The Housing Crisis

[abc]

Migration Program planning levels - ​​​​​​​2023­–24 permanent Migration Program says that 72 per cent of the permanent immigration program is in the skill stream "designed to improve the productive capacity of the economy and fill skill shortages in the labour market, including those in regional Australia."

Uhuhhh.
We've heard all this before. "Skilled migration" to fill this or that gap. Yep, right. Because every other time the government has said that's what they'll do, that's exactly how it turned out
Let's pretend that the majority aren't in unskilled/non-higher education related jobs right now, driving uber/uber eats, security, cleaners, orderlies in hospitals. Many of those who have become nurses or carers, did so HERE IN AUSTRALIA through government (tax payer) funded programs.
And the students you keep talking about, many came here on bogus student visas and have rorted the system along the ghost RTO's setup. All aided by the huge surge in "migration agency" firms that have sprung up everywhere.


But I'm sure with a top bloke like Albo in charge, this time for sure 100% you can count on the government that they're not pulling your leg this time.

[SBD]

Migration Program planning levels - ​​​​​​​2023­–24 permanent Migration Program says that 72 per cent of the permanent immigration program is in the skill stream "designed to improve the productive capacity of the economy and fill skill shortages in the labour market, including those in regional Australia."

Uhuhhh.
We've heard all this before. "Skilled migration" to fill this or that gap. Yep, right. Because every other time the government has said that's what they'll do, that's exactly how it turned out
Let's pretend that the majority aren't in unskilled/non-higher education related jobs right now, driving uber/uber eats, security, cleaners, orderlies in hospitals. Many of those who have become nurses or carers, did so HERE IN AUSTRALIA through government (tax payer) funded programs.
And the students you keep talking about, many came here on bogus student visas and have rorted the system along the ghost RTO's setup. All aided by the huge surge in "migration agency" firms that have sprung up everywhere.


But I'm sure with a top bloke like Albo in charge, this time for sure 100% you can count on the government that they're not pulling your leg this time.

Most of the people I know in those jobs are Australian-born. I accept I've seen people who probably weren't born here doing them too - is it possible the immigrant people in those jobs are from the family reunion stream - spouses and children of targeted skilled immigrants?

I used to work with one of those Chinese immigrant students who didn't go home. He's been here long enough that at least two of his South Australian-born children are now doctors in New South Wales. Do you blame his family for him (and his wife I think) being immigrants, or for contributing to the Brain Drain to the eastern states?

[rev]

Migration Program planning levels - ​​​​​​​2023­–24 permanent Migration Program says that 72 per cent of the permanent immigration program is in the skill stream "designed to improve the productive capacity of the economy and fill skill shortages in the labour market, including those in regional Australia."

Uhuhhh.
We've heard all this before. "Skilled migration" to fill this or that gap. Yep, right. Because every other time the government has said that's what they'll do, that's exactly how it turned out
Let's pretend that the majority aren't in unskilled/non-higher education related jobs right now, driving uber/uber eats, security, cleaners, orderlies in hospitals. Many of those who have become nurses or carers, did so HERE IN AUSTRALIA through government (tax payer) funded programs.
And the students you keep talking about, many came here on bogus student visas and have rorted the system along the ghost RTO's setup. All aided by the huge surge in "migration agency" firms that have sprung up everywhere.


But I'm sure with a top bloke like Albo in charge, this time for sure 100% you can count on the government that they're not pulling your leg this time.

Most of the people I know in those jobs are Australian-born. I accept I've seen people who probably weren't born here doing them too - is it possible the immigrant people in those jobs are from the family reunion stream - spouses and children of targeted skilled immigrants?

I used to work with one of those Chinese immigrant students who didn't go home. He's been here long enough that at least two of his South Australian-born children are now doctors in New South Wales. Do you blame his family for him (and his wife I think) being immigrants, or for contributing to the Brain Drain to the eastern states?

I'm not blaming migrants. They're all mostly economic opportunists. Nothing wrong with that, their pursuing a better life for them selves, and if our government is going to continue to provide, and the Australian people are stupid enough to pretend that they aren't being rorted and robbed blind, then good luck to them.

[cmet]

With all due respect, people that say that negative gearing isn’t a factor in the crisis and say something like “it’s a supply issue” have no idea what they are talking about.

