www.afr.com/property/residential/wealthy-parents-deliver-100k-premium-as-auctions-soar-20230519-p5d9u1
Property market: Wealthy parents deliver $100k premium as auction clearance hit 15-month high
Property5 bedroom, 4 bathroom , fully renovated with a granny flat. Sadly that is how. ironically it went to two retired people from regional australia that sold their farm recently.
Edit: its actually 4 bathrooms not 3 and a very well executed reno by the looks of the listing. Its also in that magic radius of near the CBD. Add all of that up to the fact there is very little high quality stock available on the market at the moment and yeah, that is how it got to 4.2M
From a crazy sydney perspective that makes sense, from a normal human perspective anywhere else in the world that makes no sense.
STOP IT DADDY IT HURTS
It will be turned into an illegal boarding house for 10+ new immigrants/students.
That is the economics driving some of these insane prices. Rent each room at $300 a week = $3000 a week gross rent.
Pumping 400k new immigrants into a place suffering a rental crisis will do this.
Yeah that's not going to cover even half of the repayments
If they sold their farm to fund the purchase, I don’t imagine there would be much repayments
They will stick 20 in then and up the rent.
Nobody is spending 4mil+ on a renovated house to rent to students
I used to work with a guy who was a recent immigrant. He rented a 3 bedroom house then illegally sublet two of the rooms to his countrymen for the entire rent cost. After doing that for a number of years he had saved enough money to buy a house, which he immediately sublet to 3 of his people for close to the mortgage.
Personally I found his approach kind of immoral and definitely a pain in the arse living with so many people, but he came from a country where getting a room to yourself is considered middle class.
I haven't kept in touch but he will be out there still, probably buying a $2 mil house this time with the money he's made off tenants.
but he came from a country where getting a room to yourself is considered middle class.
It certainly feels like we’re getting there bit by bit
My parents back in the day lived in a small apartment in HK with 6 other siblings and the parents.. Couldn't imagine that in Australia.
Okay can you just help me understand this whole ‘it’s supply/immigration’ meme going around.
I understand property prices are going up.
Yes 400,000 is too many people.
Australia was about 20 million in 2000, there were about 4 million people in Sydney in 2000, and in 2010 there were about 5 million. It’s 2023 and there’s about 5.2 million.
Zetlands basically got built in 2011/12 when planning laws made it easier to build huge monoliths (including the belovéd opal towers). Every year in Sydney there’s about 20,000 new homes approved to be built.
400,000 in australia divided by three main cities (and let’s say a bit less because of regional towns and less large capitals like radelaide perth and tassy) is about 100,000 per city, as a one off.
How is it that the house prices are this insane, given that the lions share of immigration happened before 2010, but the majority of property prices going crazy has been in the last five to ten years?
This whole narrative, to me, sounds like a domain.com.au/Liblab/property developer slant to reduce regulation, and increase the unsustainable swathes of unoccupiable shit houses in western Sydney’s flood plains.
Did you even read the article? Got bought by 2 retirees who sold their farm. Can't believe people just talk out of their ass like this. Incredible.
At least you get a full house. How about this… just in from agent. A semi in five dock on 350sqm just went for $4.125m
I really don’t understand how or why this is happening. If houses actually keep rebounding and RBA interest rates are around 4% how is the average person ever going to be able to enter the market that’s insane.
This is what the equity gains in last 2-3 decades causes - making it easier to use equity to get even more properties.
Equity that’s locked inside property needs to be ‘unlocked’ as a loan.
It’s not a magic free tap of money, right?
It was, prior to 2013, when there was no serviceability.
It kind of is. If you use equity and buy a property that you rent out, presuming it's positively geared, you never lose money really. It's just free money.
Positively gearing a property bought purely with equity including costs, that would not be a property in the way most people here think of it, the yields aren’t high enough. Maybe some student accom type arrangements (the types banks won’t lend for) might get there.
Your right, it’s not. These people have the cash flow to support these purchases, equity alone won’t do it
If you use equity gains to buy property, you need to borrow, and interest rates are higher now.
