Food ,clothing and shelter are the basics that will satisfy basic human needs.Shelter in our cities has now become a very expensive necessity.

Our State Govts have used housing as a cash cow,with their stamp duties, environmental charges,and restricted land releases to push up prices to shore up their bottom lines.

To understand the high cost of housing we need to look at the history that has made this commodity so scarce in a country that has so few people in such a vast continent.

Globalisation has made us a country in which service industries provide income for the massses.With Globalisation jobs have been concentrated in the cities,since the reduction in tarrifs our regional centres have been shrinking as people moved to the cities looking for work.

The car is no longer the expensive item it once was and this coupled with low interest rates has seen more available money over inflating the values of housing.Credit is also too freely available with banks loaning money to people who have a marginal capacity to repay the loans.

Our State Govts have also inflated prices.38% of a cost of house/land in NSW is made up of Govt charges and taxes.They now want first home buyers to pay for infrastructure.Add into the mix the home warranty debacle that has excluded many builders from the market and things like ridiculous OH&S regulation,has seen the cost of building escalate.

The solutions are to release a lot more land to first home buyers at reasonable prices.Put in rapid rail systems like they have in Europe to our close regional centres so people can work in our cities.Eventually these regional centres reach a critical mass which makes them.No stamp duty for first home buyers.Eliminate the waste and bureaucracy in our Govts so more money can be spent on infrastructure.In fact we should consider slowly eliminating our State Govts by amalgamating councils and slowly transferring State responsibilities to them and the Federal Govt.

the nips have a wonderful mass transit system- allows them to commute two hours each way. to a box the size of your garden shed.

how about instead we just reduce the population? solves the water problem too. solves the energy demand too. solves the species extinction problem too. will need to cull, but just reduce medical support for the over 70's and stop immigration, and bob's yer uncle.

Check out the new form of Architecture, saving money and not expensive. In and around the British Isles, Europe, they are converting huge packing crates into quite luxurious homes and they have a guarantee of 25 years! It solves space shortage, gaining more parking space around the units. They are stackable and if there is an accident in the case of fire, only one unit burns and apparently does not spread to the rest of the dwellings, due to the fire resistant inner and outer coating. They are able to be painted any colour you wish. They come in 1-2-3 bedroom units and are quite popular with young couples or single people just starting off in life. The units can be moved around and relocated to wherever you desire, so if one needs a change of scenery, just call your local crane contractors and have it moved. Great if one switches jobs and cuts having to go house hunting!

Demos,
when you speak of the 70's, are you referring to oxygen thieves? Culling seems a bit harsh, have you by any chance seen the old movie "soilent green"? Its about life far into the future where if you are close to your death bed, they close you in a small room, play relaxing music whilst you relax on a bed and show you movies of peace and tranquility, deers and rabbits and all the wonderful things in life, when you eventually pass-on, they wheel you out and dump you on a conveyor belt, where you travel to a factory-like set up, turn your body into little buscuits and due to the food shortage in those years to come, feed you to the population. what a way to go!

It realy is very easy, & the solution will solve a number of other problems, including a major inequity.

Disperse the public servants.

After the huge push for one vote, one value, we are left this inequity. We are all bleed of money to fund the burgeoning public service, but only Brisbane & to a lesser extent a couple of major coastal cities benefit. The regions are left broke, & without even reasonable access to government.

So with one vote, one value, how about one vote, one public servant, or part of one. Lets have the same number of public servants in each electorate.
This way we get decentralisation by the only large employers, state & commonwealth, in the country, some taxes returned to where they are raised, & some well paid employment, where nothing exists now. We also find a good use for all those empty bank buildings in the bush. Hell, we might even get banks!

The city gets to stop the continued expansion of inner city office workers, with all the conjestion problems that creats.

The bush gets some equity, jobs, & income. Probably followed by better communications, & transport.

Tax payers save some money, office space will be cheeper in the bush, & public servants get cheeper housing, in the regions. A lot of pressure will come of housing prices in the South East, as well

Its a win for every one

If public servants claim they can work from home, they should have no trouble working away from the polly's, & with 40%+ population now in the SE Queensland corner, there will still be enough left to massage the pollys egos, as required.

For many years I have been hearing with wonder people complaining about
the cost of housing.
All sorts of people, pollies etc etc keep coming up with suggestions,
the latest being not enough land available.

