Tl;dr: Netherlands cuties considering a ban on investors snapping up properties and renting them out.
33% of recent home buyers are investors in Netherlands. Does anyone know how much % of recent home buyers are investors or occupiers?
https://nltimes.nl/2021/09/02/dutch-cities-want-ban-property…
Probably a great time to grab a bargain in Afghanistan. One small hitch - nobody is running public services like the titles office.
Can you please elaborate on what thought process you went through to say such a thing? It's like when people call Victoria a communist state just because it has a Labor government, frankly weird and quite paranoid.
It's brain dead parroting of Us eccentric talking points and rhetoric. Don't ask them to spend time explaining an opinion that they spent no time forming. If you leave a parrot in front of cable TV it would be capable of the same level of communication. I'm embarrassed that Australia seems to be importing 'stupid' from the US, when we have such an ample supply locally produced.
If you leave a parrot in front of cable TV it would be capable of the same level of communication
lol you completely nailed it
The current cash rate is 0.1%. Enough said.
This is certainly one of the biggest problems. When interest rates are so low, people can afford the repayments on a loan of a much higher value. At the same time banks love it, because that $100k you saved towards a home loan now might only pay down 12% of the total property value instead of say 30% of the loan you're going to be paying off. A low interest rate is in every way bad for people who want to purchase their first home. What you want as a first home buyer is interest rates up around 18%.
LOL
Why would you ban it? I don't have the data, but on average I also believe that Aussies are around the 30% mark.
I thinks bubble will only burst when people start loosing job because of recession till people would keep empty investment property.
You can see many empty investment properties in market but owner do not sale it because they still get government money to hold on plus you can stop mortgage payment so you can hold on property. But if they start loose jobs and that would increase supply in market, which wonld out number demand that will burst bubble.
There should be no tax incentives for residential property speculation, but Shorten tried to claw back a little of the unusually generous tax concessions for investors and little Aussie battlers didn't like it.
Negative gearing isn't a tax incentive it's just accounting, if you make a loss while starting a business or in any income producing activity you can offset that against your income. The only actually incentives are for first home buyers and these do distort/drive up the market. If you want to reduce the cost of housing there is a lot to be done on the supply side, planning restrictions and building codes cause a significant cost as well as the limited land releases. Without investors a lot of projects wouldn't stack up and the new housing stock wouldn't be built.
Of course it's a tax incentive! Most countries restrict the loss from property investments to other investments, so you can offset it against those, not against income. But the real issue is negative gearing combined with 50% CGT discount, especially where they distort demand for the stock of existing properties. So restrict negative gearing to only new builds (for say their first 20 habitable years), and voila, you still have a strong tax incentive to build new stock, but far less incentive to invest in existing housing stock.
It's not an incentive it is how our tax system works for income producing assets, changing it would be a penalty for property, if you want it to be an incentive you have to give something extra for property over other investments (ie if they doubled the deduction of interest on an investment property that would be an incentive.) The restriction you are talking about is already somewhat present in how depreciation is calculated, far more tax advantage in purchasing a new property than an established dwelling, without depreciaiton most property is positivly geared with the current interest rates. The CGT "discount" is because you are realising a gain made in multiple financial years but only paying tax on it in one financial year and this "discount" was always part of the system, since CGT was brought in, to ensure we don't discourage investment.
Ever bought something like a laptop/phone and claimed it on your tax? Yeah, same concept….
The problem is that people need somewhere to live, property speculation is cutting into that. What needs to happen is to decouple that problem as much as possible from property speculation. Not an easy task at all.
The problem is that people need somewhere to live,
I stole your comment, thanks! Couldn’t agree more.
property speculation is cutting into that.
I don’t think speculation is the root of the issue. I think this is the issue — houses can’t be both affordable and an investment. These two things are, fundamentally, not compatible.
It is actually pretty easy to solve. The problem is people with assets do not want a change.
Absolutely not!
If you are ever in the position where you need to relocate for work but know you may not be in a position to sell (e.g. doing a 1yr secondment/contract in another town/city where daily commute from your home isn't viable), being able to rent out your home and have negative gearing plug the gap in losses will make taking on the secondment viable (in most cases, people will have a loss even after renting out).
