend parliament when you don't have anyone elected…

            From Wikipedia

            In the 2018 Victorian state election, policies that Sustainable Australia ran on included:[29]
            Campaigning against rapid population growth
            Campaigning for tighter residential planning laws
            Scaling back Australia's migration rate to about 70,000 people a year, while preserving refugee intakes at 14,000 to 20,000.
            Giving "real power to local communities in planning decisions"
            Increasing charges to developers when land is rezoned for housing.
            Federal and state policies
            At the Federal level of government, a policy is to reduce the country's immigration intake, from record high levels[30] of over 200,000 to 70,000 people per annum.[31][better source needed]
            Target a population in Australia of under 30 million "through to and beyond 2050".[32]
            Setup an independent Federal Commission to monitor and expose corruption.[33]
            On housing affordability, Sustainable Australia bases its solutions on restricting foreign ownership of residential property, cutting immigration, and on taxation measures (such as phasing out the 50% Capital Gains Tax discount on residential investment property and abolishing negative gearing on residential investment property). The party believes that "with a sustainable environment and much more stable population, you can simultaneously achieve affordable housing (due to less buyer demand) and better planning (to stop over-development)".[31][better source needed]
            On the environment, the party advocates for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below year 2000 levels by 2050, or cutting further if possible.[citation needed]
            Cut the cost of public transportation by at least half and expand train and/or bus networks.[32]
            The establishment of a national job guarantee.[32]
            The implementation of a universal basic income (UBI) or citizen's dividend of "$500+ per week ($26,000 per annum, indexed from 2021)" to all Australians as a method of poverty prevention.[32]

            They sound like pretty sustainable policies to me?

            • greatlamp on 15/08/2024 - 20:42

              @Drakesy: I didn't realise they were unelected, I expected another clive palmer. I agree that platform seems sustainable. A lot of what's written there is actually impossible as it's outside the jurisdiction of the federal government, but I can see what they are aiming for.

  • JDMcarfan on 13/08/2024 - 16:53
    +8

    you forgot an important option OP: "Preferential & Detrimental Tax policies", both which drive up housing prices before considering a bunch of other talked about factors.

    Preferential:
    1. Negative Gearing - People make a big deal of NG, but that makes investing and thus providing "affordable/tax subsidised" rentals possible. Its a reduction on YoY tax income, which does inflate asset values somewhat but doesn't directly impact an investors capital appreciation.
    2. CGT Discounting - I feel this is the bigger kicker of the 2. 50% CGT discounts on property makes property investing a massive kicker to investors (myself included) as it allows me to make capital gains that then get taxed at half my tax rate (effectively increasing my after-tax return by 50%), the fact that you can access a 50% after just one year grossly overestimates the impacts of inflation (what it primarily was introduced to combat) and allows for speculative "short-term horizon" investing which then becomes a cyclical inflator of house prices. I haven't even gotten to the main residence exemption that removed CGT all together. This effectively makes the family home even more of a speculative/investment asset. E.g. If I only need a house worth $1m, but can afford a house worth $2m, I overspend and buy the $2m house simply because 100% gains over 10 years means I get double the "profit".

    Detrimental:
    1. Stamp Duty - The fact that transactions costs in buying and selling a house costs ~5% and is usually a cash outflow from equity (typically not financed) means that people hold onto their assets longer than needed to avoid rightsizing their house - which reduces supply - but also makes acquisition costs more expensive both inflating an overall purchase price by ~5%, but more importantly inflating the required deposit by ~20%. E.g. $1m house with a 80% LVR, costs $1.04m in NSW (before other costs) but the deposit requirement jumps from $200k to $240k. This gets worse the larger the purchase price, so people either struggle upgrading their home when it becomes too small for them, or intentionally buy too large a house initially to avoid double taxation.

    • Cluster on 14/08/2024 - 17:12
      +3

      If we get rid of stamp duty and implement a land tax, it will reduce transaction costs and make moving more attractive. It will also mean old people living alone in inner urban areas will be squeezed out of their properties and forced to sell up and move to a cheaper, smaller house further away. That sounds harsh, and it is, but you know someone in government is thinking about it.

