Politics

Ok, I can see where we are not meeting at the middle now.

I’m not talking about people, let’s call them Callum from Chadstone who are wisely investing their money and building strong retirement portfolios.

I’m talking about Shane and Jane from Cranbourne, with 3 kids who pay 450 a week rent and want to buy a house but can’t get the deposit together. Who are living off a combined 65k.

I’m tipping, there are WAY more Shane and Janes than there are Callum’s.

I was going to ask about this. Do you really need to own your home? If you choose to invest in super, shares etc couldn’t you still have a comfortable retirement paying rent?

Ok, I am totally willing to accept I’ve got this totally wrong. I’m pretty sure I didn’t say anything about people not paying their mortgage off. That’s absurd. But if a person is renting for 450 per week for the 40 years of their working life then they have ended up spending near a million dollars in renting in that time. I don’t give a toss about the marginal benefits of home ownership vs renting. But if one guy pays off a mortgage in that same span with around the same money as the poor sap who rented that whole time. I know who is better off.

I hope to have paid off two houses and have over a million dollars in Super by the time I retire. One for my wife and I and one that will be for my children to use as they see fit. I envisage that it will be pretty much impossible for my kids to enter the property market by the time they are 30.

I genuinely think that saving for your kids to get a house will be the Australian equivalent of Americans saving for their children’s collage education.

If it’s planned properly it is possible.

This’ll blow your mind. How about buying a property to invest in using a self managed super fund! Super and a house combined!

1 Like

Yep - just did that last week - went for commercial property though so I can get other benefits.

Yeah, that’s how we will do house two.

But you would want to have a lot of solid investment opportunities, property is s good one.

Unless/until the bubble bursts, of course.

3 Likes

I always find the bubble bursting thing interesting.

If stocks go down in price and you are still pumping in the same $ via super, you’re just getting more bang for your buck.

Isn’t the same also true for houses? House prices go down, I’ll be able to afford buy another one

Depends how much you still owe on the first one. You may be underwater if values drop too much, and then your first house suddenly turns into a minus on your balance sheet and isn’t even good for collateral. Which is basically what happened in the USA - people suddenly found their houses were net liabilities, and just packed up their stuff and walked away rather than continue to pay the mortgage on a non-performing asset.

I don’t think things’ll get that bad here)(it’s not so easy to walk away from a mortgage here, for starters), But I’ve been wrong before.

2 Likes

This. This. This.

The suggestion of tapping super is criminal. It would create a two-tiered society come retirement - those forced to tap it, and are in virtual poverty, and those who retain their retirement funds.

3 Likes

That’s why they should be buying an investment property and letting Capital gain create their deposit.

You need to widen your scope Ben , as it is the whole tax system that is stuffed.

Too many loop-holes, too complicated, too many taxes. Just impossible to police and few of us want to pay our share.

In 1985, the Keating Tax Summit found that one direct tax on turnover of the top 10 Companies would be enough income to cover a comprehensive Labor Federal Budget. Eventually GST was born from this, but was a watered down tax that will never do as promised.

I personally favour turning everyone when they reach 70 into usable byproducts. It would save heaps on health and aged care, make more housing available, get money back into the economy from inheritance and give all those Christians a firm date on going to Heaven. I used to think 65 was OK, but I am not far from that, so 70 seems a good time.

Merry friggin’ Chirtmas, Sheeds.

1 Like

And in 5 years’ time, make it 75.

As they say in the classics…
Q: Who wants to live till they’re 100
A: people who are 99

1 Like

If they had a deposit to buy an investment property then they have a deposit already

Reckon you may have a few years on me Al, so hope you get to see another Bomber flag before you get to 70. 70 is biblical as well, again for the Christians.

Tell me what I’m not getting here Blitz, have a house but have 80k less to retire on, or have a house that you can sell when you are retired and downsize. I was considering using my super contribution that would have netted a further 100k come retirement. Hence why I’d started to think that for people who don’t have a deposit for their first home, why not access their super.

I’m assuming you can make more than 80k on the house unless the market has completely crashed in 2060.

What am I missing here?

What I’m posting is my understanding of it, what I’m getting back is, “you’re a ■■■■■■■■” with no explanation as to why? And my sudden urge to want to sack my financial advisor who keeps telling us to buy more property.