ABC Article on "Long-Term Renters" and Home Ownership - Ridiculous

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-18/record-house-and-rent…

I find the entire premise of this article absolutely absurd. Granted, the concept that home ownership is beyond reach due to circumstances that are outside of a person's control seems to be something we can all sympathise/empathise with.

That is, until you get to the second paragraph:

The 35-year-old teacher lives in Sydney's south-west and has been saving to buy a property for four years, ever since she moved out of her family's home.
Both she and her husband save 10 per cent of their pay cheque towards a deposit

  1. She only started saving at age 31?
  2. She is only setting aside 10% of her pay?

I might be missing something here, but this reeks of entitlement.
How can anyone choose to spend their entire disposable income until the age of 31 then complain four years later that they cannot afford to buy a home.

I personally started setting aside money when I first started earning money - before I was even 15. I am just over double that age now and have 2 apartments - both with approximately 50% equity and 50% loan outstanding. No help from family or otherwise.


Since @GrueHunter was kind enough to try and challenge my numbers:

To anyone that thinks this couple can't save more than 10% of their income, have a look at a brief weekly budget below, and tell me what else you add that accounts for spending the rest of your disposable income of $1,700 per week after rental expenses.

$160k gross income - let's say $120k clear after tax.
$620/week rent. That's $32.2k/year.
So they clear just shy of $90k/year, which is $1,700 per week for bills and food.

The below expenses total $612 per week. Add whatever you want as monthly subscriptions. But that couple could be saving MUCH more than 10%.

Items Weekly Monthly Quarterly Yearly TOTAL WEEKLY
Electricity $ (300) $ (23)
Gas $ (100) $ (8)
Water $ (200) $ (15)
Contents Insurance $ (1,000) $ (19)
Fuel $ (40) $ (40)
Car Insurance $ (900) $ (17)
Car CTP $ (600) $ (12)
Car Rego $ (300) $ (6)
Car Payments $ (500) $ (115)
Health Insurance $ (397) $ (92)
Gym $ (100) $ (23)
Mobile 1 $ (60) $ (14)
Mobile 2 $ (60) $ (14)
Internet $ (60) $ (14)
Groceries $ (200) $ (200)

Comments

    • It seems the only actual benefit is to give the illusion of stability. The whole Australian economy is a ponzi scheme, a house of cards. But as long as it appears stable it will keep standing. For a ponzi scheme to appear stable though, it needs to keep growing.

      • It's actually the "wealth effect". People spend on discretionary things if they perceive themselves to be wealthy which driving up house prices does.

  • +3

    I'm on $60k and saving as much on my own as they are between them - I'm also putting almost as much on my loan as I'm saving for a deposit to get it paid off quickly, so once that's paid off I'll be saving almost double what they are. Either the article is missing something substantial about why they can't save, or more likely what little it does have explains it.

    Why are they paying over $600/week in rent for 2 people if they're trying to save a deposit? Is it that they can't move further out, or do they choose not to? Are they in the cheapest place that they require to meet their needs? Where is the rest of their money going? Is it going on things they want that they think are needs, or things they actually need? It's fine to spend some on wants, but you have to recognise them as such and make a choice.

    I'm not saying that it's not harder than it used to be, I'm not saying it's fair, but if you want to buy a house you have to make it a priority and you have to make sacrifices. If you choose to live and/or buy in a more expensive area, those sacrifices need to be greater in other areas. If they've reached their income ceiling, they need more money from something else, or less expenses.

    I still buy a lot of things I don't need. Just in the last few months - I have a few subscription TV services, I bought a Nintendo Switch and heaps of games, a 3D printer with heaps of filament, I regularly get takeaway, littleish things like kitchen appliances, a pair of binoculars and the list goes on. I'm not exactly struggling.

    My advice to them, if they're serious, would be to figure out how much they need to save to buy a house in a reasonable period of time, then figure out how to live off what's left. It's clearly not working for them to just save what they can.

  • +4

    The article is essentially about skyrocketing prices for rent and ownership. And it does that well. It just starts out with a poor case study. I find it hard to believe in this market the best possible person the journalist could have found is somebody who lived at home until they were in their 30s, and also only tries to save 10% of their income.

    I think people need to be more open to living regionally. Metro dwellers definitely look down on the country life too much. There must be a stigma. But there are many places in regional Australia that are affordable to rent, have well paying jobs and are essentially little cities. You don't have to move for the rest of your life. Five years could change everything, if you're willing to step outside your comfort zones.

    • +2

      As someone who grew up rural and moved metro at the age of 18, I'd not want to live rural again until I'm ready to retire and become a recluse hermit.

      Unfortunately country towns have almost nothing to offer most young/middle aged people and a lot are unfortunately filled with pretty disgusting people and have massive drug problems. I'm glad my friends and I got out when we did, going back now is pretty sad (and scary).

      I experienced country life growing up and while I loved parts of it, now living metro I look down on it for good reason.

      • People's opinions of life in rural towns often changes with age though. Of course if you grew up in a small town and then moved to the city when you turned 18, you're probably going to see the country as a pretty unexciting, dull place. Chances are the moment in your life you moved, you were able to do a lot more as well. If a person's in their 30s, looking for a house and struggling to imagine they'll ever be able to buy a place in the city — moving to a coastal country town with 50,000 people isn't a terrible idea.