      • JDMcarfan on 14/08/2024 - 17:58

        Fair point on the older people issue, it is harsh, however it also does combat the issue of the elderly hanging onto their larger homes when widowed/empty nesters. That’s clearly a waste of housing stock.
        They can sell the house and then buy another and have surplus funds set aside for land tax (or have the gov set up a pre-pay system with excess proceeds from sale of long-term house, so it doesn’t affect super/pension entitlements).
        If funds are short, an equitable gov sponsored reverse mortgage solution can be set up where land taxes are accrued over the pensioners lifetime and then paid back using proceeds from liquidating their assets. If a child wishes to inherit the house they can foot the gov bill.
        I think I’ve provided the solution for this issue

  • ECE on 13/08/2024 - 17:09
    +3

    There will never be. 😁

  • snapper17 on 13/08/2024 - 17:28

    the government doesnt want to devalue the property market. There are plenty of run down apartment blockds and houses that are government owned. They have been empty for years. Some if not most will need repairs to make it livable but thats cheaper and easire then building new homes. The government also sold off perfectly functional high rise commission buildings in nice areas to developers to make luxury apartments for the well off.

    The government build covid living places when they thought there would be a worse outcom. These places could be used for cheap housing.

    There are large ieces of land that could be used to build many tiny homes suitable for a single person or a couple. These are much cheaper and quicker to build. Its only recently in the last year or so that victoria approved this type of housing. Theres no reason it took so long. I am not sure if other states have followed trough.

    There is so much red tape and fees/taxes/permits ect causing significant delays

  • digitalbath on 13/08/2024 - 17:55
    +2

    It’s not your fault, or mine that other people can’t afford to buy property. If you can, do it. If your inheritance has to go to your kids, too bad.
    I bought a shitty townhouse 9 years ago. It’s now doubled in price, but that’s pointless as I have no intention of moving. But, at least my mortgage repayments are cheaper than paying rent in the same complex.
    A lot of people could afford a home if they weren’t so entitled and don’t think they are entitled to live in the cbd or some other fancy suburb.
    But will continue to whinge when they can’t afford property.
    In this time, all we can do is look after our loved ones and ourselves.
    Anyone else who says otherwise is a liar. And they definitely aren’t helping poor old Joe and sally down the street with a deposit.

    • Ghost47 on 13/08/2024 - 18:09
      +4

      A lot of people could afford a home if they weren’t so entitled and don’t think they are entitled to live in the cbd or some other fancy suburb.

      I see this saying a lot but honestly I think it's somewhat of a falsity. I think people are actually happy to live in the suburbs but it's ridiculous to pay so much for a house if they have to travel far for work.

      Houses can cost $1m 40-60 mins from the Melbourne or Sydney CBDs. This house in Liverpool sold for $964k for example. I would hardly call Livo a nice suburb. If someone is on $100k a year (which is above the median salary although a bit low for Sydney standards) that's 9.64x pre-tax income to pay off the house. After 30 years the total cost for the house will be something like $1.65m at a 6% interest rate (and that's factoring in a $200k deposit), and that's not even including all the other costs you need to pay over 30 years such as insurance, taxes, utilities etc.

      $1.65 million for a house 40-60 mins from the CBD in an average suburb in a country where wage growth is non-existent (unless you change jobs every two years), that's definitely something that's worth complaining about.

    • mitt on 13/08/2024 - 18:49
      +1

      I bought at the start of 2022. I got a good deal. My valuation has more than doubled since.

      I could not afford the place I live in now if I bought it now. Two years went from good deal to at least 50k beyond my absolute maximum budget.

      If your valuation has only doubled in 9 years you are either in an awful suburb, an awful complex or your valuation is a year or 2 old. The most recent spike has been INSANE.

      • digitalbath on 13/08/2024 - 19:21

        My evaluation is old, but I also bought within my means. Awful suburb? No. Awful complex, no. Either way. I’m still ahead.
        If your place has doubled, and the new evaluation is only 50k out of your budget if you were to buy now, then good for you.