Thats not correct. Since 2013 serviceability prevents this exact suggestion.
Housing market is not for the average person.
Poor and middle income earners don't deserve houses /s
People need to get it into their heads that if they want to ever own a house they need to start protesting and voting for independents who will support it. The main parties have gotten away with this shit for too long.
If it continues for too long, civil war might be the only solution. Lynching the aristocrats that have forsaken us.
Yes. Very realistic outlook you've got there
Revolution!
Has been happening since civilisations arose. Still happening in parts of the world right now. No reason to think it can't happen here if things get bad enough. Once people can no longer feed and shelter their families on a full time job, then they will take what they need in whatever manner they can.
Extremely unlikely. Australians are too soft to even peacefully protest. The likelihood of revolution is so close to zero it’s near impossible.
Maybe, maybe not. I'd say highly unlikely, but never impossible.
Yep that 3.7% unemployment about to get out of hand
Remember when we all stayed inside because the premier said so?
I don't understand these arguments. They're not the same thing. We had rent and eviction freezes and COVID payments. I'm talking about when people really start to actually struggle in large enough numbers.
I'm not saying it's likely. But if having a job can't feed and house people and they get no support, what do you think they'll do? Sit around and take it? I just don't see it. We're passive as a nation because we live good lives. If that changes our passivity changes. If it doesn't then it won't.
Australians love doing what we’re told
I mean the Americans literally stormed their capitol building. It’s not that far fetched.
Similarly to ‘poor people don’t own cars’.
I didn't say anything about who deserves what. The market is agnostic.
That's not true. The people driving the market only care about income and not housing solutions. If they didn't, they wouldn't be against capping tax concessions for multiple investment properties.
If it were truly a free market, perhaps. It’s not. We’re being squeezed.
It's totally a free market, which is the problem. Housing should not be treated the way we treat it.
I’m not arguing that’s a solution but tax schemes obviously figure into the prices here.
Exactly. There is 0% CGT paid when a PPOR is sold compared to a 50% discount for an investment property.
Don't forget the other major distorting factor - the family home isn't counted towards the pension assets test, and isn't counted in land tax calculations.
Your income and willingness to spend determine what you "deserve" not anything else.
I mean, the article actually points out why this isn’t true any more. You also increasingly need to have rich parents.
Shelter is listed as a basic necessity for survival.
Do you think basic needs like food, water & shelter shouldn’t be provided to everyone?
I wasn't aware I needed title to a house to have 'shelter'. Pretty sure there are many forms of shelter.
What shelter do you think there should be that any one and every one can access?
It's not one size fits all.
Private rental accommodation, public housing and homeless shelters all have a role to play, depending on someone's financial and psychosocial circumstances.
So do you believe that everyone should have to pay for housing if they can afford to?
I believe in letting the market dictate what level of housing everyone gets. Government operates public housing and homeless shelters as a safety net for those who can't play the market.
There are alternatives to home ownership.
This is how it already is in other developed countries…
AVG age is like 35.
Lots of time to build a warchest
No when rent costs more than a mortgage
Rent is meant to cost more than a mortgage..? That’s generally how it works.
You tried renting a car for an extended period of time?
If that was the case, there wouldn't be any negative gearing. It's just the never-ending speculation that keeps driving it. When will that end? When it takes 50 years to pay off a single-bedroom unit?
Just wanting to understand the point you’re trying to make, is it that you think rent should be cheaper than a mortgage?
Again, to frame my point as an analogy, besides a library book, have you tried borrowing something for cheaper than it costs?
What I mean is that because of negative gearing and property speculation, people are willing to pay more for a property than can be covered by the rental income. That makes renting a place cheaper than buying it. In the short term at least. The only reason buying might be cheaper than renting is because of future increases in rent and property value, which are partly driven upwards by negative gearing.
I understand your statement that rent should be more expensive, and I agree with the principle, but it's negative gearing and speculation that make property different to the rental car example you have given.