        • Yeah as I said I'd consider going back rural later in life, but most people would agree that it's not a great place to be early-mid adult life generally, id not consider moving to the country early in adult life simply to be able to buy a house as an option, and most others wouldn't either.

          Costal would be my preference and potentially would move there earlier, but prices anywhere costal within commuting distance of the city would generally be out of a first home buyers budget too.

          The crime a drug rate in a lot of country towns makes them very unappealing. 17 years in a rural town/city and 17 years in Melbourne and had far more issues in rural towns including being robbed, car broken into, car rammed into and had a knife pulled on us in country towns, nothing close has happened in the city.

    • +1

      The problem is that until covid hit, you always had to be in the office for a lot of the white collar work.

      if you were trying to get ahead and attending industry events or other things, it paid to be in a capital city because those other soft connections were more easily access and it could land you the next gig which pays an additional 20k or more.

      WFH being a new thing for most of corporate Australia is only a change that has been forced on most of us recently.

  • -4

    If home ownership is out of reach it has far reaching consequences for the economy and nation. People work hard to pay off their mortgage, =productivity. With no mortgage there's no obligation and less incentive to give a shit about your community.

    • +1

      Buying a house = giving a shit about your community?!? How exactly?

      If anything, those who don't spend their entire life Penny pinching to pay off a house their entire life likely give way more to their community by spending said Penny's within the local community, and have more time to volunteer and participate in their communities… Most people's I know who are home owners are probably the least active in their communities put of anyone.

      • Owning a house does because you now have a vested interest in it. You think renters are nimbys?

        • A very large proportion of renters are renting in areas because they WANT to be part of those communities. Just because a renter doesnt own the roof over their head, doesnt mean they dont have a vested interest in the community. I'd argue renters are much more likely to have a commitment to their local community and contribute to it. The LL Barron's who own the properties they live in have no involvement or interest in the communities where their rental properties are.

          In my block of 11 units there's two of us who are owner/occupier and 3 others renting, the rest are empty. None of the LL's who own the 9 rentals live in the same community as their investment property and all the renters are active in the community here.

          All my friends who moved to inner Melb (most still renting in their late 20's/early 30's) are very active in the community, supporting local Business etc. As long term renters they certainly are also NIMBY's as they consider their rental their home.

        • For these friends to buy a place they'd need to move out to the very outer suburbs to afford anything, and out there they likely wouldnt be active inthe community as much because

          A) They just spent all their money on their house and more likely to just stay home due to less disposable income, lack of facilities/PT etc.
          B) The other burbs/housing estates arent usually known to have thriving communities
          C) if they were to go out and contribute to a community, they'd likely be commuting back to the communities where all their freinds/familie and things they do are located and continue to contribute to those, not the communities they just bought a house within which likely lacks those things all together.

          • +1

            @SkMed: D) If they were out active in their new local community, they'd likely return home to find they've been robbed.

        • It's also a bit odd that you seem to think having a NIMBY attitude is apparently the only measure of giving a shit about your community…

          • @SkMed: A couple of people have implied this.

            It is in part the NIMBYs who keep housing more unaffordable by restricting housing supply in established areas. There are NIMBYs everywhere - especially in established inner city areas closest to the most employment opportunities.

            It might be desirable to local communities to protest against development or elect anti development Councillors, but it is not desirable for housing affordability or promoting housing supply. Arguably, it is disservice to the wider community though not in every circumstance.

            I am personally not one to salute NIMBYs though they often feel very moralistic that they're doing something for the community.

    • The concept you are eluding to is that of a 'stake in society' as bandied about by Industrial Revolution era economic and political theorists. They stated that property ownership is a valid reason to be allowed to vote as owners would value their vote as they have the most to lose and would be careful and rational with their decisions. I think this is as close as i can get to taking your comment 'With no mortgage there's no obligation and less incentive to give a shit about your community' seriously.

    • I totally disagree with that. I don't have crippling debt, yet I'm very productive and I'm motivated to work, even though I can retire pretty comfortably now.

      Debt is the chains of modern day slavery, its a bad thing.

  • +1

    Sydney is one of the most expensive places to rent or buy in the world, no matter how "entitled" people are in the article, it doesn't change that fact.

    • -2

      You can make choices that can help you.

      For example, I had a choice of investing in property in 2013 or buy Bitcoin. I chose Bitcoin and now I can buy multiple properties outright with no mortgage despite Sydney being one of the most expensive places to rent or buy in the world, it doesn't affect me because Bitcoin has appreciated way more than any of those costs.

      There are things outside of your control and things which are. Focus on things which are in your control to change your future and don't blame "the system".

  • +4

    I make $90k and am 39 and long ago gave up on ever buying a house. Seemed the more I saved, the more house prices went up, my rent went up and the cost of living went up. Seems like the only way to buy a house is to be in a couple with both earning a good living, having a way above average income, rich parents or an inheritance or completely sacrificing the best years of your life and living like a pauper to save every cent. Being single, making a medium income and still living life within reason? Good luck.
    .

    • +3

      It's a decent income. You could buy a unit though, even if you live in Sydney. It's doable. And if you're single why not.

      For instance take the below unit for 330k. You could get a loan with no LMI by saving 66k.

      12/53 Hamilton Road, Fairfield, NSW 2165 https://www.realestate.com.au/property-unit-nsw-fairfield-13…

      At a 2% rate of interest with a 30 year loan your repayments would be $226 a week on the balance, or approx 17% of your after tax weekly income.

