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 > an idea for addressing housing affordability

an idea for addressing housing affordability

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
So what about this for a suggestion, made by one of my employees.

People who can demonstrate they have rented a property/properties for ten years, without falling behind in their rents and without being evicted for breaches, gain subsidy from the government for buying their own home.

Say the gov were to loan up to $50,000 (or 10% of the purchase price, which ever is the lesser) interest free for ten years, for which the home buyer has to repay after ten years, or when they use the equity of sell the property.

As it stands the first home owners grant, although being up to $20K is just a gift, where as this scheme would see the funds used time and time again, and let's face it, if you cant save a deposit in ten years, (which is the same effect as repaying it) then you cant afford a home anyway.

Such a scheme would see more deserving renters qualify for a home of their own, while at the same time creating rental vacancies because let's face it, some people for one reason or another will never own a home and that's just life.
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 16 February 2017 1:48:26 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
Why should everyone own a home? For many, it exchanges more liberty and choice for being lashed to a heavy anchor.

Since when did home ownership become a right and necessary?

It interests me that when a person gets 'old' they are invariably assured that they don't need any assets at all and joy comes from the mundane.

Like you rehctub I have owned property. It was always hard won and involved sacrifices of lifestyle, time, recreation and even missing out on important personal events and celebrations.

The debate around housing is political, with various parties vying to show a difference. They do the same with gay marriage, asylum seekers and other chosen subjects. None seek measurement for good government, for making things work, simply, practically and cheaply. The glittering prizes are power, entitlements and even more entitlements and for life. That beats investment in houses, as a home or for 'investment'.

Over beers at a bbq some older family friends were comparing their situations in their early seventies. There was very little real difference between one couple who had raised their family in rental housing and largely with government support and another, a couple who had been in full-time employment most of their lives and invested in some houses.

However the former could remember all of the times they walked on the beach, were present for sports days (and the event after) and the shared time with other folk, visiting and local.

You are only alive once, and turfing large sums into an 'asset' that costs far more than most imagine or reckon, and later a government is going to try to squeeze and tax you out of, may not be so bright after all.
Posted by leoj, Thursday, 16 February 2017 6:36:14 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
LeoJ I could not agree more but unfortunately we continually get bombarded with the 'woe is me' brigade wanting to know why they can't buy a first home in central Sydney.

As for home ownership, as sure as night turns to day, the day is fast approaching where home owners will be the next to be betrayed, being told, 'you're on your own' with no pension, due to your hard earned assets, as we have to look after the under achievers.

The whole system is beyond belief as the harder on works, and the wiser one is, the higher chance they face of being cast aside, and that truly is unbelievable in my view.

But, at the end of the day we have so many people talking about housinf affordabillity, so in my view any suggestion is better than none.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 17 February 2017 7:44:35 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
rehctub,

One of my relatives who died recently in her nineties, was a member of the very last generation of Australians who was permitted to live out her life in the family home that she paid for and in which she raised her family and baby-sat infants and teens alike.

In fact she was not even barely holding on for the last twenty years but going downhill, being forced to take handouts from children. The last ten were increasingly difficult. Cruel for a woman who had been independent al of her life and had paid and contributed so handsomely otherwise for the age pension.

Late in life when she asked for confirmation from a local government bureaucrat concerning the pensioner reduction for rates and other charges only to be asked instead to defend "why a single old woman such as herself should be living by herself in an expensive home" (valued at around $450,000 on a good market and with the refurbishment she could not afford). The bureaucrat, large, bolshie and with luminous hair and studs through the nose (and who could easily suck-start a Harley) was only representing the prevailing view of 'her' side of politics and her supervisor would back her up.

Labor and Greens have flown the kite often on applying taxes to the 'increased value' of the principal place of residence. For them it is only a question of when, not if. Greens are ideologically committed to reinstating death duties.

Both sides of politics have introduced user pays and other 'initiatives' such as the commodification of water (now charged for by the litre, stopping pensioners form growing their veggies and making life more expensive overall) that have eroded the small assistances available to older citizens and others on fixed incomes.

The previous cooperation among government agencies that valued and ensured community benefit has been removed. Community benefit is NOT accepted by the political elite as a factor in public policy. Community benefit is the enemy. The public serves the politicians not not the other way around.
Posted by leoj, Friday, 17 February 2017 9:52:30 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
Dear Butch,

Your employee doesn't moonlight as a backbencher does he?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-17/housing-affordability:-let-renters-buy-without-deposit-mp-says/8278254
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 17 February 2017 10:03:38 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
No, it would not work, just like the state govt first home owners grant, it would increase prices. What builder/real estate agent would not increase the price by $50k knowing its govt backed?

If you want to lower house prices (and remember Australia has one of the highest home ownership in the world, there is nothing wrong in renting)just lower the tax on homes. 40% of the cost of a new home goes in taxes, stamp duty, land tax, council rates, GST to name a few.

But of course that will never happen as the councils and state govts, being the salivating dogs that they are only see more money for them to waste.

Make your personal mortgage a tax deduction would help as well (just like in the USA)
Posted by kirby483, Friday, 17 February 2017 10:43:33 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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