Australian Politics Forum - Housing Remains Unaffordable

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30117
Gender: male

Re: Housing Remains Unaffordable - Many Struggling.
Reply #120 - Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:29pm

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:15pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:53am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:31am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

The govt. should simply provide low deposit, low or no interest loans to first home buyers (I would limit it to homes under $400 000 for syd residents, and $300 000 elsewhere). No fee's, no exorbitant charges. Just give people a chance to get a start and pay it back.

NO IT SHOULDN'T !! IT SHOULD STOP MEDALING IN IT PERIOD !!

What you are suggesting is just like the first home buyers scam which just serves to push up house prices as people borrow more to pay more for the same old rubbish.

The simple solution is that the government should stop providing corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks to property hoarders and speculators !!

you need to get it out of your head that the first home buyers scheme pushes up prices .. it doesn't ...consumers do. If you see a house worth $300 000 you offer $300 000 ..... if the govt. gives you $10 000 and you offer $310 000 for the same house than you are an idiot.

he just hates home-owners and that is the sum of his argument. He thinks govt should assist manufacturing then criticises that very assistance. he is dumber than snot.

and you believe that only foreign car companies should get government assistance and no one else !!

and there is a big difference between these asset classes although you still have a hard trouble understanding it.

investment in manufacturing produces a productive asset whereas investment in in a non productive asset such as housing produces nothing but debt otherwise you would be receiving a dividend cheque every year for your house.

you LIVE in someones investment. What would losers like you do if it werent for investors in housing?

Did it ever cross your mind that if greedy landlords didn't hoard so many properties then these properties could be made available to people to actually buy and own and perhaps the price would drop because there would be plenty for everyone to buy and own for themselves ?

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75406
Gender: male

Re: Housing Remains Unaffordable - Many Struggling.
Reply #121 - Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:45pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:50am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:31am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

The govt. should simply provide low deposit, low or no interest loans to first home buyers (I would limit it to homes under $400 000 for syd residents, and $300 000 elsewhere). No fee's, no exorbitant charges. Just give people a chance to get a start and pay it back.

NO IT SHOULDN'T !! IT SHOULD STOP MEDALING IN IT PERIOD !!

What you are suggesting is just like the first home buyers scam which just serves to push up house prices as people borrow more to pay more for the same old rubbish.

The simple solution is that the government should stop providing corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks to property hoarders and speculators !!

you need to get it out of your head that the first home buyers scheme pushes up prices .. it doesn't ...consumers do. If you see a house worth $300 000 you offer $300 000 ..... if the govt. gives you $10 000 and you offer $310 000 for the same house than you are an idiot.

a real estate agent told me years ago that government grants were useless because every time the government doled out money to buyers the sellers would increase it by at least that much because they new the sellers had that much extra to spend Wink

the seller may try , but ultimately it is the consumer that sets the price. If no one bought it then the seller would quickly drop the price.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/property-housing-first-home-b...

Quote:

So the real beneficiaries of the first home vendors’ grant weren’t the poor first home buyers, but those selling their first homes to them – which is why I call it the 'vendors grant' – and the banks, who took the extra deposit the first home vendors’ grant gave first home buyers, and ladened them up with initially three and ultimately over ten times as much more debt.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75406
Gender: male

Re: Housing Remains Unaffordable - Many Struggling.
Reply #122 - Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:47pm

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:51am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

The govt. should simply provide low deposit, low or no interest loans to first home buyers (I would limit it to homes under $400 000 for syd residents, and $300 000 elsewhere). No fee's, no exorbitant charges. Just give people a chance to get a start and pay it back.

why?

that low/no interest funding has to come from somewhere - taxpayers. and it will be just like public housing. people will get these loans when they are young with low incomes and then keep them when they have two high-paid jobs while everybody else subsidises their unneceesary cheap loans.

