The Housing Crisis

[rubberman]

How do you know that it will be extended to accounts below $3m Rev? Where's your source that's official government policy?

Also the reason politicians are exempt is because there's a constitutional rule regarding politicians superannuation. Now we know how Australia's history with constitutional amendments go.

Is it really worth spending several hundreds of millions of dollars to amend the constitution just so we can include politicians, given the several other pressing priorities at the moment?

Stop sprouting bullshit.

Plus, those pensions pay full tax minus 10% not the zero tax after 60 that accumulation accounts pay. So, in all probability, those actually pay more. So what's the point of changing to get less revenue?

[SBD]

We appear to currently have a preference to solve the Housing Crisis by attempting to assist young people to extend urban sprawl by offering incentives for new-build houses, with the ambition that the "crisis" will be solved by increasing the supply of houses. The government collects massive amounts of stamp duty when older people eventually feel forced to sell their homes.

I wonder if the crisis could be ameliorated by focusing on bedrooms instead of houses. Provide incentives for older people to "right size" from a large home with empty bedrooms, with NDIS or MyAgedCare providing assistance with cleaning and gardening as the one or two remaining occupants become overwhelmed with the thought of having to pack and move, unable to buy a home the size they actually use because of the lost costs of turnover and moving. Instead, make this family home with a back yard available to a new family, and give the older person the opportunity to "age in place" in a building better suited to their retirement years.

[[Shuz]]

We appear to currently have a preference to solve the Housing Crisis by attempting to assist young people to extend urban sprawl by offering incentives for new-build houses, with the ambition that the "crisis" will be solved by increasing the supply of houses. The government collects massive amounts of stamp duty when older people eventually feel forced to sell their homes.

I wonder if the crisis could be ameliorated by focusing on bedrooms instead of houses. Provide incentives for older people to "right size" from a large home with empty bedrooms, with NDIS or MyAgedCare providing assistance with cleaning and gardening as the one or two remaining occupants become overwhelmed with the thought of having to pack and move, unable to buy a home the size they actually use because of the lost costs of turnover and moving. Instead, make this family home with a back yard available to a new family, and give the older person the opportunity to "age in place" in a building better suited to their retirement years.

I suspect this will be up for discussion politically in the next year or two.

Here is an example of how the "bedroom tax" works in the UK. It focuses on social housing only. Given how protected home owners are in Australia, I wouldn't be surprised if a similar policy is proposed by either major party. The policy is focused on targeting welfare recipients only, but lumped together with a carrot-and-stick general increase in the the welfare allowances paid. The offset would be budget-neutral / budget-positive. This would be the only way to make it politically feasible to middle Australia that the government is seen to be "doing something" about the housing crisis.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedroom ... ears%20and

[rev]

Taxing people by reducing their welfare payments because they have spare rooms in their homes, in government provided housing no less, let alone pensioners?

More tax, in any form, is not going to solve the housing crisis.

If I've worked hard, and have been able to afford a house with 5 bedrooms+study, 3 bathrooms, double garage, 2 living spaces, etc, and choose to retire in that house, how many spare bedrooms there are should be of no concern to the government, nor should I be taxed or penalised for it. And certainly shouldn't be punished for not wanting to rent out bedrooms to strangers to share my house with.
What insanity to even think of such a scheme.

Then again it is the UK.

[Dvious]

1 step closer to communism...

[rubberman]

Australians choose to spend $25bn per year on gambling.

That's an amount which would build half the number of houses per year needed to brige the gap between demand and present building rates.

Next, plenty of people refuse to buy apartments such as you see in most European cities, in favour of stand alone housing. That could easily bridge the rest of the gap between demand and supply.

Do we really have a supply problem, when it seems rather we have enough money to build enough dwellings, but make lifestyle choices instead?

I know we say we have a crisis, but if it boils down to just not wanting to give up gambling, and not wanting to live in apartments, European style, it's a choice.

[rev]

New data has revealed the income needed to buy a home in South Australia.

