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 as’

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 legal’s 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 can’t 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.

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.

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

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.

I just tried to access my super to buy a small cottage but I can only get 10 % per year.

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 .

Belly, if you stop negative gearing you will also stop investers investing in housing, which, in turn, will increase rents as the old supply V demand issue will arise.

I do agree that we build our homes to large. To many 1st home buyers today don't just want 'a home' they want 'the home' and that;s the main problem.

As for your cottage senario, that's simply due to location and nothing more.

The cottage is litterally wothless, it's the land that holds the value.

Up here in Brisy, many older homes have lost value due to councils placing restrictions on what can be done to an older house. In this situation the land is worthless, yet concils don't see this with regards to rateable values.

Some owners have even resorted to placing termite nests under the older homes in an effort to have them condemned just so they can build their dream home.

My opinion is that so many people are to worried about 'street appeal' and, as a result they build a mansion, then scrape together what they can to deck it out.

In my view if one has say $200K to build with, they would be better to build a 'box' for say $80K, then spend $120K on fixtures and fittings. After all, we live inside houses and the outside is only 'wank factor' in many cases, often for the benefit of the jones.

Even public housing these days is build to fancy in my view. If they saved say 20% per house, that's an extra one in every five they could build with the same money.

Many people today are simply to fussy.

I agree with almost all of that Rechtub.
How ever did you see my proposal was to use very much positive gearing, in some areas,to increase building.
Even I if I had the money,would jump at the chance to invest and pay no tax on my earnings.
You have started a thread ,at a time, that is about to become historic.
The bubble has bust.
Just a small leak so far a threat that some ignore.
But no patch exists than can fix it or stop it blowing wide open.
Owners driven by THE HOUSE syndrome, we can bank on its value going up, now owe more than it is worth.
In your state a home bought for $550.000 offered for sale at $700.000, has been reduced to $400.000 and no offers have been made.
My cottage went up 250% in the first three months after I bought it,luck.
Each side of me has sold for twice purchase price the second time.
But one, sold three times lost $30.000 for its last seller
20 years ago every house in town could be bought for a quarter of what I paid ,country homes will remain about stable.
We live in harsh times this bubble will hurt many but others will buy and in time,not soon make good profits our housing bucket has many holes in it and we will see that all too soon.

Yeah, I REALLY need to win lotto.

<many older homes have lost value due to councils placing restrictions on what can be done>

<Many people today are simply to fussy.>

See the contradiction? It is the restriction on people that is the problem, not their fussy tastes. The big joke is that the restriction is there supposedly to protect people from poor quality development. It doesn't, as the many shoddy rabbit warrens in capital cities amply demonstrate. And the approval for such slums are made free of public scrutiny.

The truth is that the housing crisis is a direct result of development rights being severely restricted, then secretly and frequently corruptly administered.

OUG, why do you think that landlords are rich speculators? Some might be, but the richer ones tend to own commercial property (shopping centres etc), not houses. Most landlords earn not much more than the average income, and plenty earn below it. They often live in modest homes themselves, prefering to try and make more money for themselves in the long run than spend it on short term gratification. I own one rental property myself (which is negative-geared at the moment, as the rental has not yet increased to the stage where it covers my interest cost, let alone the capital repayments I have to make). When I had to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent, I went 5 months without rental income and still had to pay the mortgage. I have my own mortgage to pay as well, and a young family to support. I am not whinging about that (although I think its wrong to take so long to get rid of a tenant that is blantantly not doing what they should) - my point is that most people that rent out houses are not rich. Lakc of negative gearing would not stop property investors, but it does take away some of the reward for the risks taken, and it would certainly slow investment (money would head into the share market instead in a lot of cases). The result would be higher rents due to a shortage of properties. The impact is evident in country towns that have been subject to a mining boom. Rents soar, and the tend to stay up, even when the demand slackens off. It will only hurt renters more.

It never did make much sense to me to take a large chunk of money off the top of young peoples income at the time when they are trying to buy a home, & probably raise a family at the same well. You will be much better off at retirement age if you can get into the housing market young, than than you will be with a few extra dollars per week from super.

