Personally, I think there is some merit in allowing people to access their super for a first home deposit. BUT, there must be strict guide lines.

Firstly, there must be a limit to what percentage of their super they can draw on, say 30%, and that must also be limited to a dollar value of say 20% of a $450,000 purchase.

Then, there must be a law that ensures what they take out must be replaced in say five years, or the time it would take to have saved such a deposit, and these contributions would be garnished from their incomes.

Now if they fail to replace their deposit, FOR ANY REASON then the asset must be sold off or borrowed against to repay the super. No if;s or buts.

If at any time the super contribution, or part there of, remains outstanding, then the asset can not be borrowed against for any reason.

Of cause like any housing scheme it would most likely see house prices increase as more potential buyers would hit the market.

I still feel a better option is a government interest free loan for ten years which is only provided to those who can show a perfect rental history for five consecutive years. This would be to replace the ridiculous first home owners grant which is no more than a tax payer funded gift to a selected few, often resulting in a huge financial win fall for which the tax payers gets nothing.

But, no matter what you do with housing, the risks far out weigh the potential gains. Hard work is the only real answer to housing affordability. That, and a scaled down apatite for the Mcmansion so many call a first home.

rechtub

In terms of your latter option, from my recollection of my days as a tenant, landlords were utterly ruthless in their dealings with the lower-classes who rented from them. Obtaining a high-grade rental history in order to qualify for a home grant creates a power base for tenants to accept whatever injustices their landlords wish to throw at them.

As for hard work being the only answer to housing affordability, this does not address the fact that Australia's housing affordability is one of the highest in the world. People on low or unstable incomes can work their butts off and grovel to their landlords ad nauseum and not get within coo-ee of a house deposit.

Aidan

Ho hum. No reason or evidence for your ad hominem assertions, situation normal.

If you had read or could actually represent Austrian economic, you might be onto something.

As it is, your belief that the government creates wealth by printing paper is mere irrational superstition. Gibberish. Credulous government-worship.

But then, you don't do rational, remember? You're still trying to squirm out of your premise that laws are not enforced, remember?

You have failed to answer by what objective criterion you know what the appropriate level of inflation is - because you don't know because your state-worshipping belief system is superstitious rubbish.

And you have failed to answer by what objective criterion you know whether any given government economic intervention is justified and how you know, remember?

Your technique - ignoring costs of government interventions you advocate - consists only of failing to account for the same quantity on both sides of the equation = gibberish.

The irrationality of your premises invalidates your opinion on political economy.

But presumably according to your line of reasoning, taxation and inflation do NOT reduce a person's ability to provide for their retirement?

Yes? That's the proposition you're defending this time, is it you clown?

Killarney

Post proof of your having provided housing to people at below market rate at your cost.

While ever you are in favour of any of the policies that cause the situation you are complaining about, including tenancy laws that prevent landlords from being able to recover all the costs of damages from tenants, capital gains tax, income tax, GST, and so on, you have no basis for complaining against it.

Socialists and leftards are so genuinely stupid that they can't understand that if you get the government to attack and expropriate landlords, based on your stupid marxoid slogans, you end up with LESS housing affordability, not more. Complete morons

Jardine,
I see you're still accusing people of ad hominem while yourself resorting to lies and strawmen.

What I posted about Austrian economics is an honest opinion based on fact. But if you can find a genuine counterexample, I'm open to correction. So tell me, do you think the ability of the rich to maintain the value of their wealth while doing nothing ISN"T more important than the wellbeing of the population? And if so, can you give me an example of a policy you support that favours the latter over the former?

Some of your own ad hominems are downright libellous! I do not worship the government and never have, though I do acknowledge the great influence the government has on the economy. and make no apologies for wanting the government to use that influence.

I have never claimed the government creates wealth by printing paper - or at least not to any great extent, nor in the superstitious way you imagine I do. Wealth is created by work and trade. (Technically work does sometimes involve printing paper, but I know that's not what you mean). But opportunity to work is often limited because the willingness of employers to take more people on is limited. Increasing the money supply results in more opportunity to work.

Do you comprehend my explanation? If you like I can go into more detail about how increasing the money supply results in more opportunity to work, but you do seem rather slow on the uptake; if at this point you still believe I worship the government or think that it creates wealth by printing paper (to any substantial degree) then I'm not going to bother; I've got better things to do online than talking to a brick wall!

And no matter how much you try to squirm me into the premise that laws are not enforced, you won't succeed. I believe the governments use of violence (action with the intention or likelihood of causing injury) should be limited to self defence and the defence of others. That doesn't prevent the law from being enforced.

Killarney, landlords have been forced to be ruthless because if we dare take our eye off the ball so as to say, we can stitched up in a flash from a seasoned tenant. In fact, enants have more rights than landlords.

However, my proposal only refers to the on time payment of rent, much like an on time loan repayment, because if one pays their rent on time, every time, they could be classed as a low risk borrower.

The problem with the first home ownes grant, is that it is only ever used once, and, given many use this as their sole deposit, then sell their house three years later for a $50 grand profit, thats a huge win fall considering they came to the table with nothing.

My system on the other hand would see the 'loan' be reused time and time again so many can benefit. All that is needed to qualify is a clean rental record.