Private investors also means that State Governments don't need to excessively fund affordable housing (which isn't really all that affordable anyway).
To deter excessive investing, they would need to look at a cap on number or value of investment properties any one individual AND any companies or trusts they are associated with can own.
But you'll probably find that if a cap on properties was ever introduced, the demand and price for larger primary residences (i.e. houses) will spike and we'll also see more of those large apartment complexes which are absolute eyesores pop up in all suburbs since they'll be the most affordable option for housing and most cities have housing targets to meet to accommodate population growth. Older houses will probably be bought up and redeveloped into large apartment complexes. Houses will end up out of reach for middle income earners.
If this every happens, I hope more people are willing to learn about body corporate/strata… as a property professional, I've vowed to avoid them going forward. It's not that they're excessively complex to navigate especially when you need to deal with a severe defect/maintenance problem… it's dealing with other owners who (obviously) only look out for themselves when the majority of body corp/strata laws are designed to have people think of the group of owners as a whole and be fair. There's no 'I' in body corp or strata at the end of the day.
Totally agree everyone need the opportunity to build wealth with upgrading their house ( capital gains free ) till retirement where you can have all your $$$$$ in a multi mil dollar property and then you have the right to the pension .
I worked 3 jobs so I could buy an investment property. That money I saved could have been used to buy cars and rent them out. Making it harder to attain a used/new car. I could have spent it on shares etc. The list goes on.
No matter what you invest in. There will be someone saying it's too hard and wanting a break.
I take your point, but I can kinda “choose” not to drive a car. I can “choose” not to buy shares. Can I “choose” not to have a roof over my head?
Let’s also be a bit careful equating hard work with wealth. I know it’s a very popular truth, but is it really?
Ultimately, humans will look out for #1, so I will refrain from toasting the champagne socialists.
If you "choose" not to buy a car you will most likely still need transport. Less affordable cars would mean more people using public transport causing more strain. No matter where you invest it's going to affect someone.
Tbh I have chose to have a van and a camper trailer as my roof for the last 2 years. This has saved me more money while working. Obviously this wouldn't suit everyone and I do see your point that a roof is quite vital.
Generally the more work you do, the more you are paid. The minimum wage in Australia is quite generous. If the min wage isn't enough Tafe runs free courses for anyone that doesn't have a job. Getting a certificate or moving to a remote location may be what it takes to get the deposit.
Can I “choose” not to have a roof over my head?
No.
But you can "choose" to either live in a smaller place or live with someone you know. Not everyone has to bow down so you can afford your 5bdr mansion.
Let’s also be a bit careful equating hard work with wealth. I know it’s a very popular truth, but is it really?
I wouldn't call it a 'popular truth' - it's NOT true. At best it's a popular myth. More likely it's a popular misconception favoured by those who are little more than lucky that what they are good at is particularly highly profitable…
You don't have to have be good at a certain thing to make money. I got my said deposit working at a car dealership as a TA, petrol station counter and washed dishes in a kitchen. I don't think that's about being lucky.
I take your point, but I can kinda “choose” not to drive a car. I can “choose” not to buy shares. Can I “choose” not to have a roof over my head?
You can adjust your circumstance
You can buy a car from $1,000 to $500,000
You can buy a house for $250,000 to $10,000,000
Or rent accomodation for $75 per week to $10,000
Your financial situation and your lifestyle need to align and then everything is possible. The problems only arise when somebodies financial situation doesn’t align with their expectations. But society is not obligated to cater for that shortfall between situation and expectation. Everybody is responsible to fill their own gap.
The problems only arise when somebodies financial situation doesn’t align with their expectations.
Their “expectations” of having a roof over their head?! Great expectations indeed.
I sense this is an echo chamber for the financially secure to humblebrag.
@tharlow: As I said above there is accommodation to meet every circumstance. There is only an issue when people expect greater than their circumstances allow.
Making it harder to attain a used/new car
For who? There are always new cars being built.
There is quite a large shortage of new cars at the moment.
Well there are extenuating circumstances.
@smartazz104: There's also a large amount of apartments available… especially in locations that aren't Melb and Syd.
A roof over your head doesn't mean house. Equally car does not mean Audi.