I have known the reason why housing is so expensive for years and I
think all here have missed the reason also.

It is really very simple.
It is market forces !
Oh you say, we all know that but you look at the market from the wrong end.

It crux of the matter is borrowing on two incomes.
Ask anyone what happens to prices if you place twice as much money
into any market.
Simple, prices rise to meet the amount of money in the market.

Way back about 1970s or 80s the feminists complained that it was unfair that
lending authorities would only lend on the husbands income.
Governments adopting the politically correct attitude complied against
advice from the banks, with the request and forced the lenders to
lend on both incomes.

The market said fine, here is a new flow of money and up went the prices.

Then it bit the feminists on the backside.
Suddenly they lost the choice on working or having a baby.
The result much to the detriment of womens health was very late
childbirth ages. Women trying to do two jobs at once and all these
added costs of child minding. Choice went out the window,
They had to work, no choice.

Land releases are a bad idea. You don't want an LA style sprawl as has been promoted recently (http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1181893024). It is market forces at work. There is plenty of cheap housing available, just not in the cities.

Better public transport is however a good idea. As is higher density housing close to the CBD.

Some recent media articles about the first home buyers grant: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1181785305

If you want house prices to come down, get rid of the first home owners grant. The states were also supposed to get rid of a lot of the taxes when the GST was introduced. They didn't.

Bazz makes a good point.Not only did choice go out the window,our birth rate went into the negative.With credit so freely available,this has come back to bite the Coalition on the backside.Just a small increase in interest rates now puts people in trouble.

Arjay would like to steer this back to "the coalition", however if Labor wins the next federal election (highly unlikely) I suspect there will still be two-income families; still be relatively low interest rates, and still be 8 Labor state govts running land release schemes and service provision to these land releases. So could we stick to solving "the problem" please, instead of playing blame games?

House prices rise in tandem with rising DISPOSABLE income. This happens as the average wage rises faster than general costs AND across wage levels (ie the household on $200,000 pa will usually be buying a house costing much more than the household on $50,000 etc etc). But, what really pushes the various households to buy a house is the concept that a house is a "nest egg", a commodity which will continue to rise in price and, especially...be tax-free at the end.

Now, it's easy to see what would happen if the capital gain from a house were taxed at anything from 30% to 47%, after you'd spent 25 years paying 10% (on average) interest plus the rates, the insurance,the repairs, the endless "improvements". Suddenly, the house would only be attractive as a "home" and suddenly too the rampant speculative aspect would fade from view.

The major factor would then become "Cost of buying vs Cost of renting". At the moment, for example a $400,000 house costs me about $300 pw to rent. To buy this house would cost about $750 per week (ie borrowing at about 8%, paying all the ongoing costs, foregoing the earnings from my initial deposit etc , not to mention initial expenses like stamp duty, mortgage insurance et al). Who in their right mind would BUY? Except that you had a dream of one day getting it all back when you sold AND not pay tax! Cheers, and hope this helps

PS. Needless to say, the people who already own/are buying property to occupy will not be voting for any politician who would actually take the tax-free status of property AWAY.

House prices do rise with disposable income, I agree.

The real problem is that the disposable income of two incomes is
higher than one income and requires two incomes to repay the loan.

The price of houses will always match the available funds no matter
what the surrounding income, interest, rental costs etc etc are set at.

Rent will never be at great variation from the cost of buying a house
because the renter/buyer will always adapt to suit the absolute values.
The lending organisations set their repayments around 30% of income.
They did this 50 years ago and they still do the same.

It does not matter what anyone does the cost of housing will be
30% of one income or two incomes. The price of houses must match
that and there is no room for it to be otherwise.

Therefore all discussion and manipulation by governments will do no
more than make marginal changes.

What has happened to all the comedians? The one about two incomes is pretty funny. But sadly absent are the potential incontinence to be suffered by reading the low interest rate or mad speculator theories, not to mention the equally side splitting "just move further away" solution. The idea of wanton speculation into the production of a commodity leading to a supply crisis is deliciously hilarious. The idea of there being no end of affordable, quality housing "just a bit further away" is an equal hoot, especially when I noted only one termite infested fibro dump in the claimed price range for one area, with all other properties two to three times the price.