  • ssfps on 13/08/2024 - 18:11

    Not enough houses being built to meet the growing population

    Too much immigration

    Lets not beat around the bush. We have a below-replacement fertility rate, we require immigration just to have a stable population. "Growing population" is nothing more than a euphemism for too much immigration.

    Dollar is being devalued

    Soft interest rates

    Elevated labour costs to build new

    These 3 are all essentially the same point. Our money is worth less both locally and internationally, and soft interest rates are a big contributor to devaluing our currency.

    There are loads of Cheap/affordable regional areas

    Objectively false (most regional areas with any industry have seen greater rises during 2023-2024 than most metro areas).

    So really there are only 2 real reasons to vote on in this poll (and in reality) - devaluing of our currency, and importing more people than we can house.

    • MrFunSocks on 16/08/2024 - 09:21

      We have a below-replacement fertility rate, we require immigration just to have a stable population

      We have a below-replacement fertility rate because people can't afford to have kids due to the price of housing and cost of living, both of which are harmed by mass immigration. The more people we import, the worse off people get, the less kids the non-immigrants have. Lots of the immigrants have no issues popping out kids as they're living off our tax dollars and the more kids they have the more they get paid. We're basically fast tracking replacing our entire population with immigrants who refuse to assimilate into our culture and instead want to bring theirs here, which is insane as many of them immigrated because of their culture and what it had done.

  • mitt on 13/08/2024 - 18:46
    +4

    The most recent spike is mostly the dollar devaluing. This is how we are paying for the covid money printing. We are also paying for it via mass migration to keep us out of a "technical" recession while all these corrections happen.

    You will never see pre covid prices again. You will probably never see 2022 prices again. If it does collapse, it will only adjust down to correct from the mass migration pressure. The dollar devaluation is permanent. Reset your baseline.

    • ssfps on 14/08/2024 - 23:36

      It will crash at some point, but I agree with the general spirit of your message - it may not crash in our lifetimes.

      I lived in a farming region that had a declining population for 3 decades, and house prices were ridiculously low - dropping against inflation for decades, and actually dropping in unadjusted value for ~10 years of that, until covid caused a wave of people to leave their metro areas.

      Point is, housing price is hugely influenced by buyer demand, and if the demand abates enough it's entirely possible for housing to halve, so when we guess that this won't happen, we're really guessing that immigration will continue to increase and there won't be any major population loss.

      • greatlamp on 15/08/2024 - 20:46

        we're really guessing that immigration will continue to increase and there won't be any major population loss.

        Seeing as that is basically the policy of both major parties, it's the expectation

      • MrFunSocks on 16/08/2024 - 09:24

        It will crash at some point

        People have been saying this for the last 20 years at least. It's not happening. Too much is tied up in our property market that the government absolutely will never let it crash. They will keep making things worse if they have to in order to stop it from crashing. Everyone in charge of making the decisions are millionaires, they don't care if the rest of us keep getting poorer as long as they can keep getting richer through property.

  • brendanm on 13/08/2024 - 18:55
    +1

    When they stop handing out free money, and importing infinite people while we have a lack of housing.

  • drprox on 13/08/2024 - 18:59

    I know plenty of two income households that do not accept living in cheaper suburbs that are a short metro ride or drive to the CBD. There are problems certainly but some do actually choose to rent when they could buy (just not where they are renting).

  • noideaa on 13/08/2024 - 19:12

    If homes were affordable, the selfish will hoard them all then lease or sell it or higher price.

  • plmko on 13/08/2024 - 19:29
    +5

    Melbourne is the only capital city in the Australia to see a stalling price average:

    • Over supply
    • Incoming land tax
    • Exodus of people

    They just proved what everyone has been saying about housing.