I can buy fractions of shares that i can't afford full units of. Doesn't make a difference as a buyer.
You can also rent a room in a share house. What’s your point. You can also rent a bed in a share room in a share house.
they said 'I could have spent it on shares etc.'
my point was that shares (equities) being more expensive doesn't make other people unable to invest. I can always buy some berkshire hathaway no matter the cost, even if i don't have 700k or whatever for a full share. if i want a house in sydney, i can't always do that, so the two aren't directly comparable
@burto95: But it’s about a meaningful purchase and scale. One share is not comparable to one house and will not get you far. If you want to draw comparisons you have to go to the bottom denominator and compare it to something as useless as one share. Maybe a tent in someone’s backyard.
@TheBilly: This only works if you are comparing equally valued products. If Amazon was 2M a share, then you could buy a Share of Amazon or a house in Sydney. There are houses available in Sydney in all areas, the question is if you can afford them.
Will never happen due to our politicians… Also they love to never fully disclose their properties.
I'd be in agreeance that foreign ownership of domestic property in Australia should be banned. Can't see how we can not only block Australians from owning a house but let the rental income go overseas too.
Banning offshore property investing would be good. People with very different buying capacities take advantage of different currency values / economic situations and reduce availability to local populace.
It also helps that most property investment that happens then would actually have a positive feedback loop, as that person resides in Australia and the money would loop back into economy.
Your points are in conflict if offshore investors are pumping large amounts of capital into Australia and are then adding to the rental stock so whoever sold the property is richer and can spend/invest locally and the rental stock is higher which drives down the cost of renting. In Sydney rent has been going down for apartments for some time as new ones come online and a lot of apartments purchased by overseas buyers are now worth less than they were purchased for.
I reckon the only ones that have lost money buying properties are very recent buyers, like 1-2 years ago; all others are on the green.
You're probably right about the external money adding some capital into the market; that said, that money inflates the prices too high, pricing people who just want to buy a home to live in out of the deal. Removing that from the equation would reduce inflation of property market, probably also drive rental prices down a little, allow more people do buy, and favour local investment with the positive feedback loop.
At least it seems to me that it would be beneficial, from the height of limited knowledge.
Non-resident buyers, for residential properties, are restricted to buying new properties or land and building new home within 2 years. https://www.realestate.com.au/news/the-facts-about-foreign-b… they also pay higher stamp duty depending on the state or territory (I think it is an extra 4% in NSW)
They are paying extra tax and only ever increasing the stock of housing, they are also increasing the demand for new properties which encourages development and land release.
@jerrus: From the same website: https://www.realestate.com.au/news/suburbs-with-growing-inte…
So, even with all these barriers, they're STILL buying, and there are loopholes like "buying to redevelop", which basically allows them to buy almost anything.
My point is that there is too much pressure in the system right now, which is basically pricing a lot of people out of the housing market, people that live here.
@gorgrond: that article you bring up is from the same website but more than 3 years earlier 02/2016 this is literally from the high point of overseas investment in residential property and even then the impact on prices was small.
From the 2019 article I originally posted
"Foreign investment into Australia’s property market reached a record $72 billion in 2015/2016, and many linked this high level of investment to the property market’s unprecedented boom.
But a 2016 Treasury study poured cold water on this idea, stating that “foreign demand has accounted for only a small proportion of the increase in property prices in recent years”.
Since hitting that 2015/2016 peak, however, foreign investment into the sector has plummeted. In 2016/2017, foreigners invested $30 billion into the country’s property market; in 2017/2018, just $13 billion – the lowest level in nearly a decade, according to FIRB.
even if the global economy implodes australian house prices will still go up
the libs have massive stakes in property which they will never let pop
So when ever any wealthy media star comes to Australia to live, they will get a social house as there are no rental properties.
And AirBNB or other temporary houses we use when we travel interstate, will now be allocated.
Everyone will stay in hotels?
What about people needing a short term rental house while they are say building their own? The government provides houses for these people?
Where are all these "social" houses built? So you get one but its 50km from where you want to live.
Who gets the social house by the beach and who gets the one near the meat works, or brothel. Are the rents the same? Do you pay more because you earn more? Can you save money like you do now when you share with others, or if you have a "big family" do you get a bigger house?