But with the subsidence of my good humour, I must again be the little child and interrupt this blind men and the elephant pantomime. The reason for the housing affordability crisis is simple: The increasing population is incurring huge infrastructure costs on the community. The high cost of building reflects the inclusion of some of the infrastructure costs. Were the total infrastructure costs included, the cost of building a new home would be much higher.

The simple solution to the affordability crisis is to stabilise Australia's population, as such a measure almost eliminates the problem of providing infrastructure, resulting in huge cost savings, thus negating the need to heavily tax new construction.

Fester ,we have the lowest pop density of any country in the entire planet.So that shoots down your theory.Pop is not the problem,it is a matter of bloated Govt bureaucracies,too much tax ,regulation and a globalised mentality that sends real jobs to third world coutries thus giving more power to multi-nationals.We are the only western country that has a no tarrif policy on primary industries.We for some reason are the experimental,sacrifical lambs.There is no method in the madness from our point of view.

If our primary industries had the same protection of Europe and the
US,our regional areas would be more self sustaining and we would not be facing the present intensity of a housing crisis.

If the existing status quo was truely a level playing field,I would support it,currently it just undermines any reason to be patriotic.

Arjay

You miss the point: It is the cost of providing infrastructure for an increasing population that is impacting on house prices in Australia, not the size of the population. If you are looking for a country where both population size and growth are both factors then try Bangladesh, where you have the unique combination of $1 per day wages and the highest land values in the world.

I also think that you are somewhat exaggerating the impact of government inefficiency on house prices. Jeff Kennet greatly improved the efficiency of government in Victoria, but did this have a big impact on housing costs?

What is true is that there are industries profiting greatly from the increase in Australia's population, and these industries are strong lobbyists for things like high immigration. My concern is that because increasing Australia's population provides no per capita economic benefit, perhaps even a per capita cost, the profits come at the expense of all Australians.

As Dominic Lawson pointed out recently, twentyfive years ago, Thomas Sowell calculated that the entire world population could live comfortably in Texas.

"A quarter of a century ago, I sat down with some statistics on world population and on land area in the United States -- and discovered that the entire population of the world could be housed in the state of Texas, in one-story, single family homes, 4 people to a house, on a lot slightly larger than the lot where I was living at the time, in a typical middle-class neighborhood." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/why_not_everybody.html

Lawson goes on to point out

"The embarrassing truth for the latter-day Malthusians is that the most recent growth in the global population is itself a conclusive demonstration of the fact that increased populations have not led to poverty and pestilence. What we have witnessed, in the developing world, is a stupendous increase in life expectancy - by almost 40 per cent in the second half of the last century." http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/dominic_lawson/article2750473.ece

Yet still we witter on about overpopulation.

Don't we ever learn anything from history?

Another blind man joins the pantomime.

Pericles,perhaps you could set aside the theoretical question of how many people the world can support, and instead address the relevant point of how much it costs to provide the infrastructure for each additional person.

Fester,I do not exaggerate the waste perpetrated by our NSW Govt.Of the $21 billion pa it costs to employ our Public Servants,$7 billion is spent on bureaucrats.This is a cost of over $2000.00 pa for every working person in NSW.In some cases we have one bureaucrat for two workers.

NSW Labor is controlled by the Unions.Our long saga of Train debacles bears witness to this.Not one person has been sacked or reprimanded and the chaos ensues.The Macquarie bank and other interests want to take control of our Ferry Services which are nearly at the point of collapse.Now the Macquarie Bank are not interested in low margin businesses.If private enerprise can make a service work and turn a profit,why can't our Govts?

I say we should slowly elimate our State Govts.A good start would be for The Federal Govt to take control of Health and Education.There should be no more poorly paid Micky Mouse jobs in our Councils.Pay them more and insist on a more professional service.I have yet to hear one rate payer trying to get something done say a positive thing about our Councils.Dealing with them is a nightmare.We need serious reform of all our Govts in terms of efficiency,accountability,and reducing the red tape for us all.

Get Govt waste under control and we will have more money for housing and infrastructure.

Good attempt at a dodge, Fester, but it doesn't work.

>>Another blind man joins the pantomime<<

Ignoring the clumsy jibe for a moment, at least you agree that it is a pantomime that I am joining.

pan·to·mime n. A traditional British Christmas entertainment for children, usually based on nursery tales and featuring stock characters in costume who sing, dance, and perform skits.