The other side of the economic equation is demand, and negative gearing greatly increases investor demand in this country. Just think for a second all of the conversions happening in this country between accounts, financial advisors and their clients, discussing the tax benefits that an investment property can provide. I have seen this first hand, people that may have been indifferent to residential property investment being convinced to do so to reduce their tax bill, and banking on the value of the asset increasing while they make a cash flow loss in the meantime.

Of course supply is an issue as well, but it’s not its own issue detached from the demand side. I do this for a quid and I will die on this hill.

[abc]

With all due respect, people that say that negative gearing isn’t a factor in the crisis and say something like “it’s a supply issue” have no idea what they are talking about.

The other side of the economic equation is demand, and negative gearing greatly increases investor demand in this country. Just think for a second all of the conversions happening in this country between accounts, financial advisors and their clients, discussing the tax benefits that an investment property can provide. I have seen this first hand, people that may have been indifferent to residential property investment being convinced to do so to reduce their tax bill, and banking on the value of the asset increasing while they make a cash flow loss in the meantime.

Of course supply is an issue as well, but it’s not its own issue detached from the demand side. I do this for a quid and I will die on this hill.

you're also 26

negative gearing has been around longer than you have

[SBD]

I'm probably one of the people who could invest in residential property with negative gearing. I don't, I have no interest in being a landlord so invest in shares, and am not heavily geared. The point is I have the disposable income to make it work.

Hypothetically, I could borrow almost the full value of a house from a bank, possibly as an interest-only loan, and compete to buy a house against someone who intends to be an owner-occupier. Presumably I am prepared to pay more for my investment, so the vendor gets more money for the property they are selling. As an investor, I don't get first-home-buyer subsidy or discounted stamp duty.

I then rent my new property out at less than my total cost of ownership (maintenance, interest, services), which might make it "affordable". At tax time I declare the income from my rent, but also claim a deduction for a larger value of costs of ownership. Thus my taxable income is lower than if I had not bought the property. The government receives less income tax from me than it would have. In exchange, the renter of my property has paid less rent, and I have "injected cash into the economy" through paying interest to the bank, employing an agent to collect the rent, tradespeople to perform maintenance and repairs, and maybe the utility companies. If I install solar panels, AC battery etc, I can claim the depreciation. If I install extra power points for my tenant to charge their electric cars, that's an expense deductible immediately.

At some time in the future, I decide to sell my investment. Property values have risen while I have owned it, so I get back what I paid, and more than the excess I have spent while I have owned it. I've owned it more than 12 months, so I pay income tax on only half of the capital gain.

For example, I bought the property for $500k. I owned it long enough I sell it for $1M, perhaps ten years later, and pay out my $500k loan. My gain is $500k, the CGT discount means I only pay tax on $250k of that, and it's likely that much of that is taxed at the highest marginal rate of 45%, depending what other income and deductions I have in the year. If that is my only income for the year, I'd pay $83167 income tax on my $250k income (2022-23 tax year).

So over the time I owned the property, I lost/spent money each year I owned it (I haven't said how much), in exchange for up to $416833 after tax at the end. My tenant lived without having had to find the deposit to buy the property, and lived in it paying less rent than the cost of owning it.

Is the tenant better off? Is the owner? Is the taxman/government (state and federal)? Would either the renter or the investor/landlord make different choices if negative gearing or CGT discount were not available?

As the landlord, without negative gearing, I'd likely raise the rent to cover my annual costs and feel less inclined to make capital improvements such as solar power or hot water, airconditioning etc.

[rev]

2.2 million Australian's have an investment property. (2021-22 figures)

71.48% of investors hold 1 investment property - 1,572,560 properties < These are your mum and dad investors mostly.
18.86% of investors hold 2 investment properties - 414,920 x 2 = 829,840 < There would be a lot of mum and dad investors in this group too.
5.81% of investors own 3 investment properties - 127,820 x 3 = 383,460 < Probably still a few mum and dad investors in this group but would quite a small percentage.
2.11% of investors own 4 investment properties - 46,420 x 4 = 185,680 properties
0.87% of investors own 5 investment properties - 19,140 x 5 = 95,700 properties
0.89% (or 19,920) of investors hold 6 or more investment properties = 117,480+ properties


In which group do those in their ideological comas, think the mega wealthy and our politicians sit in?
90%~ own 1-2 properties. That's mums and dads, aged people.
Politicians fit in the top 5%, the 4-6+ categories. Think about that. They're our elected officials, and they've managed to while screwing us all over, enrich them selves with huge property portfolios. As you should all be aware of, the Prime Minister is raking in over $100,000 a year from his rental properties.