    • mlburnian on 14/08/2024 - 22:56

      And Debty Dan

  • Doveman87 on 13/08/2024 - 19:43

    Government introduces stimulus -> uptake of stimulus greater than expected -> people building rent other properties to live in whilst building- > not enough labour to meet demand -> Immigration needed -> we need to build more houses now that immigrates meed housing -> we need to immigrate more labour to meet the demand of the immigration -> viscious cycle commences -> dont known when housing affordability changes unless australians change the view on housing

  • ribze1 on 13/08/2024 - 20:19
    +2

    Missing from poll - advantageous tax treatment of investment properties

    • hasher22 on 13/08/2024 - 20:39

      This, people don't understand Australia is one of the best countries to invest in real estate. The benefits is way too good not to invest in if you have the money.

  • GuitarXXX on 13/08/2024 - 20:20
    +1

    It's not about the supply of house, we have large area of lands and very good construction companies / workers.

    It's about the supply of good suburbs, with good school, shops and life styles. There is absolutely NO increase of good suburbs which makes the hourse around existing mature communities are rare-er and more expensive.

    This is not to blame landlords or immigrants, this is mostly blamed on short-sighted governments and councils. They have so much more tax and stamp duty income with the increased house / land price, but they invested little to development new and good suburbs.

    • Ghost47 on 14/08/2024 - 15:51

      Yep, a lot of outer suburbs going up have heaps of homes but little or no infrastructure. Like WTF is going on? There's seriously some stupid people out there making huge important decisions. Hanlon's razor comes to mind but you can't help but think if this is being done deliberately. It's as if the country has grown so quickly it's imploding in on itself.

      • greatlamp on 15/08/2024 - 20:53
        +1

        What is going on is that state governments are selling land directly to developers instead of doing their job and developing the suburb themselves.

        This should be illegal. Who decided that we need developers to build out our new suburbs with no street parking, a maze of courts and no main street. They will tell you they have to build them this way, to lower traffic…

  • hasher22 on 13/08/2024 - 20:38
    +1

    Australia is one if not THE most profitable country in the real estate market due to our laws and policies favouring investors.

    "Why Living In Australia Is Impossible" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TUVXfM1nqo&t=2s

  • hasher22 on 13/08/2024 - 20:47
    +11

    Housing will be affordable when

    1 - More homes are built
    2 - When vacant homes are to be rented out or purchased to live in, currently from the census, there are approx 150k homes in Sydney alone are vacant. Example, a Chinese company purchased a block of units and they are ALL vacant because they are waiting on the right business to buy that land out.
    3 - Cease all foreign purchases
    4 - Limit how many homes a person and business can buy for investment
    5 - Remove or cap negative gearing

    And that's just the start, but this will never happen because boomers benefit too much from these laws and how is governing? Boomers……

    • hasher22 on 13/08/2024 - 22:44
      +6

      Investors downvoting me BAHAHAHHA

  • xavster on 13/08/2024 - 20:47
    +4

    There is a simple solution to bring down house prices, tighten the availability of debt to the real estate market, China did it in 2020 with their 3 red lines policy.
    link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_red_lines

    Based on the principle that "property is to be lived in, not to be speculated on."

    Set aside the politics and remove "China" from this policy and you will see the true driver of asset prices, it is the availability of debt to finance the purchase of an asset.

    Once you remove a large portion of the debt available to purchase an asset, the pricing of that asset will return to sustainable growth. If we want Australia to have sustainable house prices, we need to enact policies that reduces people's ability to finance existing properties with debt.

    I am OK with creating debt for NEW CONSTRUCTION because the creation of that debt is balanced out by the creation of a new property. i.e. no asset bubble.

    The creation of debt to buy EXISTING properties will cause an asset bubble because there is no NEW property created but new debt is created.

    The debt I'm referring to here is specifically debt issued by banks. This is because bank issued debt is 'created' against an asset, and does not actually come from people's deposits. (The reason banks want customer deposits is to meet Common Equity Tier ratio that banks must comply with, this to cover losses incase they screw up)

    The debt issued by RMBS (mortgage backed securities) or credit unions are fine because they are backed by actual savings and not created.

    Until the financing is fixed, the market will always be distorted by debt.

    Anyway this is getting a little deep so I'll just leave it at that.

