Col, Communism owned everything while the purer elements of fascism dictates that essential infrastructure(water, electricity, mining, etc) is retained by the state while business is encouraged to own what we are seeing big business take complete control of. Also, stratification of society is retained as middle class and lower class are needed, not destroyed as we are seeing in Australia today.

Homeless; the removal of youth off the streets who are then housed, educated and trained. Not left on the streets after they were rejected by their parent/s as is the reason in most cases. Jamie Oliver made a good statement that of his homeless chef students, 98% of parents refused to support their children.

With housing, the growing trend of feudalism in Australia where the few own the properties forcing most families out, is viewed with disgust for all people should have the chance to enter the market, not just those who crave to buy up the market for themselves. I can't go into exact policy in this at the present time as it is being formulated worldwide. Many are being formulated and they won't be rushed.

Spider “essential infrastructure”

Where do you draw the line on what is essential? For instance,
Is electricity “essential”,
are telephones “essential”
is insurance and superannuation “essential”.
Is a banking industry “essential”?
How about retail and food distribution networks, are they “essential”?

How would you compensate the current owners for their loss of investment when the state acquires the commercial benefits which they presently own?

I have every sympathy with every child who is, for whatever reason, separated from his or her natural parents but “98% of parents refused to support their children”, I assume, applies to those children who are “on the street” and not all children in general.

If a child is willful and refuses to comply with the rules his or her parents set for conduct within the family, should they remain accountable for children who seek the privations of the street versus the discipline and responsibility which comes with being a family member?

“Where the few own the properties forcing most families out,” Australia has one of the highest rates of home ownership in the world. My own daughter, through her own efforts and without assistance from her Father or Mother saved a deposit and bought her first house for herself in 2001 at age 21.
Her younger sister is doing the same today, saving with intention to buy.

What is your view on private investors building rental property for say, 5% rent return, recognizing the funding costs will be at least 7%, should they carry a 2% rental loss? What do you see as a way to encourage greater investment in rental housing stock?

What practical steps are you suggesting should be adopted to rectify what you see as a problem from concentration in housing ownership?

“I can't go into exact policy in this at the present time as it is being formulated worldwide. Many are being formulated and they won't be rushed.”

I would hate to rush you but exactly who or which organization is doing the “formulation”?

Do you have a web source from where they distribute their manifesto and policy statements?

Spider said, "With housing, the growing trend of feudalism in Australia where the few own the properties forcing most families out."

That is nonsense.

A few years ago I went to the Qld Rental Tenancies Authority (RTA) briefing for property owners and property managers on changes to rental tenancy regulations. What really struck me about the property owners who attended was that they were all very ordinary looking people, mostly middle-aged and almost all were in clothes that would not be out of place in a suburban shopping centre in a poorer side of town. They were not wealthy people.

Why I relate this story is to underline the simple fact proved over and over by ABS statistics, that the substantial majority of rental property is owned by low and middle income earners who own usually one, but sometimes up to three properties. Such properties are heavily mortgaged because they have to be, otherwise the owners could not afford to have them. They take out a big loan to invest in another house while having an outstanding mortgage on their own home.

They are old-fashioned and do not trust shares and probably do not have superannuation either. No wonder so many of them report they live like church mice and are used to making sacrifices.

Also, if you take the time to read internet forums of property investors you will quickly get the impression that the ones who are doing well out of investment real estate are the spruikers and the tenants - almost all owners report that their tenants have far better lifestyles than they do and all owners are hoping against hope that someday they will show some profit.

I suppose some people can be forgiven for believing that there are heaps of people making a killing out of real estate, because Today Tonight told them so.

I just refer to readers to the following quote: (the relevant part is in the second paragraph)

In its report, “Levels, patterns and trends of Australian household saving,” the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) found that in June 2002, the top 20 percent of households owned more than half the total household wealth. Their average worth was $772,000, more than 40 times higher than the poorest 20 percent—whose estimated average assets were only $18,000—and more than double the wealth of the second most affluent 20 percent.

Significantly, the wealthiest group owned almost 90 percent of all shares and 66 percent of rental properties.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/nov2002/gap-n21.shtml

Tristan

tristan, these people should get out of the city. I could make an extra $20k a year if I moved to Sydney. That would be gobbled up straight away in housing costs even if I lived in the outer suburbs. Then there is the cost of getting to work, not to mention the tensions that come from being so close to so many people (heck I like my space ok). Life isnt fair. Sometimes you cant live where you want or do what you want. I am one of these people. I cant afford to go and do what I want to do (which will entail slashing my pay by a third). So I do what I have to to get by. If I can do, so can anyone else.

Tristan

I can see why the World Socialist Website quotes that report which was commissioned by the financial planning industry and was controversial, largely because of the misinterpretations by the media and others. You see the survey included as part of a person’s wealth the estimated sale price of their home as though it were available for spending.

Predictably people aged 45 – 65 years, who had houses in inner city areas and were at the (momentary) peak of their earnings and asset accumulation were seen as ‘wealthy’ individuals. These were people the investment advice industry was targeting and hence the sponsored review by NARSEM.

But just stop for a moment and think, it is reasonable and normal that older people just prior to retirement would be better off in the main than younger people: their children have flown the nest and they are finally able to save; their (now) inner city homes are almost paid off and are higher valued (but they don't want to sell so that just ends up costing them more rates); their super is being added to and their spending on material things is down while retirement is impending.

So the picture of 'wealthy' people holding all of that real estate is not really true, is it? Anyhow, within several years of retirement old people are typically caused to shed property apart from their homes to support themselves. After all there is the income/assets test. Not much later they end up selling their homes to support themselves too.

You must be aware of grannies do you know who are accused of being asset rich (and income poor) because they are still living in the house where their children were born and raised. What are they to do?

Reports such as the one quoted distort the facts. The subject report has been used by the unethical (or uninformed) to sledge older people for having saved to be self-sufficient in their retirement.

Intergenerational jealousy is a great way to divide and conquer.

Move outwards where you can afford to buy.