The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > an idea for addressing housing affordability

an idea for addressing housing affordability

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
So what about this for a suggestion, made by one of my employees.

People who can demonstrate they have rented a property/properties for ten years, without falling behind in their rents and without being evicted for breaches, gain subsidy from the government for buying their own home.

Say the gov were to loan up to $50,000 (or 10% of the purchase price, which ever is the lesser) interest free for ten years, for which the home buyer has to repay after ten years, or when they use the equity of sell the property.

As it stands the first home owners grant, although being up to $20K is just a gift, where as this scheme would see the funds used time and time again, and let's face it, if you cant save a deposit in ten years, (which is the same effect as repaying it) then you cant afford a home anyway.

Such a scheme would see more deserving renters qualify for a home of their own, while at the same time creating rental vacancies because let's face it, some people for one reason or another will never own a home and that's just life.
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 16 February 2017 1:48:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why should everyone own a home? For many, it exchanges more liberty and choice for being lashed to a heavy anchor.

Since when did home ownership become a right and necessary?

It interests me that when a person gets 'old' they are invariably assured that they don't need any assets at all and joy comes from the mundane.

Like you rehctub I have owned property. It was always hard won and involved sacrifices of lifestyle, time, recreation and even missing out on important personal events and celebrations.

The debate around housing is political, with various parties vying to show a difference. They do the same with gay marriage, asylum seekers and other chosen subjects. None seek measurement for good government, for making things work, simply, practically and cheaply. The glittering prizes are power, entitlements and even more entitlements and for life. That beats investment in houses, as a home or for 'investment'.

Over beers at a bbq some older family friends were comparing their situations in their early seventies. There was very little real difference between one couple who had raised their family in rental housing and largely with government support and another, a couple who had been in full-time employment most of their lives and invested in some houses.

However the former could remember all of the times they walked on the beach, were present for sports days (and the event after) and the shared time with other folk, visiting and local.

You are only alive once, and turfing large sums into an 'asset' that costs far more than most imagine or reckon, and later a government is going to try to squeeze and tax you out of, may not be so bright after all.
Posted by leoj, Thursday, 16 February 2017 6:36:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LeoJ I could not agree more but unfortunately we continually get bombarded with the 'woe is me' brigade wanting to know why they can't buy a first home in central Sydney.

As for home ownership, as sure as night turns to day, the day is fast approaching where home owners will be the next to be betrayed, being told, 'you're on your own' with no pension, due to your hard earned assets, as we have to look after the under achievers.

The whole system is beyond belief as the harder on works, and the wiser one is, the higher chance they face of being cast aside, and that truly is unbelievable in my view.

But, at the end of the day we have so many people talking about housinf affordabillity, so in my view any suggestion is better than none.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 17 February 2017 7:44:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub,

One of my relatives who died recently in her nineties, was a member of the very last generation of Australians who was permitted to live out her life in the family home that she paid for and in which she raised her family and baby-sat infants and teens alike.

In fact she was not even barely holding on for the last twenty years but going downhill, being forced to take handouts from children. The last ten were increasingly difficult. Cruel for a woman who had been independent al of her life and had paid and contributed so handsomely otherwise for the age pension.

Late in life when she asked for confirmation from a local government bureaucrat concerning the pensioner reduction for rates and other charges only to be asked instead to defend "why a single old woman such as herself should be living by herself in an expensive home" (valued at around $450,000 on a good market and with the refurbishment she could not afford). The bureaucrat, large, bolshie and with luminous hair and studs through the nose (and who could easily suck-start a Harley) was only representing the prevailing view of 'her' side of politics and her supervisor would back her up.

Labor and Greens have flown the kite often on applying taxes to the 'increased value' of the principal place of residence. For them it is only a question of when, not if. Greens are ideologically committed to reinstating death duties.

Both sides of politics have introduced user pays and other 'initiatives' such as the commodification of water (now charged for by the litre, stopping pensioners form growing their veggies and making life more expensive overall) that have eroded the small assistances available to older citizens and others on fixed incomes.

The previous cooperation among government agencies that valued and ensured community benefit has been removed. Community benefit is NOT accepted by the political elite as a factor in public policy. Community benefit is the enemy. The public serves the politicians not not the other way around.
Posted by leoj, Friday, 17 February 2017 9:52:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Butch,

Your employee doesn't moonlight as a backbencher does he?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-17/housing-affordability:-let-renters-buy-without-deposit-mp-says/8278254
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 17 February 2017 10:03:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, it would not work, just like the state govt first home owners grant, it would increase prices. What builder/real estate agent would not increase the price by $50k knowing its govt backed?