      • +5

        Area looks pretty rough tbh.

      • +1

        Damn, imagine working on $90k a year and only being able to end up in that.
        That would be depressing.

        • It's not all he could afford, a 450k unit would probably be attainable. Just using it to illustrate a point.

          Perhaps the area is a bit rough I don't really know. Sign of the times that a suburb with a 900k median house price is seen as a rough area.

          • @acersaurus: Just goes to show how big of a bubble it is when the average wage can barely get you a dodgy flat.

            Feel sorry for those that are earning less than 90k a year

            • @Drakesy: And that's 6/10 full time workers who earn less than 90k.

              90k is the avg, but the median is about 80k. The avg is distorted by some really high incomes.

        • -1

          $90k aud is nothing.

          You lose about 30k to income tax, everything you buy is at least 10 percent more expensive due to GST.

          55k AUD is 41k USD… And Australia has disproportionately high infrastructure costs, and a population of 25mil… relatively low purchasing power compared to most countries in the world.

          All of my coworkers are American, I am pretty in tune with their cost of living because they always ask me about how the whole min wage thing here. We ran the numbers and agreed that it works out to be like $12 USD an hour if you earn 90k AUD to a year (if you work 38 hours a week)….

          It's hospitality money man.

    • +1

      You don't need to live like a pauper forever. You have a good income. If you save like a demon for a few hard years, you scrape enough for a deposit, get approved for a half decent loan, and get a toehold in the market now. Mortgage repayments are tolerable, but it's more important to lock in a price before the market truly leaves you behind.

      • Pity about the future generation though

    • Yeah I've seen a lot of people who dropped out of school doing low paying jobs who are now better off than people who spent years at uni and now can't afford a house. We are a backwards society

      • +1

        Society isn’t backwards. Peoples expectations are.

        Why are people going into $80k debt for a job that pays $40k?

        Uni isn’t the be all end all.

        • Society should be built on valuing education and actually, compared to other countries we are a little backwards. This isn't saying that they people who drop out of school aren't valuable or don't contribute more than most jobs, otherwise garbage truck drivers should be one of the top paid professions in the world. But if you want people to become a nurse, they should be paid for their time and effort they spend at university, debt, and opportunity costs and should earn more than someone who doesn't. That's just logic, no one is going to spend 10 years becoming a doctor if they're earning 50k a year, well you might but what sort of workers do you want in medicine, education, and engineering? I'm not saying uni is the be all end all either, I like that we are the way we are and not like America where you could be working full time but still live below the poverty line. However, at the same time we need to value people who do jobs that require initial sacrifices and expand our economy beyond natural resources, tourism, and selling education. Education use to be worth something and that's why we advanced to where we are now and why every engineer I talk to says Australia is 10-15 years behind even countries like Indian in so many fields (well, not the only reason).

          • @[Deactivated]:

            But if you want people to become a nurse, they should be paid for their time and effort they spend at university, debt, and opportunity costs and should earn more than someone who doesn't.

            This can be a tricky and dangerous path. Do we only reward nursing students if they complete and fulfill the degree obligations or do we also reward anyone who attempts at it? Nurse salaries in hospitals are defined by the government and whilst I don't know their calculation, I would believe it is determined by the governmental costs.

            What difference is the initial sacrifice for nursing students as opposed to say finance students?

            Education is only worth something when it is scarce and/or has a return on investment. Education is still worth something. It is just how it is perceived in the market.

            p.s. My partner is a nurse.

            • @pogichinoy: We're not going to reward people who just attempts it…

              What difference is the initial sacrifice for nursing students as opposed to say finance students?

              Well if companies want people to study finance and work for them, they need to pay them more than just some worker that didn't go through uni. Again, that's all I'm implying.

              It is just how it is perceived in the market.

              Yes and when it doesn't become financially worth it, then something's wrong. Engineers in America, India, UK, earn heaps more than they do here. I get the idea of the market value but there are also other sectors where the government can control pay like doctors.

              • @[Deactivated]: There is minimal premium for those going into higher education in Australia over the lifetime earnings compared to someone who did not to higher education.

                What it is, is actually that higher education has been made so accessible here that we have created high supply in many fields e.g law.

                Another reason is that trades in Australia pay much higher here than overseas, especially the USA. I suspect this is partly down to the role of unions and the CFMEU.

                One consequence of this is that the country isn't exceptionally unequal in terms of incomes, unfortunately we have become very unequal in terms of wealth and the housing market is mostly to blame.

                • @acersaurus: Yeah I agree. However, other fields like education and nursing have unions too but their working conditions are still shit haha

              • @[Deactivated]:

                Well if companies want people to study finance and work for them, they need to pay them more than just some worker that didn't go through uni. Again, that's all I'm implying.

                I don't think you understand the value of a person's work.

                Regardless of what someone's studies cost, its the value of the work they contribute that determines their income.

                Remember, what you study, does not always translate directly into a job, and subsequently, an income.

                Income control is not the free market. Just like rent control in the US.

                • @pogichinoy: And yet politicians can set 200-400k salaries for themselves when people are willing to do the job for less

                  • @[Deactivated]: Anybody can offer to do the job for less. Being effective is completely different.

    • -4

      I'm in my early 30s and can buy multiple properties outright with no mortgage. Don't blame "the system", you are responsible for things you can control. You can make choices which will set you up for success.