There are a few stock characters in this particular "entertainment for children", aren't there? A hero, a villain, a damsel in distress plus the obligatory slapstick comics.

You are presumably Widow Twanky, 'cos Prince Charming, you ain't.

>>perhaps you could set aside the theoretical question of how many people the world can support, and instead address the relevant point of how much it costs to provide the infrastructure for each additional person<<

Are you suggesting that the question of how many people the world can support is irrelevant? Surely not?

And if you look again, you will see that the illustration I provided does in fact answer the question of how much it costs to provide the infrastructure for each additional person.

If the world economy has been improving at a greater rate than the population has increased, as shown in Dominic Lawson's article, then the marginal cost has clearly been lower than the marginal benefit. Simple economics.

I know it is difficult to get away from the popular "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" mentality and look at reality, but it is sometimes a useful exercise.

It helps if you also employ thought processes rather than casual insults when discussing these points. You can't just put your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and say "I can't hear you I can't hear you".

Well I suppose you can. But you end up looking quite silly.

Excellent point, Arjay. While population increase remains the agenda, cutting out bureaucratic waste is critical for reducing housing costs. I question the sense of pursuing population growth.You might also like to consider that the economics of population growth engenders substantial corruption.

"If the world economy has been improving at a greater rate than the population has increased, as shown in Dominic Lawson's article, then the marginal cost has clearly been lower than the marginal benefit. Simple economics."

Okay then, does the the principle apply to increasing CO2 and rising temperatures? I always thought that for observational studies, correlation does not imply causation. Is population growth and living standard a special case? I guess that is why you unquestioningly present an article claiming that 6 1/2 billion people could live in Texas. yet seem to demand great rigor for evidence of global warming.

But I must admit to having serious doubts about Dominic Lawsons observational skills. The Productivity Commission found there to be essentially no economic benefit from population growth in Australia, and the fact that huge infrastructure debts are being incurred to cope with increasing populations tends to support this view. Simple economics.

Fester, the connection between population growth and infrastructure costs was yours, not mine.

>>I always thought that for observational studies, correlation does not imply causation<<

True, it does not. But to support your argument, living costs would need to rise alongside population growth, which they clearly have not done in the past. While they may or may not do so in the future, one would need some additional factor to appear, for example a "saturation point", to cause the marginal cost of one more person to increase the total burden by more than the average of them all.

You offer no evidence to suggest this has happened, so all we have to go on is history, which tells us that more people has not led to higher per capita costs.

Your sneer...

>>I guess that is why you unquestioningly present an article claiming that 6 1/2 billion people could live in Texas<<

...simply shows that you chose to take the observation literally, when Sewell was merely trying to bring an element of simple perspective to the problem that most people have in visualizing six and a half billion people. Maybe it would have helped if I used New South Wales, which might possibly make it easier for to visualize than Texas.

Which is in the United States.

Of America.

>>The Productivity Commission found there to be essentially no economic benefit from population growth in Australia, and the fact that huge infrastructure debts are being incurred to cope with increasing populations tends to support this view<<

A citation would help at this point, so that we can understand the force of the word "essentially" in the phrase "essentially no economic benefit", and some quantification of the hugeness of the "huge infrastructure debts".

If you are referring to the "Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth" that appeared in May 2006, I should point out that the first paragraph of its media release included the statement:

"Increasing skilled migration would make a positive overall contribution to Australia's future per capita income levels"

So presumably you are thinking about an entirely different report.

Fester,unfortunately we have to increase our population to justify and consolidate our claim to such a vast continent with such a minute population.We will not always be able to rely on the US for security.

Australia will not become a viable autonomous country with the present pop status quo until we have a population of at least 60 million.

Ancient China at it's nemisis had a pop of 20 million.They now have 65 times that number.We need more people and more affordable housing to bring security to the great lifestyle that too many people now take for granted.

As I sasid earlier, you are all waffling around the point.
If you borrow on two incomes you need two incomes to repay.

The price of houses will always match the amount of money available.
Until the two income borrowing is removed houses will be unaffordable
to families on one income.

Nothing at the edges will change that !

Pericles

Had you looked at the PC Report a little more closely, you may have noted that people will work longer at a lower hourly rate. You might also have noted that the existing population would not earn more, and that the study did not attempt to factor in infrastructure costs or increased utility charges, such as water.