To do this to try to get the folk from the private sector off the government pension system, so they could afford the extremely generous public sector retirement benefits was to me a most cynical act.

I am not against super, I would have loved to have some, but it should be available to young home buyers to use when they need it most.

Surely it should not be too hard to develop a system that works better than the present one.

country gal/quote...

""OUG,why do you think that landlords are rich speculators?""

by and large,..*they hold two valuable assets
plus likely got tax advantages..from govt

[ok that could be speculative...
but it is a generalisation...!

that describes those..my opinions are biased on]

""Most landlords earn not much more than the average income,""

yes clever aint it..[depreciation...
and making a book loss
while increasing the total asset values...

that needs clever accounting
as well as plentyfull govt help
based on traditional furfies]

trusts are nototrious..re that sort of thing
with the trust owning..and paying for near all expenditure's
and the truste getting so little..[lol]..

yet holding so much more
[under the family trust]...paying for the rest of it
owninmg it...while the trustee can cry poor

""I own one rental property myself""
your the expeption country

i could easilly divide my house into 5 units..
and become a landlord as well...but then im not poor..i got choices

but look at your next statement..

"(which is negative-geared at the moment"",

so you know..how generouse that all is
as well..*if your renters are getting govt subsidy[rent assistance]
you must see this illusion of futuure wealth..is just that..a delusion

for 30 dollars more
the renters could be buying their own house

but..of course for that...
THEY cant take advantage of netative gearing...[lol]

""as the rental has not yet increased
to the stage..where it covers my interest cost,
let alone the capital repayments..*I have to make).""

i told you it was an illusion

selling us on a dream...
with govt incentaive
forcing the 'private sector'..to asume govt burden
who inevitably fail...[look at storm/enron..etc]

[look into puting it under a trust]

and pray your renters
keep getting rent assistance

[you must see that you bought it..for too much
because so many small investers..like you
got caughtup in a trick..that made the true price of housing go into a bubble]

that is in process of popping*
as the intrest rates are about to go nuts

dear country gal
you were tricked
loosing good money after bad mone

country gal/quote...

""OUG,why do you think that landlords are rich speculators?""

by and large,..*they hold two valuable assets
plus likely got tax advantages..from govt

[ok that could be speculative...
but it is a generalisation...!

that describes those..my opinions are biased on]

""Most landlords earn not much more than the average income,""

yes clever aint it..[depreciation...
and making a book loss
while increasing the total asset values...

that needs clever accounting
as well as plentyfull govt help
based on traditional furfies]

trusts are nototrious..re that sort of thing
with the trust owning..and paying for near all expenditure's
and the truste getting so little..[lol]..

yet holding so much more
[under the family trust]...paying for the rest of it
owninmg it...while the trustee can cry poor

""I own one rental property myself""
your the expeption country

i could easilly divide my house into 5 units..
and become a landlord as well...but then im not poor..i got choices

but look at your next statement..

"(which is negative-geared at the moment"",

so you know..how generouse that all is
as well..*if your renters are getting govt subsidy[rent assistance]
you must see this illusion of futuure wealth..is just that..a delusion

for 30 dollars more
the renters could be buying their own house

but..of course for that...
THEY cant take advantage of netative gearing...[lol]

""as the rental has not yet increased
to the stage..where it covers my interest cost,
let alone the capital repayments..*I have to make).""

i told you it was an illusion

selling us on a dream...
with govt incentaive
forcing the 'private sector'..to asume govt burden
who inevitably fail...[look at storm/enron..etc]

[look into puting it under a trust]

and pray your renters
keep getting rent assistance

[you must see that you bought it..for too much
because so many small investers..like you
got caughtup in a trick..that made the true price of housing go into a bubble]

that is in process of popping*
as the intrest rates are about to go nuts

dear country gal
you were tricked
loosing good money after bad money

see how it gets messy
our house prices are in a huge bubble
the clever money got out 7 mths ago...[knowing they can buy it back after the bubble bursts..for one third at least off then market prices]

""I think its wrong to take so long
to get rid of a tenant
that is blantantly not doing what they should)""

your quite right..!

renting is a right..that should have attatched duties
[thats why my home stays empty]

""The result would be higher rents
due to a shortage of properties.""

check out your local house auctions
many failing to sell...even at big discounts

""when the demand slackens off.
It will only hurt renters more.""

the same homes are there..!

regardless of who has title
regardless of who gets its rent

renters find homes to rent
according to how much they can afford
and the blood left in the stone...is little

[even your govt housing..mob
that likes them empty
because the tennents
want it like new...its a sad circle]

better they got their super to you
so you can get out..for what it was worth

while you could still get out
this topic is the only hope many could have had
to return that bit extra to you..before the whole market goes bust

look what withdrawing first home buyers govt money has done
next its broke renters

I think Fester has nailed this issue rather well. When I was growing up during the 60's, it was common practice for people to build their own modest home. I knew a family who's father did this as it was the only way he could afford to put a roof over his rapidly growing family (they went on to a total of 13 kids).

Today, the Government has imposed extremely restrictive legislation on owner builders. To put on an iron roof yourself will attract a $22,000 fine if you're caught and lets be honest, it's not hard to put a bit of tin on a roof. Then there's the rules concerning scaffolding, public liability......the list goes on and on! To add to this, the tax of trades people such as electricians and plumbers must be paid up front creating a myriad of paperwork.

Then, to add insult to injury, many new residential developments place restrictions on what can be built so as "not to cause devaluation of the area!" At one time I considered moving back into town and found a suitable block of land for sale, but was told that I wasn't allowed to place a small, pre-fab home on the site. I had to build a McMansion or nothing.

In France and other countries, the people would rebel and force the Government to back-pedal swiftly, but in the good old land of Oz, we just cop it on the chin. Our Governments and their rules and regulations are our worst enemies and we sit on our hands and do nothing!

OUG, where I own my house, there is no problems with clearance prices. I bought for <$200,000, same house now worth >$250,000. I will pay tax on this one day (when I sell). Same area has NO houses available for rent. Zero vacancy rate. Same as the place I moved to (where I had fully intended to rent for years) - result is that I had to buy to get a decent house (one that wasnt being eaten out by termites).

When I refered to the people that I know that have rental properties, I was talking about their wages income. Most are not business owners, they earn a living working for someone else. Most would earn <$60,000 (with a couple of exceptions). even for those exceptions, they are risking their hard-earned - they should be entitled to claim against the income they make, any costs they have in incurring it. Do you lodge a tax return? Claim any deductions at all? Its the same concept. Depreciation is not a magic number, its a gradual write-down in the value of something that is not meant to last forever (eg that tenant is likely to want a new kitchen in 5 years time - I cant claim the cost of that straight away, only over time, as it is designed to last for more than 1 year).

There is a lot more to it than you think there is. And I go back to the statement that few of the very rich own residential property (other than what they live in themselves).

Rehctub, You opened your post with this:-

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.

I'm just wondering how someone gets to have "plenty of dollars locked away in their super" when they haven't been able to buy a home? Can I ask what age group this refers to, because my view of the logical flow of events is that, once employed, people save to buy a house and then only in later years does their super become a "significant amount" that would have any affect on buying a house.
I've been paying into my super (on top of my employers contributions) for over 20 years and still don't have enough to buy a house in the area I live in.

I'm not saying it's wrong, I just want to make sure I understand the situation. Or maybe you meant that people might have enough money in their for a DEPOSIT on a house? Look forward to your response.
Thanks

Radar,
I have enough in my super to pay for the property I'm interested in but I'd have to retire before I can touch it. I could choose the ease into retirement option which is 10% but I still have to pay interest on a loan just to procure the place. Why can public servants get their $680,000.- after our Department was shut down by the Government & 3 weeks later start again with a local Council, yet I can't touch my measly account.
I have been robbed several times but I feel far worse being robbed by Labor Governments.