Negative gearing on first investment property ONLY.

As Johnny Howard said there are core and non-core promises. Howard argued that "core" promises were the central, fundamental commitments voters elected him on, while "non-core" pledges were flexible and could be broken or deferred due to changing economic conditions. Who was upset when Howard promised not to introduce a GST in 1995 then introduced it in 2000, not me.

The fact is Australia's tax system is unfair, heavily favouring those who derive income from property and shares over wage earners

Big difference Paul 1405, Howard announced it before he took it to an election whereas Albo and Chalmers denied they would change the existing arrangements at least 50 times, then did it anyway. Their new arrangements were almost the same as Bill Shotren proposed in 2019 except he exempted discretionary testamentary trusts which are now caught in the new tax net as a form of death tax by stealth. At least Shorten had the decency to announce his policy before the election he lost.
Who could believe Labor now that they won't have the family home and inheritance taxes in their tax grab any time in the future?

I think the changes are a fair outcome and long overdue. The question is; what now for a future course for housing all Australians, not just the wealthy ones

Well Diver Dan, judging by the reactions since the Budget you and Paul 1405 are definitely in the minority and the reaction has been huge especially from business owners who will also be caught up in Labor's web of lies with higher taxes. Even many young people realise the changes will only force rents up and make it harder for them to ever enter the property market. A survey conducted today in the Courier Mail shows 98 percent of business owners saying they will be worse off.

The $2 a week rent rises mentioned by the world's worst treasure have actually been $50 to $100. Government provided workhouses coming soon.

Ex-politician Neil Brown thinks that we shouldn't “ ….. quibble with a leader such as our esteemed Prime Minister on either of the two profound principles he had thus enunciated. First, no commitment repeated only 50 times or fewer is binding on a government. Secondly, if the government had merely changed its position, its new position could be carried through with dignity and a clean conscience”

So a politician changed their mind about something. How novel is that? Maybe it just wasn’t one of his ‘core promises’. Never mind, the grey unthinking masses can just run off to Pauline. She hasn’t got any policies to change her mind about. Hang on a sec – just one, anti-migration. Maybe if stopping migration fixes everything else, It can also fix unfair taxes on the rich.

The One Nation policies that, apart from immigration, the ignoramuses say they haven't got:

. Income splitting
. Excise cuts
. Affordable housing
. Abolish Net Zero
. Use of fossil fuels, gas production
. Abolition of race based agency
. All assistance based on need not race
. Opposition to multiculturalism
. Rejection of globalisation
. Export quotas
. Protection of local production and agriculture
. Protection of Australia sovereignty

That's the obvious ones, on top of everything they believe in for the good of Australians and Australia.

You might not like those policies, but stop saying they don't have any, you morons.

The latest polls puts ON ahead of Labor and all the rest after Labor catastrophic budget.

Big difference between "a politician changing his mind about something" and lying repeatedly before an election about something major they said they wouldn't do and then doing it anyway and now deservedly copping the flak. Albo couldn't lie straight in bed - "I didn't fall off the stage, one leg just slipped a bit .... We received a great reception at the Lakemba Mosque...We'll reduce power prices by $275 a year .." I could go on but we know we are paying 40% more and this is what happened at the mosque https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9nZLPPbY8k

Angus Taylor is aware of One Nation's policies: he is copying them. Morgan polling shows that many Labor voters also like ON policies,particularly since the Labor Liars Leninist budget. The Albanese Socialist government is a fake, “serving the interests of the globalist elites”. When it says ‘no’ it means ‘yes’. The liar in chief continues to benefit from property perks that he is now denying future generations, whose problems he is blaming on old people. Most of his ministerial cronies are in on it too.

Yes ttbn, I agree and I think Taylor is trying to do the right thing but he will be up against the wet lettuce moderates in his own party some of whom still hold key positions. The conservative parties need to form firm preference deals and focus on this destructive lying Labor government as the main target. The future of our kids, grandkids and our once-great nation, depends on it.

