Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

Remove this Banner Ad

wahooo said:
This anecdote defies pretty much all the evidence we've seen.

A report released a few days ago showed just three rental properties across the country were affordable for someone on jobseeker (on the basis that it was rented as a sharehouse). What a joke.

Data from last year showed 80% of homes in Perth were cheaper to buy than rent. Most young people could easily afford a mortgage but can't save up the deposit needed.

Putting the cost of home ownership/renting to the side, renters get ******* shafted living in mouldy houses, with light switches that have been painted over by dodgy landlords.

To top it off, hecs is gonna get indexed at 4.8% this year. At least it's a reprieve from the 7% last year.

It's time to reform negative gearing and capital gains tax. These policies are nothing more than welfare for the rich that remove all the risk from investing in property such that property is pretty much the safest investment class of them all.
Click to expand...

Renting in a sharehouse if you are on jobseeker shouldn't be seen as ridiculous. They don't have a job. It is amazing we live in a country where there are options to rent share and rent further from the city.

80% cheaper to buy than rent? Have you got a link to that? If not I wouldn't believe it, and definitely wouldn't believe they are including insurances, maintenance land tax, council fees and property management fess. Show me the research please mate.

Sure there are some bad homes. It would not be the majority.

If you take out student loans because you plan on being a high earner you pay the loan. Business loans are expensive as well.

Reforming negative gearing and capital gains would be a net loss to the economy.

Welfare for the rich? I love these catchphrases, that have no definition. Define rich please will you?

My parents are on the pension. They will be a cost to the government for between 15-30 years. We need to ensure there are pathways for middle Australia to retire not on the pension.
 
Taylor said:
Given I am no expert and managed to grow my own portfolio by 70% over five years, 40% of which was over covid, if your super fund hasn't done half as well then your fund managers have taken you for a ride.
Click to expand...

Yep and if you are disciplined with your money and invest $100-200 per month in indexes you can also have well over a million plus your super.

People just don't want to do it and don't want to grind through the early years of it looking like crap. Everyone needs to look at a compound interest calculator and look at it daily until they get it.

moneysmart.gov.au

Compound interest calculator - Moneysmart.gov.au

Our compound interest calculator shows you how compound interest can increase your savings.
moneysmart.gov.au moneysmart.gov.au
 

Log in to remove this ad.

To be fair, it's really a slog to get that first $100,000 invested. If you're putting in $8k a year, every year it will feel like you're never getting there then suddenly your investment is contributing the same amount to itself every year as you are.

You need about $250,000 invested in dividend paying stock to match the amount of money you get from newstart in a year - once you're close to that you can consider yourself partly retired.
 
poshman said:
Yes, and it is still 46$ up from 25%. That is a huge increase. And it wont end up helping or meaning more assets are sold. It will trap liquidity at the top until they move offshore or the law changes.
Click to expand...
Liquidity is trapped at the top already. That's the issue. It might not mean that more assets are sold, but what is sold will be taxed higher.
 
poshman said:
Yep and now watch Victoria and what happens to rental availability. The next twelve months will tell a very socialist tale.
Click to expand...
Tasmania has been under a (pretty good) Liberal government for years and our rental affordability is the worst I'm the country. So are we telling a conservative tale?
 
Bicco said:
Liquidity is trapped at the top already. That's the issue. It might not mean that more assets are sold, but what is sold will be taxed higher.
Click to expand...

...and presumably the government that has created the issue by turning up the immigration tap without pushing the button on more housing will use the money to make better decisions with that money that improves outcomes for the rest of the community??

Or is it enough that the billionaires have less money, regardless of if it actually trickles down some benefits when the next largest higher player in the market holds the wealth?
 
poshman said:
Renting in a sharehouse if you are on jobseeker shouldn't be seen as ridiculous. They don't have a job. It is amazing we live in a country where there are options to rent share and rent further from the city.
Click to expand...
You're right but there's only three homes across the country that are affordable in that situation. The lack of affordability was what I deemed ridiculous.
poshman said:
80% cheaper to buy than rent? Have you got a link to that? If not I wouldn't believe it, and definitely wouldn't believe they are including insurances, maintenance land tax, council fees and property management fess. Show me the research please mate.
Click to expand...
Think it works out to 78.7% of homes across Perth are cheaper to buy than rent. Forgive my rounding.

