Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
hooman
Oct 11, 2007

This guy seems legit.
Fun Shoe

Guardian AU posted:

The housing minister, Julie Collins, says caps on rent rises have only done “a little” where instituted in Australia, and claims the Greens’ demands for a national freeze wouldn’t work long-term to address the housing crisis.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Guardian AU posted:

Asked about rent freezes or caps, Collins claimed housing experts said “this doesn’t work”. Asked about the ACT’s policy, which limits rent rises to 110% of inflation, Collins admitted that initiative helped “in a little way”.

Ok ok, seriously, at this point are they actually taking the piss?

Like is this some loving bit they are doing that I am completely failing to get?

hooman fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Jun 26, 2023

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ssmagus
Apr 2, 2010
Assmagus, LPer ass-traordinaire

hooman posted:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Ok ok, seriously, at this point are they actually taking the piss?

Like is this some loving bit they are doing that I am completely failing to get?

If they put in rent caps how will they get (more) money from those dole bludgers from the 20 investment properties they have. think of the poor politicians wallet!

Recoome
Nov 9, 2013

Matter of fact, I'm salty now.
So the economy needs more people to be unemployed, but if you are unemployed the social welfare is insufficient to live.

Just really trying to square this away can someone help me??

Jezza of OZPOS
Mar 21, 2018

GET LOSE❌🗺️, YOUS CAN'T COMPARE😤 WITH ME 💪POWERS🇦🇺
the value of an unemployed workforce as a hedge against inflation is solely dependent on that workforce being desperate and starved like a beaten dog hth

hooman
Oct 11, 2007

This guy seems legit.
Fun Shoe

Recoome posted:

So the economy needs more people to be unemployed, but if you are unemployed the social welfare is insufficient to live.

Just really trying to square this away can someone help me??

Labor's housing policy is *checks notes*.... Desert Trash City??

God they loving suck so bad. It's a dogshit policy and the greens are absolutely right to block it until Labor is forced to take action that will do something that helps people right loving now, during the crisis. If in 10 years time any prick looks back and says "Oh Australia could have had a good housing policy, but the nasty greens blocked it" I am going to point them at this post and tell them to go gently caress themselves.

Greens good, gently caress you Labor, do good things.

hooman fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Jun 27, 2023

G-Spot Run
Jun 28, 2005
in 10 years time much of our housing stock will presumably be aquatic or ashes because they keep opening coal mines so i think the haff is the least of their worries

Cartoon
Jun 20, 2008

poop

Recoome posted:

lol commbank
Imagine the sheer volume of wailing if it had still been in public hands (Public sector incompetence, free market better solution etc.). On the other hand if it was still in public hands the customers might actually get compensation sometime this millenium.

I think we should gift Ukrain our M1 Abrahams tanks. They're gently caress all use to us here. I'd also suggest the ORCUS subs but, well, we don't have any.

I would blow Dane Cook
Dec 26, 2008

hooman posted:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Ok ok, seriously, at this point are they actually taking the piss?

Like is this some loving bit they are doing that I am completely failing to get?

3. Real Estate
Real estate, including the location (suburb or area only) and the purpose for which it is owned
Person Location Purpose Date
Self Rose Bay, Tasmania (50%) Residence 11/04/2022
Self Griffith, ACT (50%) Second home for work 11/04/2022
Spouse/partner Rose Bay, Tasmania (50%) Residence 11/04/2022
Spouse/partner Toowoomba, Queensland (100%) Investment 11/04/2022
Spouse/partner Griffith, ACT (50%) 2nd home for work 11/04/2022
Dependent children Nil

Bargearse
Nov 27, 2006

🛑 Don't get your pen🖊️, son, you won't be 👌 needing that 😌. My 🥡 order's 💁 simple😉, a shitload 💩 of dim sims 🌯🀄. And I want a bucket 🪣 of soya sauce☕😋.

Recoome posted:

So the economy needs more people to be unemployed, but if you are unemployed the social welfare is insufficient to live.

Just really trying to square this away can someone help me??

They want you to be so desperate that you take any poo poo job for any poo poo pay

Autisanal Cheese
Nov 29, 2010

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

3. Real Estate
Real estate, including the location (suburb or area only) and the purpose for which it is owned
Person Location Purpose Date
Self Rose Bay, Tasmania (50%) Residence 11/04/2022
Self Griffith, ACT (50%) Second home for work 11/04/2022
Spouse/partner Rose Bay, Tasmania (50%) Residence 11/04/2022
Spouse/partner Toowoomba, Queensland (100%) Investment 11/04/2022
Spouse/partner Griffith, ACT (50%) 2nd home for work 11/04/2022
Dependent children Nil

would it be against parliamentary rules for Max Chandler-Mather to quote how many investment properties each person who argues with him owns

hooman
Oct 11, 2007

This guy seems legit.
Fun Shoe

Guardian AU posted:

The Australian Education Union (AEU) has called for urgent funding to address shortfalls in public education after the release of ACARA data which showed more than 98% of private schools were overfunded and more than 98% of public schools were underfunded.

The figures are according to the Schooling Resource Standard, agreed to by all Australian governments in 2012 as the minimum to provide a baseline education to students.

Lol.

elsewhere posted:

The briefing states that 1,152 private schools will be overfunded to the tune of $3.2 billion over and above their public funding entitlement under the Schooling Resource Standard.

So about 2.75 million dollars per private school.

EDIT: Or $3,300 per private school student! :eng101:
Math: 24% of students in private schools, 4 million students in Australia. =960,000 students. 3.2 billion/960,000 = 3,300

hooman fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Jun 27, 2023

Regular Wario
Mar 27, 2010

Slippery Tilde

Recoome posted:

So the economy needs more people to be unemployed, but if you are unemployed the social welfare is insufficient to live.

Just really trying to square this away can someone help me??

bootstraps

Megillah Gorilla
Sep 22, 2003

If only all of life's problems could be solved by smoking a professor of ancient evil texts.



Bread Liar

ssmagus posted:

If they put in rent caps how will they get (more) money from those dole bludgers from the 20 investment properties they have. think of the poor politicians wallet!

Someone found the figures once, but iirc, the average number of houses owned by federal politicians was about five.

hooman
Oct 11, 2007

This guy seems legit.
Fun Shoe

Megillah Gorilla posted:

Someone found the figures once, but iirc, the average number of houses owned by federal politicians was about five.

Houses Georg was an outlier and should never have been counted.

masterpine
Dec 3, 2014


I was insanely lucky to be able to live with my folks for a few years rent-free while earning decently so got in to home ownership at 22, a simple 1960's 2 bed unit. Mortgage has a bit to go but I've saved up some money to sell and upsize a bit to find a bigger place with a garage for tinkering.

Presented all my plans to the broker I used back in the day, basically sell unit and buy well within my means using savings and end up with a similar sized mortgage. Bloke stared at me like I had grown a second head. "Why on earth haven't you been using your home equity to buy more properties over the last decade? Are you mad using money you've saved to purchase property? That's not how it works".

And like, you objectively look at all the options available to someone who is already in the game and it's cooked. I do okay jobwise, I'm single and kid free, just having a decent amount of equity in a single lovely property puts my buying power through the roof compared to any first homebuyer. It's hosed. There's no incentive (moral ones aside) to ever really sell property, you just accumulate and negatively gear and use endless equity to purchase more and more becoming a demonic landlord in the process. You end up with your golden offset savings account earning you silly risk free returns too.

I dunno how you unfuck all this poo poo. Maybe for every additional property you purchase you've got to take a submarine trip. You almost need means testing for house taxes. Elderly couple still living in a 5 bed inner suburb home? Taxes increase for the 4 empty rooms proportional to income. There isn't an incentive for people to turn over the housing market, acquiring and keeping properties is just too easy once you're in. Hell, it's incentivized.

NPR Journalizard
Feb 14, 2008

masterpine posted:

I dunno how you unfuck all this poo poo.

1) Negative gearing only allowed for your primary residence.
2) Remove CGT discount.
3) Replace stamp duty with land tax.
4) Individuals and corporations are only allowed to own a max of 5 houses.

