CGT tax cut
Immigration
First home buyers grant.
Howard govt basically pulled out all stops to keep the ball rolling for his battlers.
The other thing of note is the lack of inflation..
Housing isn’t included. We had periods of much higher inflation in the 70s and 80s which flattened that curve.
The same is happening now
You make a very interesting point. This is exactly what is happening in regional Vic where building rates have reportedly declined due to interest rates/inflation etc, further increasing the needs to rent in a market where (like Geelong) houses may be on the market for slightly longer but in general aren’t seeing a noticeable decline in property values like many major cities on east coast.
From what I have read similar patterns are occurring in regional NSW and SA.
The problem is, whenever government builds housing, they spend too much and create places people don’t want to live. This why they instead provided incentive for individuals to create rental properties with negative gearing. It cost the government (and hence, the tax-payers) a lot less, and rental housing is individual, and nicer to live in than government housing projects.
Also, how often do government projects of all types end up pouring huge amounts of money into the pockets of a privileged few ‘friends of government’? I think these are even more extreme wealth redistributions than those provided by negative gearing, which at least are leveraged by middle class home owners rather than super rich with friends in high places.
Yeah you are a spot on, I have seen some old friends in ‘government’ housing, they are horrible, run down, uninviting places and the screams of neighbours all day and night is something they get used to.
The perception of government housing would need to change over time and see better quality builds.
Now I’m starting to sound a little utopian I know I know
There’s I think 10 housing commission properties within a block or so of me. All pretty much identical red brick 3 bedroomers on around a qtr acre. I’ve lived in the area for 10 years and only recently found out about them, they do stand out when you know what to look for though.
That’s the way to do it though. Don’t jam all the public housing together in a lump , scatter it around.
Visit Port Melbourne. All those former Housing Commission house in the Beacon Cove area, are now owned either by the people who rented them or new purchasers. Many are still ugly little dumps but slowly being renewed and they are fetching massive prices
I used to work in the homelessness sector and, with regards to public housing, the motto in the 90s was “ordinary houses in ordinary streets”. I endorse this approach.
Love the thought of that, I hate the word ghetto but putting lots of public housing together would create something similar to that I guess
227 politicians own 510 rental properties
84 of them own 3+ properties.
self interest.
I grew up in Port Melbourne. Government wanted to move these people out who had public housing in garden city across the road from the beach. They held on - many purchased and now have high priced properties. The problem in Port Melbourne now is the oldies (like me) who were working class are asset rich and cash poor. Rates are sky high so is cost of living.
Yes cry me a river they could sell but as you get older, acess to local services is you’re used to is important, like your local GP.
ACT government spread out public housing in all suburbs not creating ghettos. I think each new major housing development must contribute a certain amount to public housing.
Mortgage interest on your first home tax deductible?
bit specific isn’t it? How many regular Australians own more than one properly? plenty
high income earners invest money in assets, shock and horror
ls that over 20% of Australia’s 11.4 million taxpayers owned an investment property in 2019-20.
That figure is 14.9% if 3.6 million non-taxable individuals are included.
That means that around 2.22 million taxpayers in Australia are property investors, and collectively they own 3.25 million investment properties.
Here’s how many properties investors hold in Australia:
- 71.5% of investors hold 1 investment property
- 18% of investors hold 2 investment properties
- 9.7% of investors hold 3, 4, or 5 investment properties
- 0.8% (or 19,895) of investors hold 6 or more investment properties
I think if you contrast it to different countries. Say the USA for example, their population is much more highly invested in equities than in homes.(not saying it’s necessarily better or worse just different)
It’s not that private investment is bad per se(it’s essential in a capitalist economy).
But what it is saying is that housing is preferentially treated compared to other asset classes.
And that’s from lending to taxation and everything in between.
Probably overall to the detriment to society.
With the ability to use leverage and to use it tax effectively it’s almost stupid not to invest in property in Australia.
But for the overall health of the economy it might not always be the best thing.
I’m someone who has absolutely no understanding of the stock market and therefore little interest in it. For me having investment properties is my “gamble” on our retirement fund.
The other part of this, is if you sell, you need to buy elsewhere and after living most of your life in Port, it is very difficult to find somewhere better given all prices everywhere are obscene.
Yes, Port and South to a lesser extent is one of the now rarer communities of not only inner but the entirety of Melbourne where most of these people, families have known each other for a very long time. In other words, community. Can be very hard to move away from that. I work with someone three days a week and loosely become a part of it. Where I grew up, I only have one link to that particular area as it’s typically generationally transient and most of us and our parents have long moved on/away which is not unusual. I can understand the want to stay, there are pockets and communities spread across Melbourne but Port really is quite special in a lot of ways being suburb specific.
I’d never even known or heard of Montague being an area or tight knit community flattened and rezoned in the 60’s, long gone and now only starting to resurface historically.
I’ve heard this mentioned before, I don’t mind this idea especially if your tax deduction stops if you buy another property and have income/asset limits. I’m interested in why this isn’t a good idea. I’m sure some finance experts on here will know.
Same reason FHB didn’t actually help affordability.
Cheaper finance just serves (eventually) to drive prices up in the medium to long term