Honestly surprised you missed these reports:

www.abc.net.au

'A depressing set of data': Renters would now be financially better off buying one-third of places they rent

It is now cheaper to buy an apartment than to lease one in many capital cities, according to new analysis that further highlights the ongoing rental affordability crunch for lower-income households.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

poshman said:
Reforming negative gearing and capital gains would be a net loss to the economy.
Click to expand...

You know what else is a net loss? Entire generations locked out of home ownership unless the bank of mum and dad can stump up a deposit.
 
Taylor said:
To be fair, it's really a slog to get that first $100,000 invested. If you're putting in $8k a year, every year it will feel like you're never getting there then suddenly your investment is contributing the same amount to itself every year as you are.

You need about $250,000 invested in dividend paying stock to match the amount of money you get from newstart in a year - once you're close to that you can consider yourself partly retired.
Click to expand...

Definitely - the first $100k is everything. From there if you reinvest and continue to invest the same capital the growth is ridiculously fast.
 
Bicco said:
Tasmania has been under a (pretty good) Liberal government for years and our rental affordability is the worst I'm the country. So are we telling a conservative tale?
Click to expand...

How many years was it under Labour or Greens? How long under Liberal? I do believe it was 2021? Wasn't it?
 
Taylor said:
To be fair, it's really a slog to get that first $100,000 invested. If you're putting in $8k a year, every year it will feel like you're never getting there then suddenly your investment is contributing the same amount to itself every year as you are.

You need about $250,000 invested in dividend paying stock to match the amount of money you get from newstart in a year - once you're close to that you can consider yourself partly retired.
Click to expand...

Yes - and the point is that it is possible. What a time to be alive.

I was able to put money into the market and save when I was on $35k. it is possible if you decide you want it enough to not have stuff short term.
 
wahooo said:
You're right but there's only three homes across the country that are affordable in that situation. The lack of affordability was what I deemed ridiculous.

Think it works out to 78.7% of homes across Perth are cheaper to buy than rent. Forgive my rounding.

Honestly surprised you missed these reports:

www.abc.net.au

'A depressing set of data': Renters would now be financially better off buying one-third of places they rent

It is now cheaper to buy an apartment than to lease one in many capital cities, according to new analysis that further highlights the ongoing rental affordability crunch for lower-income households.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au



You know what else is a net loss? Entire generations locked out of home ownership unless the bank of mum and dad can stump up a deposit.
Click to expand...

That article is missing some major costs of owning a home. It also conveniently assumes a 20% deposit so there is no LMI.

It includes stamp duty and rates. But does not include land tax, insurances or maintenance.

Which was where my original challenge came from. It may be true, but that article is missing key data.
 
wahooo said:
You're right but there's only three homes across the country that are affordable in that situation. The lack of affordability was what I deemed ridiculous.


You know what else is a net loss? Entire generations locked out of home ownership unless the bank of mum and dad can stump up a deposit.
Click to expand...

One the article isn't accurate as presented. Two, if you haven't got a job then not being able to afford rent isn't ridiculous it is understandable. The answer, not surprisingly is to get a job. There are jobs available everywhere, and a lot of Aussies who see themselves above them.


Entire generations locked out? That is over the top. They may be locked out for a while from purchasing inner city or western suburbs. It was too expensive for my parents to do that in the late 60's as immigrants here.

I was living in Wembley before Covid and regulations caused losses into the milions. Had to start again with almost nothing so bought on the edge of Viveash and Midland. All my friends thought I was crazy, even the ones who didn't have a home. They wanted a place in the golden triangle or there abouts. Now we have over $600k equity in that house and a couple of investment properties. I worked on the house every day for 18 months (3-4 hours) without missing a day, before and after work. Took on extra jobs and started up new businesses.

It is only going to be impossible if people don't want it. This week I had the last of my shares in a Chippy business bought out by the owner. he made $95k the year before we started. This last 12 months he did $410k take home.