Its fairly simple to unfuck. Its politically difficult, which is why it will never happen.

Comstar
Apr 20, 2007

Are you happy now?

NPR Journalizard posted:

1) Negative gearing only allowed for your primary residence.
2) Remove CGT discount.
3) Replace stamp duty with land tax.
4) Individuals and corporations are only allowed to own a max of 5 houses.

Dream election: Labour decides to stop being the poo poo-light party and declares a DD with all these policies. Dutton is as popular as Vladimir Putin is in Russia, so it's the best time to do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHB0vDhdM3c&t=1s


The chance of this happening is the same chance I have of winning Powerball :(

Regular Wario
Mar 27, 2010

Slippery Tilde

NPR Journalizard posted:

1) Negative gearing only allowed for your primary residence.
2) Remove CGT discount.
3) Replace stamp duty with land tax.
4) Individuals and corporations are only allowed to own a max of 5 houses.

Its fairly simple to unfuck. Its politically difficult, which is why it will never happen.

that sounds a lot like communism socialism there mister

SecretOfSteel
Apr 29, 2007

The secret of steel has always
carried with it a mystery.

Autisanal Cheese posted:

would it be against parliamentary rules for Max Chandler-Mather to quote how many investment properties each person who argues with him owns

Man does rusted-on Labor hate him on twitter...

Autisanal Cheese
Nov 29, 2010

SecretOfSteel posted:

Man does rusted-on Labor hate him on twitter...

My favourite was the tweets from the former Labor member he defeated in the election. BOY WAS SHE SALTY. Interrupted her ministry track and everything.

iajanus
Aug 17, 2004

NUMBER 1 QUEENSLAND SUPPORTER
MAROONS 2023 STATE OF ORIGIN CHAMPIONS FOR LIFE



masterpine posted:

I was insanely lucky to be able to live with my folks for a few years rent-free while earning decently so got in to home ownership at 22, a simple 1960's 2 bed unit. Mortgage has a bit to go but I've saved up some money to sell and upsize a bit to find a bigger place with a garage for tinkering.

Presented all my plans to the broker I used back in the day, basically sell unit and buy well within my means using savings and end up with a similar sized mortgage. Bloke stared at me like I had grown a second head. "Why on earth haven't you been using your home equity to buy more properties over the last decade? Are you mad using money you've saved to purchase property? That's not how it works".

And like, you objectively look at all the options available to someone who is already in the game and it's cooked. I do okay jobwise, I'm single and kid free, just having a decent amount of equity in a single lovely property puts my buying power through the roof compared to any first homebuyer. It's hosed. There's no incentive (moral ones aside) to ever really sell property, you just accumulate and negatively gear and use endless equity to purchase more and more becoming a demonic landlord in the process. You end up with your golden offset savings account earning you silly risk free returns too.

I dunno how you unfuck all this poo poo. Maybe for every additional property you purchase you've got to take a submarine trip. You almost need means testing for house taxes. Elderly couple still living in a 5 bed inner suburb home? Taxes increase for the 4 empty rooms proportional to income. There isn't an incentive for people to turn over the housing market, acquiring and keeping properties is just too easy once you're in. Hell, it's incentivized.

I agree with most ideas about unfucking the market, especially with regard to making investments much less attractive, but I don't agree with forcing people to have to sell or move from their primary home (which a tax increase for rooms etc will absolutely do). Everything else should be on the table, though.

NPR Journalizard
Feb 14, 2008

iajanus posted:

I agree with most ideas about unfucking the market, especially with regard to making investments much less attractive, but I don't agree with forcing people to have to sell or move from their primary home (which a tax increase for rooms etc will absolutely do). Everything else should be on the table, though.

We need empty nest boomer who are sitting alone in 5 bedroom mansions to downsize, but they dont because stamp duty fucks them. Just need a financial incentive to get them to move.

birdstrike
Oct 30, 2008

i;m gay

NPR Journalizard posted:

1) Negative gearing only allowed for your primary residence.

interest on where you live isn’t deductible?