The shortsightedness of all these "great" and "simple" ideas is mind boggling.
Where are all these "social" houses built? So you get one but its 50km from where you want to live.
And who's fault is it that most jobs are centred on the big cities…
Thats irrelevant.
All jobs spread out creates probably more issues as people move around. You have a job in one region and you move. Bingo you need a new government supplied house to rent. Can the house go with you?
And again the silly assuption is that people want to live close to their job. If I work in a leather factory I probably dont want to live near that. I might want to live near the beach.
And what about housing for workers in seasonal areas. Does the government create those as well?
And you manage to score a rental by the beach, you change jobs but want to stay in this rental, so the government builds a new social house for the new employee.
And then you screw up and now have twins, so the governemnt builds an addition for you. Or you leave and move elsewhere. Who plans and develops these new buildings.
Problem is unless we plan everyones lives and tell them what they have to live, goes back to what I said
The shortsightedness of all these "great" and "simple" ideas is mind boggling
nah bulldoze coastal housing in lieu of reconstructing the native ecosystem and creating public areas like parks or walking trails and whatnot. not only would it look better it would also help prevent coastal erosion and assist local wildlife in flourishing.
This article is behind a paywall. Maybe that’s ironic, but let’s remember that even the ABC isn’t free.
In Holland they have tenancy protection. If you want to move into your home you can't, or renovate it or sell it, the tenant stays in it - unless there are unusual contractual arrangements perhaps. This means house prices of tenanted homes are cheaper to buy and have their own market. It also means renting a house is most common in Holland and tenants even paint and renovate the home. Because they intend to stay long term they often care for the home as if they own it. When they die their housematr/ family can continue living there as well!
In Australia you pretty much on the street the minute the owner decides to kick you out! The Australian dream of owning a home is not a dream, it's a necessity here. Renting a home for a family is difficult. In Canberra in the 70s and 80s for my parents, and still now it is very difficult to find a home when you have 2 cats, a dog and 2 kids and only one income. Good luck finding a rental in the area and keep kids in same school! This causes homelessness and despair. It also keeps the cost of home rentals and purchases going up. We must change this system.
Obviously the Dutch tenancy law also forbids owners to jack up rent now than CPI etc, meaning that you don't get the situation we have where poor people are kicked out to get higher paying tenants escaping covid from cities in … causing rent pricing to sky rocket. Wouldn't it be nice if you could rent and be secure, knowing rent can't go up unreasonably and you won't get asked to move out? Buying a rental investment would also be xxx% cheaper then finding a home to live in.
Disadvantages are people buying empty homes sometimes board up all the windows and smash all the internals to make it unattractive for illegal squatters with the intention of renovating and moving in in a few years time or so… once squatters are in they also have tenancy rights apparently!!!
The Australian dream of owning a home
If this is the dream, then (a portfolio of) investment properties are the love affair.
Why not just have a cap of 3-5 investment properties?
To keep the rif-raf out of the city.
Greetings fellow human! I think…
I can think of 3-5 reasons why that might be a tough sell. Let’s start by holding people down and injecting them, and leave the really hard stuff for later.
3-5 houses, you think they would just turn into a company.
SDA housing is the big profit maker at the moment (you optimise the house for a person in a wheelchair, and can under NDIS charge insane rent).
People will always, always, find a loophole.
per family or per person?
That is like treating the symptoms and avoiding the root cause at all. It is always about supply and demand, and artificially reducing demand does not solve the issue most of the time. So why not increasing the supply in a huge number?
We can start with approving more land release, more zoning for high rise residential and permitting more density, removing stamp duty, reducing red tape and costs for constructions, fixing tradies shortages, improving infrastructure in smal/rural towns, increasing state-owned apartments, and many more.
A lot of things can be done to reduce property and rental price.
BUT, obviously all the existing owners do not want the price to crash. Why would the politicians introduce any policy that will reduce the value of their properties?
It is always about supply and demand
No shortage of supply of land given we live in such a big country. It is just demand for property next to convenient locations are in short supply. You can build apartments but most people don't want to live in it, even those that do get stung by the over supply of dodgy builders / developers.
Look at the 1st comment why it won't happen lol .
Phase out negative gearing over 30 years, at the same time bring in tax deduction on primary place of residence.
Only people impacted would be those with more than 1 investment property.
Yes - something does need to be done. It may be as simple as removing negative gearing but not sure if going all the way to the extreme of banning investment properties is the right call. It would also be intensely difficult to actually get through politically unfortunately.
Pretty sure this is at least partly why Liberal party won last election - Labor wanted to remove negative gearing and it didn't go down so well. But houses in Australia are ridiculous and not getting any cheaper.
In my opinion, there are just too many variables for this issue to say that 'investors' alone are the source of all housing issues.
Investors do play a role in the challenge, as do interest rates, , gearing, employment, desirable/intended purchase location, salary, life-style choices, developers etc.
If we removed investors/developers and houses were only bought by 'first time' buyers, is there any data to say how much house prices will drop and that they will be affordable to those looking to buy?
As example, if house prices dropped but interest rates spiked, a first time buyer still may not be in a position to buy.
The issue is you need investment properties to provide a place of residence to renters (who may rent by choice). Yes everyone wants to own a house but some are more flexible and prefer to jump between houses. I read somewhere that ~9% of Australians own more than 1 property? Which, when you think of it is ~2 million Australians own more than 1 property, that sounds pretty significant.
Negative gearing - which fuelled the speculative environment we're in at the moment is adding fuel to the fire. If anything they should remove/reduce this now that the rental market is functioning and investors are driving up prices, creating a positive feedback loop that keeps renters renting.
Unfortunately due to the LNP's rich get richer policy this is likely to never happen whilst they're in power, and now that Labor have dropped the policy to remove negative gearing (thinking it's what sunk them in the last election), it actually wasn't, polls suggest that the majority of Australia want negative gearing scrapped, the future generation is going to be once again royally effed.
The only thing that would stop the unsustainable rise is a housing crash, which, when Australia starts importing people again next year, will then be avoided as all the excess stock will be snapped up by international buyers, Australia's immigration rate goes through the roof whilst our birth rate capitulates like Japan.
"Australia's immigration rate goes through the roof whilst our birth rate capitulates like Japan"
Not necessarily a bad thing from purely an economic POV. Importing a skilled immigrant who is able to work and pay taxes right away seems much more money-efficient (and time-efficient) compared to home-growing a working age skilled person locally.
I understand that it looks better on the books as they'll be taxed from day one. However what isn't documented is the increased strain on infrastructure and thus spending as a result of this.
When your future generation is choosing between kids or a house you know you're no longer serving Australians but more the coffers of big businesses and the tax department.
Genuinely curious what the increased strain on infrastructure is. Whether the population is increased due to births or immigration, the infrastructure has to improve anyways to accomodate that population.
In one way you could think that a new skilled immigrant actually has used up less of the infrastructure so far, as they wouldn't have contributed to traffic, claimed centerlink/hecs/other payments, or used schools/hospitals or other infrastructure etc while they were'nt here but still pays the same taxes as someone who grew up here who used all of that.
@hdus002: It also means that the new immigrant will want their families to join them. And they arent necessarily skilled in the same way.
No judgement, if I was moving to a new home in another country I would love my family to be there with me. And rightly so. Can you say come we'll use all your talents but you have to give up your family as well. I think not.
I travelled a lot (not now with Covid) and have friends overseas who would love to come here. I would love to have them as well but can the country sustain all these desires? I dont think so.
@hdus002: I'm more alluding to the fact that you're taking away births from Australians and importing cheaper labor from overseas which stifles wage growth and increases present day competition for the housing market.
Yes its all well and good that you get that instant sugar hit (tax dollars) by doing this but by increasing the population on an already strained (hospitals, roads, utilities, public transport) system then you're really not gaining much.
Basically what i'm trying to get across is that our government is propping up our economy (GDP numbers) by importing people to make it look like Australia is growing, whereas our GDP per capita is actually going backwards and hence our quality of life (less disposable income etc.)
@Drakesy: Says who? The current fertility rate in Australia is around 1.69. The top 5 reasons for this are : climate change, insecure employment, cost of living, lack of childcare facilities and reliable contraception, with most people choosing to have kids later in life.
Ahh the old 'blame the migrants' trick when you can't afford a property.
I think the biggest driver has been due to loan interest rates falling. The RBA say they’ve had to do this due to the lack of fiscal spending by our government.
Therefore, if you took out a mortgage 20 years ago in Sydney. Your cost to borrow has decreased which you’ve paid down your loan and generally have a massive amount of equity.
I think if rates went back up to 3%+ then we’d see the market stabilise. Sadly I can’t see rates ever going back up.
Yep, people have just leveraged themselves up to their eyeballs in debt.
Higher interest rates and they crack.
@Drakesy - I don't have any experience with that. I do know when assessing, banks factor in a few % rate rise. This still means people might be being assessed on 4 - 5% interest rate.
The best thing for the current generation and future generations is to have the housing market absolutely collapse and go back 10+ years. I just feel If rates continue to drop or stay low. we'll end up with a huge class divide like LA where it will be a split between wealthy and poor.
As a young person, who does own property. If I ever have kids, I worry how they'll ever step foot in the market. It wouldn't surprise me if the median apartment price in Sydney hits $1m. You just need to look at other global cities. NY, LA, London and HK to see what the affect of this is.
Who knows, maybe in 15 - 20 years when Get Y/Z/X make up the majority of parliament we'll see more progressive tax policies.
On another point, NSW Libs changed a lot of zoning to encourage massive amounts of apartments to be built. Which is fine, it's a good use of land. But they removed protection for consumers and allowed absolute filth and garbage to be built. This also made people hesitant towards apartments. If we built proper structures which lasted, more people would look at apartment living and this would reduce some of the demand for housing. I've seen some incredibly stunning and amazing apartments overseas (one which even have proper gardens). This whole asset recycling, short term profit and lack of confidence in this side of the market resulted in short term gains. Which Glady's government is now realising was wrong. More consumer confidence in apartments also benefits first home buyers as well.
We need rent caps and better tennant protection laws more than anything else (and im a landlord)
Can we also get tenants to take on the responsibility of paying for all maintenance associated with wear and tear? I've had some tenants look after my place properly and others who wear things out like no tomorrow. Just never seemed fair for landlords when they get tenants that just abuse property at that point where the tenant gets away with not having to pay for repairs on something. Gotta be fair for both sides right?
You are being paid. Its called rent. And anything you spend is tax deductible. It isnt for tenants.
Your rent factors this in…
Does a hotel add on additional fees for wear and tear?
Listen to this https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/the-signal/australian-…
Many other countries have more corporations as landlords. They make better landlords as they aren't jumpy about tenants potentially damaging their only nest egg. Corporations can own hundreds of properties and be able to afford to play on averages. Unlike the mum & dad investor who can't afford for anything to happen to their one or two properties max.
Yes
No, it would have unintended consequences. Let's not forget that Investors provide an essential service to renters.
Don't get me wrong I think it is a rubbish situation for first home buyers, I was one two years ago and can't say I feel terribly fortunate with the recent boom, though clearly less unfortunate than a first home buyer in 2021.
But there are many other reforms that could be made in this area, don't have to go to the extreme of banning investors.
Nor would it happen. The last federal election was lost in part on a proposal to ban negative gearing tax breaks on existing properties. That is a FAR less extreme proposal than banning investors, and it was still unpopular.
The biggest unacknowleged driver of increased housing cost is the rise of double income households, buying before having kids, increasing the amount of money/income that can be used to purchase and service higher loan amounts the lower interest rates are a major part but most people know this already. I'm not saying people should be restricted to having only single income households, just this has increased the demand for housing at a time where we have more and more restrictive/costly planning laws, building codes and land release policies. to get an idea of the costs involved in planning restrictions compare the cost of homes in texas (almost no planning laws or zoning restrictions) and california (massive regulations and restrictions) I'm in Sydney currently a mortgage broker, was an elected councillor for 5 years and have been on a local planning panel for 4 years.
The productivity commission has done a review on this and concluded planning is not a major driver.
There's all sorts of differences between here and Texas, e.g the tax system, much higher wages for construction staff, much higher median salaries here (not necessarily higher avg salaries).