In some regards people will be locked out if they want to be. Have more than generations ever have and still want more stuff, eat out more, have piles of subscriptions and wont invest or learn the money game.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Interesting to note, in the article wahooo referenced, that it got one thing right. The increase in migration is putting pressure on the rental market. Something Taylor has referenced many times in the last 12 months.

Good to have you back wahooo I enjoy your pov.
 
poshman said:
Yes - and the point is that it is possible. What a time to be alive.

I was able to put money into the market and save when I was on $35k. it is possible if you decide you want it enough to not have stuff short term.
Click to expand...
And I'll guess that purchasing a home at that time was x3 or 4 times your income compared to x8+ which it is now.
 
Bicco said:
2014 was then they came into power. Have been there since.
Click to expand...
1998 - 2014 ALP

I hope they get some industry and resources going in the state. My understanding (may be wrong here) it that it is blocked by the greens.

As a nation. as is true with many western nations, as a country we overspend and it causes inflation in many areas of life. Housing, food, services etc. That is followed by increases in wages which are then passed on again to the consumer.

Both major parties suck when it comes to spending. It is maddening.
 
Taylor said:
Given I am no expert and managed to grow my own portfolio by 70% over five years, 40% of which was over covid, if your super fund hasn't done half as well then your fund managers have taken you for a ride.
Click to expand...
The fact that you can't (or won't) see the difference between someone's super going from $200k to $350k compared to someone's wealth going from $200bn up to $350bn shows how futile it is discussing anything with you.
All of the financial calculators show that we need approx $1mil. In retirement. Why do people need 1000's if not 100's of 1000's $$ more than that?
 
Bicco said:
And I'll guess that purchasing a home at that time was x3 or 4 times your income compared to x8+ which it is now.
Click to expand...

I should have been clear. I put it into the stock market, not the housing market.

Getting a home is not a right, nor is it always the best financial decision.

A family friend recently told me he made $380k selling his first home. He lived there for 9 years. He made no where near that amount. I know they did two separate renos that would have been at least $50k each. He paid interest for each of those years. They put in air cons and had repairs to different things each year as well as insurance and rates. I think he would have made maybe $110k and wouldn't be surprised if it was slightly less if I had all the numbers.

If he had rented, used the reno and other money to invest in the market he would have been far better off.
 
Bicco said:
The fact that you can't (or won't) see the difference between someone's super going from $200k to $350k compared to someone's wealth going from $200bn up to $350bn shows how futile it is discussing anything with you.
All of the financial calculators show that we need approx $1mil. In retirement. Why do people need 1000's if not 100's of 1000's $$ more than that?
Click to expand...

Those Billionaires create thousands of jobs. And in many cases risked a lot to do so while creating things that have furthered humanity.

Define rich for me? How much money is too much money and who should have all the rest?
 
Taylor said:
...and presumably the government that has created the issue by turning up the immigration tap without pushing the button on more housing will use the money to make better decisions with that money that improves outcomes for the rest of the community??

Or is it enough that the billionaires have less money, regardless of if it actually trickles down some benefits when the next largest higher player in the market holds the wealth?
Click to expand...
Surely it’s as simple as finding a way to balance tax cuts on poorer brackets with higher taxes on the highest earners. Just spitballing numbers but if you can legislate properly to tax billionaires 10% more and pass that all onto people earning under 50k, that’s a good thing no?
 
poshman said:
Those Billionaires create thousands of jobs. And in many cases risked a lot to do so while creating things that have furthered humanity.

Define rich for me? How much money is too much money and who should have all the rest?
Click to expand...
Most wealth is inherited. https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-f...27-are-still-the-richest-families-in-florence
I'm not against wealth, I'm against one person/family having more money than you could spend in 1000 lifetimes.
In the context of what we're discussing, $1bn is rich enough. Anyone with wealth above $1bn should be taxed at 95% above that level.
The biggest issue with the billionaires, is not that they have the money or have earned the money, its that they hoard their money. Their wealth is completely unnecessary.
If Hobart needed a new hospital and I had $20bn. I'd be thrilled to to handover $1bn to build it. Bicco Infirmary has a nice ring to it,no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top