Mikko2

Your view is narrow, self interested and politically bigoted LNP think!…save the wealthy from the greedy poor.

Speculation on anything socially essential such as housing, should be canned immediately: At the least, not supported by Government largesse by way of lucrative subsidies making the rich richer and as a consequence, the poor poorer.

The population deserve better than to be transformed into slaves for the wealthy end of town by a designed economic system that turns the poor into dispossessed rent slaves.

And I won’t accept the argument in return that implies the poor have a desperate need of the rich land owners for their very survival. It’s a complete BS system that postures that position as an alternative to universal housing a a Human Right, to be fundamentally housed away from the elements for survival; especially true when we are all of us living in a captured economic system which is effectively escape proof.

If achieving those ends requires Communism to achieve those ends, then so be it. Let the focus of change be aimed at Communism under those circumstances, if the sky is your roof, then what difference between Communism and Capitalism?

Spoken like a true communist, Diver Dan. Maybe a case of the bends or nitrogen narcosis if you believe Labor's policies based on lies are the answer when Albo and his MP mates are benefitting from negative gearing on multiple properties which they have "grandfathered" to protect themselves.

Mikko2

Well, if I imply that your simply a greedy “little” Capitalist as a conclusion stemming from your stated position on tax breaks for housing speculators, then I can comfortably live with the accusation of Communist.

Where you miss the point that matters, is conflating housing speculation with its unfair and one sided tax breaks given to the undeserving, by frightened vote buying Governments as desirable and worthy.

This puts housing speculation on the same level mass immigration is, as antisocial, socially destructive vote buying. We need urgently, a revamped universal political system that is honest, socially focused and free of corrupt Politicians: I hold little hope for our future as Australians, that this outcome is achievable without divine intervention!

Hi dan,

"If achieving those ends requires Communism to achieve those ends, then so be it."

The reason communism is opposed is not because of evil capitalists and Jewish bankers, but because of the poor outcomes it brings every time it gets tried. The USSR had a run for a while, but it turned out that they were releasing bs data. After many years the truth was revealed by a massive difference in living standards between east and west.

Copy policies of prosperous nations. Copying the politics of envy as Magoo does will bring us all down.

https://youtu.be/0J3REV35hgo?si=C0MmNP_DP1s9BD0Q

Fester.

OLO is a classical medium for polemical rhetoric. That is one of its endearing joys.
Take no prisoners!

But.. isn’t it a commonly believed and rarely contested fact, there is little to no difference between the Labor Commies and the LNP cigar smoking Capitalists? Isn’t that simple reality the high nitrogen fertiliser for One Nation?

So when I point out as I did, the lack of practical difference between the two (previously) major parties, that was the point!

Hi Comrade Dan,

Glad you've seen the light and have come over to the right side, which is the left side. Well, I certainly agree with you on housing. Australia, more than any other Western Liberal Democracy places great store in owner occupied homes, it being a desirable social objective for so many. The government did do what it could to stimulate the supply side of the equation, but realistically its not enough, the problem is far more deeply rooted that simply saying; "there's not enough houses being built, build more!" There is a structural inequality built in by government between investors on the one hand, and owner occupiers on the other. The financial bias favouring investors through tax incentives places owner occupiers in a position where they cannot effectively compete in the housing market. These changes to negative gearing, capital gains tax and trusts are absolutely necessary if the aspiration of home ownership is going to become a reality for so many Australians, particularly young aspirational Australians.

And the Liar in the Lodge and his ignoramus Treasurer will have the family home and inheritances next on their hit list to compensate for what they think is a bottomless bucket of taxpayer funds. As the old saying goes, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, but now more people are waking up to the fact they've been fooled and hoodwinked by this lying Labor mob over and over again. The fact is that landlords have already started to increase rents by $50 to $100 a week, not the $2 stated in the budget.

In 1985, the then Hawke Labor government banned negative gearing on rental properties as part of its tax reforms.