A key problem with Sydney is that due to geography with the sea on one side and the mountains on the other, there is only so much useable land in a reasonable distance to the city.
not sure which productivity commission report your refering to? NSW productivity white paper https://www.productivity.nsw.gov.au/white-paper thinks there is a lot of planning reform needed to increase supply. My point was, comparing Texas to California not here, on the cost of regulation/planning controls and that it impacts supply, I'm not saying we should get rid these just that they have impacts.
If you look on google maps you will see that Sydney has plenty of land that could be released (not saying it should be) there are small farms that are not very economic to run around the edges these are slowly being converted into large homes with land as there is no real economic case for agriculture there. these are definitly being locked up to preserve the rural character by the greater sydney commission (again not saying they shouldn't but it is a reason for higher prices)
Also I found this in the "report on the inquiry into home ownership" from the house or reps standing committee on economics 12/2016
"2.176 On the supply side, there appears that much could be done and the
evidence to this inquiry predominantly indicates a housing undersupply.
The principle constraints on this, such as land release and development
planning processes, are largely an issue for the State, Territory and Local
governments. State and Territory governments need to do more to
adequately address land supply and ensure that existing policies and
processes are not unnecessarily causing an undersupply. "
Regarding those farms, a lot of them will be productive - peri urban areas are notoriously productive. The quote below is from sprout magazine.
"According to the University of Technology Sydney’s research project Sydney’s Food Futures, peri-urban land makes up less than 3 per cent of Australia’s agricultural land – yet it is responsible for nearly 25 per cent of the total value of Australia’s agricultural food production"
https://www.sproutmagazine.com.au/2021/04/farming-on-the-edg…
And those farms aren't exactly close to Sydney. They are developing Oran Park nearby those farms, and it's a 60km drive from the CBD. They call it part of Sydney - anywhere else that'd be called regional.
I will see if I can track down the productivity commission report I was referring to, which was from the federal level - looking into housing affordability causes in about 2012 - I agree things have changed since then. Planning reforms to address bushfire risk in particular will limit supply, but it's hard to argue against.
And yeh California is a bit different to Texas too, with LA being a mega city with half the population and San Francisco being fundamentally constrained. Incomes are also a bit higher in California. Maybe planning has something to do with it.
Residential property investment has always been around. Banning property investment wouldnt really work because:
-rental properties would go dark/underground (cash only), government will miss out on tax revenues
-surge in house prices now are because of ultra low interest rates not an increase in investment buyers
-like others have mentioned, too many politicians have vested interest in this sector (ie: they own a lot of investment properties themselves)
-it would cause australia to go into a recession
Yes but it's unlikely to happen.
GOOD LUCK in hoping for a ban because over two million Australians own an investment property or more, and any politician who proposes such a ban is committing political suicide.
we should ban non-Australian citizens from investing or apply 100% cgt to them.
Not gonna happen with a government in charges who get rich from property development
A house should always be first and foremost about somebody's Home, and not just an investment. Plenty more options out there for investments. For every investment property, there is one less property available for someone to buy as their family home.
So, do you want Australia become communism?
https://georgesalter.com/admin/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2…
Don't ban property investment altogether, just place stern, measured, considered, reasonable restrictions on it so that we don't end up where we are now.
Some examples that I have thought of after 10 seconds (so don't roast me if these aren't perfect, they're just ideas):
People crying foul over "Buut iF nO OnE InveSTeD WhERe woUlD PeOplE LivEE??!?!11one"
News flash: If houses were actually affordable, the amount of people that needed to rent would go down a lot. Instead of renting, moving, renting, moving, people would buy, sell, buy, sell etc.
Just because property investing is so popular doesn't mean it's right. There's a giant gap between the wealthy and the not so wealthy in this country and the property market, and the LNP's obsession with propping it up, is part of it. A big part.
Get rid of negative gearing except for new builds (grandfather it for whoever has it now).
Cut CGT discount in half.
Basically the very fair proposals Labor had at the last election.
I think that you’ll find that property investment in the Middle Kingdom is very popular and prices are skyrocketing there as well.
Lowest property growth is probably with Taliban radical Islam ATM. Maybe head to that paradise on earth……