Doesn't always work that way, no
In any case, I don't think domestic landlords should exist
Can you share some of the alternative models? It’s mostly companies that are landlords in USA right?
I have no idea RE: US.
Facilitating more PPOR purchases instead of IP purchases is what I'd advocate. Build to sell, not to rent, structure tax accordingly. CGT exemption up until 12mo after issuance of certificate of occupancy, zero discount after 12 months.
Cease negative gearing.
Impose a new landlord levy on domestic properties. Enough to severely reduce profitability.
Discourage investors from buying existing properties by reducing their yield potential, encourage building new to sell and take cap gains from between signing and selling.
Interesting points put forward, thanks!
I wonder if this type of policy has been enacted else where and how its performing.
It hasn't because it would be egregiously unpopular
In the USA is is both.
Single family homes for rent are usually owned by someone who only has $1M-$10M in property.
Units/flats/apartments etc, on the other hand, when they are for rent are typically a company that owns the entire development which can be 1000 units. The reasons for that include:
- Banks in the US won't give loans for someone to buy a condo if there are too many rentals in the development as a percentage (50%). When it gets close to that the HOA (body corporate or whatever equivalent) tends to step in to stop further rentals in the building.
- Such a development is far more profitable than in Australia (as far as cash flow goes) enabling such companies to pay the mortgage and scale
It also helps that by owning all the units in a complex you can get better scale with your maintenance team etc, that individual condo owners don't get.
In Australia it is more profitable for a developer to sell the units and move on to another development, and the units often sell more as PPOR.
You are part of an economic zone, not a country. Your misery doesn't count, just your ongoing contributions towards GDP.
Why has this not been upvoted.
A decade of structural underbuilding of city housing and record immigration. The average person will end up renting not owning. Two average incomes may buy a place in the outer city, otherwise ownership is the domain of the high income.
Maybe a house, apartment is probably still achievable?…
Sure probably… a smallish city apartment might be bought on a single income.
I wonder if the government is smart enough to be offering VISA to people who work in the construction industry??
https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/working-in-australia/skill-occupation-list
User deleted comment
1.0y
Mate there are like 90 million communist party members in China. Almost 4 to 1 vs our current population. Generally speaking Australians truly don’t understand how small and desirable we are. Sydney will become one of the main playground retirement homes for Asian wealth. This tailwind will last for decades.
This is the result of rba being so terrified of raising rates, if they were at 6% already we won’t see this level of auction clearance rates
There’s a good chance this current phenomenon is due to renters buying to exit the rental market.
The Economists literally have no idea or mechanisms to stop this.
Cashed up buyers are laughing while people suffer
This is what happens when the government is intent on further stretching a construction industry at capacity. Pretty much every government policy at both the state and federal level that has been billed as fixing the problem has exacerbated the problem. Even the ones they are proposing will only make it worse for exactly the same reasons
Either they are incompetent or trying to make housing unaffordable for brownie points with special interest groups or some hidden agenda (is it that they actually want less home owners so they can get more votes?).
- One day someone who wants to fix the problem will stop pumping govt money into demand on an overheated industry and instead address the construction industry capacity constraints along the supply chain all the way back to the raw materials.
- One day someone will reduce the cost of housing by reducing the cost of housing - ie addressing the massive cost governments put on housing - 30-45% of upfront housing costs are government taxes, fees and charges. Then addressing the large ongoing taxes fees and charges that go on forever.
- One day they will realise that the only way to reduce housing costs is to reduce the cost of building and maintaining a house/property.
We can only live in hope. But alas… 😓
I agree with your first point (stop fuelling demand), but not the second or third point. Housing costs are driven by how much people are willing to pay. Reducing the taxes won’t change the cost people are willing to pay, but will increase developer profits.
To reduce house prices you have to reduce demand or increase supply. Ironically reducing demand means fewer people getting houses. So even if the houses are cheaper it’s still a worse housing outcome. It implies purchasing power has dropped further than the costs have dropped.
So the best housing outcome is increasing supply. And that’s land release, infrastructure, skilled workers (education or immigration), and supplies (manufacturing). These are the things government should be funding.