Code: Select all

Year          Total investors              Change
2009-10	       1,704,220	             68,316
2010-11	       1,765,880	             61,660
2011-12	        1,854,519	             88,639
2012-13	        1,942,339	             87,820
2013-14	        2,010,923	             68,584
2014-15	        2,051,517	             40,594
2015-16	        2,097,382	             45,865
2016-17	        2,156,319	             58,935
2017-18	        2,207,893	             51,574
2018-19	        2,227,174	             19,281
2019-20	        2,226,841	             -333
2020-21	        2,245,539	             18,698

I cant imagine 2021-22, 22-23 and 23-24 figures would paint a pretty picture either.

The mum and dad investors will be the ones impacted the most out of that 2.2 million, by the cost of living crisis and the shit economic situation in general.
They're not exactly raking in millions of dollars a year from a second or third home.

Whose going to buy these properties up as people start offloading them? Look further down that list above, you'll realize that it will be a consolidation of property wealth in the hands of the few.
Do you think that THAT is a good thing?

Code: Select all

	Outcome	№ of Investors	Property Interests	Total Rental Income	Avg. Rental Income
1	Loss	        856.4k	        856.4k	                 -$5.00B	           -$5.8k
2	Loss	        227.7k	        455.5k	                 -$2.45B	           -$5.4k
3	Loss	        67.8k	        203.3k	                 -$1.06B	           -$5.2k
4	Loss	        23.7k	        94.8k	                 -$478M	           -$5.0k
5	Loss	        9.6k	                48.2k	              -$234M	           -$4.9k
6+	Loss         	9.9k	                74.3k	              -$356M	           -$4.8k
1	Profit	736.4k	        736.4k	                 $4.92B	                 $6.7k
2	Profit	190.9k	        381.8k	                 $2.24B	                 $5.9k
3	Profit	61.6k	        184.9k	                 $1.04B	                 $5.6k
4	Profit	23.1k	        92.2k	                 $490M	                 $5.3k
5	Profit	9.6k	                48.1k	                 $251M	                 $5.2k
6+	Profit	10.0k	        76.2k	                 $401M	                 $5.3k

Property investment isn't a get rich quick scheme. It's an investment in your future, in you're retirement, and your children's future.
Some people will never understand that concept, because they think someone else should provide for them. It's also perfectly fine not to invest in property, you do you, but don't complain that someone else is taking advantage of equity they've got in their home while you're choosing not to.
But your politicians sure do understand it, that's why they're using their over the top tax payer funded salaries and generous pensions for life that pensioners who actually worked hard well into their 60's can only dream of, to build a property portfolio. Keep voting for them though, I'm sure the next lot of promises they make will make you wealthy

[cmet]

It’s this exact over financialised approach that has us in this mess. I don’t think people realise that our fetishisation with residential property is very unique to Australia. Housing is shelter primarily, not an investment.

Just consider the fact that our favourite investment as aussies is a highly leveraged unproductive asset that runs at a cash flow loss every year.

We have the highest house prices in the world and the highest levels of personal/household debt in the world, is this a red flag?

The siphoning of money out of residential property investment into to shares, bonds and commercial property by definition takes heat out of the residential market, reducing demand and likely reducing prices all else being equal.

I have no problem with people owning multiple properties, but there shouldn’t be free kicks left right and centre to do so.

I can’t borrow 95% of the value of my shares then reduce my taxable income by virtue of just owning the asset. If we all could, I’m sure there would be a LOT more overvalued shit companies on the asx.

[abc]

It’s this exact over financialised approach that has us in this mess. I don’t think people realise that our fetishisation with residential property is very unique to Australia. Housing is shelter primarily, not an investment.

Just consider the fact that our favourite investment as aussies is a highly leveraged unproductive asset that runs at a cash flow loss every year.

We have the highest house prices in the world and the highest levels of personal/household debt in the world, is this a red flag?

The siphoning of money out of residential property investment into to shares, bonds and commercial property by definition takes heat out of the residential market, reducing demand and likely reducing prices all else being equal.

I have no problem with people owning multiple properties, but there shouldn’t be free kicks left right and centre to do so.

I can’t borrow 95% of the value of my shares then reduce my taxable income by virtue of just owning the asset. If we all could, I’m sure there would be a LOT more overvalued shit companies on the asx.

FYI...Australia is tumbling down this list

even the adversaries our government have designated on our behalf have far higher rates of home ownership than in Australia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... rship_rate

[cmet]

It’s this exact over financialised approach that has us in this mess. I don’t think people realise that our fetishisation with residential property is very unique to Australia. Housing is shelter primarily, not an investment.

Just consider the fact that our favourite investment as aussies is a highly leveraged unproductive asset that runs at a cash flow loss every year.

We have the highest house prices in the world and the highest levels of personal/household debt in the world, is this a red flag?

The siphoning of money out of residential property investment into to shares, bonds and commercial property by definition takes heat out of the residential market, reducing demand and likely reducing prices all else being equal.

I have no problem with people owning multiple properties, but there shouldn’t be free kicks left right and centre to do so.

I can’t borrow 95% of the value of my shares then reduce my taxable income by virtue of just owning the asset. If we all could, I’m sure there would be a LOT more overvalued shit companies on the asx.

FYI...Australia is tumbling down this list

even the adversaries our government have designated on our behalf have far higher rates of home ownership than in Australia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... rship_rate

This is a symptom of the increasing consolidation of home ownership. Another reason to halt the Ponzi.

[SBD]

Hypothetically, the $420000 at the end of my post above could be used to borrow $980,000 for a total share portfolio of $1.4m geared at 70% LVR. These can still be shares selected for capital growth (rising share prices) not income (dividends). That still gives a large opportunity for leveraged investment and negative gearing.

I'm not sure if the "solution" is to remove all special benefits that treat the home you live in differently to other investments, or to completely exempt the owner-occupied home from any kind of asset test for any purpose.

There are good advisers at the moment who recommend renovations and upgrades to the occupied home as money sink to avoid various taxes and other penalties that arise in trying to move into retirement living and expecting to be "entitled" to an aged pension because it gives all sorts of other benefits as well.

[rev]

Like some of us have been saying, and others have been burying their heads in the ideological sands of stupidity, here you go. More experts, more facts. But the usual suspects will bury their heads in the sand, make excuses, and insult people's intelligence or attack the source because the facts don't gel with their ideological view of the world.

So we keep getting told that we need skilled, educated migrants.
Seems that we're not getting skilled educated migrants - the Federal government has now also confirmed that a large percentage of the 700,000~ migrants are university students.
We're getting hundreds of thousands of people with either sub-standard qualifications, fake qualifications, and people who have no interest in actually coming here to study but rather see the student visa program as an avenue to getting into Australia through the back door.

We have a Labor government that has rubber stamped the bullshit education system/qualifications of India as "equal" to Australian equivalents and our standards.
Housing/rentals are fucked. But hey blame negative gearing, NOT the actual major cause of the current housing & rental crisis.
Wages growth is fucked.

This shit show is getting better and better isn't it.

Repeated surveys by education services firm Navitas have found that “quality of education” is far down the list of priorities for most international students.

Students from South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) all ranked “access to post study work rights” as their top priority in the most recent survey, which polled 943 education agents in 72 countries in May 2023.

“Opportunities to work while studying” also ranked higher than “quality of education” for students from South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, the latter group ranking quality dead last along with the Americas.

But Australia was rated the most appealing destination for “access to post study work rights” and “opportunities to work while studying”.

“The Indians themselves know exactly what is going on,” David Llewellyn-Smith, editor of MacroBusiness and chief strategist at the MB Fund and MB Super, wrote on Thursday.

“They care about migration, not education quality. And now Aussie workers, our most vulnerable, and youth are all headed for poverty in low-wage tent cities that belong in Calcutta. This is not government. It is a highly destructive farce.”

Smith blamed “gormless” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for signing “a bunch of shockingly bad agreements” with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi last year.

“Amazingly, Albo equalised all Indian qualifications with their Aussie equivalents. Even though everybody knows that most of the Indian education system is an immense scam,” he wrote.

“And now come the results. Amid crashing wage growth, overrun public services, and a national rental crisis unknown in Australian history, Albo can’t fill the gash in the Indian dam wall that he ripped open.”

And turns out these crooked bastards are making up numbers.
Is it any wonder then that crooked bastards in Australia have rubber stamped the crooked qualifications from India as the equivalent of Australian qualifications?

Australia’s record immigration intake is largely being fuelled by an unprecedented influx of international students, which universities claim are Australia’s fourth-biggest “export” bringing in $40 billion a year.

But some experts have long questioned that figure, produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), arguing it does not take into account income earned by students while working in Australia — around 52 per cent of international students work — or money sent back to their home countries.