Two years later, after rents started rising due to investors leaving the property market, the same Hawke government reversed course and reinstated negative gearing on all properties. The rent rises were particularly bad in Sydney (but also evident in the rest of the country) and the NSW Labor government knew it would hurt their already dim prospects in the 1988 state election. So they increased the pressure on Keating/ Hawke.

Expect a similar thing to happen this time at least as regards rents rising although the Labor government this time probably won't reverse course but instead just throw more money they haven't got at rent assistance.

Hi Trumpster,

How are we going to survive those massive rent increases;

"Treasury modelling estimates the tax changes will have a proportional impact of about $2 per week on rents. Similarly, the Grattan Institute suggests reducing the CGT discount alone would result in a tiny increase of less than $1 per week."

Where do you get your "facts" from, if its not Dangerous Doctor Donald, its from the Lovely Pauline and Barnyard Joy.

"Where do you get your "facts" from"

From reading history. Its a fact that the Hawke government abolished negative gearing on new purchases. Its a fact that they reversed that two years later. Its a fact that was due to fears over rising rents.

I know you don't want any of that to be true, but alas, in the adult world, facts trump fantasy.

"Treasury modelling estimates ...."

Oh well it must be true. After all, who ever heard of treasury getting their estimates wrong? </sarc>

If the socialist/ commo/ Labor acolytes here watched anything besides the pro-Labor ABC they would see numerous reports from industry insiders warning of big rent increases, but here it is from Google AI:
Property investment firms and industry advocates have warned that renters could face weekly increases of \(\$25\) to \(\$100\) following the federal budget's sweeping tax reforms, far exceeding the federal Treasury's initial prediction of a \(\$2\) per week hike.Why Renters are Facing Steep IncreasesTax Changes: The federal budget phased out the 50% capital gains tax discount and restricted negative gearing to newly built homes for purchases made on or after budget night.Investor Pullback: Investment firms and real estate analysts warn the reduced tax incentives and lower borrowing capacities will push investors away from the established property market.Reduced Supply: A pullback in property investors translates to fewer rental properties on the market, allowing landlords and property managers to increase rents significantly due to historically low vacancy rates.

Hi Mikko2,

"Investment firms and real estate analysts" and who might they be? Did they consult the crystal ball or the tea leaves?

Hi Trumpster,

Bob Hawke, he's bloody dead! Talk about the ghost of Xmas past, 30 years ago, its 2026 not 1926 as people like YOU would like it to be.

I know as YOU sit in your home in the gutter, you hope that the Lovely Pauline will fly over in her sexy new Gina Rhinoceros plane, and drop a home, more likely a tent, on your head, so you can move up market and sleep in the park!

Paul 1405 you are so far out of touch with reality you can't even tell who is calling out your BS (it wasn't me who mentioned Bob Hawke) and if you can't find any of the numerous real estate and investment specialists calling out the budget changes and how they will increase rents and demand for new builds substantially, making it more difficult for new buyers, you need to change your search engine! Here's just one from Ray White who I think might know more than a Labor troll or Jim Chalmers or the Liar in the Lodge https://www.raywhite.com/news-and-market-insights/economic-updates/housing-tax-reform-shifts-the-pressure-it-doesnt-solve-it

Hi Mikko2,

You said; "Property investment firms and industry advocates have warned that renters could face weekly increases of \(\$25\) to \(\$100\) following the federal budget's sweeping tax reforms,"

As far as I could read your RAY WHITE REAL ESTATE link made no mention of $25 to $100 a week increase in rents. It was very long and maybe it did make such a claim, i didn't see it. Where did YOU get those figures from, did YOU make them up?

You make the claim, I don't have to go searching to disprove it, rather the onus is on you to prove it correct.

I could say the smart people in the industry say the Labor tax changers will reduce rents by #25 to $100 week, now prove me wrong. Which of course you shouldn't have to do.

No, you did mention Hawke it was mhaze (Trumpster), he lives in the past, where he belongs.

Paul 1405 As I said in that post it was taken directly rom Google AI - you have heard of that? And it's gained from views expressed by numerous investment and real estate sources. It's also been widely covered in the media and it's already happening as seen here on Ch 7's Sunrise with renters reporting immediate steep increases despite attempted excuses from Clare O'Neil who is way out of her depth as usual https://www.youtube.com/watch?

Hi Mikko2,

You got this from Google AI, "views expressed by numerous investment and real estate sources". but still you can't name an actual source that made the statement that "have warned that renters could face weekly increases of \(\$25\) to \(\$100\) following the federal budget's sweeping tax reforms." So its a could be, from unnamed sources generated by Google AI. "seen here on Ch 7's Sunrise (indeed) with renters reporting immediate steep increases" how many renters reported these steep increases, there are about 7 million people renting in Australia. As of today there have been NO TAX CHANGERS, I repeat NO TAX CHANGERS, so what was the justification for "steep increases" from landlords? Anticipation maybe! Money grabbing maybe!

And a snippet from an industry expert https://propertyupdate.com.au/if-the-federal-budget-was-supposed-to-help-renters-i-think-it-will-do-the-opposite/

..."As for the impact on rents, the government's own modelling was remarkably optimistic.

Budget papers argued these reforms will have only a minor impact on rents, estimating an average increase of less than $2 a week for a household paying the current median rent.

Two dollars a week. I genuinely don't know how anyone can take that seriously.

Why I think the real impact on rents will be far worse

With respect to Treasury's modellers, I think they've significantly underestimated what's coming for renters over the next couple of years.

My view is that rents are more likely to rise by 10% or more, and there are several concrete reasons for that.

The first is that we were already in a severely undersupplied rental market before this budget was announced..."

If I recall correctly, when the Hawke government, under the advise of Treasurer Keating, abolished negative gearing, they assured the populace that it would be good for renters because house prices would fall due to less competition from investors and therefore rents would also fall.

Instead what happened is that both house prices rose and then rents rose to the point where the ALP were scared that voter backlash would affect their electoral prospects. So after a mere two years, the policy was reversed although, as is his normal practice, Keating refused to admit error.

"Bob Hawke, he's bloody dead!"

Well so is Marx but you still ferociously follow him.
There is an old saying that those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. But Paul has solved that problem by simply refusing to learn ANY history.

We'll see what happens over the next coupla years but the lessons of history suggest the rental market is on a hiding to nothing. But I don't see Chalmers/Albo reversing course. Not their style. Instead they'll blame some nebulous overseas event and then throw deficit money at the problem to pretend they've solved it.

In the end there's only one solution to the housing crisis -if that's what you want to call it. The problem isn't caused by investors. It isn't caused by overseas events. It isn't caused by supply problems. It IS caused by too many people chasing too few properties. The solution is to reduce the number of people looking for housing ie REDUCE the immigrant intake. But neither of the major parties want to go there.

Hi Trumpster,

"they assured the populace that it would be good for renters because house prices would fall". Unlike YOU, I'm note converse with what was said in the Stone Age. When and where was it said, YOU can make up what YOU like with your ancient history. I ask were you a Protectionist or a Free Trader back in 1901? It was an argument about tariffs, not between Australia and other countries, but tariffs between Australian states, times change for most of us, but not for YOU, Trumpster.

BTW, We don't hear a squeak out of YOU about the Iran war. Dangerous Doctor Donald is negotiating!.....WITH HIS BLOODY SELF! And you think Donald's the New Messiah, what a joke!

Paul 1405 - I have been a bit busy and just catching up with this article.
This News.com.au article from three days ago tells what one landlord thinks of this nonsense of the Labor Budget. I am sure I have more on this but I shall just put this one here for now as I need time to look. Happy to oblige though.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget/landlord-with-100-properties-warns-new-negative-gearing-rules-will-create-twoclass-economy/news-story/fa24f4ae63abe22e0655b61bd7bd7f0e

Hi Farnortherner,

I'm sure there is one landlord that doesn't agree with changers to CGT and NG, there could be more, particularly those who are doing very well by the status quo.

Just as news.com, "Murdock Gutter Press", would not publish anything that agrees with Labor policy, you don't agree with Labor policy also. In my view its a very moderate shift, and a lot more will be needed if the housing problem is to be resolved any time soon.

"I ask were you a Protectionist or a Free Trader back in 1901? It was an argument about tariffs, not between Australia and other countries, but tariffs between Australian states, times change for most of us, but not for YOU, Trumpster."

If anyone is fluent in gibberish, can they translate Paul's latest opus for me.

Ttbn, the Labor troll asked for evidence of frequent claims that rents will rise by $50 to $100 a week as stated by many investment and real estate groups but he ignores this from such an expert in an earlier post: "With respect to Treasury's modellers, I think they've significantly underestimated what's coming for renters over the next couple of years.

My view is that rents are more likely to rise by 10% or more, and there are several concrete reasons for that."
Well with average rents in major capitals already at around $600 to $800 with some much higher, do the maths.
And this from the link posted by Farnortherner from a major investor who says the changes will make him richer while it hits renters:
It is no secret that Australians are already fed up with rent prices across the board, but Mr Gordon reckons it is about to get worse.

“I believe the biggest issue here is that if rents go through a massive surge, which I think they will, how does a young Australian who plans to buy in three to five years, how will they ever buy?” he asked.

“The grim part is this will create a two-class economy, and it is my benefit for this to happen, but this is extremely bad for the next lot of people to come through.”

Hi Trumpster,

I was making the point that times change, and you see things as static and unmovable. As a total regressive you resist all change. The 1901 story is as relevant today as much as your Hawke government reference from 40 years ago.

Hi Mikko2,

Other than a vague reference to "investment and real estate sources", you can't produce anyone saying; "renters could face weekly increases of \(\$25\) to \(\$100\) following the federal budget's sweeping tax reforms." Nor can you give reasons. I could say rents will increase by $25 to $100 "AFTER CHRISTMAS" I'm sure they will sometime after Christmas. I note the $25 has now become $50 in your recent post, you have to remember what you make up.

Paul 1405 if you can't work out 10 percent of current rentals averages of $600 to $800 a week and equate it to figures correctly stated on Google AI, best enrol for a course in basic maths.
Obviously there are places and suburbs where rents are higher and Noosa is just one example on Queensland's Sunshine Coast, where there is very limited land available for new builds.
Google AI Overview again:
Average rental prices in Noosa vary significantly by property type and location. Overall median rent sits around $1,100 per week, but this spans from $750/week for units up to $1,300+/week for houses. Competition is exceptionally tight across the region.Median Rent by Property Type (Noosa Heads):Houses (3 Bedrooms): $1,100 to $1,125 per week; Houses (4 Bedrooms): $1,400 to $1,500 per week;Units / Apartments: $750 to $960 per week.Surrounding Noosa Shire Areas:Noosaville: Units generally average around $775 per week...Sunrise Beach / Sunshine Beach: Coastal luxury listings push the upper average, often ranging between $1,200 and $2,800 per week for high-end family homes.

And here are just a few more examples of the actual rent increase warnings from those in the know: High-Profile Industry SpokesmenNathan Birch: The founder of Blink Property—who manages roughly 7,000 homes—gave the most specific dollar warning. He stated that typical $400-a-week rentals will spike to $550 almost immediately post-budget. This represents a $150 weekly jump. He attributes this to landlords preparing to hike prices to cover the incoming loss of tax perks.Cate Bakos: The chair of Property Investment Professionals of Australia (PIPA) labeled the government’s $2 prediction "utterly delusional." She warned that rent hikes of at least 10 per cent are firmly on the table due to tightening vacancy rates. On an average Australian rent, this translates directly to a $50 to $100 weekly surge.Harry Triguboff: Australia's biggest residential property investor and billionaire developer warned The Australian that the tax changes will trigger a massive property investor exodus. He argues that a sudden drop in available rental stock will force drastic price hikes onto remaining tenants. The Australian +3

Cheer up Mikko. I'm sure you could walk down the streets of Caracas and find people who think that Hugo Chavez was the best president ever. Magoo could do much worse and still have people singing his praises.