That you seem blind to such things interests me less than what effects on living standards you see from increasing Australia's population markedly. I am unaware of any great mass of evidence, theoretical or observational, to suggest any great benefit to Australians from such an endeavour. So an advocate of population growth seems to be an advocate of a journey into the unknown. What do you do if the journey turns out badly? Shoot people?

A drastic cut in immigration at present would be disastrous, but only because of Australia's parasitic reliance on skilled migrants.

Arjay

Should your premises be correct, I could only agree with you. But I have doubts about whether 60 million Aussies would enjoy a better life than today. I also suspect that many growth advocates are more interested in the short term.

Good question Fester, thanks for asking.

>>That you seem blind to such things interests me less than what effects on living standards you see from increasing Australia's population markedly<<

Leaving aside the "markedly" - which you probably added as an afterthought anyway - a normal and steady increase in population levels will underpin our continuing economic growth and prosperity.

To quote from the May 2006 "Modelling The Economic Impacts of Migration And Population Growth" from Monash, which was asked to "identify how the labour market might absorb the increase in the number of migrants" following the government policy proposed in a previous paper:

"For the first four years of the policy there is a small (but growing) positive deviation... in real (consumption price deflated) GNP. The positive deviation in real GNP per capita then grows steadily from 2009 onwards [to 2025]."

Interestingly, this finding is consistent with the experience of most other developed countries. The UK has, for example, experienced a significant influx in recent years from Eastern Europe, particularly Poland. Despite this - or in fact because of it - their economy has continued to grow and prosper. Also noteworthy is that during this period, those immigrants have also boosted their "home" economies by sending them billions of pounds. Win/win.

Now it is my turn to turn the questions around.

What effects on living standards do you see from decreasing Australia's population markedly?

(You can ignore the "markedly" too, if you like.)

There's no need to model your answer with the same diligence and professionalism applied by Monash. But it would be useful if you could include some idea of how this population reduction would come about. If it is through "natural attrition", some comments on the impact on our economy of an aging population would not go amiss.

Thanks for that, Pericles. Whether there is any plus or minus from population growth is a very tough question, and dependent on many factors. The survivors of the plague in Europe enjoyed improved living standards. Continued population growth in Australia will see the taxpayers burdened with a huge infrastructure debt, and ratepayers will face this as well as greatly increased water charges. This is happening, yet you trust that we will all be better off because of an economic study, probably one heavily reliant on computer modeling? Would you give the same credence to global warming models?

If Australia could support 80 or 100 million people then I think that would be great. But I dont see this as being possible without substantial technical progress, and I would like to see the technology developed first.

To give an example, I note that you raise the question of how to support the elderly. As you would know, if you want to maintain the same average age of a population, this would involve the ultimately unfeasible strategy of growing the population exponentially. But if you consider the elderly as a subgroup of those incapacitated by disease, then you are really looking at a technical challenge. Medical breakthroughs in the treatment of debilitating diseases like arthritis would bring large economic benefits, as did the development of a cure for tuberculosis. You might also note that the increasing numbers of older Australians coincides with reducing numbers of young Australians, so it might be relevant to offset the cost with the saving from not raising children.

Thanks Fester. The potential imposition of a "huge infrastructure debt" as the population of Australia increases is an entire topic on its own. You seem to suggest that this would fall on the taxpayer, yet I observe the current trend to privatization shows no sign of abating, and along with it the concept of "user pays".

Whether I agree with this or not is a separate issue. Nevertheless, our population has experienced growth in the past, and infrastructure has - largely - kept pace.

But I am intrigued by your observations on the impact of an aging population.

>>Medical breakthroughs in the treatment of debilitating diseases like arthritis would bring large economic benefits, as did the development of a cure for tuberculosis<<

How so? Surely, the longer people live after retirement from the workforce, the harder those still in the work force will have to work to support them. Or am I missing something?

>>You might also note that the increasing numbers of older Australians coincides with reducing numbers of young Australians, so it might be relevant to offset the cost with the saving from not raising children<<

You'll have to explain that one to me. In the context of the economy of the country, who "saves" by our not raising children? Sure, at the individual level, children cost money, but they also contribute to the flow of money through commerce.

And in the context of the economy as a whole, the shortage of new entrants into the workforce will ultimately force up business costs dramatically.

Thanks for continuing the discussion, Pericles.

By privatisation I presume you mean public infrastructure and utility projects. It is nice to see, but I suspect that it will ultimately cost the public far more than publicly funded projects.

