As usual and like a typical greens voter always trying to ban what you don’t like to hear.
Troll = someone who says something I don’t like and I feel threatened.
I have not abused anyone and have in the past provided specific and significant proof that the warmists/ "scientists " make doomsday predictions that don’t come true.
Anyway still waiting on the cost vs temperature reduction of Labour’s plan.
werewolf if you’re in the mood for discussion, what do you think of my policy of killing everyone on the BRW Rich List and redistributing their wealth so that everyone gets $22,000?
-edit- this is what an actual far left policy looks like. Not the neoliberalism-lite crap that the ALP puts up.
Not taking the bait troll.
You aren’t interested in the science. You are just an ideologist following a political cause and baiting those who aren’t on your team. Troll.
Never mind, I got it!
i CaN’t BeLiEvE tEh LeFt WaNt To KiLl PeOpLe!!!1
those billionaires WORKED HARD to inherit that wealth
One hell of a dead cat bounce in property this week.
rolls eyes
I’m sure some will put it down to the election, but it’s down to two things.
A steady rebound over the last few weeks and people creating their own bubble narrative.
And APRA and the RBA doing their bit to make the bubble great again.
We want more affordable housing, then panic when prices drop.
Phasing out negative gearing was / is a responsible policy. Increasing demand by making housing more accessible to first home buyers without addressing affordability is irresponsible IMO.
That real estate agents celebrated the election result says it all really.
Orstraya.
People who sold a month ago will be kicking themselves.
Two very similar properties (although the former was, ■■■, clearly the better):
One sold two weeks ago at 1.37 after ages on the market, the other went today after two weeks at 1.4575 with an indicative price of 1.3-1.4.
We thought we might have a shot at 1.35 but nooooooo.
I kinda hope this is an aberration, but it doesn’t look like it.
At all.
Phasing out negative gearing was gutless: a real left policy would have been to cut it off entirely and tell the bludging leeches who’ve been profiting from it to be grateful for what they’ve had already.
There’s nothing wrong with first home buyers having to save up a deposit for a house, even a 20% deposit. What is wrong is the size of the rent they have to pay, which prohibits any saving.
What a decent socialist government would do, be it state or federal, is to massively invest in new housing stock — houses and flats — which would be owned by a modern version of the old Housing Commission and rented out to clients at low fixed rents on long-term contracts. This would have a double benefit of providing employment in the building trades, and forcing the private rack-rent landlords to lower their prices. Tenants of these public properties would be able to afford to save, if they wanted to buy their own homes.
One aspect which has been ignored by both sides of politics is that just a few years ago there was a report (I don’t remember the exact details, sorry) saying that a large proportion of the younger generation (Generation X or the Millennials or whoever) no longer really wanted to buy their own home; that they preferred to go the European way and rent an apartment or house and put their capital towards other projects. What they really wanted was affordable rental properties — apartments or houses — with good contracts and landlord accountability. This is where Labor should be active — and bugger their Liberal Lite Right Wing !
Woah.
No.
Just no.
Two things.
Everyone wants to own their own house, eventually, and nobody wants slums.
Vote 137 Perce.
Sure. Yes. Not tax rebates for people with 5 houses. That’s sensible.
We shouldn’t be allowed to speculate on a roof over someone’s head. Doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be able to buy investment properties, but getting red of things like negative gearing will get rid of a lot of “deadwood” who use that to keep their investment going with their “interest only” loan.
No good, sorry. Burning of the bodies will no doubt create a carbon apocalypse with hell for everyone.
You would not burn them !
Recycling of all usable parts.
Of course “nobody wants slums” – least of all the people who are condemned to live in them by a society which punishes its citizens for being poor.
But I wasn’t talking about slums; I was talking about provision, by the State, of good quality accommodation which would be available under long-term contract at an affordable fixed rent, with the secondary intention of providing competition with the private sector, to prevent them gouging the public and, in Don Chipp’s words, “keep the bastards honest.”
Mass provision by the State of good quality rental accommodation is essential.
It would create employment in the construction industry.
Provision of a low rental alternative would force private rental prices down, and help to lower housing prices in general, because it would have a downward effect on the numbers of those seeking to buy, especially if this were coupled with the complete abolition of negative gearing.
I lived for many years in Europe, where a large proportion of the urban population happily spend their lives in secure rental accomodation with no desire to own their own property. Often these rented homes are even passed down in the family. Many of their relatives have emigrated to Australia, and cannot understand the way home “ownership” (which includes a bank, of course, as primary owner), is promoted constantly as the “only” way to live — mainly by those who stand to make a moxie out of property sales.
I know from personal experience that NOT everyone wants to own their own house — I have relatives and friends in both Sydney and Melbourne who want simply to rent, who don’t want the hassle of home ownership, who would prefer to free up their capital for other uses, but who also want a fair, equitable arrangement with a landlord, which unfortunately is difficult to achieve in this modern greed-driven Australian society.
If you check out the following it might just open your mind a little to other people’s point-of-view:
Because at the moment that’s pretty much the only alternative to being at the mercy of landlords. If there was a long term lease option then plenty would take that up.
Berlin, fixed long term rent, and you can renovate. Plus everything else Germany does better than every other joint.
Personally, I think it’s a bit of the “rent money is dead money” concept. If you’re going to continually pay rent, you may as well put that money towards something you’ll eventually own. It’ll put you in good stead in the long run.
Typical rightie approach to meaningful change. Search for one minor obstacle, declare it too hard, let’s just keep things the way they were when I was a child.
Spot on. A lot more people would prefer to rent, you often come out better $$ wise when you work out the real cost of owning a home.
But when you can only sign for 12 months at a time, which is how it works for lost places, it’s hard.
Also allows for greater flexibility in switching jobs/careers (which I am told is a good thing).
Buy a home and you’ll tend to only look for opportunities within reach.