Why should anyone take notice of what some slumlord has to say about rent increases. The fact is theses tax changers are due in 12 month time, there is no justification for immediate rent increases as claimed. There are no changers to existing arrangements, and investment in new property will still attract a 50% write off. What is the problem?

"I was making the point that times change"

No. You were making the assertion that things might be different, without the slightest effort to even suggest how they might be different. Just hoping that things might work out differently this time because you want things to turn out differently this time is the opposite of learning from experience and inevitably leads to error.

Hi Trumpster,

There is no "might" about it, the affordability factor in the housing sector is different today from that of 40 years ago, even 25 year ago, when Little Johnny Howard made big changes to the tax system. The cost of housing as a proportion of average income has gone up from a factor of 6 in 2005, to a factor of 9 today. One of the reasons for that is the changers Howard made to CGT and NG back in 1999. A correction to these generous arrangements for investors over buyer occupiers is way over due. Of course vested interests are going to cry blue murder, as there will be a relatively small cost to some of them from these changers.

Haha the Labor troll changes his position as easily as the Liar in the Lodge. He has been calling for examples of investment and industry spokesmen saying rents will rise by the stated amounts - and when they are provided he just shrugs his shoulders and thinks he knows better than the experts. Unfortunately renters will soon find the truth will hit them in the hip pocket and push them further than ever from home ownership.

"One of the reasons for that is the changers Howard made to CGT and NG back in 1999. "

What a clown. Anything from the past that disproves what Paul wants to be true is "Stone Age" and should be ignored. Anything from the past that he thinks supports his unresearched assertions is completely relevant. Double standards abound in Paul-land.

But but BUT. Howard didn't DIDN'T make any changes to negative gearing in 1999 or any other year. Yet Paul wants to believe Howard did make changes and that trumps anything like mere facts in Paul-land.

BTW, the relative level of housing affordability has precisely nothing to do with the probable level of rental increases in 1987 or 2027. I suspect that'll go over Paul's head.

Mhaze, and ttbn you're right and history does count for anyone with a trace of commonsense who doesn't want to see mistakes of the past repeated. Meanwhile two Labor Premiers have joined the pile-on against the Federal Budget changes - WA's Roger Cook and NSW's Chris Minns, but if the anti-history buff stays glued to the ABC or The Guardian, he probably hasn't heard that news.

Hi Trumpster,

Being a man of ancient history, you might like this;

"Negative gearing has been a feature of Australian tax law since 1936, originally implemented under the conservative Lyons Government to encourage housing investment during the Great Depression."

During the Great Depression negative gearing might have been a very good thing. I don't dispute that, but times have moved on, and things have changed since you bought your first investment cave in 4000BC.

Hi Mikko2,

I note your reference to the Bentley driving slumlord Nathan Birch, and what he makes of these changers. Be realistic, for today's landlords everything remains the same, no need to bang on about massive rent increases today, its not happening. BTW, Real Estate Agents, no matter how many luxury cars they own, are one rung above Used Car Salesmen when it comes to telling the truth.

Given inflation and other factors I don't disagree that rents will most likely increase in the future. But I very much doubt those increases with be solely caused by these tax and trust changers

Nathan Birch is just one of several examples I have provided after the anti-history buff asked for just one example forecasting rent increases, but he can believe his delusions which don't change the fact that rents are already being increased in the wake of the Budget. It's obvious that Albo and Chalmers and most of his Cabinet have never had a real job outside of unions and parliamentary staff or run a small business, so they are clueless when it comes to running the economy. The Premiers of WA and NSW have joined the critics.