I dont mind helping legitimately poor but i have great objection to helping lazy people or those that were ONCE poor but no longer. and means testing seems to only apply when it can harm liberal voters rather than applied in cicurmstances like public housing etc.

because even if they have two high paid jobs, they pay the government back ... it is a loan, not a handout. Ultimately, it costs the govt. only what it costs to administer the programme, and in the case of low interest loans, they should be able to recoup that anyway

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Housing Remains Unaffordable - Many Struggling.
Reply #123 - Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:53pm

There are some basic flaws, at the crux of the FHOG scheme!

It inflates Government Debt.
It often enables younger Home Buyers to enter the Home market, by providing them with a sufficient deposit, even though their previous (particularly savings history) may have meant they would NOT qualify for a Housing Loan.
All of which sound a little like the aim of the US subprime system?

In any event, it does distort the system & it is now doing so at a time when Housing Prices are struggling to increase and in many instances they are actually in Decline.

This is completely different to much of the last century when housing Prices were virtually guaranteed to rise.

IF, as seems likely, Australia follows the trends already shown in Japan, the USA & many European countries, then Housing Prices will continue to Decline further, over the next several decades, WHICH WOULD MEAN MANY YOUNG AUSTRALIANS WILL LOSE THEIR HOUSING DREAM & THEN STRUGGLE WITH THEIR BAD CREDIT RATING!

If my memory serves me, the FHOG was introduced around 2000 as an offset to the GST, which is now well entrenched and I would suggest that the FHOG has now outlived its usefulness, along with some other benefits, such as the Baby Bonus and it's time to get rid of some of these benefits.

At the same time, we should also enact many of the Henry Report suggestions and then keep going, with an eye on Productivity, with additional measures to ensure ALL segments, including companies & the top 10% of income earners also pay their fair share of taxes!

Just as an aside (some would no doubt say useless), did you know that, in the USA -
1) The bottom 50% of income earners in the US, collectively own less than 1% of the national wealth.

2) Between 2001-2007 66% of income growth went to the top 1% of US citizens.

3) The wealthiest 1% of US citizens owns more wealth than the bottom 95% combined.

The situation in OZ may not be quite as bad, BUT we are certainly heading in that direction.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30117
Gender: male

Re: Housing Remains Unaffordable - Many Struggling.
Reply #124 - Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:56pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:50am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:31am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

The govt. should simply provide low deposit, low or no interest loans to first home buyers (I would limit it to homes under $400 000 for syd residents, and $300 000 elsewhere). No fee's, no exorbitant charges. Just give people a chance to get a start and pay it back.

NO IT SHOULDN'T !! IT SHOULD STOP MEDALING IN IT PERIOD !!

What you are suggesting is just like the first home buyers scam which just serves to push up house prices as people borrow more to pay more for the same old rubbish.

The simple solution is that the government should stop providing corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks to property hoarders and speculators !!

you need to get it out of your head that the first home buyers scheme pushes up prices .. it doesn't ...consumers do. If you see a house worth $300 000 you offer $300 000 ..... if the govt. gives you $10 000 and you offer $310 000 for the same house than you are an idiot.

a real estate agent told me years ago that government grants were useless because every time the government doled out money to buyers the sellers would increase it by at least that much because they new the sellers had that much extra to spend Wink

the seller may try , but ultimately it is the consumer that sets the price. If no one bought it then the seller would quickly drop the price.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/property-housing-first-home-b...

Quote:

So the real beneficiaries of the first home vendors’ grant weren’t the poor first home buyers, but those selling their first homes to them – which is why I call it the 'vendors grant' – and the banks, who took the extra deposit the first home vendors’ grant gave first home buyers, and ladened them up with initially three and ultimately over ten times as much more debt.

in a bull market or bubble the sellers set the price Wink

The tripled first home buyers grant just served to inflate the bubble. It was the proverbial carrot in front of the horse trick and of course you had to get it before the expiry date. Everyone rushes in to get it and the prices increase because demand increases. Classic bubble behaviour ultimately design to help out sellers and not buyers Sad

They also encourage cashed up foreign investors to outbid locals and the bubble got inflated even more. Nothing the government did helped first home buyers as evidenced by the real estate institute gloating on national news about how first home buyers were being pushed out of the market Sad

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30117
Gender: male

Re: Housing Remains Unaffordable - Many Struggling.
Reply #125 - Feb 20^th, 2013 at 1:04pm

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

There are some basic flaws, at the crux of the FHOG scheme!