      I chose to invest in Bitcoin in 2013, it was a clear-eyed decision. My salary is chump change compared to Bitcoin and other crypto returns.

    • Maybe buy an investment property and let the tenant pay the mortgage along with using your income tax. At the moment you're giving your tax to the government, year after year. That way you and your partner (the tax system) can buy a place you'll eventually own.

      • Ah yes, pass the buck

  • +2

    That's how it is. System is rigged for the big guys. Work hard and/or work smart to get ahead. Invest wisely (can't stress this enough, saving up alone is not enough).

    But from the way people are living paycheck to paycheck around me, fingers crossed for them. Buying cars they can't afford, taking massive loans and maxing out credit cards for a Bali holiday, afterpay for everything, balance transferring their credit cards constantly. It's insane.

  • +3

    Teachers are not paid a living wage or given respect anymore and you think they're the entitled ones?

    And the attitude here is if you haven't been saving hard since you were young it's your fault. As if previous post WW2 generations needed to do that. What a lovely race to the bottom we have here.

    • https://grattan.edu.au/news/how-much-does-the-typical-austra…

      It's from 2019, but that was during the time they were "saving", only 20% of taxpayers earn over $80k. Are you saying that 80% of taxpayers in Australia don't earn a liveable wage?

      given respect anymore

      This is true enough. I respect teachers, I don't respect these two individuals complaining that they can't save more than $12k/year when they're sharing costs on $160k ($120k+ after tax), nothing to do with them being teachers though. Also nothing to do with when they started saving. They're not committed to saving, which is fine, but complaining to the ABC about it is ridiculous.

      The article would have held more weight if they'd used the example of a couple a little closer to the median income with child/ren. I'm not saying there isn't a problem but this couple was a bad example, because if they want to they can save and buy a house, despite the situation we're in now, they are choosing not to. Or if there is a genuine reason they can't save they should have included it in the article.

      • It's from 2019, but that was during the time they were "saving", only 20% of taxpayers earn over $80k. Are you saying that 80% of taxpayers in Australia don't earn a liveable wage?

        Are you saying that's a living wage for someone living in Sydney where an averagish house in the 'burbs costs $1M+ and you're paying between $1.4M and $1.6M over the life of a loan on that property? Let's say you have a working life of 45 years after doing your qualifications so you can earn that $80k. And let's say you take home $60k after tax. 25 years of 1 wage - more than half of that lifetime spent entirely on paying off the loan before you consider any other expense. That's before you look at stamp duty and upkeep and the fact that you have to spend the first few years saving that deposit and working up to your $80k wage..

        Take a look at this graph.
        https://www.businessinsider.com.au/chart-australian-wages-ho…

        An even better graph on page 18 here:
        https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2012/dec/pdf/bu…

        Dwelling price to income ratio has gone from between 3 and 5 in the 1980s to between 6 and 8 around 2010, and it's only gone up from there.

        don't respect these two individuals complaining that they can't save more than $12k/year when they're sharing costs on $160k ($120k+ after tax)

        That's just to get to the starting gate mate. Why would you even try given the above? Ever heard "Debt is slavery?" I should know. I'm the good boy more than half way through paying off my loan because I got in 20 years ago and I still very much feel owned. Even if the banks would let you, can you imagine making that faustian bargain with zero prospect of actually paying it off. The alternative - renting - is just as bad if not slightly worse. (Swings and roundabouts). Meanwhile the rich keep sitting on larger piles of assets and cash and the disappearing middle class is too busy pointing the finger at the next generation to even notice. It's messed up.

        Your empathy and respect for other people is more of a reflection on your character than of those other people.

        • +2

          Your empathy and respect for other people is more of a reflection on your character than of those other people.

          I'm on $60k (which is a liveable wage by the way) saving for a deposit on my own for a house in Melbourne and you want me to feel sorry for a couple on $160k who aren't even saving as much between them as I am on my own?

          Like I said, I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but these people aren't the ones I feel for because, if they choose to and are realistic about what they can afford, they can buy a house. 80% of taxpayers are worse off, many of them on little enough that they actually can't afford to buy a house.

          • @Miss B: Disclaimer: I'm not a financial planner. This is not financial advice. This is just back of the envelope stuff for the sake of discussion. See a qualified person for real financial advice.

            I'm on $60k (which is a liveable wage by the way) saving for a deposit on my own for a house in Melbourne and you want me to feel sorry for a couple on $160k who aren't even saving as much between them as I am on my own?

            What exactly does empathy cost you?

            Good luck to you. I mean that sincerely. I wouldn't do it, and by my calculation you won't get the opportunity to.

            Median house price in Sydney just topped $1.4M and Melb $1M..

            To pay that $1M off without Interest and assuming you paid no tax you would have to put every cent of that $60k you're earning in for over 16 years without even considering Interest. Once you add in interest it's 23+ years. Factor in $10k in tax, and you're looking at 28 years of every cent you earn. You won't find a bank that will lend you that. A quick google search shows they won't lend you more than 28% of your pre-tax income. 1,400,000 / (0.28 * 60,000) = 83 years. Just for the house. Before you even factor in basics like food and clothing, nevermind utilities. Of course that's not the only way that's a very faulty calculation because there is no way you'd only be paying 400,000 in interest over 83 years, and your maximum working life is 60ish years. Ok so that $1M house is not for you then.

            For giggles I thought I'd look at a more "affordable" house in a more "affordable" suburb - read long commute. realestate.com.au listed Frankston North as one of the more affordable suburbs if you can deal with a rundown old house. The article below has a house in Tallowwood Street, Frankston North, is for sale for $440,000-$480,000. I threw your stated income of $60k into St George's loan calculator and if you get your living expenses down to $200/month (yeah, good luck with that!!) you could borrow up to $484,180. More realistic living expenses of $1600/month brings you down to $457,137. $400/week for everything including food, clothing, transport, medical, upkeep of that house, council rates, and whatever passes for entertainment when this all gets you down - the lot - doesn't sound like much fun. So by that estimation you MIGHT be able to do it if prices don't keep going up. At the very least I can understand why someone wouldn't be willing to do it, even if you are! In your situation you would still have to rent if you didn't buy so it may not be that much better of an option. Believe it or not I do feel bad for you even though I think your own empathy leaves a lot to be desired.

            That couple will pay more tax and have larger expenses by the way. Particularly if they're so unreasonable as to want to start a family. (Teachers wanting children…unheardof right?). That same calculator says with or without kids that couple may be able to borrow $1,214,155 if their expenses are $3200/month. So they're in a better position for sure if they want to put all their money into owning a home and live on ramen…until the kids come along anyway.

            Sources:

            https://www.9news.com.au/national/australia-house-prices-mel…

            https://www.ato.gov.au/calculators-and-tools/simple-tax-calc…

            https://www.yourmortgage.com.au/mortgage-news/how-much-of-yo….

            https://www.stgeorge.com.au/personal/home-loans/home-loan-ca…

            https://www.realestate.com.au/news/melbournes-most-affordabl…

            • +3

              @syousef: I'm looking at places slightly less expensive than the one you found in Frankston North. I also have a backup plan if what I'm looking at gets too much more expensive. Also subtract the $80k deposit. I've looked into it instead of complaining that it can't be done. I'm currently living on around $14k/year after tax/savings (plus loan payments that will become savings)/rent.

              You're right, I may still not be given the opportunity, but if I don't try then I'm not really entitled to complain. If I can't get one when I first try, I am currently on a slow path to a better job (plus my pay goes up a bit each year regardless), now that I've found somewhere where my anxiety doesn't get in the way as much. So I may need to wait a bit longer, but I'll get there. Imagine if I was on $80k, I'd be golden, and still looking to buy in the same area.

              There's no need to feel bad for me, I'm doing fine. If I don't feel bad for me, why should anyone else? I have it good compared to a lot of people and compared to myself for most of my life - before I moved out of home life was horrible, when I moved out I was living on about $15k from a part time job, Centrelink wouldn't give me anything because my father earnt too much. For a couple of months I actually lived off nothing, my sister was generous enough to let me live with her and covered the expenses, I got food from a charity to help a bit because she was an apprentice chef which paid very little.

              I'm actually happy and feel very lucky to be where I am in life. That's why I don't feel bad for them, they have it better than me. I guess the thing is, if you've had nothing, you can appreciate what you do have more. If you have money and haven't experienced not having money, it can be difficult to understand how little you actually need, including having enough to be happy. I eat steak, salmon, go out for dinner, I eat takeaway.  I eat noodles about once every couple of months for lunch when I'm craving them but I certainly don't live off noodles. Life isn't as expensive as people make it out to be. Think about it, people on Newstart live on about $18k, it was about $15k when I was on it a few years ago. That includes rent. That was too little and it should be more, no arguments there, $60k is fine though, about 3 x the post-tax income of Newstart.

              They don't need to buy a $1.2m house. They could buy an $800k house, or a $600k house. The fact is, if my partner and I were both on $80k, I'd still be looking at the same houses in the same area, it would just be easier with a partner and easier on the higher income. As my income goes up, my loan will become easier to pay off. Rent keeps going up, the rent in the types of areas I live in has gone up 3 x since I started renting.

              • -1

                @Miss B: The question you need to ask yourself first s not "Can it be done?" but "Should it be done?"

                I think you're missing the point though. Houses are getting more expensive so by the time you and they save up chances are excellent you'll have been priced out. I guess you'll be able to spend the deposit on something you like, or invest it in some way, so it won't all be lost. But there's there are real perversity about someone in your situation being upset that people aren't willing to sacrifice the joy in their life to save up for houses that are twice as expensive as they use to be.

                There is a real danger of you looking back in your 40s, 50s, and 60s and wondering what you have to show for all the things you gave up.

                It's your life though. Choose wisely…and seriously have a little sympathy/empathy for others whose situations you don't fully know. It's free.

                • @syousef: Should it be done - this can only be answered by the individual buying the home as everybody's situation and values are different.

                  Can it be done - that's what this whole sub-thread is about..

                  • @May4th: Should it be done is about whether it is worth the sacrifice. Unfortunately it's something you can only guess at when the timeframe is decades and the circumstances of those decades can only be guessed at. The bigger a chunk of your expected income, the more wary you should be. This more than any other financial choice will have a huge impact on your quality of life. And I'd argue that with housing prices increasing so much compared to income it's quite the gamble. It's a very different question when you're talking about such a large amount of your income than it was a few decades ago. What 20-something has any idea if they're going to fall ill, be injured, end up with their relationships breaking down etc?