Jezza of OZPOS
Mar 21, 2018

GET LOSE❌🗺️, YOUS CAN'T COMPARE😤 WITH ME 💪POWERS🇦🇺

NPR Journalizard posted:

Just need a financial incentive to get them to move.

John Williamson at the Pelican Waters Bowls club 2 shows a night 7 nights a week

NPR Journalizard
Feb 14, 2008

birdstrike posted:

interest on where you live isn’t deductible?

Oh yeah I always forget that.

Maybe use that as a bait and switch so the inevitable chorus of boomer complainants shut the gently caress up

bobvonunheil
Mar 18, 2007

Board games and tea
Whoa whoa whoa are you guys saying that interest on your primary residence is already tax deductible?

birdstrike
Oct 30, 2008

i;m gay

bobvonunheil posted:

Whoa whoa whoa are you guys saying that interest on your primary residence is already tax deductible?

n-no.

NPR Journalizard posted:

Oh yeah I always forget that.

Maybe use that as a bait and switch so the inevitable chorus of boomer complainants shut the gently caress up

maybe, sadly though I think it would skyrocket somehow higher as people could afford higher repayments by offsetting some against the new tax deductions

bobvonunheil
Mar 18, 2007

Board games and tea

birdstrike posted:

n-no.

maybe, sadly though I think it would skyrocket somehow higher as people could afford higher repayments by offsetting some against the new tax deductions

Ok, I misread your "interest where you live isn't deductible?" as questioning the assumption that it wasn't

birdstrike
Oct 30, 2008

i;m gay

bobvonunheil posted:

Ok, I misread your "interest where you live isn't deductible?" as questioning the assumption that it wasn't

sorry I was trying to say it isn’t without sounding aggressive

masterpine
Dec 3, 2014


iajanus posted:

I agree with most ideas about unfucking the market, especially with regard to making investments much less attractive, but I don't agree with forcing people to have to sell or move from their primary home (which a tax increase for rooms etc will absolutely do). Everything else should be on the table, though.

It's a tough thing and you cant discount peoples emotional attachments to properties. My folks recently sold the family home. They have had some hardships and needed to clear debt, otherwise they would have been dragged out of the place by an ambulance they loved the house so much. It was a 6 bedroom 3 bathroom on 1100sqm in a very nice Perth suburb. They owned it for 38 years, my mum grew up on the same block and used to do bob-a-job chores there and had loved the place since she was 6 years old.

Its a house close to great schools, parks and shops which all exist to support young families. The new owners have three little kids who were running around the backyard planning all sorts of adventures after the auction. Watching that was the first time I saw my mum and dad smile during the whole day. At it's core, heavily incentivising/forcing turnover of good property in good locations is critical for social mobility and stopping class stratification. Property acts as the clearest means of securing generational wealth and advantage within a family line, I personally dont see that as being a good or positive thing for society. That's a bigger discussion than just home ownership obviously but it plays a part in the whole picture.

hooman
Oct 11, 2007

This guy seems legit.
Fun Shoe
I think forcing people to downsize is a great thing to propose if you want no action taken on housing affordability because then everyone can have a great big emotional argument about whether or not we should do that without actually looking at the root causes of problems, and they're not your nan pottering about in a 4x2 she's lived her whole life in.

It's like the LNP pivoting straight to nuclear power, it's just a wedge to start a big fight, rather than anyone looking at effective solutions.

Bald Stalin
Jul 11, 2004

Our posts
Abolish private property, give everyone an appropriate safe warm solidly constructed home, give everyone a nice holiday once or twice a year, give everyone a nice life after they retire. This isn't hard.

JBP
Feb 16, 2017

You've got to know, to understand,
Baby, take me by my hand,
I'll lead you to the promised land.

Ranter posted:

Abolish private property, give everyone an appropriate safe warm solidly constructed home, give everyone a nice holiday once or twice a year, give everyone a nice life after they retire. This isn't hard.