It inflates Government Debt.
It often enables younger Home Buyers to enter the Home market, by providing them with a sufficient deposit, even though their previous (particularly savings history) may have meant they would NOT qualify for a Housing Loan.
All of which sound a little like the aim of the US subprime system?

In any event, it does distort the system & it is now doing so at a time when Housing Prices are struggling to increase and in many instances they are actually in Decline.

This is completely different to much of the last century when housing Prices were virtually guaranteed to rise.

IF, as seems likely, Australia follows the trends already shown in Japan, the USA & many European countries, then Housing Prices will continue to Decline further, over the next several decades, WHICH WOULD MEAN MANY YOUNG AUSTRALIANS WILL LOSE THEIR HOUSING DREAM & THEN STRUGGLE WITH THEIR BAD CREDIT RATING!

If my memory serves me, the FHOG was introduced around 2000 as an offset to the GST, which is now well entrenched and I would suggest that the FHOG has now outlived its usefulness, along with some other benefits, such as the Baby Bonus and it's time to get rid of some of these benefits.

At the same time, we should also enact many of the Henry Report suggestions and then keep going, with an eye on Productivity, with additional measures to ensure ALL segments, including companies & the top 10% of income earners also pay their fair share of taxes!

Just as an aside (some would no doubt say useless), did you know that, in the USA -
1) The bottom 50% of income earners in the US, collectively own less than 1% of the national wealth.

2) Between 2001-2007 66% of income growth went to the top 1% of US citizens.

3) The wealthiest 1% of US citizens owns more wealth than the bottom 95% combined.

The situation in OZ may not be quite as bad, BUT we are certainly heading in that direction.

According to Steve Keen the FHOG was introduced by Bob Hawke back in 1983.

Quote:

What bollocks. First home buyers weren’t locked out by the ending of the first home vendors’ grant: they were locked out by the impossibly high prices that this grant has helped generate over the 30 years since it was first invented. And its purpose has never been to give first home buyers a helping hand: it has always been used as a way of giving the economy the economic equivalent of a steroid injection. First home buyers have instead been the sacrificial lambs of an asset-price-inflation route to apparent national prosperity.

This was why Bob Hawke’ introduced the first home owner’s grant in the first place back in 1983. Bob Hawke had just beaten Malcolm Fraser in an election over the level of unemployment, and his advisors suggested a grant as a way of reviving the housing market, and perhaps the economy. It worked a treat, and that (plus speculative lending to finance the Ponzi schemes of Christopher Skase and the rest of the White Shoe brigade) enabled Paul Keating to claim the mantle of 'World’s Greatest Treasurer' in the 1980s.

But the grant also supercharged house price rises as well, so each boost to a flailing economy flailed the chances of first home buyers being able to buy a house in the first place. The impact of the grant on house prices is obvious when you look at movements in house prices before it was introduced, after, when it was in operation, and when it was doubled (or trebled, as under Kevin Rudd).

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/property-housing-first-home-b...

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75406
Gender: male

Re: Housing Remains Unaffordable - Many Struggling.
Reply #126 - Feb 20^th, 2013 at 1:07pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:50am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:31am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

The govt. should simply provide low deposit, low or no interest loans to first home buyers (I would limit it to homes under $400 000 for syd residents, and $300 000 elsewhere). No fee's, no exorbitant charges. Just give people a chance to get a start and pay it back.

NO IT SHOULDN'T !! IT SHOULD STOP MEDALING IN IT PERIOD !!

What you are suggesting is just like the first home buyers scam which just serves to push up house prices as people borrow more to pay more for the same old rubbish.