If you want to lower house prices (and remember Australia has one of the highest home ownership in the world, there is nothing wrong in renting)just lower the tax on homes. 40% of the cost of a new home goes in taxes, stamp duty, land tax, council rates, GST to name a few.

But of course that will never happen as the councils and state govts, being the salivating dogs that they are only see more money for them to waste.

Make your personal mortgage a tax deduction would help as well (just like in the USA)
Posted by kirby483, Friday, 17 February 2017 10:43:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
leoj says "Over beers at a bbq some older family friends were comparing their situations in their early seventies. There was very little real difference between one couple who had raised their family in rental housing and largely with government support and another, a couple who had been in full-time employment most of their lives and invested in some houses.

However the former could remember all of the times they walked on the beach, were present for sports days (and the event after) and the shared time with other folk, visiting and local."

This is really frightening.

Tell me leoj, do you really think it is reasonable that many tax payers have had to pick up the cost of your family members living the life of riley? Is it reasonable they should get the cheep rent of public housing, just because they are too bone idle to earn their own living.

Has it not occurred to you that those who earn their own living might get a little more time for leisure, if they were not having to work longer & harder supporting such bums
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 17 February 2017 11:19:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheaper rents are possible where the tenant rents the property 'bare bones' ie where the tenant is responsible for interior decoration and for appliances (outside of the water heater). I would put the stove as a possible tenant choice as well.

That way the responsible tenants get what they want and are not (so much) indirectly subsidising the poor tenants through the higher rents caused by tenants being hard on property. It also permits longer leases.

Although the feral tenant can still exhibit his/her contempt for 'rich landlords'(hah!) by putting overheated pans of oil on benchtops, kicking cupboard doors shut, locking the pig dogs in the house without litter while they are away and other niceties, and unprincipled 'professional' tenants will always find a way to take advantage of property manager and landlord.

A tenant who is prepared to add value and show his/her pride by providing his/her own floor coverings, curtains and whitewear is far more likely to take care and fulfil his/her other obligations.

In Australia many tenants are short term by their own choice and by tradition. The resulting high level of churn adds significant costs to overheads and to rents.
Posted by leoj, Friday, 17 February 2017 11:39:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The 90 year old pensioner couldn't live on benefits? With the house paid for there's not much left after wheel-chair batteries are charged and cough medicine is paid. No resorts in Spain , no home theatre up-grade. Sad.
-

"No, it would not work, just like the state govt first home owners grant, it would increase prices. What builder/real estate agent would not increase the price by $50k knowing its govt backed?"

But the price in the window is for all buyers not just 1st home mtge. Auctions don't finish with : "Sold to the fat bludger with screaming kids and chuck in $50K you look like a government hand-out".
Posted by nicknamenick, Friday, 17 February 2017 11:43:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

You leapt to an erroneous conclusion. I will leave it at that.
Posted by leoj, Friday, 17 February 2017 11:43:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The whole point of this is that if renters have diligently paid their rent for ten years, surely they could be seen as low risk borrowers and, surely its better for governments to 'loan money' to safe borrowers, than simply hand out 20K never to be seen again.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 17 February 2017 12:20:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sproblem with that isn the banks are carrying all the risk, whereas they are already handing out money in up to $20K lots, so why not increase it to $50K and get it back to re use.

This way the banks are nort so expossed.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 17 February 2017 12:25:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All parties understand $ even if Policy is not what they do. So throw $ at Indigenous to fill in the Gap with money. Throw money and you get subs and planes , sometimes . With the streets rapidly filling with homeless and commuters dying in car-jams in blackout cities and abandoned hospitals with dodgy subs stranded in hundreds on beaches then $ for deposit is on. Most MPs can easily remember the catchy slogan "dollars for deposit" and if not they should.
Posted by nicknamenick, Friday, 17 February 2017 1:20:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Follow the experts solution get a better paying job. It,s that simple. Problem solved.
Posted by doog, Tuesday, 21 February 2017 12:40:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The deposit was always a problem.

I can remember when men and women saved for a block of land in a far new suburb.

When they were settling on a life together the pressure was on and all discretionary expenditure ceased.

The house, bought well after marriage, was 'blessed' by the bank with the necessary personal loan to make up the last gap and mortgage insurance, probably.

A small 3BR with small built-ins in two rooms hopefully and a carport, a roof on stilts, if lucky. Old donated sheets for curtains, a few bits of mismatched secondhand furniture and none of the essentials of today.

Then things really got tight..

An idea for addressing housing affordability? How to curtail the expensive, absorbing technology would be step 1. But is that possible?
Posted by leoj, Tuesday, 21 February 2017 1:50:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Check out $100 Homeless Shelter
http://youtu.be/hG0aRjKDnKo?t=19s
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 21 February 2017 2:08:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy