rehctub,

Lol!...yes a few "typos" - I apologise.

My point to you was that mine, as are most peoples, are inadvertent...I do attempt to edit but some get through.

You are far more slap happy on that account and your work is often littered with "glaring" errors which you don't seem to think matter at all. I know you can take more care because large tracts of your stuff are also well written.

rehctub,

".....labors [sic] past attempt at running the country was nothing short of dismal. And the history book [sic] show that. They caused so much damage...."

Every time you make that bald statement, I intend to reprise this:

"From the time of the last election:

Net debt was: $175 billion
Net debt now: $274 billion

Gross debt was: $273 billion
Gross debt now: $409 billion

Net debt to GDP was: 10%
Net debt to GDP now: 16.9%

Wages growth was: 2.6%
Wages growth now: 2.3%

Govt spending was: 24.1% of GDP
Govt spending now: 25.9% of GDP

Unemployment was: 5.6%
Unemployment now: 6.0%"

That's what this LNP govt has done since taking office - no GFC - no idea.

And another thing - where are the pre-budget leaks?

Can you name me a budget in recent years that has leaked some detail to soften up the electorate beforehand.

One has to surmise that keeping with the pattern of this vacuous govt on all things fiscal, that they are struggling to come up with anything of substance.

Mr Morrison is way out of his depth in the role of Treasurer - that's a given.

Can't wait for Tuesday....

Poirot,

The figures you are chucking around are largely irrelevant to the argument. Simple economics dictates that if you reduce the incentive to invest in property, the consequences will be a reduction in the value of property and the reduction in properties available for rent. How low property values drop and rents increase depends largely on the demand / scarcity of properties for sale and for rent. That this result is borne out of every single historical example is the proof of the pudding.

Given the tightness of the market, I believe that the drop in property prices will be minimal in cities but the increases in rents will be substantial.

The reality is that to reduce housing prices is to increase the supply of housing close to employment. Turnbulls vision of infrastructural improvement will be far more effective than a great big new housing tax.

Hi Poirot,

You suggest that "In 1960 the median cost of a house 1.6 x household income. In 1985 the median cost was 2.25 x household income.... "

Perhaps we mix in different circles but I've always assumed that, in my youth, a house, i.e. an affordable, acceptable sufficient house, cost about the equivalent of three years' pay: three or four thousand pounds for a plain, 3-BR, one-toilet, one bath, fibro dwelling.

When my parents put a down payment on their first house in 1965, it was priced at seven and a half thousand pounds, or about four or five years' pay for my dad. As it happened, they were forced to take out a second mortgage and pay higher interest but eventually had to sell it, and go back to renting.

Coincidentally, I was remarking a couple of weeks ago to a friend that one put one's spare money into EITHER overseas trips, a habitual high night-life, OR into a house: you couldn't have it all (most of us anyway). Of course, we were talking about our kids.

As somebody remarked, if a couple are on $ 120,000 or more, no kids, then why on earth can't they save forty grand a year towards a house ? A couple of years and there's the deposit. At current interest rates, the place is paid off - or another deposit for a second house is accumulated - in fifteen or twenty years.

Unless, of course, they want a McMansion and they want it NOW ! In which case, my heart aches appropriately.

Cheers,

Joe

SM,

Those figures were in reply to rehctub and his mantra...I explained that when I posted them.

Yes, I understand that is your analysis.

The fact that it is at odds with the modelling and analyses of other entities with more expertise than you is my point.

The modelling and analysis you quote was aimed at figuring how Labor could get its new taxes up.

Whereas there is plenty of practical evidence that the mediocre, usually negative returns from rental housing are totally out of whack considering the known and easily proved risks and the known and easily proved management problems and overheads.

As has been stated previously and again it is easily proved, no hypotheticals, no 'modelling', large corporations and government regard the rental housing sector, particularly the low rent and welfare housing, as distasteful and to be avoided and for damned good reasons.

It is a fact that State and federal governments, ALL of them, do not have the money to develop welfare housing and it is on the public record from reports of government auditors that governments, State and federal, never could manage the exposure they have had.

You also ducked the question, "Is your L'il Willie Shorten planning to provide and manage more welfare and low income housing?". The answer is an emphatic "No". All Shorten is about is proposing new taxes to support Labor and Greens spendthrift ways.

Labor and Greens see housing, shelter, as a milch cow for more taxes. Both are already on the record for wanting to extend CGT to owner-occupied homes and both want to bring back Death Taxes.