And it’s more than double what you needed five years ago.

An investigation by Canstar shows to buy a median-priced home in SA – one costing $827,000 – you need to earn $154,500.

To buy a median-priced unit – $570,000 – you need to earn $106,480.

In 2020, when the median house price was $482,000 you needed to earn just $64,469 in order to avoid mortgage stress.

That represents an increase of $90,020.

It’s a similar story for units. In 2020, you needed to earn just $44,139 to buy a median-priced unit at $330,000 – some $20,000 less than you need now.

According to Payscale.com the average SA salary now is $74,000. In 2020 it was $67,844 – just $6156 less.

This shows the growth in income needed to buy has clearly outpaced wage growth during that period.

https://www.realestate.com.au/news/the- ... cement=spa

Oh I know, lets find new creative ways to tax people and take more money out of their pockets, because that will really help make housing affordable and fix the cost of living crisis.

[Bobski]

[T]o buy a median-priced home in SA ... you need to earn $154,500.

According to Payscale.com the average SA salary now is $74,000.

Geez that's bleak

[ChillyPhilly]

[T]o buy a median-priced home in SA ... you need to earn $154,500.

According to Payscale.com the average SA salary now is $74,000.

Geez that's bleak

Special thanks to John Howard, and then Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison for allowing that rot to continue unfettered.

[rev]

Geez that's bleak

Special thanks to John Howard, and then Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison for allowing that rot to continue unfettered.

Since Howard there has been 3 Liberal governments (Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison) and 3 Labor governments (Rudd, Gillard, Albanese), this is the fourth Labor government term now.

Both sides have had ample opportunity to fix things.

[shiftaling]

Labor got punished for taking negative gearing reform to an election. It's not like they didn't try.

[[Shuz]]

Labor got punished for taking negative gearing reform to an election. It's not like they didn't try.

That was just one factor - franking credits as well. Bill Shorten was a very unpopular leader who also lost in 2016. Had Albo been leader in 2019, they might have won then. The margin was pretty tight, 74-69 or so. ScoMo barely scraped through despite his unpopularity as well.

[SBD]

Oops, it's been a few days since I threw this cat at the pigeons, and cutting welfare payments to people who need them in order to make them leave their public housing was not the angle I was thinking of.

I was looking at all the government assistance to encourage urban sprawl, and wondering if some of it could be repurposed to encouraging more efficient use of current housing. I don't expect an instant "fix", but policy changes to make the option more attractive.

We currently have government spending on providing water, sewerage and wastewater to sprawling new suburbs on former farm and horticultural land. We then provide financial incentives to first home buyers to build new houses on this land, mostly building detached houses with enough capacity for the young couples' families to grow. Then we also have to build new schools to support these new areas, extend public transport and so on.

There is no stamp duty on buying the vacant land for this urban sprawl, but there is stamp duty charged on selling an existing home and buying another one. There is no subsidy available for paying a removalist, or land agents to sell the current home or find a suitable new one. There is a lot of money that "just disappears" if a family of five wanted to sell a 2-bedroom unit and buy a 5-bedroom house at the same time a seventy year old widow wants to sell a 5-bedroom house with a big backyard and downsize to a ground-level 2-bedroom unit.

My observation is that the new sprawl needs new schools that are overfull almost as soon as they are built, and schools are closing due to lack of students in suburbs full of small households in (relatively) large houses. It's easier and cheaper for the individual to add to the sprawl than to optimise the utilisation of existing resources. I'm trying to propose that policy settings change to move this balance.

[rev]

It's alright guys, the closet marxist at the Greens is going to fix the housing crisis, by taking your private property without asking and without compensation.
The Greens have it all sorted, have no fear. Just ignore your rights being trampled on.

Urban Development Institute of Australia (SA) CEO Liam Golding said the bill is “an affront” to the state’s legal system.

“Fundamentally, the idea that the state can take private property rights without compensation or consent is an affront to everything that we have as our legal system,” Mr Golding said. “The bill is just poorly drafted … there are no checks and balances.

