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

          • @netjock: Oh, so I have to decipher your words by not interpreting them verbatim but rather assuming that you've made them in jest, even though you gave no hint as to the latter.

            Ok.

            • -1

              @CrushJelly: Saying there is no renters will be like saying everyone has a bread machine and will put bakers out of business.

  • +1

    What I hate about ABC articles is many of them are opinion pieces with clear bias presented, and I don’t like their omission of a comment section to query their viewpoints.

  • -1

    If your earning 100.000 in Sydney yeah your nothing special, but if your using that money to buy a housing portfolio overseas with loans then your some enemy of the state.

    • *you're

      • -3

        Not happening,( I'm not going to use you're over your)

        Get use to it.

        • Congratulations on being ignorant as well as uneducated.

          Also, it's "get used to it", not "get use to it"

          • -4

            @brendanm: Well ignorant I'll leave up to you, given uneducated people focus on the things that effect them the most, and we know how triggered you are, my little uneducated friend.

            Don't be afraid to reply back, I don't bite.

            • +1

              @LoserScott: *affect.

              my little uneducated friend

              You shouldn't call anyone this if you don't understand the difference between "you're" and "your", they mean entirely different things.

              • -2

                @brendanm: But you most definitely are my uneducated friend, (don't feel offended)because simply just replying makes my day.

                😋 Your special.

                • @LoserScott: You calling people uneducated while you refuse to learn something makes my day, so looks like this conversation is a win/win.

                  Your special

                  I know, my mummy told me so.

  • Maybe in a society where you cant really survive without shelter (that makes it a need, which pretty much every mammal on our planet would agree) we shouldn't be comodifying shelter. insert something about housing crisis, domestic violence, suffering and fat cats laughing at people suffering.

    • Real property isn't a commodity. It's the end product of commodities.

    • +2

      There’s 3 options: ownership, private rentals, and public rentals.

      Shelter is a right, ownership isn’t.

      It boggles me why people don’t understand this.

  • TL;DR
    Real property ownership will be reserved for people with high income.

    Homebuyers to need $200,000 a year in many suburbs if debt limits come in
    By Jennifer Duke and Elizabeth Redman
    October 23, 2021 — 6.00 am

    Homebuyers will need to earn more than $200,000 a year to buy a mid-range house in more than 270 Sydney suburbs if tougher borrowing limits are introduced.

    An analysis of what would happen if a cap limiting a mortgage to six times a borrower’s income came into force in Australia’s booming housing market shows individuals with a 20 per cent deposit would need an annual income above $100,000 to buy in hundreds of suburbs in both cities.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/homebuyers-to-need-2…

    The government shouldn't be using unfair rules that affect disadvantaged people to try and deflate the housing market.

    • Not an issue if they have crypto. :)

  • +1

    Lets see the couple makes $120k p.a. post tax, which I think the majority agrees.

    Banks uses something called HEM (household expenditure measure) as a baseline for assessing a couple's expense.

    https://www.savings.com.au/home-loans/hem-living-expenses-ex…

    So lets take the moderate annual expense of $32k, add in another $32k for rent (I think $620 is really high to start with, you are talking about lower north or eastern suburbs rent for a 2 bedroom), that still gets you to $64k. So the couple should be able to save $56k p.a. or 40% of their post tax income.

    Now in 4 years that would give them $224k, enough deposit for a $1m property in Sydney which will get you a good unit within 15km of CBD.

    Now suppose we use the lavish figure of $50k p.a. as living expense, that still leaves about $38k saving a year so about $150k in 4 years, which means they can get a $750k property which would be like 25km of CBD.

    Not impossible with 4 years of saving, I think if they are saving 10% then the couple is definitely spending too much on expense.

    • +2

      ABC not interested in the long term math because the media is for shot term sensationalism.

      Remember wanting your smashed avo and house at the same time. Now that avos are cheap maybe buy low and sell high, catapult yourself into the housing market by buying avocado futures.

      Or AvoCoin.

    • How dare you make sense :)

      • sensible and balanced views make for a great article, said no journalist ever

  • Watching ABC is the problem.

  • The price of the house is going up by more than their annual household income each year or two. That's the problem.

    This Liberal government wants to give tax breaks to people who have ten houses while not helping people get their first.

Login or Join to leave a comment