I'm glad to see you interested in the elderly. I think it a little unfair to consider them a dead weight after retirement. There might be some value in learning what retirees actually do, and what factors restrict their post retirement activity. As you observe, the changing age profile will leave more elderly supported by fewer workers, but surely this is good reason to have the elderly as healthy as possible, and thus more capable of supporting themselves? In any event, maintaining an age profile with many young people supporting a few elderly requires either exponential growth or euthanasia, or do you have another idea?

You seem to misinterpret my comments on children. Again, with a changing age profile, there will be fewer children per worker. Now then, by how much is the extra cost from more elderly offset by the reduced cost from raising and educating fewer children? I'm not advocating fewer children, merely stating that there will be fewer.

The present age profile is economically favourable, but how do you maintain such a profile? I see technological development as the only feasible means of offsetting this change by increasing the productivity of the existing population.

>>By privatisation I presume you mean public infrastructure and utility projects. It is nice to see, but I suspect that it will ultimately cost the public far more than publicly funded projects<<

The difference from our point of view though is that the building of infrastructure via private enterprise means that we will pay-as-we-go, rather than being saddled with a "huge infrastructure debt", which was one of your concerns.

We most certainly will end up paying more, but we won't notice it quite so much because it will be a never-ending stream of small payments to Macquarie Bank as opposed to the more visible direct taxation imposed by the government.

>>more elderly [will be] supported by fewer workers, but surely this is good reason to have the elderly as healthy as possible, and thus more capable of supporting themselves?<<

Being capable of supporting themselves is one thing. Being allowed to is another.

It is extremely difficult to find useful work after, say, seventy. And even if you are able to do so, what impact does this have on younger people whose career development has been impeded by the old fogeys?

The simple fact is that an aging population introduces massive social strains, which are likely to manifest themselves in unpleasant ways. Already in Europe they are finding the "youth of today" difficult to please, in the conventional sense of providing adequate challenging and productive work. Because of this, the outcomes are likely to be "unconventional".

>>with a changing age profile, there will be fewer children per worker<<

This is true.

>>Now then, by how much is the extra cost from more elderly offset by the reduced cost from raising and educating fewer children?<<

An aging population does not indicate "fewer children", simply "fewer children per person-over-retirement age", i.e. this is a ratio. The number of children-per-family may remain constant, while the proportion of non-earners in the population will continue to increase.

Costs remain static, while the number of employed people paying tax etc. declines - also as a ratio of the total number.

It's a dilemma, and a tough one.

Yes, infrastructure would cost more. Up to 6 1/2 time more for some projects. This is a big minus for high immigration, as a stable or slowly growing population would not have such great infrastructure commitments.

Where immigration is an advantage is that you get people at the productive part of their lives. But this leaves you with more old people to look after a few decades later, which might be why the Monash study didn't look too far ahead.

>Being capable of supporting themselves is one thing. Being allowed to is another.

It is extremely difficult to find useful work after, say, seventy. And even if you are able to do so, what impact does this have on younger people whose career development has been impeded by the old fogeys?<

I think that economic necessity will change attitudes. And I dont think it will take people long to choose between supporting old people and working with them. Suggesting that employed old people will impede the progess of younger workers is essentially the same as suggesting that immigrants will impede the career prospects of younger Australians. Do you you believe either statement? I dont.

The fertility rate is now lower than it was forty years ago, so yes, there are fewer children per worker. The changing age profile has further reduced the ratio.

>Costs remain static, while the number of employed people paying tax etc. declines - also as a ratio of the total number.

It's a dilemma, and a tough one.<

Costs will change to match the available revenue. Again, the only feasible solution I can see for improving living standards is technological development.

Coming back to the original question how to solve the housing dilemma,
I must say nobody really looked at the investors who buy up reasonable priced places, which could have housed first home buyers,but are turned into a profit making scheme with all the tax reprieve systems engaged.
There should be a ban...yes a ban on people owning more than the place of living plus one investment place to rent out. Overseas investments during HongKong/Chinese takeover have made it also impossible to bid on reasonable priced property as money was of no concern to these people.
Australian's dream has gone out of the door with money sharks.Rental prices with multiple investments in money making schemes as we see them today, have gone thru the roof also.We have the right to have a roof over our heads and should be affordable to the average family.