Are you worried about those who retire and use their entire lump sum of super to pay off their loan then rely 100% on the age pension?
Less than I am about the homelessness problem. Itâs a very real possibility.
All the more reason to help people get their first mortgage while they are still at an age to pay it off before they retire
I may be being a bit silly, but in the event of rising interest rates and severe mortgage stress, people would then lose their house and their Super.
If youâve already explained this bit, I apologise.
And pray nothing ever goes wrong.
Rubbish, I have not spent any more than 4K in a year on anything around the house that went bust. If I had to come up with 40k to buy another house that would be a bit different.
Borderline insane idea to be able to use it imo.
I donât think people are fully aware of what the economic cost of ages housing is right now. Iâve just come out of that sector and so many oldies are crammed into substandard living conditions of for what ever reason they donât have the 250k to go into aged care. Now most families in this situation sell the home to foot the bill.
We were starting to see the big backlash of the retirees who 10 years ago sold up and bought mobile homes and a small flat and took off across the country and then their health declined. They didnât have the assets to cover the private aged care gap and are now in the crammed public system.
This is going to get a lot worse, if we canât get Gen Y assets in the next few years, except they wonât have had the Winnebago adventure before they end up in the old folks home.
Btw public aged care costs the economy 120k per year, per person in 2016. Imagine the cost in 40 years when there are 200,000 people in this sector.
My point is if someone has a desire, a good credit rating, and is between 28-35 we need to be doing everything possible to help them enter the housing market as a matter of future proofing the economy.
For every 1 older person who is cheesing the system of negative gearing and aged pension there are 20 low income earners who are desperate for a leg up.
Iâm confused by what youâre saying.
So youâre saying Gen Y need a house to help their parents retire by selling their own house and reducing their super to buy the house. So Gen Y will then have no house and less super for their retirement? Thatâs future proofing?
Then you mention negative gearing which you say isnât going to happen but youâre allowed to use it as your defence?
Also please provide links for âPublic aged care costs the economy 120k per year, per person in 2016â, and âFor every 1 older person who is cheesing the system of negative gearing and aged pension there are 20 low income earners who are desperate for a leg up.â
Well, theyâd lose the super theyâve ploughed into the house. Thatâs gone and ainât coming back.
No they need to have paid off a house before they retire or the problem that is starting to surface now in the elderly sector is going to be expodentally worse in years time.
Iâm saying a 30 year old is paying off a mortgage till retirement. What we canât have is generational renters in high volume. As they wonât have the equity to afford aged care in later life
I guess I just figure that in 40 years time that a person with 400k super and a house worth 550k is a better proposition than a person with 500k and no assets. When you figure in the cost of aged care based on current day figures. I thought it was simple.
That was a weirdly relevant typo lol
Iâm not going to bother telling you in detail how dumb this and how wrong you are with this example.
Iâll listen to you on aboriginal issues and a bit of climate change news but you are out of your debt here.
Awaiting links to your figures above as well.
Lol. Speaking of relevant (or Freudian) typoâs.
Please do, I generally think what I posted above is obvious. If Iâm wrong I would like to know how.
Tell me how having more money and no property given inflation is better than owning property which shouldnât depreciate to heavily . From my Experience the major difference between the lower and middle classes is property ownership.
Iâm debt free by the way and proud of it.
You assume the person who doesnât have a home loan simply spends all their money. Maybe they invested it elsewhere. Maybe they bought an investment property. Put their money in super. EtcâŚ
It was nice of them to throw the whole house in for less than the price of the deposit. Sacrificing just three years of super instead of a large chunk of your total salary every year for thirty years is a great deal!
LOL.
There are some bonuses to buying over renting, but the financial aspect is rarely one of them.
And thatâs before we further bump up prices with this stupid proposal.