“It’s utterly subjective and from a legal perspective there’s nothing stopping the government from saying that a week is long enough for development to have progressed.

“There’s also no definition of what underdeveloped land means.”

Additionally, Mr Golding raised concerns over the fact that the bill doesn’t provide the land owner or developer the opportunity to appeal their case.

However, Greens MLC Robert Simms defended the bill by saying it has passed through the upper house due to the government’s in-principle support while they work though the details.
“Certainly (the bill) won’t be passed through the parliament in its current form,” he said.

“But it’s not unusual for bills to win support from the upper house and then for the government to work with the crossbench to make changes.”

Mr Simms said the bill will work predominantly to motivate developers.

Of course it is, that's why it doesn't state it in the legislation.
Just take him at his word and don't protest.

“What this bill is trying to do is incentivise the land owners in circumstances where they have no intent of developing it and it’s suitable for development … to do something with the land,” Mr Simms said.

Ooops there it is, these radical leftists dribble so much shit out of their mouths they forget which lie they've told you and do them selves in.
Land owners and developers are two vastly different things now aren't they Mr Simms? I'm sure with all his university degrees and being on the verge of a phd he's surely well aware of that.

This raises a bigger question. Who the fuck are the government or council to tell me what to do with my land and property? If I want a large back yard, covered in grass, then who the fuck is this communist flog to tell me what to do with it?

A sensible policy would be to make it easier for people to build a 'tiny home' or a granny flat and rent it out, or sell it, making it easier to subdivide their land. If they want to, if they can afford to. I believe the government is already on to this in part?

An outrageous tyrannical policy is to say we're going to decide if your land is underdeveloped or vacant, we'll decide when how long is too long, and we'll just take it from you.

“We don’t have the luxury of people being able to hoard vacant land while people sleep on the street … we’re in the middle of a housing crisis.”

Right luxuries..How big is his tax payer funded salary again?
Where is his legislation or proposals to lower those salaries to be in line with the rest of society?
Where is his legislation or proposals to eliminate all the benefits they get as politicians, the generous pensions etc?
Where is the legislation and proposals to create economic prosperity for the majority? Where are the visions for jobs and industries?


But in typical communist fashion, this guy wants to take from those who have worked hard and built a good life for them selves and their families, and give to others who haven't done the same, or haven't been able to do the same, because people like him and the rest of the circus in parliament are doing nothing to create economic prosperity for the majority.
Their only solution is to keep taking and taking.

Pretty soon, we wont be worrying about a housing crisis, we will be worrying about a welfare state crisis.
Where will the money come from when there isn't enough productive people and businesses left to tax when the majority are stuck on welfare in a broken system?

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscrib ... nt-2-SCORE

[SBD]

There are 206 hectares of land at Blakeview which were "released for development" in 2011 to "...help to meet continued demand for residential allotments in the outer northern area and also assist with housing affordability by establishing a ready allotment supply." (quote from Infrastructure Minister Patrick Conlon). The Location SA viewer Residential Broadhectare 2024 layer shows this land is owned by Renewal SA. It is adjacent to existing housing estates including Blakes Crossing that has streets ending at a fence to stop people driving into the paddock. Several have cul-de-sac turning space past the end of the kerbs, jutting in to the paddock.

A crop is planted and harvested every year, so presumably this is not unused land by Robert Sims' definition. It's producing income for Renewal SA as sharefarmer/landowner.

The land had a "masterplan" (I can't find it online any more). Creek drainage under Main North Road was upgraded around 2017. There's a water supply pipe through the middle. A new Electranet substation was installed nearby in 2015 with room for expansion. I'm not sure about sewerage.

I feel like the Housing Crisis has been manufactured by government over the last couple of decades.

• https://www.realestatesource.com.au/sou ... ment-site/
• https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-06/ ... nd/3317666
• https://esdnews.com.au/munno-para-subst ... er-future/