                    I'd consider myself lucky - fully employed for decades with no breaks, stable marriage and kids. I went in when it was easier, and I'm not sure it has been worth it. I sure as hell didn't know what I was getting into.

              • -1

                @Miss B: I bet the owner of the house you're looking to buy will be thrilled about all this effort and sacrifice you're going through to pay them 10x more for the house than what they paid. The problem is, if everyone lived on 15k a year and saved all their money for housing, the economy would go to shit to pay for overpriced housing, but no, congrats on you for setting such an amazing precedence

                • +2

                  @[Deactivated]:

                  such an amazing precedence

                  It's cute that you think I'm the first to live off that amount not including rent or savings. There are millions living on less than $15k per adult per year after rent in Australia. What's really appalling is that there is a significant number living on this amount or less including rent.

                  I'm not saying everyone should do it, but they could try living on a little less than $39k each after rent. If they cut back to $30k each after rent, they could save 2.5x what they are now. $30k per year savings instead of $12k. They don't have to if they don't think it's worth it. Maybe they can't because of something omitted in the article, but that just makes them an even more ridiculous example to use.

                  As I've said before, it's not that I think there isn't an issue with housing costs, it's just unless there is something substantial missing from the article this couple are among the least affected by it, given their individual incomes are in the top 20% of taxpayers. At least they can still go ahead and buy a house if they choose and they don't need to (genuinely) struggle to do so. They're a poor example of what is a genuine problem. One that isn't likely to be fixed in my lifetime, or as long as politicians profit from rising housing costs.

  • this woman was frozen in 1975 and recently unthawed that's why she thinks she can save for 4 years diligently and buy a property on a teachers salary. maybe she means she might have enough for a 5% deposit.

    I save almost my entire paycheck because I still live with my parents. (only notable purchase in last 3 years is a $3000 computer) If I continue to live at home and earn the same (similar to a teachers salary) and never pay rent for the next 40 years I'll be able to buy a small house. assuming the prices don't go up in those 40 years. also I'll be retirement age by then.

    no wonder some people just decide to say (profanity) it and start having kids now and raise them on government hand outs. unless your parents are giving you close to a million bucks or, you have the option and are prepared to live with your parents your whole life or you are a top earner, not 100k a year, more like 250-300k a year, you're going to be struggling just to accomplish basic goals in life like owning a small house and starting a small family of three. a medium size house and a family of four? forget it.

  • +8

    I have been in Australia for just above 7 years now. My partner and I saved every cent we could from day 1 for 2 years, that amounted to my entire paycheck and about 10% of hers. Year 1 & 2 our combined income was less than $130k per year. Was able to put down a deposit for a house after 2 years. We were content in getting a house in an affordable suburb instead of something like a shoebox apartment in the city for a million+

    Year 6, I could pay off my home loan entirely but chose to buy an investment property instead.

    Year 7, we are now a family of three, partner has taken a break from work for a year, cost of raising a child means I can't save as much every month but we still get by comfortably with some major purchases (car outright, huge TV, fancy gadgets, etc) without any issues.

    So ye, I agree that housing in Oz is expensive and the quality of the houses is shit for the money you spend. But if you really want to have a home of your own, I think it is still very much achievable in a few years as long as you have realistic expectations and you get in as early as possible with a deposit instead of trying to save up more.

    • -3

      Not everyone is so lucky to be able to save that much.

      • +3

        "Luck" had nothing to do with it.
        It was hard work to:
        1. Reduce any kind of waste or unnecessary expenses in our household. If I had bought anything I realised I wasn't using enough, I would sell it. I try to grow veggies and fruits in my own backyard from kitchen scraps. I was more that happy to use hand me down clothes for my kid from relatives and friends. I in turn gave away lots of things I had no use for.
        2. Never got complacent with anything I was paying for and always looked for the best deal (thanks OzB!). Regularly looked for the best internet/electricity/gas/SIM only plans and never paid for useless premium offering like those of Telstra, AGL etc.
        3. I didn't see any value in eating out for lunch and having barista coffee. I don't care for it and it is not a priority at all for me. That may seem "boring" to others. But I rather spend that money on the latest tech cuz that's my vice. I prefer eating home cooked meals instead of takeaway (but still do have takeaway once a week).
        4. I set up regular investment plans in various financial institutions
        5. I upskilled myself and changed jobs. Now my take home is about 100% more than what I had 5 years ago. I also do some extra work when I have the time to earn some extra cash.

        Those who win a lottery and set themselves up well are lucky.

        Those who are able, educated, healthy enough and commit to a plan and set themselves up well.. they worked hard for it.

  • Wanting affordable and housing and affordable rent is not entitlement. You dont know there circumstances and it doesnt matter if they started saing at 50 instead of 30, people should be able to afford housing, and rents should not be more than 1/3 of your income.

    Housing is unsustainable in this country and the government needs to do something to change the current situation.
    First step would be stopping the gravy train that is negative gearing.

    I doubt it will happen anytime soon though as its pretty much political suicide for any government to do so.

    There seems to be a bit of contempt for the "Have nots" from the ones that "Have". No one is entitled to 5 houses subsidised by tax breaks from the government. Ive always said owning your second house (and third and 4th) is easier than owning your first (speaking from experience) and this needs to change.

    • +5

      Wanting affordable and housing and affordable rent where ever you want to live is entitlement. That is the issue i think myself and most who are taking an opinion with this. I am in Melbourne, I wish I can afford to live in the leafy wide streets of Toorak, but I deal with the reality of it, and live where I can afford to.