Costs put a floor on how low prices can go. Right now prices can’t go lower because costs are crazy. This is illustrated by the fact that for many in the industry, right now costs are higher than what they can sell them for - hence the large numbers of bankruptcies of industry participants lately - No one builds houses or prices them to make a loss. And the biggest costs are government taxes fees and charges.
Further there is competition amongst developers, obviously with supply constraints (point 1) recently that is less the case on the sale side but more the case on the construction side - so that has increased costs. Normally we don’t have these supply constraints - the rba has an article addressing this. According to the rba, historically (and contrary to popular opinion) there has been a good balance of demand and supply in Australia.
Without construction constraints there is actually competition amongst developers and other industry participants for customers. With construction constraints they are competing for construction resources and this has pushed up costs. Which is why developer margins have never been high. Many are sitting out of the market right now due to negative margins and high risk.
Further borrowing capacity is reduced by higher costs - both for builders, developer, investors and for home buyers. Particularly for costs such as ongoing taxes. If costs are increased by for example high property taxes or stamp duties or development taxes, rates etc etc then homes and properties become less affordable not more affordable.
No, playing with demand in a constrained market doesn’t change the number of people getting houses. The same number of people get houses because the construction industry can’t physically build any faster. Thats why increased government funding of housing hasn’t resulted in more houses - it’s only resulted in higher prices and higher costs. That’s the whole point of the above post and why the government policies have only exacerbated the problem.
yeah, costs put a floor on how low prices can grow (under the assumption that demand is not dramatically falling, which is a good assumption).
Developers are certainly very competitive, which in the long run limits their profits.
However, I have some different questions on your initial points:
- Why doesn't the construction industry eventually catch up by itself (raw materials and people)? Isn't that also all supply and demand? There will certainly be significant lag (e.g. training electricians) but shouldn't the industry be able to double in size every 10 years if demand is high?
- I totally agree that governments put enormous costs onto housing, both in Australia and parts of the US. However what separates Australia and the US is the cost of land just outside (e.g. 1-2 hours) of major cities. In the Us the farmers sell to developers who develop, and inimproved land (but with road and utilities) is often under $50k. When I last checked (a while ago) you don't see farmland an hour away from major cities in Australia being converted into $50k lots. Is that due to government costs or government restrictions? I am wondering if the restrictions might be causing more issues than the taxes imposed?
- While it would be great if these costs were lower, I'm not so optimistic that "One day someone will" fix this. It hasn't happened in the US (despite 50 different states with their own laws. In some places the problems haven't happened much yet, but so far everywhere seems to be a one way street to more regulation and costs. Too many voters are homeowners and not wannabe homeowners?
if they can’t cover costs then they don’t build and they don’t sell. It doesn’t matter what the demand is.
Yea some of what’s needed is time. Industry capacity will eventually catch up as long as the govt doesn’t continue to double down on demand stimulus while it’s constrained. Building local supply chains from mine to build will also help, recalibrating union powers as well to reduce their drain on productivity is another area that could help. Training as u mentioned as well. There is an argument for the govt to just stay out of it and allow the industry to adjust naturally.
It depends on the specific council, where the land is and what size, but in Australia, that far from the city, you generally can’t covert land into $50k lots because the government taxes, fees and charges are often more than $50k. This is where a lot of the huge government taxes fees and charges are. Then there are all the normal costs to actually do it. U need to buy the land, u need to get consultants to do the work and write all the compliance reports governments require, u need to bring in and construct services - power, roads, water, nbn, pay for fencing etc etc. this ain’t cheap and no one sells the land for less than it costs to create it. There are also minimum lot size restrictions imposed by councils so the land content also impacts prices.
This is a perfect example of why looking at it as a pure demand thing and ignoring actual costs is leading to bad policies such as those that increase taxes thinking somehow that will make stuff more affordable. It doesn’t.
The biggest reason housing and land is expensive is because of government taxes fees and charges. Housing affordability is mostly a government created problem in Australia and they are intent on doubling down on it.
