Hasbeen,

Building and construction is a big employer, and the numbers directly employed in building and construction seem to be around 1 million.

These are basically worker ants (or unwashed worker scum) for the real estate industry and banking industry moguls.

The whole building and construction industry will eventually collapse, when other worker ants in the country cannot afford the ever increasing house prices.

The only bright spot is the fact that there are trade shortages in building and construction.

http://sourceable.net/australia-gains-43544-construction-jobs-in-twelve-months/

This means that people in over supplied jobs (such as tiling) could be retrained to do jobs in areas where there are trade shortages (such as painting).

Of course immigration has to be dramatically cut back to near zero before it totally destroys our country.

But a cut back in immigration would not bring about job losses in building and construction, if people in over supplied jobs were retrained to do jobs where there are trade shortages

Then, we have to wait for people in building and construction to retire or leave, and then wean our economy off the ponzi economy of building and construction.

Hmm, that sounds familiar.
Wattle,
That's a totally unnecessary crap stir. It has nothing to do with that at all. It is a mere statement of fact. Cheap digs at facts are nothing more than evidence of not much substance where there should be.

So here we go again, get rid of negative gearing says the author.

Well, I have a question for the author, one I have asked of many authors, and one that to this day has not been answered, so perhaps this author can answer,
If we remove NG where are people who can't afford a house, going to live?

Without investors, there will be a huge shortage of affordable housing.

Now to the 30% of net income.

With the average mortage being around $300,000 @ 5%, the repayments are around $400 per week, meaning that the remaining after tax income is approx $920 per week.

Two points, One, that's more than many people earn, and Two, how on earth can't they live on that. Of cause I do mean 'live' and buying an asset like a house does sometimes mean sacrifices.

Besides, if they were renting, they would still be paying around $300 per week and have nothing to show for it in 30 years.

In summary, it's my opinion that we have a spending crisis, rather than a housing crisis and, while many today could afford a house, they just can't afford 'the house' and theres a huge difference.

Finally, the author mentioned the first home owners grant. Just imagine if this had been a first home buyers interest free loan for say ten years instead.

Not only would we be able to use the money again and again, it would discourage people from upgrading to some degree.

.

rehctub,

With zero population growth, there is little need for new houses or new units, and minimal need for negative gearing.

Many new houses are not worth living in.

Just down the road is a house where they subdivided the backyard. There are now 2 houses where once there was one, but now there is no yard for either house.

There are whole new subdivisions where the houses have no backyard at all for children to play in, and children have to play indoors or play on the footpath.

So much of the wealth of the country is now going into real estate, creating exactly the same bubble that occurred in countries such as the US, Ireland, Spain and may very well occur in China.

This isn’t a country but an economy, where people are being farmed to be consumers, workers and now debtors to the banks

Without investors, there will be a huge shortage of affordable housing.
rehchub,
Without NG ordinary people would be much better off as the absence of investors would keep prices down. Investors do not bring affordability as so many wish to believe. They deny affordability to many under the deception of affordability. Flat tax across the board & we'd have a healthier society in no time. Of course it'd be too inconvenient for those who don't know enough from enough but in general it would make us better all round.
Negative gearing was nothing more than a smoke screen for bludging off the workers after the unions got strong but once they got too strong they to became greedy & that's why we have NG. It is unsustainable but they'll use it until something has to dramatically give. it'll be a breakdown of society before these greedy morons come to what little sense they have.
If we had a national service people would wake up to these criminals but as things are now it'll get worse before it gets better. Housing is actully not unaffordable, it's the lack of being contend with a smaller house is what's become unaffordable. What's neede is many young renters should fall behind with their payments to bring the rents down. What needs to be done is to make it unaffordable for landlords to chase up late rent. A higher turnover will make it unviable for landlords to have higher rents but make it less troublesome to have lower but stable rent.

So who mentioned zero population growth Incomuicardo?

If you take away investment incentive, such as NG, investors will stop investing in that sector and people who rent, for what ever reason, will be competing for available homes.

Besides, any change to NG is unlikely to be retrospective and would decimate the building industry overnight, not to mention having a huge negative effect on the supply V demand for affordable housing simply because fewer new homes would be built and those investors with existing negatively geared property would be reluctant to part with the tax deduction, meaning less homes on the market as fewer investors woukd upgrade if they were to loose the tax advantages.

While it's a viscous circle at times, I still firmly believe many people who can't afford to buy, are in such a position because of their spending habits. Willingly paying up to $6 for a late is a prime example. Or $60 for breakfast for two on a Sunday morning, which by the way means four breakfasts a month accounts for 60% of their mortage.

I remember buying my first home in 82,(no home owners grant, but a savings grant instead) and the sacrifices I made then. Little has changed other than how willingly many today part with their cash. Cash that could well see them in their own home.

Often it's just a case of priorities because few can afford a new car, new boat, new furniture/plasmas and an OS holiday at will as well as a home.

Often something has to give, and it's usually the hardest one to manage, the home.