    • ssfps on 14/08/2024 - 23:44

      Really interesting that China made this move.

      Most people really can't grasp these basic principles of our money, despite us all earning it and spending it daily, and often being obsessed with it.
      I've had so many conversations trying to explain that bank debt is devaluing all our money, and usually all I get are blank looks like i'm from the moon.

      am OK with creating debt for NEW CONSTRUCTION because the creation of that debt is balanced out by the creation of a new property. i.e. no asset bubble.

      I disagree with this being OK, because it's still an abuse of power (yes a new construction probably benefits us all indirectly, but benefits the banker and the debtor more), but i'm very glad there are some people out there that can at least have a conversation about it.

    • JDMcarfan on 15/08/2024 - 14:47

      well put together response and valid points brought up. By and large I agree with what you're saying and attest to its validity.

      One note:

      The debt I'm referring to here is specifically debt issued by banks. This is because bank issued debt is 'created' against an asset, and does not actually come from people's deposits. (The reason banks want customer deposits is to meet Common Equity Tier ratio that banks must comply with, this to cover losses incase they screw up)

      What you've said here is not entirely accurate, but I get where you are coming from (that there is a multiplier effect in the banking loans market). I won't go into detail to explain the relationship but have worked extensively with Capital management and thus CET1 previously and put simply its the bank's personal equity stake available across its pool of assets (loans)

  • fullmetal on 13/08/2024 - 20:56
    -1

    inheritance tax

  • JIMB0 on 13/08/2024 - 21:29
    -6

    Don't we have enough of these threads? People need to stop crying and get to work if they want a house.

    • Thinkscape on 14/08/2024 - 07:49
      +1

      Start a competing thread then: „how I got my salary to $270k post tax to afford my first property”

      • JIMB0 on 14/08/2024 - 11:07
        -1

        My wages were less than half that pre-tax, yet I managed to buy and pay off a house. No I'm not a boomer, I'm only in my 30's. I also only bought my first house less than 4 years ago after waiting over a decade for this mythical crash that is always just around the corner.

        I'm about an hour out of the city by train, but I didn't feel like going into a heap of debt for a house closer.

      • Clear on 14/08/2024 - 12:51
        -1

        I bought a house less 5 years ago on a 70k salary. It's not hard. Save enough for a deposit and then get a mortgage.

        Of course if you're somewhere crazy expensive like the Sydney CBD good luck. Those big inner city folk always forget that the whole country doesn't live with them.

        • JIMB0 on 15/08/2024 - 13:04
          +1

          People on these threads don't want solutions. They're just here to complain about how they can't afford a modern 4 bed 2 bathroom house within 20km of the CBD on a below average wage.

  • rogerwilko on 13/08/2024 - 22:07
    +1

    I reckon in about 20 years when the world is suffering from famine, drought, floods, over population and war. Don't worry op you just focus on how much money your grandchildren will inherit.

    Let me guess, you have a ev and solar and thus are contributing to saving the planet.

    Boomers are easy to blame, at some point Gen X need to step up and take some responsibility whilst they are predominately the generation taking positions of power now.

    • Ghost47 on 14/08/2024 - 15:55

      If in 20 years or sometime in the future the world suffers more from famine due to crop failures and oil is no longer cheap to extract (therefore you can't get petrol or diesel cheaply) living in cities will be pointless unless you can grow your own food. No point living near a supermarket if supply chains have collapsed.

      • CurlCurl on 14/08/2024 - 16:27

        If in 20 years or sometime in the future the world suffers more from famine due to crop failures and oil is no longer cheap to extract (therefore you can't get petrol or diesel cheaply) living in cities will be pointless unless you can grow your own food. No point living near a supermarket if supply chains have collapsed.

        Shit, you're a miserable soul.

        Wouldn't like to be sitting round a campfire with you.

        • Ghost47 on 14/08/2024 - 16:29

          Understandable. This is going to be the future though whether you like it or not. Might as well come to terms with it now than live in blissful ignorance and panic when it happens.