The simple solution is that the government should stop providing corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks to property hoarders and speculators !!

you need to get it out of your head that the first home buyers scheme pushes up prices .. it doesn't ...consumers do. If you see a house worth $300 000 you offer $300 000 ..... if the govt. gives you $10 000 and you offer $310 000 for the same house than you are an idiot.

a real estate agent told me years ago that government grants were useless because every time the government doled out money to buyers the sellers would increase it by at least that much because they new the sellers had that much extra to spend Wink

the seller may try , but ultimately it is the consumer that sets the price. If no one bought it then the seller would quickly drop the price.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/property-housing-first-home-b...

Quote:

So the real beneficiaries of the first home vendors’ grant weren’t the poor first home buyers, but those selling their first homes to them – which is why I call it the 'vendors grant' – and the banks, who took the extra deposit the first home vendors’ grant gave first home buyers, and ladened them up with initially three and ultimately over ten times as much more debt.

in a bull market or bubble the sellers set the price Wink

The tripled first home buyers grant just served to inflate the bubble. It was the proverbial carrot in front of the horse trick and of course you had to get it before the expiry date. Everyone rushes in to get it and the prices increase because demand increases. Classic bubble behaviour ultimately design to help out sellers and not buyers Sad

They also encourage cashed up foreign investors to outbid locals and the bubble got inflated even more. Nothing the government did helped first home buyers as evidenced by the real estate institute gloating on national news about how first home buyers were being pushed out of the market Sad

but it's consumer demand that creates that bull market, not the govt. grant .... no one pays, prices drop

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30117
Gender: male

Re: Housing Remains Unaffordable - Many Struggling.
Reply #127 - Feb 20^th, 2013 at 1:23pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 1:07pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:50am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:31am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

The govt. should simply provide low deposit, low or no interest loans to first home buyers (I would limit it to homes under $400 000 for syd residents, and $300 000 elsewhere). No fee's, no exorbitant charges. Just give people a chance to get a start and pay it back.

NO IT SHOULDN'T !! IT SHOULD STOP MEDALING IN IT PERIOD !!

What you are suggesting is just like the first home buyers scam which just serves to push up house prices as people borrow more to pay more for the same old rubbish.

The simple solution is that the government should stop providing corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks to property hoarders and speculators !!

you need to get it out of your head that the first home buyers scheme pushes up prices .. it doesn't ...consumers do. If you see a house worth $300 000 you offer $300 000 ..... if the govt. gives you $10 000 and you offer $310 000 for the same house than you are an idiot.

a real estate agent told me years ago that government grants were useless because every time the government doled out money to buyers the sellers would increase it by at least that much because they new the sellers had that much extra to spend Wink

the seller may try , but ultimately it is the consumer that sets the price. If no one bought it then the seller would quickly drop the price.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/property-housing-first-home-b...

Quote:

So the real beneficiaries of the first home vendors’ grant weren’t the poor first home buyers, but those selling their first homes to them – which is why I call it the 'vendors grant' – and the banks, who took the extra deposit the first home vendors’ grant gave first home buyers, and ladened them up with initially three and ultimately over ten times as much more debt.

in a bull market or bubble the sellers set the price Wink

The tripled first home buyers grant just served to inflate the bubble. It was the proverbial carrot in front of the horse trick and of course you had to get it before the expiry date. Everyone rushes in to get it and the prices increase because demand increases. Classic bubble behaviour ultimately design to help out sellers and not buyers Sad

They also encourage cashed up foreign investors to outbid locals and the bubble got inflated even more. Nothing the government did helped first home buyers as evidenced by the real estate institute gloating on national news about how first home buyers were being pushed out of the market Sad

but it's consumer demand that creates that bull market, not the govt. grant .... no one pays, prices drop

The government grant is the catalyst in the consumer demand. Why do you think labor tripled it and why do you think it didn't actually help the people it was intended to help simply because it was not designed to !!

Read this article. It explains it better than I can.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/property-housing-first-home-b...

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Housing Remains Unaffordable - Many Struggling.
Reply #128 - Feb 20^th, 2013 at 4:10pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 1:04pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

There are some basic flaws, at the crux of the FHOG scheme!

