The Forum > Article Comments > What price a roof over their heads? > Comments
What price a roof over their heads? : Comments
By Ross Elliott, published 27/11/2009Are we now witnessing a new class structure defined by those who own property and those who don’t?
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Friday, 27 November 2009 1:22:19 PM
| |
Governments, Estate agents, Bankers, Media barons, Solicitors and assorted parasites are the cause of our national housing disaster.
Governments have failed to produce a national housing policy that suits the needs of normal and migrant population increases, and kept the privilege of granting alms to sections of the populace thus distorting the house market normal flow. The Estate Agents who, since the advent of computers in the 90ties, combined into the Real Estate Institute of Australia and now control the property exchange and leasing with an iron fist. The Estate agents who worked on percentage-only so grabbed the chance to charge selling expenses, thus stepping from business men to mafia men. The Banks grabbed the power to change their terms at any time thus having its clients at the whim of their greed. And Media gets money hand and fist with larger and larger display advertising. Solicitors also dip for the strenuous job of changing the name of a title certificate. And finally the ACCC neutered and the normal course of justice shunted into unhealthy tribunals. All this and the toll of 1% exacted for exchanging a parcel of shares becomes 17% to 19% for selling your house to move to another; so far for the freedom of the country. And if all this were not enough, we have Economists yapping day after day on the causes of house shortage and as yet unwilling to call inflation robbery and using the same term for house shortage. Posted by skeptic, Friday, 27 November 2009 2:07:42 PM
| |
Just another load of garbage where someone pretends everything is unaffordable by comparing the price of a house to someones income and ignoring the major cost component of house purchase, namely the interest on the housing mortgage.
Wendell Cox article perpetrates the same basic LIE Houses are just as “affordable” as they always have been but with lower interest rates, the price:income relationship increases (halve the interest rate means people can afford to borrow twice the amount for the same monthly cost). So to the notion “Australia has long held dear the ideal of a classless society, of equality of opportunity and ‘a fair go’. But are we now witnessing a new class structure, defined by those who own property (and quite a bit of it) and those who don’t?” We all have the right to own property. Those who do not are merely exercising their right not to. If they can rent at half the price of a fully funded mortgage, then they are ahead on an income basis. Those who CHOOSE not to see beyond the immediate will never understand the advantages of SACRIFICING current consumption to obtain a future, tax free, capital gain, by buying a house. And those who choose to perpetrate up politically motivated lies about the affordability of housing should hang their heads in shame Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 27 November 2009 2:37:44 PM
| |
I struggle to understand why so many claims are made about 'rental costs' being so high now, when in fact, they have dropped in relative terms.
My first house was in an outer brisbane suburb which, in 1983 was worth under $40,000, yet, it rented for $80 per week. That's around 10.4% gross return on investment. Today, that same house, which is moderate, would rent for around $350 per week and is worth about $350,000. That's little more than a 5% gross return. So, if rents had kept pace with values, one should be paying more like $700 per week. How can rents now be seen to be 'less affordable'? Posted by rehctub, Friday, 27 November 2009 6:09:20 PM
| |
"I struggle to understand why so many claims are made about 'rental costs' being so high now, when in fact, they have dropped in relative terms."
My struggle is in understanding whether housing affordability deniers are suffering a major deficit in intelligence or morality. Posted by Fester, Friday, 27 November 2009 7:36:44 PM
| |
Ross Elliott, I can only thank you for your articles. As one struggling with the issue of affordable housing, it is people like you, harping the point that help calm the dire fear I have of what is to come.
I am embarrassed to be in the position I find myself in. No safe, affordable housing means you can not plan, budget or aspire to the freedoms this country considers to be "fair-go". You find yourself unintentionally bullied by services who generally do not understand the issue and tend to believe those homeless, or near homeless people lack capacity. This is in fact a discrimination. Reversed, the lack of capacity is in the market to supply a basic need to specific sectors. It is a economic and social problem causing greater problems for social or civic well-being, a casual element underlying other issues pressuring the stablity of society. ie: Casual and underemployment as well as unemployment .... a vicious catch-22, unsustainable life- cycle For women, non-affordable housing is a risky business. I sometimes do not understand others who write what what they do on this forum. As I attended the Forgotten Australians and Former Migrants gathering in Canberra last week, I was shocked at the amount of people I met feeling worried, insecure over the issue of their own levels of near homelessness. Rising rents mean owners everywhere are capitising on the markets over the social equity issues required for the greater social and economic good. Australia needs to get a handle on this issue fast else it will burgeon near irreversible.... http://www.miacat.com/ . Posted by miacat, Friday, 27 November 2009 10:04:32 PM
|
Its because of the writer and his developer mates that their lapdog governments are holding back land releases in order to keep housing prices artificially high.
Also in this self-serving piece, he totally ignored the significant and most significant fact that the billions funneled to the propertied classes in investor subsidies and tax breaks would also have driven demand higher for housing.
Also the fact that the property and business lobby consistently, both overtly and covertly lobbies for immigration numbers to be kept high. Our very liberal immigration policy is that way because a lapdog government wants to please its rich masters, not out of any real humanitarian instinct, that's the red herring to keep our eye off the ball, same as racism is the red herring used to abuse critics of excessive immigration.
I'm not on the gravy train, so I can tell it the way it is, not the way the ruling classes want us to believe it is.