I was speaking to a client the other day and he held 2 or 3 acres out at Two Wells in SA which is about an hour out of Adelaide CBD and he plans to develop. He said you can't get a block of land for less than $300k anymore. I haven't fact checked this but it sounds about right.
You know why he can’t get a block of land for less than $300k anymore? Because of the government taxes, fees and charges.
There is a cost to creating land. much of that is government taxes, fees and charges - development application fees, stamp duty, headwords charges, da fees, compliance fees, gst etc. typically there are multiple layers of them because they have to be paid every time the land gets rezoned, subdivided or a development approved. The end price includes all of that.
Building cost are similar - building application fees, compliance fees, gst stamp duty, work cover. Etc etc
What you are calling land costs and building costs actually contain a large number of government taxes, fees and charges. 30-45% of them are actually government taxes, fees and charges.
RBA: That's the point, you don't
We need the lowest level of housing to be cheaper so people on a normal full time minimum wage and/or burdened by debt can enter the market while still young.
In a sensible world this would involve admitting our poor are poorer than they used to be but still need the benefits of home ownership, and as a consequence the government insisting on opening up a lot of small land developments at the end of public transport routes that operate under rules that are somewhat more slumlike. Tiny blocks and a choice of cheap pre-approved houses such as prefabs and Quonset huts. Get that entry price down below $170000 and the problem is 90 percent solved.
They don’t. They pay rent like a good little peasant
In the short term sadly they aren't. The country only has so much money and the bubble has been inflated beyond belief for the last 20 years.
It's sad how many people this obsession with speculation has hurt.
Do you want to understand? If so, based on your ability to write that comment, you are probably capable. I'm not saying I am right across it all. But as with anything, there are principles to guide understanding plus getting to know the main elements and their relative importance.
The only thing I can tell you with some certainty is that RBA actions typically take a year to filter through.
The RBA seems to be mulling changes to its balance sheet (tightening) to force the interest rate changes through since the banks are not playing the game the RBA wants them to with pushing rates up as fast as it wants.
User deleted comment
1.0y
Nothing wrong with an affordable apartment if it doesn't have any structural issues.
Big big if
What’s wrong with an apartment?
Where do I put my utility vehicle, trailer or tools?
Well usually its flammable cladding and the cracking in the support beams
Simple: the average person won’t enter the market. Owning your own property will become a luxury not a right.
Sad truth but it’s trending that way.
More people are starting to let go off more desirable properties due to mortgage stress. In the past few years, these people could afford to hold due to low interest rates.
average house hitting 2mil+ by end of year lets go!
In other news.. vendor takes $800k+ drop in 6 years, market is not as rosy as it looks, I’m seeing the $400k+ sales over reserve, mostly driven by Asian buyers in some areas, other than that need to look deeper at purchase & resale price, after looking at a number of suburb results yesterday there is many barely getting their money back after years
https://www.realestate.com.au/property/33-clay-dr-doncaster-vic-3108 - when you fomo in
https://www.realestate.com.au/property/77-gladstone-ave-northcote-vic-3070
https://www.realestate.com.au/property/154-gladstone-ave-northcote-vic-3070
https://www.realestate.com.au/property/47-fawkner-st-south-yarra-vic-3141
https://www.realestate.com.au/property/44-grosvenor-st-south-yarra-vic-3141 - pass in $1.91, paid $2m in 2020
oof that first one
That’s a bitter pill to swallow , only hope is that they’re significantly downsizing, but basically they’ve been renting it of the bank for a while. Those that had it 2005 - 2017 didn’t do too bad though.
> That’s a bitter pill to swallow
That's what happens when a crowd like r/Ausfinance tell each other property always goes up
I'm guessing the first one would've been bought by developers, lots of apartments and townhouses going up in that pocket of Doncaster. Obviously they overpaid in 2017 and can't make the economics work with the construction cost, so it's been sold at a lot.