          • CurlCurl on 14/08/2024 - 16:34

            @Ghost47:

            Understandable. This is going to be the future though whether you like it or not. Might as well come to terms with it now than live in blissful ignorance and panic when it happens.

            Looks like we found our Doomsday Prepper.

            • Ghost47 on 14/08/2024 - 16:35

              @CurlCurl: Why are you trying to put me down for saying things that you don't agree with or that scare you? Leave a downvote and move on. Life isn't all sunshine and rainbows.

              Oh and btw I never said I would actually survive if things like that happened.

              • CurlCurl on 14/08/2024 - 17:01

                @Ghost47:

                Why are you trying to put me down for saying things that you don't agree with or that scare you? Leave a downvote and move on. Life isn't all sunshine and rainbows.

                Why? Because you come as the most negative person I have come across, and I don't have negative people in my life.

                'Scare me' with your moronic ramblings? Hell no. I pity you. Go outside, smell the flowers, watch the children play, go for a walk, help an elderly person cross the road, sit in a park watching people enjoying themselves.

                Life can be all sunshine and rainbows.

                • Ghost47 on 14/08/2024 - 17:19

                  @CurlCurl:

                  Because you come as the most negative person I have come across, and I don't have negative people in my life.

                  Wow, the most negative person you've ever come across in your entire life was checks notes someone on an online forum. Sounds like you've had a very easy life, lucky you, no wonder why you can't handle harsh realities.

                  'Scare me' with your moronic ramblings? Hell no. I pity you. Go outside, smell the flowers, watch the children play, go for a walk, help an elderly person cross the road, sit in a park watching people enjoying themselves.

                  You seem to think that enjoying life and understanding what could very well be potentially in store for everyone in the future are mutually exclusive. They aren't.

                  I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings buddy, there's a block function if what I say annoys you. Go ahead and use it.

                  • CurlCurl on 14/08/2024 - 18:14

                    @Ghost47:

                    You seem to think that enjoying life and understanding what could very well be potentially in store for everyone in the future are mutually exclusive. They aren't.

                    More negativity. Maybe this could help. 13 11 14.

                    BTW. I'm not your buddy.

                    • Ghost47 on 14/08/2024 - 18:20

                      @CurlCurl:

                      More negativity. Maybe this could help. 13 11 14.

                      Are you trying to say I'm suicidal and should call Lifeline? If I was suicidal do you think your original reply to me was necessary or helpful at all? Or do you get a kick out of trying to push people over the edge? If someone was suicidal I personally wouldn't chide them, but I understand not everyone is as considerate as I am.

                      BTW. I'm not your buddy.

                      That's fine, I said buddy in an attempt make things a bit more cordial, clearly that failed. As I [sincerely] said, go ahead and use the block function.

        • rogerwilko on 14/08/2024 - 20:07
          -1

          CurlCurl I had a look at your post history on ozbargain, you posted about a brutal murder and linked it to the the housing market.

          • CurlCurl on 14/08/2024 - 21:06
            +1

            @rogerwilko:

            CurlCurl I had a look at your post history on ozbargain, you posted about a brutal murder and linked it to the the housing market.

            Linked to the housing market?

            Below is my post I think you are referring to, and this is the thread title. And Another Woman Found Dead. Man Arrested

            Why am I so passionate about women's safety and their lives? Mrs CurlCurl was followed home one evening 13 years ago and was violently raped. The perpetrator was never caught.

            • rogerwilko on 14/08/2024 - 21:25
              +1

              @CurlCurl: Your post clearly states "Hey Assberg. Do think lack of housing is to blame". Perhaps a reference I did not understand.

              It is terrible what happened to your wife. I wish you both the best.

            • ssfps on 14/08/2024 - 23:50
              +1

              @CurlCurl: Social problems/crime are linked to poverty and hardship. Sounds like your spouse was a victim of a grim reality you don't want to acknowledge?

              • CurlCurl on 15/08/2024 - 09:11

                @ssfps:

                Social problems/crime are linked to poverty and hardship. Sounds like your spouse was a victim of a grim reality you don't want to acknowledge?

                So you need to have a social problem to be a rapist? Give me a break.

                The grim reality is, quoting the social worker rapists are mongrel bastards that want power over women.

  • tessel on 13/08/2024 - 22:52
    +1

    After WW3. Honest. Why can't people understand this? No, I'm not trolling. We clearly do not want prices to go down and they can't go down because that is the economy.

    • meowbert on 15/08/2024 - 17:25
      +1

      Accurate

      • tessel on 16/08/2024 - 12:42

        Honest, it's rare to meet anyone who realizes this.

  • Jaysful on 13/08/2024 - 23:47
    +2

    None of the above? Australians do not prefer high-density living. And if we do, our current apartments are a joke in terms of both size and quality.

  • jaimex2 on 14/08/2024 - 00:00

    To answer the question - When Will There Be Affordable Housing?

    Got a time machine?

    https://www.google.com/search?q=shorten+housing+policy+2016

    This built up over decades, it'll take decades to fix it if anyone bothers to try now.

    Coalition don't give a crap, Labor says it learnt its lesson trying to fix it.

    I don't like Labors chances of winning next election knowing how voters think so get ready to dip into super and buy near a nuclear power plant.

  • MilkDrinker on 14/08/2024 - 00:23
    +2

    Alan Kohlers Son did a funny short on what happened and a possible way to fix it

    Here

    tldr, fast rail investment, adjust tax settings and increasing housing supply.

  • AddNinja on 14/08/2024 - 05:49

    I don’t know economics- but from studying history it seems it takes fairly drastic action to stop a minority from slowly accumulating most of the money over the generations. Wars, famine and revolution redistribute wealth, but even then, land holders usually preserve more than their share of wealth.

    I saw Altman (https://moores.samaltman.com/) recommending what he said was the only long term solution- a substantial annual land tax. If you had to pay 2.5% tax on privately held land annually, fewer people would be wanting to own as much. His view was that you want to tax land enough so that people don’t really want to own it much.

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 14/08/2024 - 07:14
    +4

    3 people voted 'too little migration' these are the same people with 5 kids, sitting on welfare trying to bring their relatives over to Australia from some 3rd world country so they can sit on welfare and also have 5 kids, with the ultimate goal to bring their relatives over …..

  • 2esc on 14/08/2024 - 08:50
    +1

    There are many large houseblocks out there with owners not using the rear half of those properties.

    All infrastructure is there roads, stormwater, power, closer to shops etc etc.

    Government, councils need to make it easier cheaper for a individual to subdivide there are 100s of thousands of blocks out there like that and owners that would happily subdivide.

    • Ghost47 on 14/08/2024 - 16:02

      Granny flats seem to be pretty popular to get around that. I don't think you need to subdivide if you build a granny flat but not 100% sure.

      • MrFunSocks on 16/08/2024 - 09:30
        +1

        Council fees and rising prices due to their rising popularity is making granny flats insanely expensive. We bought acreage with the plan to build a granny flat/second house on for our aging parents, and the council fees alone are pushing $25k at the moment! To get a nice granny flat at the moment I'd be looking at well over $100k which is just insane.

        • mrdean on 16/08/2024 - 10:44
          +1

          Local councils are being run as businesses. As a business, they look to extract maximum dollars any way they can from rate payers. One way this is done is under the pretense of "planning", another is "safety". The more administrative regulations that get passed, the more opportunity there is for revenue.

  • ozbjunkie on 14/08/2024 - 09:01
    +1

    Enjoy your children living with you. They may be living with you for a long time.

    Plan to help them buy a place, as many young people are both unable to buy a place and unwilling to raise children on 12 month leases (particularly when the next 12 month lease is a lottery).

  • merivetio on 14/08/2024 - 09:10
    +2

    Misleading title, poll options font like with headline question of when there will be affordable housing 😆

  • Chewy2221 on 14/08/2024 - 10:15
    +1

    Government (in)action is a big part of the housing affordability crisis. Housing values could be moderated by government actions such as :- a broad based property tax, inheritance tax & ending negative gearing/ capital gains concessions on existing housing . Are our politicians about to do any of this? Answer NO!!! Any move to put downward pressure on housing prices is electoral suicide. For these reasons, I can't see the path to home ownership getting any easier for those without family support.