“Only a strange statistical assumption has created a ‘$40 billion export industry’ out of one that is probably closer to a $15-20 billion one. Or less. We don’t know,” economist Cameron Murray, author of The Great Housing Hijack, wrote last year in an in-depth blog post digging into the ABS’ methodology.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy ... d45d9235d4

[gnrc_louis]

Lol no one sensible is saying Negative Gearing is the only cause of the housing crisis. It's a combination of a range of factors, including Negative Gearing, ongoing high immigration, capital gains tax changes two decades ago, NIMBY groups blocking development in many areas, problems with the planning system more broadly etc etc.

All of these things have driven up demand for housing for both buying and renting. It's like almost any issue in the world - the reasons are multifaceted, and its dishonest to blame any single thing.

[rev]

Lol no one sensible is saying Negative Gearing is the only cause of the housing crisis. It's a combination of a range of factors, including Negative Gearing, ongoing high immigration, capital gains tax changes two decades ago, NIMBY groups blocking development in many areas, problems with the planning system more broadly etc etc.

All of these things have driven up demand for housing for both buying and renting. It's like almost any issue in the world - the reasons are multifaceted, and its dishonest to blame any single thing.

Well most of us know it's a combination of factors, and that issues existed before now. But most of us also understand that the ridiculously high immigration numbers are exacerbating the situation to levels we've never seen in Australia.
While others just want to pretend that getting rid of negative gearing will fix the problem, as they've stated or alluded to.

Its pretty much what I've been saying, that we don't need these mass migration numbers at the moment for various reasons. We don't have anywhere to house these people let alone all the people here already.
They're not the economic boon for the country we're lead to believe, and many aren't even here for the reasons they pretend to be, and many aren't actually skilled migrants to begin with. It's a sham, we're being rorted. And instead of people being angry and demanding something be done, because this shit is 100% making things in this country much worse then they need to be (and we don't need all these extra people), some people will make excuses.


A couple of apartment buildings in Glenelg that have been blocked by nimybys aren't going to fix the housing or rental crisis in Adelaide, they'd barely make any noticeable impact.
I don't know about the planning system being a factor, maybe you can elaborate on that further would be interested to know how you think it's a factor.

[gnrc_louis]

Lol no one sensible is saying Negative Gearing is the only cause of the housing crisis. It's a combination of a range of factors, including Negative Gearing, ongoing high immigration, capital gains tax changes two decades ago, NIMBY groups blocking development in many areas, problems with the planning system more broadly etc etc.

All of these things have driven up demand for housing for both buying and renting. It's like almost any issue in the world - the reasons are multifaceted, and its dishonest to blame any single thing.

Well most of us know it's a combination of factors, and that issues existed before now. But most of us also understand that the ridiculously high immigration numbers are exacerbating the situation to levels we've never seen in Australia.
While others just want to pretend that getting rid of negative gearing will fix the problem, as they've stated or alluded to.

Its pretty much what I've been saying, that we don't need these mass migration numbers at the moment for various reasons. We don't have anywhere to house these people let alone all the people here already.
They're not the economic boon for the country we're lead to believe, and many aren't even here for the reasons they pretend to be, and many aren't actually skilled migrants to begin with. It's a sham, we're being rorted. And instead of people being angry and demanding something be done, because this shit is 100% making things in this country much worse then they need to be (and we don't need all these extra people), some people will make excuses.


A couple of apartment buildings in Glenelg that have been blocked by nimybys aren't going to fix the housing or rental crisis in Adelaide, they'd barely make any noticeable impact.
I don't know about the planning system being a factor, maybe you can elaborate on that further would be interested to know how you think it's a factor.

The Australian economy relies on constant ongoing growth, which in turn relies on ongoing migration due to a relatively low birth rate. Lowering of migration needs to be part of a conversation about the economic system more broadly imo, which includes the demand for ongoing growth as a metric of success.

In terms of migration now, there is clearly demand for skilled migrants. I have often met with companies as part of jobs I've had, and they all have the issue of being unable to recruit skilled workers in Australia, instead needing to find these overseas. This again ties into bigger questions around the education system etc. As for unskilled migration, well governments like them because see above - they help with economic growth.I can't see any of the major parties being capable of having a broader discussion around this, without it descending into the usual political shitfight.

It isn't just a "couple" though, it's a much larger systemic problem: https://www.afr.com/property/residentia ... 515-p5d8d3 primarily due to councils siding with NIMBYs and blocking projects