I wish there was an easy way to see summaries like this. This is the most factual ive seen the "other side" shown as everyone cries about being priced out recently.
I notice more and more prices with held on sales/auctions as well this past 3 months which normally means it went for less they wanted and the RE's are hiding that fact.
I mean not 100% true but likely, we just bought and asked the agent to not disclose the price.
Its on private records immediately, and public after a month, whats the point in not disclosing for you?
Yes not 100% of the time but it is a fair amount of the time
Don’t think that’s true, I’m seeing plenty of sales well above price guide that doesn’t display the selling price.
My friend went to this auction yesterday, price guide of $1.9 - $2.09, sold for $3.11.
I went to this auction, price guide of $1.6 - $1.76, reserve was $1.76 and it was sold for $1.922.
I’m sure some conceal the price due to it being lower than desired, but I don’t think it’s a consistent and reliable rule.
they always show the price when it goes over the guide to promote more sellers to sell and more buyers to suffer fomo...apart from the really high end where they want their identity kept quiet along with the price paid...
Maybe it is different depending on the price point, I’ve been looking at the eastern suburbs of Melbourne where they generally go for $1.5m+, and sharing my observations.
I’ve noticed houses going 20%+ over the guide. What areas are you lookingv
I've been to about 10 auctions in the last month around SE Melb. Most are going just at the top of the guide and 2 were passed in. Both agents have contacted us directly with a flat price for both houses.
Have been looking for 2 years so far and compared to the auctions we were attending 2 years ago it definitely does not feel like a hot market in this area.
Syd inner west, most go guide +20% minimum, and its so redhot at the moment that most agents are refusing guides outright.
Looking at sales and actions result reports on realestate.com.au
Was there an issue with the first one? Unable to subdivide?
Would guess so given the old (STCC) isn't even in the listing.
Not sure, possibly, it is ddo8 & has been development on the street so should be able to, but it strangely doesn’t mention subdividing so somethings up, either way they paid a stupid price back in 17 boom
Rip they failed with bank of mum and dad money
This went for 1.8m on Saturday so it's going both ways.
36 Laburnum Street, Blackburn, Vic 3130 https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-vic-blackburn-141968184
As my comment said “I’m seeing the $400k sales over reserve”, though that Blackburn block was completely under quoted, I’m more than aware the market is strong, just saying it’s not so strong overall when you see some resells, just cause I post against the market doesn’t mean my sentiment is bearish, nor am I bullish (always bullish as a longterm investment), more just see both sides to property, time it wrong by chasing the market & will barely see a return for a while
More for the other comment that said only 5, I look at the overall buy price, sell price, number of years, all costs, sometimes it’s just not that great, more just saying try not to fomo in on new highs against current rates
https://www.realestate.com.au/property//unit-2-32-woonah-st-chadstone-vic-3148
https://www.realestate.com.au/property/160-the-esplanade-caroline-springs-vic-3023
https://www.realestate.com.au/property/15-hardwick-st-coburg-vic-3058 - sold $1,051
https://www.realestate.com.au/property/196-balcombe-rd-mentone-vic-3194
Leaving aside these individual properties, a 70%+ clearance rate would tend to point towards very strong price growth across the market as a whole
was 80% in melb very strong considering were rates are, the fomo feel is alive n well, prices have definitely risen significantly from their 2022 lows & some to new highs, I’m far from anti property if that’s how people read my comments, more just see both sides to real estate, be cautious on paying new highs against current rates & very shaky economic outlook, think most that do will be stuck in a dead investment for some time if their outlook isn’t long term
What factors would lead to that flat market, though? The initial shock of the rate rises seemed to spook the market a little, but recent growth and high clearance rates suggest the market can comfortably tolerate rates at their current level, and I feel like a continuing upward trajectory from here is the most likely case. Obviously there will be some outliers where properties are flat or regress in the very short term, but overall this feels very much like the threshold to another period of strong growth.
Shortage of stock seems to be the biggest issue pushing prices higher atm, if we see normal stock levels return it will take the heat out, if we are pushed into a recession will take some out, at 2% rates it made sense money was cheap, at 5.5% makes no sense to me how another boom has restarted, I get the 900k immigrants incoming & some are choosing to buy over rent, but to pay new highs I don’t see the value in it, maybe I’m just dumb, highly possible lol
1500 properties solid in Melbourne this week and you can only find 5 examples where the vendor suffered a loss?
Of course at an individual property level, there will be gains and losses. But at an aggregate level, it does look like the prices are picking up again.
That first South Yarra one also had plans approved to knock the whole thing down build a new place, so even worse. Developer ran out of $$?
This is great, keep em coming!
time raise interest rates again
That will just make property pump harder when they move to a dropping cycle
Then it's time to increase it again.
Interest rates rise when there is inflation. How can we contribute to rising inflation?
This is the way
Same trend in the US. Minor pause/downturn but the market has gone gangbusters again. Too much covid money still sloshing around.
Certain places and areas are getting hit where prices are going a bit backwards to pre-covid - then there are other areas which are going batshit crazy.
I think this will continue on until govt disincentivizes using property as an investment platform to some degree.
Everyone I speak to (i'm included) wants to have an investment property or two (or five, or twenty) as it's for them a 'safe' haven for investment with lower risk as opposed to some other asset classes. (though harder to get break into w/o generational wealth/bank of mum and dad).
I just want a roof over my head
I'm sorry to hear about your situation, I do hope some support does come forward. Housing is a necessity and a basic human right.
User deleted comment
1.0y
Yep I know I'm contradicting myself - I'm still living at home with my mum while I save for my house, but for as long as housing investment is a 'safe' option for future planning I hope to be able to buy my own place + 1 investment place within the next 30 years .
rates need to get raised more
People need to get it out of their heads that the housing market is for the "average" person these days. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. We are taxed through the ass, work longer hours and live in modern-day slavery :)
No. People need to get it into their heads that if they want to ever own a house they need to start protesting and voting for independents who will support it. The main parties have gotten away with this shit for too long.
User deleted comment
1.0y
Off to North Korea you go. You can see how good a socialist lifestyle is.
People are too greedy for socialism to work. It will never work.
There is such a huge spectrum of better options between where we are now and complete socialism. People seem to think countries have to pick 1 model and become it fully. The reality is that we have the balance wrong for most people so we need to shift it. Govt can work out how, but we have to make it clear what outcome we expect eg that people on full time minimum wage can afford basic necessities, and certainly that someone of the median wage can afford their own home. (though probably not a house with a big yard given our current population dynamics and lack of investment in high quality high speed rail to outer areas and nearby regional hubs...)
Do you always roll over in defeat at the first sign of a problem? Anger and policy change will solve this issue quickly
But how do you get those policy changes through when the majority are home owners? Remember Bill Shorten lost because be wanted to get rid of negative heading? I suggest the answer is to boycott by "lying flat" ie do the minimum amount of work and minimum amount of consumption. Another option is the leanfire or povertyfire movement. You do not need much money to live in many places around the world so you only need to save about 25x or 33x your annual expenses and then you're financially free.
I still think that if they'd stopped at the negative gearing they could have won, frank credits is what did them in, it was too much change all at once.
Career politicians need to be let go. We need term limits for all members of parliament. Remove the environment for cronyism first.
taxed thru ass
Compared to Austria/Belgium/Canada/Denmark etc?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_tax\_rates
The guy who was certain of 50%+ price drops has been awfully quiet lately
I think I read the other day he got banned.. then created another profile and got banned again lol!
He's been banned several times.
Interest rates need to hit 100%
Welcome to Argentina.
Aren’t they double that?
Yeah they would be happy if it was just 100%
If they did what makes you think FHB would be in any better position to buy a house?
Sounds like we need another 3% rate rise.
$100k is rich? According to latest Knight Frank survey top 1% requires $8.5m net wealth. If you’re not 1% I don’t know how you’re considered rich
14 missing replies
A house in Marrickville went for 4.2m.
Make
That
Make
Sense.