It inflates Government Debt.
It often enables younger Home Buyers to enter the Home market, by providing them with a sufficient deposit, even though their previous (particularly savings history) may have meant they would NOT qualify for a Housing Loan.
All of which sound a little like the aim of the US subprime system?

In any event, it does distort the system & it is now doing so at a time when Housing Prices are struggling to increase and in many instances they are actually in Decline.

This is completely different to much of the last century when housing Prices were virtually guaranteed to rise.

IF, as seems likely, Australia follows the trends already shown in Japan, the USA & many European countries, then Housing Prices will continue to Decline further, over the next several decades, WHICH WOULD MEAN MANY YOUNG AUSTRALIANS WILL LOSE THEIR HOUSING DREAM & THEN STRUGGLE WITH THEIR BAD CREDIT RATING!

If my memory serves me, the FHOG was introduced around 2000 as an offset to the GST, which is now well entrenched and I would suggest that the FHOG has now outlived its usefulness, along with some other benefits, such as the Baby Bonus and it's time to get rid of some of these benefits.

At the same time, we should also enact many of the Henry Report suggestions and then keep going, with an eye on Productivity, with additional measures to ensure ALL segments, including companies & the top 10% of income earners also pay their fair share of taxes!

Just as an aside (some would no doubt say useless), did you know that, in the USA -
1) The bottom 50% of income earners in the US, collectively own less than 1% of the national wealth.

2) Between 2001-2007 66% of income growth went to the top 1% of US citizens.

3) The wealthiest 1% of US citizens owns more wealth than the bottom 95% combined.

The situation in OZ may not be quite as bad, BUT we are certainly heading in that direction.

According to Steve Keen the FHOG was introduced by Bob Hawke back in 1983.

Quote:

What bollocks. First home buyers weren’t locked out by the ending of the first home vendors’ grant: they were locked out by the impossibly high prices that this grant has helped generate over the 30 years since it was first invented. And its purpose has never been to give first home buyers a helping hand: it has always been used as a way of giving the economy the economic equivalent of a steroid injection. First home buyers have instead been the sacrificial lambs of an asset-price-inflation route to apparent national prosperity.

This was why Bob Hawke’ introduced the first home owner’s grant in the first place back in 1983. Bob Hawke had just beaten Malcolm Fraser in an election over the level of unemployment, and his advisors suggested a grant as a way of reviving the housing market, and perhaps the economy. It worked a treat, and that (plus speculative lending to finance the Ponzi schemes of Christopher Skase and the rest of the White Shoe brigade) enabled Paul Keating to claim the mantle of 'World’s Greatest Treasurer' in the 1980s.

But the grant also supercharged house price rises as well, so each boost to a flailing economy flailed the chances of first home buyers being able to buy a house in the first place. The impact of the grant on house prices is obvious when you look at movements in house prices before it was introduced, after, when it was in operation, and when it was doubled (or trebled, as under Kevin Rudd).

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/property-housing-first-home-b...

Perhaps Keen is correct, you would think his research would be more accurate, than my memory, but a quite google brings up the following -
The First Home Owner Grant (FHOG) scheme was introduced on 1 July 2000 to offset the effect of the GST on home ownership. It is a national scheme funded by the states and territories and administered under their own legislation.

Under the scheme, a one-off grant of up to $7000 is payable to first home owners that satisfy all the eligibility criteria.
http://www.firsthome.gov.au/

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Housing Remains Unaffordable - Many Struggling.
Reply #129 - Feb 20^th, 2013 at 4:40pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:29pm:

Did it ever cross your mind that if greedy landlords didn't hoard so many properties then these properties could be made available to people to actually buy and own and perhaps the price would drop because there would be plenty for everyone to buy and own for themselves ?

That is one of the most absurd comments in the history of the internet. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Housing Remains Unaffordable - Many Struggling.
Reply #130 - Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:03pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:15pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:53am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:31am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

The govt. should simply provide low deposit, low or no interest loans to first home buyers (I would limit it to homes under $400 000 for syd residents, and $300 000 elsewhere). No fee's, no exorbitant charges. Just give people a chance to get a start and pay it back.

NO IT SHOULDN'T !! IT SHOULD STOP MEDALING IN IT PERIOD !!

What you are suggesting is just like the first home buyers scam which just serves to push up house prices as people borrow more to pay more for the same old rubbish.

The simple solution is that the government should stop providing corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks to property hoarders and speculators !!

you need to get it out of your head that the first home buyers scheme pushes up prices .. it doesn't ...consumers do. If you see a house worth $300 000 you offer $300 000 ..... if the govt. gives you $10 000 and you offer $310 000 for the same house than you are an idiot.

he just hates home-owners and that is the sum of his argument. He thinks govt should assist manufacturing then criticises that very assistance. he is dumber than snot.

and you believe that only foreign car companies should get government assistance and no one else !!

and there is a big difference between these asset classes although you still have a hard trouble understanding it.

investment in manufacturing produces a productive asset whereas investment in in a non productive asset such as housing produces nothing but debt otherwise you would be receiving a dividend cheque every year for your house.

you LIVE in someones investment. What would losers like you do if it werent for investors in housing?

Did it ever cross your mind that if greedy landlords didn't hoard so many properties then these properties could be made available to people to actually buy and own and perhaps the price would drop because there would be plenty for everyone to buy and own for themselves ?

if landlords didnt have homes to rent you would be living in that 20yo commodore of yours. you still wouldnt own a home because you are either too lazy, too stupid or too broke to do so. and the prices would be lukcy to drop a few percent.

you hate just about everybody, dont you. IN fact, what and who do you actually like (other than your wife boooby)?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Housing Remains Unaffordable - Many Struggling.
Reply #131 - Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:05pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:51am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

The govt. should simply provide low deposit, low or no interest loans to first home buyers (I would limit it to homes under $400 000 for syd residents, and $300 000 elsewhere). No fee's, no exorbitant charges. Just give people a chance to get a start and pay it back.

why?

that low/no interest funding has to come from somewhere - taxpayers. and it will be just like public housing. people will get these loans when they are young with low incomes and then keep them when they have two high-paid jobs while everybody else subsidises their unneceesary cheap loans.

I dont mind helping legitimately poor but i have great objection to helping lazy people or those that were ONCE poor but no longer. and means testing seems to only apply when it can harm liberal voters rather than applied in cicurmstances like public housing etc.

because even if they have two high paid jobs, they pay the government back ... it is a loan, not a handout. Ultimately, it costs the govt. only what it costs to administer the programme, and in the case of low interest loans, they should be able to recoup that anyway

not at all. these people with high incomes get to pay off a loan at significantly lower cost than the rest of us which is intrinsically unfair since we taxpayer get to subsidise it.

how about the govt stop subsidising everything and start making some people stand on their own two feet or do what everyone did decades ago and start of buying a small house in an outer suburb and upgrading as the years go by.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Housing Remains Unaffordable - Many Struggling.
Reply #132 - Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:08pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 1:07pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:50am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:31am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

The govt. should simply provide low deposit, low or no interest loans to first home buyers (I would limit it to homes under $400 000 for syd residents, and $300 000 elsewhere). No fee's, no exorbitant charges. Just give people a chance to get a start and pay it back.

NO IT SHOULDN'T !! IT SHOULD STOP MEDALING IN IT PERIOD !!

What you are suggesting is just like the first home buyers scam which just serves to push up house prices as people borrow more to pay more for the same old rubbish.

The simple solution is that the government should stop providing corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks to property hoarders and speculators !!

you need to get it out of your head that the first home buyers scheme pushes up prices .. it doesn't ...consumers do. If you see a house worth $300 000 you offer $300 000 ..... if the govt. gives you $10 000 and you offer $310 000 for the same house than you are an idiot.

a real estate agent told me years ago that government grants were useless because every time the government doled out money to buyers the sellers would increase it by at least that much because they new the sellers had that much extra to spend Wink

the seller may try , but ultimately it is the consumer that sets the price. If no one bought it then the seller would quickly drop the price.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/property-housing-first-home-b...

Quote:

So the real beneficiaries of the first home vendors’ grant weren’t the poor first home buyers, but those selling their first homes to them – which is why I call it the 'vendors grant' – and the banks, who took the extra deposit the first home vendors’ grant gave first home buyers, and ladened them up with initially three and ultimately over ten times as much more debt.

in a bull market or bubble the sellers set the price Wink

The tripled first home buyers grant just served to inflate the bubble. It was the proverbial carrot in front of the horse trick and of course you had to get it before the expiry date. Everyone rushes in to get it and the prices increase because demand increases. Classic bubble behaviour ultimately design to help out sellers and not buyers Sad

They also encourage cashed up foreign investors to outbid locals and the bubble got inflated even more. Nothing the government did helped first home buyers as evidenced by the real estate institute gloating on national news about how first home buyers were being pushed out of the market Sad

but it's consumer demand that creates that bull market, not the govt. grant .... no one pays, prices drop

The government grant is the catalyst in the consumer demand. Why do you think labor tripled it and why do you think it didn't actually help the people it was intended to help simply because it was not designed to !!

Read this article. It explains it better than I can.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/property-housing-first-home-b...

so according to nail without the FHOG no one would buy homes. pity about the fact that he is wrong. people buy homes because (unlike you) they dont want to rent for the rest of their lives. the FHOG might make it easier or it might no but it certainly does not make it worse. and the FHOG is a drop in the ocean of the price of a home.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75406
Gender: male

Re: Housing Remains Unaffordable - Many Struggling.
Reply #133 - Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:03pm

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 8:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 11:51am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

The govt. should simply provide low deposit, low or no interest loans to first home buyers (I would limit it to homes under $400 000 for syd residents, and $300 000 elsewhere). No fee's, no exorbitant charges. Just give people a chance to get a start and pay it back.

why?

that low/no interest funding has to come from somewhere - taxpayers. and it will be just like public housing. people will get these loans when they are young with low incomes and then keep them when they have two high-paid jobs while everybody else subsidises their unneceesary cheap loans.

I dont mind helping legitimately poor but i have great objection to helping lazy people or those that were ONCE poor but no longer. and means testing seems to only apply when it can harm liberal voters rather than applied in cicurmstances like public housing etc.

because even if they have two high paid jobs, they pay the government back ... it is a loan, not a handout. Ultimately, it costs the govt. only what it costs to administer the programme, and in the case of low interest loans, they should be able to recoup that anyway

not at all. these people with high incomes get to pay off a loan at significantly lower cost than the rest of us which is intrinsically unfair since we taxpayer get to subsidise it.

how about the govt stop subsidising everything and start making some people stand on their own two feet or do what everyone did decades ago and start of buying a small house in an outer suburb and upgrading as the years go by.

Whats unfair ? that someone else gets a leg up? The loan would be open to first home buyers only, with repayments possibly geared to their income .... I don't have all the details worked out and it would probably take someone smarter than me to work them all out .....your argument about it being unfair is rubbish ... it's not about being fair it's about giving those that need it a start so that we don't have people on 10 yr waiting lists for housing.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

salad in

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5941

Re: Housing Remains Unaffordable - Many Struggling.
Reply #134 - Feb 20^th, 2013 at 9:08pm

Quote:

More kids growing up in rental homes as financial stress bites families. Sad

Jessica Irvine, National Economics Editor
News Limited Network
February 16, 2013

MORE Australian children are growing up in rental homes, a new analysis of Census figures show.

[...]

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/property/more-kids-growing-up-in-rental-homes-as-financial-stress-bites-families/story-e6frfmd0-1226579429003#ixzz2L5pVZp8n

Quote:

The Australian government has encouraged broad-scale home-ownership through tax incentives (although mortgage interest is not tax deductible as, for example, in the USA); as a result, 70% of households own their own homes — one of the largest proportions of any nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_ownership_in_Australia

I'mphukingcrook, stop posting tosh.

Back to top

The ALP, the progressive party, the party of ideas, the workers' friend, is the only Australian political party to roast four young Australians in roof cavities. SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

IP Logged