      Owning more property after your first only gets easier in a booming market, and the last 10-20 years have been an anomaly of price growth, driven by immigration (ironically to grow the economy/GDP) and inter generational wealth of people using their property to help the next generation get in the market.

      There is no easy way to fix the taxation policy of it, if they grandfather it, it disadvantages everyone else who are not property owners yet. I also can't see how they would apply it to companies, as REITs and other investment firms use depreciation too, which if an individual had the means they can easily just setup a company to do so if it came to that.

      The only way to fix a supply issue is to actually fix the supply, better infrastructure (fast rail + light rail) so people can travel more easily and faster, opening up more land in the fringes of the city to residential development, policies to penalise empty residential property (which Victoria has but I am unsure how is this enforced).

      • +5

        Exactly. I agree with your thoughts. The phrase "where ever" is the critical missing piece. I wish I could buy a place in Vaucluse in Sydney. Guess what, I can't…. so let me moan about it about how the world is unfair, hating on society, woke culture, ban this, ban that… honestly, grinds my gears.

        People also don't seem to understand the concept of negative gearing - they think landlords make money from it. Its just ignorance. There was another thread similar to this one where we calculated the scenario of negative gearing. 1) those landlords costs are real and 2) only if the costs exceed the income gained from rent is the net loss is used help offset your personal tax, which mind you, you only get partial benefit. On top of that, most places aren't even negative geared anymore because of how low the interest is.

        Although on a different but somewhat related topic, there is probably more merit in discussing why government housing or subsidised housing are in sought after areas, close to CBD, etc. Some food for thought.

    • +3

      I'm supportive of social equality, within reason.

      Put it this way, many have worked hard and have sacrificed in order to not rely on social welfare, for lack of a better word.

      Someone's ability to buy multiple properties isn't generally a fluke. I don't understand why you would want to take that away from someone. That would be a classic value shift and more or less goes against a capitalistic world we live in.

      Remember, one should expect equality of opportunity but lets not mistake that for equality of outcome.

  • +1

    Millions of people's savings just went up >3.00% in a matter of a few hours.

    If your savings didn't do that then it's going in the opposite direction.

    People that keep saving in the old way will be left behind.

    • +2

      My savings went up way more than 3% hahahahah

      If you are still working and saving money in the bank, you are doing it wrong, you are going to fall further and further behind.

      This is why I'm astounded by why people would vote against their own interest. The ALP in the 2019 election had very clear policies which will help the majority of Australians, yet enough of the electorate voted against them for ScoMo to squeak a close win. I'm in the coalition's key demo and I can see that the coalitions policies will hurt a lot of low to middle income Australian, can't believe they can't see that.

      For me, it would be more financially beneficial to vote for the Coalition and root for them to win, but I think a lot of people will be hurt by their policies.

      • +1

        The general voting public isn't very smart, last election was Murdoch media corps using their influence to spout propaganda pieces for Federal Liberals, and we as a nation fell for it.

        Amazed when people still talk about when it was record interest rate under Labor decades ago, and if they knew the context of it, it wasn't a problem, well not as much as it would be today.

        • Yea, unfortunately most people are not financially literate. I remember those attack ads from the Coalition, so dumb, saying the Coalition will keep interest rate low (they did no such thing) and reminding people interest rates were over 20% under Labor in the 1980s.

          An educated person wouldn't have fallen for those ads, but then those ads were not targeted towards me, I can see through it, but most cannot.

          • @techlead: Interest rates are set by the RBA for the precise reason that politicians don't we use them as a political tool to win elections, yet the Libs tried to sell it to the public anyway that they could.

            You are correct most people cannot see through Liberial Party lies. Expect plenty more as we get closer to the election.

        • Governments will do whatever it takes to keep people occupied and compliant.

          They encourage people to sign up for a 30Y debt is one of the many tricks they use to keep people chained to the treadwheel. Killing people's savings by inflating their fiat money is another.

          There is a better way to protect one's savings and that way doesn't include selling 30Y of one's life.

  • -2

    Everyone can afford to buy a house, just not where they may want to; plenty of affordable realestate interstate across the country.

    Cats want The Rocks or St Kilda, cats need to come to their senses…

  • +1

    10% is a joke. I'm sorry but it's just not feasible.
    To get a deposit for our place we saved the equivalent of >40% of our take-home pay for 2 years.

    • -4

      That's definitely not true, I saved way less as a percentage and I can buy multiple properties with no mortgage.

      My first Bitcoin buy was at $2000, now 8 years later, its worth over $170,000. That's just a once of saving of $2000 8 years ago.

      Of course I bought more. Crypto was my savings account for the last 8 years, I just bought crypto with all the free cash I have and I still continue to buy to this day.

      • +5

        weird flex? :D

        • -2

          Not a flex, just highlighting how its not as dire as everyone makes it out to be. People think the system is rigged against them and whatever they do, they can't get ahead, this is not true.

          Yes, its difficult to buy property, however if you make the right choices, its not that hard.

          I'm not saying what I did is the only way, its one of the possible ways. I'm sure there are many others who have found other ways to get ahead.

          • +1

            @techlead: You got lucky on an investment, and are now giving out financial advice?

            • -2

              @druex: Do you consider people who got rich from property, lucky? I didn't win the lottery, nor did I buy some crazy options to bet it all on one direction of the market during the GFC.

