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 > A 'super' alternative to housing affordability

A 'super' alternative to housing affordability

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Many people today cannot afford to buy a home, yet, they also have plenty of dollars locked away in their super. So, why not allow them to access this to buy their own home.

Some serious ground rules would be needed such así

1. A buyer could only use up to 60% of their super towards a deposit and could only use this option once. Joint buys could use joint super accounts however they can only use this option once. This would stop them buying a home, renting it out then buying another the same way.
2. Their deposit, including super must be a minimum of 25% of the purchase price, excluding legalís and associated fees.
3. Their super, which represents a portion of the asset must be indexed at CPI annually.
4. Redraw of the loan is not allowed until the super is repaid in full, after which general redraw conditions apply.

At least this way many who canít afford a home today, could now do so and their super would be working for them, not feeding the lifestyles of some super fund managers.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 3 June 2011 5:22:34 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
Rechtub you can do this right now and some have done it.
However it is not the answer.
Lets look at the housing bubble, bloke that is what it is and watch it bust, soon.
A home my ancestors lived in 75 years ago, a terrace workers cottage type home,sold for 1.6 million dollars.
How many years do its new owners have to work to pay for that?
And while trendy it still is a once slum that saw its inhabitants grow food in the very small backyard to eat.
We build our houses to big,we pay too much for them, we reward owners of multiple homes with negative gearing.
Rewarding them for? making money.
A slump is coming, government has cut funding for low income housing.
If we want to impact on house shortages, we cannot stop the coming crunch, we should stop negative gearing.
BUT greatly reduce all tax's on fair rent rental housing, let the profit makers win by reducing our problems for us.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 4 June 2011 7:50:13 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
belly is right about the housing bubble
also re the negative gearing needing to be gone

i note there are so few in the know about renting
govt housing restricts the rent payable
to one quater..of your combined income

too many take this as their perfect solution
but compare them to those paying much more than one quater their income..for their rent..its plainly unfair[ignorance has its cost]

thing is houses are going to crunch
but not as much as the stock market is going to tank
so allowing for alternate investment..diversifies this huge stock marketeering bubble..

[govt fully intends to make worse
by sending good new money after bad]..
putting money into a home would lesson the fall due to both

a further relitive point is govt spends vast ammounts
topping up rent costs..that the rent landlords greedly sup on
but which if gone would make more..cheap rentals in line with sure payments from pension/dole etc

renting is a dead end
you pay...govt pays..wasted money to a rich speculater
getting further govt moneys via their asset 'deteriating'..lol
while the value esculates...in the long term

stop giving slum landlord extra funds

people should be rewarded for doing the right things
govt should buy shares..in homes..that people can buy back at market rates...

so using super to achieve that..
will make the future spend on the super..less
so its all good...

but not in and of itself
reform the bigger picture
if you earned the right to share ownership
then you should have your earned shares

and no-one should be made to pay more than one quater their income
simply for a place to cook/eat/slep and occasionally make love
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 4 June 2011 8:06:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dont forget the huge impact of the development restrictions on landowners, mainly by local government regulation. Aesthetic housing which meets health and safety standards can be built very cheaply.

Easing the restriction would greatly increase supply and would quickly end the affordability crisis, but it wont happen easily as local government will not give up their excessive power without a fight. From my own observations over the years, including the sacking of several councils by the courts, I believe that the secretive development approval process fosters corruption and is causing great harm to Australia's economy.

End the restriction and you end the crisis and corruption.
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 4 June 2011 9:17:19 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
I just tried to access my super to buy a small cottage but I can only get 10 % per year.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 4 June 2011 11:08:22 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
Complex issue I ought,paid cash from my super this my first and only owned home.
In 2002 aged 55 , paid next to no tax on my super.
A scheme to use part of your super for a deposit has been about for a while.
Individual if you are over that age you can get your super.
Our world runs on profits,we may not like it but it is true.
We for 4 decades have been reducing government owned low rental housing, it hurts us.
How does it hurt home buyers you may ask.
My home, its 3 neighbors, came on the back of trucks from Sydney rebuilt and resold for profit.
At almost not cost to a big business operations on many fronts.
Most house they own,about 80, are rented ,country homes mostly no sewage or water.
Base rental rates of $200,to $300.
Negative gearing kept these homes rented not sold,and raised the prices of every one around them at sales.
If we stop the lie, let say ten years income be tax free on EVERY RENTAL PROPERTY watch them fly up.
And watch them sold after ten years as owners build more, we win in the long run.
Councils are at best incompetent but in my view fraudulent in the extreme.
16 homes are planned for my village, we need everyone of them, will not get them.
Wrong end of town land privately owned by councilors is at the other end .
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 4 June 2011 2:37:52 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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