Hi Mikko2,

"the fact that rents are already being increased in the wake of the Budget" On what grounds? Nothing has been passed through the parliament, anyone who ups the rent today, is simply money gauging with no justification, from people who are already struggling. That's why some of us want progressive change.

As for "have never had a real job", and you consider a Real Estate Agent as a "real job", rated down there with the lowest of the low, Used Car Salesmen, even if he's a billionaire driving around in a Bentley his productive contribution to the wealth of the nation is zero, its a negative, the action of a parasite in fact.

Well Pauly, real estate salesmen don't make policy decisions based on repeated lies that are binding on all Australians, last time I checked. Here's just another example of the instant effect of the changes with restricted lending for investment and another business (property management firm Dashdot) with more that 40 employees going bust partly due to the Budget changes. From co-founder G>McGrath:
“Forums filled with confused investors. The investor segment of the Australian property market entered a state of paralysis within 24 hours.
“This was the first direct, policy-driven blow to investor confidence in the entire cycle.”
“Some pre-approvals issued only weeks earlier became unreliable overnight.”

More from the liquidated Dashdot's co-founder G McGrath on immediate Budget effects:
He said major banks began rolling back negative gearing options for investors, tearing into their potential borrowing capacities.

“For a typical investor (a single applicant on $100,000 income with no existing debt), borrowing capacity fell by approximately 20 per cent overnight, from $750,000 to $600,000, with no change to income, expenses, or interest rates,” Mr McGrath said.

“For more highly-leveraged scenarios, the reduction was 25 per cent to 33 per cent...

Hi Mikko2

Dashbot run by someone called "Goose" in a partnership with someone called "Gabbi". Went into liquidation yesterday! Interesting.

A nameless "investor" probably Goose and Gabbi, possibly wanting to purchase their 10th investment property, and for some reason are offered a $600K mortgage by the bank. A young couple wishing to buy their first home to raise a family, and move out of the rented digs owned by the "investors" where they are paying exorbitant rent, are now in a position to borrow $600k from the same bank to make a bid for a home of their own, all on a level playing field. thanks to Jimbo and Albo, but no thanks to Goose and Gabbi !

My heart bleeds for Goose and Gabbi, tut, tut, but I wont be losing any sleep over their failure. P/S If they went bankrupt yesterday, there's much more to the story than the budget of 2 weeks ago! A couple of incompetents who failed I would say.

Just a final post from Google AI which sums it up but hang on to your delusions, the months ahead will show who is right and it won't be the Liar in the Lodge or his woke acolytes:
AI Overview Australian renters are reporting immediate, significant weekly rent hikes—ranging from $25 to $100—following the recent federal budget's announcement of tax reforms, which include phasing out negative gearing for existing properties. While the Treasury initially estimated rent increases of just $2 a week, independent modelling warns of much steeper hikes ahead...

Hi Mikko2,

Trying to link today's rent increases to the budget is political, there is no impact on the housing market due to the tax changes announced in the budget, for the simple reason that no legislation has passed the parliament. Despite the scare campaign of misinformation the truth is EXISTING RENTAL PROPERTIES are exempt, and NEW RENTAL PROPERTIES purchased are also exempt.

This weekend auction reports some key points;

"The share of owner-occupiers (and specifically first-home buyers) has seen a noticeable increase at auctions across Australia. This shift is largely because property investors have pulled back due to rising interest rates and major changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. In previously highly competitive, affordable markets (like Greater Brisbane), owner-occupiers and first-home buyers are now outbidding investors."

Gee green shoots, young first home buyers are getting into the market on a level playing field. Downward pressure on prices as investors leave the existing market and want to invest in new housing. Folks buying a home, to raise a family in, the Australian dream, now have a fighting chance to realise that dream, and not being out bid by an investor seeking his 30th existing property to rent.

I have not mentioned the supply side, and what is being done there for the provision of new social and affordable homes across Australia. Nor have I mentioned government assisted finance for first home buyers.

We can't have any of that, can we?