              I understood the macro trends, I knew Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies will become an integral part of our society, just like cars and the internet and I invested accordingly. There may be a sprinkling of luck, but luck has largely nothing to do with my investments in cryptocurrencies and my success from it.

              I've never given out financial advice.

  • +1

    As someone who's saving for a house and mid 30s I have basically given up on having kids. If Australia wants more population best we start importing them like our cars.

    • -2

      Don't be disheartened.

      I'm in my early 30s, with a kid and planning on a second one. I can easily buy multiple properties with no mortgage. Its definitely possible, you just need to find a way.

    • We have been doing this for the past 20yrs! The biggest driver of Australia's economic growth lays squarely at the feet of population growth from migration.

      And believe me, the government cannot wait to open the gates back open to more imported labour (ie people).

  • Some people are either not switched on with saving or never had home ownership on their radar until a significant life event changes their mind (new partner, having a child etc)

    Ive been saving since i was 23, now 31 and in a great position however regret not saving earlier.

    Guy i work with is 42 and looked into building this year for a few weeks then got lazy and couldn't be bothered, he lives in a horrible rental in the city and always complains about how bad renting is.

  • 'buy it and rent it out as an investment property so they pay your mortgage' people say. Ah yes, pay more for property so others can't so they rent it from you instead paying for your financial decisions because they can't afford a home.

  • +1

    I have been working long hours last 15 years to
    Be able to own 5 properties, with approx 60% equity being just few years under 40.

    Impossible is nothing

    • Right on!

      Most people seem to be afraid of hard and smart work.

  • -6

    I honestly laughed at some of the budget assumptions you put in. Who spends only $40 in fuel a week? And only $60 a month internet?

    • +2

      I spend $40 on fuel for almost a month (hybrid SUV) and use public transport for work.
      I spend $59 on internet per month.

    • +3

      I spend ~$35 per week on fuel (diesel guzzling 4WD), WFH, but drive the missus to work every day.
      TPG FTTB is $60

      Thanks for playing.

  • Both sides make good points. Consumerism has made majority of the buyers not having enough savings to afford a dwelling in the suburb they want. They made their choice and have to live with it. Those that saved up through blood sweat and tears should be acknowledged as wise and heroes, while the rest are dumb@#$%

    On the other hand, buyers are complaining house price to income ratio has jumped from around 4 ten years ago to over 5.5, more if in Syd/Mel. The quality of housing has gone down and buyers are being pushed further from the CBD to afford an apartment vs if they had the same equivalent income 5 years ago would have got a small house/duplex.

  • +2

    Too many people overborrowing or just plain rich going bonkers wanting a house and driving up the bloody price.

    Not sure why people suddenly decided that renting was bad, might be a dumb fad or something that sheeples thought was cool.

    Then you got people earning over $140K a year complaining they can’t save while most toil for less that that and still save something. They just can’t get over themselves with their first world problems.

    Kinda makes you wonder about how society values actual intelligence when you got high income earners that are this stupid.

  • +1

    Maybe it's time embrace multi generational living. In a sense they are able to double their budget for a house if sharing with parents. This allows you being able to take care of each other and also afford a home in a better area.

    • +3

      Everyone doing this means prices would just double again…

      Another reason why housing prices are so high this generation is that we have two income house hold

      Its advantageous if only you do it… not so when everyone else does it. The bar just keeps rising

    • China tried doing that,
      Ended up with Evergrande.

      Really depends if the CCP bail them out and kick the can down the road.

    • If you stick more people in one house and they each have an income or savings then the price of housing just continues to rocket higher because people can get even larger loans.

      There was a time when someone on a single income could buy a house in Sydney within 30km of the CBD. That time has passed. Now two incomes are needed. If we have multi generation households like in China then grandparents, parents, and children pitch in to buy one house. We don't want to go there.

  • House prices keep rising…. Is there no end to this greed and madness?

    How does capitalism actually reward people? With more debt?

    • It isn't capitalism. It is just people in a mind warp:

      1. They believe it will double every 7 years and act accordingly.

      2. They try to have it both ways. To live in and also as an investment. It is the the BMW as an appreciating asset joke.

    • -1

      Just goes to shows how undervalued property prices were years ago. Australia is catching up with the rest of the world. Unfortunately this is a result of globalisation and locals with wealth.

      Capitalism has improved quality of life, and supported products and services.

      Ownership is a privilege. 30 years isn't that long to pay off a home loan. I recall reading on average it takes Aussies 17 years to pay it off.

      Don't want debt? Just rent. Don't want big debt? Buy something way below your means.

      Remember that in big cities like Sydney, you're nothing special with your $100k salary.

  • My only comment is if every one saved as much as the poster, then, house prices would be much higher.

    • -2

      Or everyone would own their own home and nobody would be renting. OP would be in financial gutter paying for 2 apartments with no tenants.

      • That's quite a shortsighted perspective.

        There is always a market for those that want semi-permanent housing. Uni students that want to live closer to campus, ex-pats that are seconding to Australia for a couple of years, interstate medical students who are undergoing their placements.

        Not to mention Airbnb-style holiday accommodation.

        Don't be so naive to think that the only people that live in a home are those that want to own one.

        • -1

          Didn't cross you mind that I said it as "obviously not going to happen"

          Stop being salty with your two apartments with people who have none.

Login or Join to leave a comment