  • beefmaster on 14/08/2024 - 11:21
    +1

    I doubt the issue will ever be address because it is not within the interest of wealthy elites. The construction industry wants to build and sell high and the banks wants make as much money from your loan.

    Housing affordability brings no benefit to the wealthy elite who have politicians in their pay pockets.

  • whitepuma on 14/08/2024 - 11:48

    the reason why i believe property prices are as high as they are is because of a number of factors, you can't solely blame one.

    We all know what the root cause of the problem is, supply and demand (everybody should know this). So, we need to look at how we can resolve this, do we increase supply? or do we lower demand?

    The reason why demand is so high is because many people want to move to Australia, we do have a great country (especially compared to what's going on in other parts of the world), and i believe many immigrants have seen Australia as a safe haven (Personal, political, and financial safety). I don't think we should lower this demand, if people are going to come to this country AND are going to work, why stop them? they are going to contribute to the economy more than others.

    I believe the one we should be solving is the supply, a big factor for supply comes down to how much it costs to make these houses, tradies have more work than they have ever had before, in my area i have heard about people paying massive premiums just to get their job done before others. I actually believe we need a massive influx of tradies (perhaps via immigration), if we can get a whole lot of tradies in then that could lower construction costs, allowing it to be more cost effective to increase supply.

    I think a good way of solving this would be to encourage people to immigrate here if they have certain useful trade qualifications (assuming they can also pass all the required tests to perform their trade here to the Australian standard).

  • npnp on 14/08/2024 - 11:55
    -5

    Only Aboriginal people can complain about 'Too much immigration' as everyone else is technically a product of immigration. There is a massive difference between human migration that took place 45,000 years ago and survived in this land for that long without houses and recent migrants in the last 300 years who needed housing. So yeah, those who need houses are the migrants themselves and it would be super funny if they complain about themselves being the problem.. lol

    • OzzyOzbourne on 14/08/2024 - 14:51

      So are you saying that migration doesn't make you a migrant unless you live in a house? What do aboriginals live in these days?

      • npnp on 14/08/2024 - 15:00
        -3

        Read above carefully again. When the migration took place 45000 year ago and they've lived in a place for that long, they are no longer migrants. But if someone comes in 200 years ago and want to denounce someone who came just 100 years after him/her saying 'you're a migrant, I'm not be because my generation came 100 years before you did', then that's stupid. 45,000 vs 200 years is like 12 hours vs 1 second, the difference is massive. Basically what I'm saying is, unless you are an Aboriginal (which I'm not), you don't have the right to call others 'migrants' without calling yourself as one as well. I'm a migrant myself so are vast majority of Australians. I struggle to get a house and should I blame myself (i.e. migrants) for that?? Lol. Without migrants Australia would be absolutely different and I bet nobody would want to live here (perhaps except for Aboriginal people).

        • ssfps on 14/08/2024 - 23:55
          +2

          someone comes in 200 years ago and want to denounce someone who came just 100 years after him/her saying 'you're a migrant

          Can you link to a single post in this thread of somebody saying this?

          I've never even seen somebody complain about migrants from 20 years ago causing the housing problems, they're talking about current migration. As in, RIGHT NOW we're bringing people in and can't house the people already here, with increasing homelessness.

          Seriously, your post reeks of a teenager playing semantics and thinking they've done some impressive conceptual judo?

    • ssfps on 14/08/2024 - 23:54
      +2

      1) Aboriginals were migrants too.

      2) People saying too much immigration aren't saying we should have no immigration.

      If you believe immigration is not causing this at 500k people per year, would you believe immigration would cause this problem at 5 million people per year? How about 50 million people per year? Perhaps if you think about supply and demand with larger numbers of people, you'll be able to grasp the factors at play and understand they don't cease to exist at an arbitrary point.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join