You can keep this.

hooman
Oct 11, 2007

This guy seems legit.
Fun Shoe

Guardian AU posted:

The Australian Energy Regulator today provided more proof that price pains were hitting some households. Some 1.3% of residential customers, or almost 90,000, were participating in hardship plans in the March quarter, a proportion that now exceeds pre-Covid levels

Average hardship debt has increased by $137, or 8%, to $1,871, compared with a year earlier.

“The cost of living crisis is putting enormous pressure on people on low incomes and the situation is set to worsen with energy bills rising by up to 25% from 1 July in some parts of the country,” ACOSS’s CEO, Cassandra Goldie, said. "Our surveys show that 65% of people on income support are cutting back on heating and 60% are going without essentials like food and medication to afford their bills."

Better set up a future fund investing in the stock market that might pay dividends in a year so that we can maybe invest that into a way to pay to feed, clothe, medicate and shelter people!

I'm sure that no bad outcomes will be happening between now and then!

EDIT:

Guardian AU posted:

Chalmers confirms budget surplus will be bigger than $4.2bn May forecast

Addressing media, the federal treasurer, Jim Chalmers, confirms the budget surplus will be bigger than the $4.2bn forecast in May:

We are now supremely confident, not just that there will be a surplus in 22/23, the first in 15 years, but also then it will be bigger than we predicted. This is what happens when you’ve got a government which takes its responsibilities to manage the budget and manage the economy the right way seriously. We have shown remarkable spending restraint, which would be unrecognisable to our predecessors. We’ve banked almost all of the upward revisions to revenue. We found $40bn in savings and reprioritization. And we shown spending restraint right across the budget.

Chalmers did not confirm a number.

Oh, never mind guys, Labor has done the most important thing, which is show spending restraint. That's the most important thing a government can do, that's their only role.

hooman fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Jun 28, 2023

I would blow Dane Cook
Dec 26, 2008

hooman posted:

Better set up a future fund investing in the stock market that might pay dividends in a year so that we can maybe invest that into a way to pay to feed, clothe, medicate and shelter people!

I'm sure that no bad outcomes will be happening between now and then!

There was literally an episode of Utopia season 4 about this.

Comstar
Apr 20, 2007

Are you happy now?

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

There was literally an episode of Utopia season 4 about this.

If they ever make the Nation Building Authority we will end up with Rob Sitch as Prime Minster who ends up leading the country to stop an invasion.


Maybe they'll be a spin off where Rob Sitch becomes PM of Ukraine.

DRINK ME
Jul 31, 2006
i cant fix avs like this because idk the bbcode - HTML IS BS MAN
Weren’t we on target for a surplus before covid laughed at their presumption? That whole ‘back in black’ campaign?

I honestly don’t know why they bother with spending restraint because they’re still going to be attacked come election time, and people will still believe libs are better economic managers. Reality has never factored in to that.

Maybe we can spend some of that surplus on bringing back LMITO or similar, inflation is kicking my arse and I’ve already reduced my candle budget to bare bones.

iajanus
Aug 17, 2004

NUMBER 1 QUEENSLAND SUPPORTER
MAROONS 2023 STATE OF ORIGIN CHAMPIONS FOR LIFE



NPR Journalizard posted:

We need empty nest boomer who are sitting alone in 5 bedroom mansions to downsize, but they dont because stamp duty fucks them. Just need a financial incentive to get them to move.

Pretty sure a lot of then don't because they actually like living in the house that they've been living in for decades hth

NPR Journalizard
Feb 14, 2008

iajanus posted:

Pretty sure a lot of then don't because they actually like living in the house that they've been living in for decades hth

Which is why we need an incentive to get them to move hth

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

freebooter
Jul 7, 2009

While I fundamentally agree with this...

https://twitter.com/surlygopher/status/1659210211306123267

...I also think people who've lived in the house they raised their kids in 40 years earlier should be able to live out their retirement and die there if they want.

But the families with kids should also be entitled to be able to afford an actual house with space. And this was generally possible for all generations (of most income bands) to be living in up until about 15 years ago.

I don't have the statistics to prove anything but my gut feeling is that the problem with our hosed housing market is more to do with investors and less to do with empty nest boomers hanging on to their PPOR.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply