Coalition's Proposed Plan To Enable First Home Buyers to use Up to $50k in Super Towards House Deposits

brendanm on 15/05/2022 - 20:30
Last edited 16/05/2022 - 15:11 by 1 other user

Well, another genius bit of vote buying responsible fiscal management has been announced. First home buyers will be able to withdraw up to $50,000 from their super, not to be confused with the FHSS scheme, where the money had to be voluntarily added to your super fund first.

So the price of housing increases purely because people will instantly have more money to buy with, same as it did with first home buyer scheme, covid building grant scheme etc. On top of that, we will have people taking out huge chunks of what is meant to sustain them in retirement, missing out on a tonne of compounded investment returns.

Do people actually buy this rubbish? So they actually think this is a responsible thing to do?

Link here thanks to Hybroid

Financial Federal Election First Home Buyer Superannuation

Comments

                • SlavOz on 16/05/2022 - 12:04
                  -1

                  @smartazz104: While the rich areas have gotten richer and more powerful. Most likely a total coincidence…

                  • Caped Baldy on 16/05/2022 - 12:10
                    +2

                    @SlavOz: That's by design. Fox media blasts the poors and they keep voting that way.

                    There's a combination of "it become rich later I don't want to pay more taxes" and single voter issues like abortion and guns. 'murica is a whole other mess compared to Australia.

                    • MrThing on 16/05/2022 - 12:37
                      +3

                      @Caped Baldy: plenty of memes out there about rich v poor in america.

                      if you drive X, or live in this suburb, or you work this job, you went to this school, your this ethnic background or you do x y z…….you dont need to worry about these tax hikes

                      conservative talking heads in america are great at stirring up the financially poor and intellectually poor people to vote conservative saying the other guy is going to take your guns and hike your taxes and take your jobs and give them to immigrants.

                      when in actual fact, its the conservative party who is pro-big business punching down on the poor, voting against socialised health care, voting against social housing, voting against raising taxes on the ultra wealthy to fund these things.

                      if your population is poor and stupid you have great power to influence and misinform. and the american population generally is getting poorer.

                      • SlavOz on 16/05/2022 - 13:15
                        -2

                        @MrThing:

                        conservative talking heads in america are great at stirring up the financially poor and intellectually poor people to vote conservative saying the other guy is going to take your guns and hike your taxes and take your jobs and give them to immigrants.

                        Sure, as if the progressives don't build their entire campaign on making fake promises to the poor. Vote for us and we'll increase wages for criminals, repeal cash bail laws, give you free money and other crap, everything will be dandy!

                        They've been doing this for over 50 years, particularly aiming their message at minorities, and those groups have only gotten worse off in that time. The war on poverty was the worst thing to ever happen to the black community. It created an incentive for women to be single mothers…as a result over 70% of black kids are raised without a father, which leads to all sorts of terrible outcomes. Yet the left has the gall to continue aiming their message at this group today, saying that conservatives are going to ruin your life…

                        The data doesn't lie. Minorities have voted left for decades and they've only gotten poorer and worse off. They complain about systemic racism yet they don't realise that their votes are funding that very system.

              • pais on 16/05/2022 - 13:18
                +4

                @SlavOz: Rural voters regularly vote against the interest, more news at 11.

                A lot of these areas vote National based on a hangover from when Nationals ran on a platform of agrarian (read: agrarian-socialist, gasp) policy.

          • MrThing on 16/05/2022 - 12:33
            +3

            @Thaal Sinestro: Its simple economics that if childcare is fully subsidised that workforce inclusion will go up as women can go back to the workforce and contribute - isnt that what we all want, more women in the workforce, more diversity?

            rather than say, if i go bust my ass each day and have to pay child care as well, I end up in a net result of $0 earnt (or worse).

            • SlavOz on 16/05/2022 - 13:26
              +1

              @MrThing: In other words, the working class/poor are too stupid to know what's good for them.

              Good on you.

            • SlavOz on 16/05/2022 - 13:31
              +3

              @MrThing:

              isnt that what we all want, more women in the workforce, more diversity?

              Encouraging women to work 8 hours a day for The Man is not diversity or empowerment. You're just taking them out of one role and putting them into another - and the data shows that they overwhelmingly prefer to raise their kids than become a slave to the system.

              • MrThing on 16/05/2022 - 13:46
                +1

                @SlavOz: at the moment they dont have a choice to do one or the other.

                what data do you speak of? post link from your credible source

                • SlavOz on 16/05/2022 - 17:08

                  @MrThing: There is nothing stopping women from pursuing a career or a family, or both.

                  Women by and large have shown that they prioritise family life over their careers. There is no ball and chain here - it's their decision which they make.

                  https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/women-m…

                  https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/15/its-natural-for-women-t…

                  Encouraging women to pursue a career at the expense of a family makes them miserable. Of course corporations and the governments want it because of the economic benefits. It means more tax money for the state and more employees for corporations to exploit. But society is better off with children being raised by their own parents rather than having it outsourced, as economically challenging as it is.

            • [Deactivated] on 16/05/2022 - 15:59
              +1

              @MrThing:

              isnt that what we all want, more women in the workforce, more diversity?

              No. If we all wanted the same thing, we wouldn't need parties. We could just implement the policies that everyone wanted.

          • SlavOz on 16/05/2022 - 13:07
            +1

            @Thaal Sinestro: There's a reason big corporations push left-wing ideas. Progressive policies make life much easier for them. UBI means they can pay their workers less. Mandatory vaccination guarantees an unlimited flow of customers. Minimum wage or other regulatory practices means small businesses can't afford to compete.

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 16/05/2022 - 13:58
        -1

        Fix the housing boom by giving more money to Boomers?

        this is the issue with a number of my fellow Millennials you simply lack higher order thinking…. as this point is incredibly shallow - here is how you need to look at encouraging boomers/older Australians to downsize

        actually i'd argue it will 'take' money away from boomers - Boomers right now are in multi million dollar houses they dont need and cant or soon wont be able to maintain but the land they sit on historically will increase by far more then the 300k super offset

        most of them will hit an age when they will require government assistance to live at home or be forced into aged care either way will cost tax payers a buck-load.

        They also will continue to gain value on a property they 'do not need' instead of allowing a 5 person family living in a 600sqm 40 square houses an 67 y.o boomer pair continue to dwell there till the physically cannot

        it would put downward pressure on the housing market unlike what every other party suggest it is a policy that will lower house prices as it would increase supply of larger homes on the market.

        it ill cost boomers/ Australians a lot more then they will gain as they will miss out on any 'capital' gains they might of gotten living in there mcMansion for another 2 decades

        a lot of the big blocks will end up being picked up by developers/builders and divided to multiple units/town houses also increasing housing supply.

        i know people here are not that bright but try and think past the media headlines and how things will pan out long term - the system for older Australians is 'anti-downsizing' if you want practical changes that help the housing crisis this is the 1st policy from any of the 'major and minor' parties that would actually help the situation without causing a mass recession or crunch to renters and investors.

        as i said the using super to buy a house is 'dumb' it just makes the situation worse short term it helps 1st home buyers long term in screws the next generation trying to buy a property. Encouraging down-sizing by lessening the financial blow is a long term good policy that ensures property cycles though the generation instead of remains banked on those who 'got in early' enough

        it would be an even better policy if it went a 'step further' and encouraged all Australians to live in 'small properties' ie bigger incentives for those who live in Apartments/life style communities/units/townhouses.

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 15/05/2022 - 21:57
    +9

    50k from super

    Yalls have 50k in super?

    • MrThing on 15/05/2022 - 22:06
      +11

      ya'lls have super?

      • avoidfullprice on 15/05/2022 - 22:18
        +9

        They'll need at least 125k balance to draw 50k. Not that I'm keen on the idea. Younger people won't have that kind of balance.

        Even if they do because they are in their late 20s or early 30s, I can see after people draw this out to pay for deposit, when they flip/upgrade the house they need to put the amount back and go oh shit now I have no deposit to buy next house.

        Kicking can down the road.

        • MarsTitan on 15/05/2022 - 22:35

          Unless you use equity from the previous house..

        • Lunarboogie on 15/05/2022 - 22:36

          👆🏽this. This policy will benefit 30 - 40 year olds who are the exact demographic who need help the most. They need a home, before they begin spitting out rugrats and they are the same cohort who got slammed with things like rising HECS debt and out of control house prices. Talk about an unlucky generation (not trying to boomer bash).

          If this can help them obtain a roof over their heads then I am all for it.

  • pinchies on 15/05/2022 - 22:12
    +25

    This new policy is so short-sighted. I'm mad, and so is Paul Keating (the designer of our Australian superannuation model). Seems like both sides will do whatever they can to (a) keep the housing bubble going and (b) avoid touching negative gearing.

    • avoidfullprice on 15/05/2022 - 22:29
      +16

      Don't forget there are people who already withdrew 20k out during the last few years to fund such activity, and now facing mortgage stress. This new policy will hurt the very people it is designed to "help". Sigh

      • SlavOz on 16/05/2022 - 10:27

        Nobody is forcing you to withdraw super. It's an option for people who decide it's a suitable strategy for their financial needs.

        People have literally begged, kicked, and screamed to be allowed to withdraw their super. We heard it during the pandemic. We heard it during the fiasco around cracking apartment buildings making people bankrupt. We heard it during the recession.

        Now you give people the option to do whatever they want with their own money and it's bad policy.

        • pais on 16/05/2022 - 10:52
          +9

          Nobody is forcing you to withdraw super. It's an option for people who decide it's a suitable strategy for their financial needs.

          If, as a collective, people were wise financial planners, there would not be a need for Super at all.

          • SlavOz on 16/05/2022 - 11:29
            -1

            @pais: I agree, but there are always going to be exceptions to the collective. There are indeed people who don't need super and can save their own way for retirement, depending on their unique financial strategy.

            They should not be locked into the same savings plan as everyone else. The freedom to choose their own path is a good thing.

            That being said, given that most people struggling with house prices are young millennials, I doubt many of them will find this suitable.

    • Herbse on 16/05/2022 - 09:58
      +3

      If they cared at all about housing accessibility, they would do this and grandfather negative gearing. Which would be a clear sign that they want people who want to live in a home, to be able to afford one.

      But this move is a clear sign that all they want is their investment portfolios to increase.

    • ColtNoir on 16/05/2022 - 16:49
      +3

      Labour got slaughtered for trying to touch NG in the last election.

      My hope is a hung parliament having to be decided by greens/independents who'll hold forming government ransom unless they address NG.

      As someone who's moved 90mins from Sydney in the hope of liking the area enough to buy (central coast). Here’s to ‘the dream’

  • spackbace on 15/05/2022 - 22:19

    For my own personal reasons, I'm a fan, but that's mainly to escape the rent trap sooner (brought on by things outside my control at the time.

    But everyone's circumstances are different

    • pinchies on 15/05/2022 - 22:50
      +15

      You're a fan of a policy that will mean other first home buyers will have additional resources to bid against you? Doesn't that mean you're likely to pay a higher final price?

      Presumably, you're hoping that with your own super saving, combined with your partner's, that you will have more of an advantage than others?

      Since super comes from a % of earnings, this policy will de-facto benefit most those that are already the most privileged …

      • spackbace on 16/05/2022 - 00:30
        -2

        You're a fan of a policy that will mean other first home buyers will have additional resources to bid against you? Doesn't that mean you're likely to pay a higher final price?

        Unlikely. I aim to buy in a suburb which is already on the way up. If I'm not bidding against first home buyers, it would be investors and boomers who plan to add to their huge portfolio.

        Presumably, you're hoping that with your own super saving, combined with your partner's, that you will have more of an advantage than others?

        Don't presume. The added money would get our foot in the door, simple as that.

        Since super comes from a % of earnings, this policy will de-facto benefit most those that are already the most privileged …

        Wrong again buckeroo, unless you consider everyone with a job to be privileged?

        $100k+ super is achievable by 40yo to most people

        • pinchies on 16/05/2022 - 01:09
          +5

          Thanks for your reply… I certainly didn't mean to hit a nerve, sorry. I still don't understand how this policy benefits your situation.

          Since super comes from a % of earnings, this policy will de-facto benefit most those that are already the most privileged …

          I stand by this statement. You are bidding against people of all ages, including those with higher incomes — $100k+ super is also achievable at younger ages too, and you are bidding against those people too.

          This policy might save you money in the long run by helping to take a chunk out of the principle balance, but if you're using this policy to help stretch further into larger mortgage than otherwise, then perhaps it will actually cost you more money in total interest paid in the long run.

          • spackbace on 16/05/2022 - 01:21
            +1

            @pinchies: Nope, using it to get out of the rent trap, which I commented earlier. Rent money is dead money, we all know it, but because of circumstances I've ended up in this rabbit hole and want out.

            Looking to 'borrow' $30-40k out of mine if this scheme goes ahead, in order to buy somewhere. Income covers the amount I want to borrow but I'm unable to with the current deposit saved. The money will get tipped back into the super when I sell the house down the track anyway, so retirement won't be affected.

            Basically just borrowing off myself.

            • onetwothreefour on 16/05/2022 - 07:45
              +8

              @spackbace:

              The money will get tipped back into the super when I sell the house down the track anyway, so retirement won't be affected.

              You'll be missing out on X amount of years of compounding, so your retirement will be affected.

              • Boogerman on 16/05/2022 - 07:47
                +4

                @onetwothreefour: "You'll be missing out on X amount of years of compounding, so your retirement will be affected."
                Bingo!

                • deveshwar0 on 16/05/2022 - 08:19
                  +1

                  @Boogerman: Not for certain.
                  From the policy:
                  "whatever amount is invested will be returned to your super when you sell the home, including the share of the capital gain from the sale of that home".
                  So you have to possibly return more to your super than you borrowed in the first place which hopefully negates the compounding factor.

                  • onetwothreefour on 16/05/2022 - 08:38
                    +1

                    @deveshwar0: But then you'd be losing out on having that extra cash in your bank or to invest elsewhere.

                    I guess the point is to DYOR and be aware of all pros and cons of this.

              • spackbace on 16/05/2022 - 09:59
                +2

                @onetwothreefour: Yet putting money towards an appreciating asset, not losing money on rent…

                • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 10:03

                  @spackbace: How dare young people make decisions that can benefit them financially?

                • onetwothreefour on 16/05/2022 - 10:36

                  @spackbace: But you'll be paying increasing interest on your mortgage which essentially is losing money. All I'm saying is make sure you do the numbers and maybe get some advice from someone qualified before you jump into it.

            • nigel deborah on 16/05/2022 - 17:26

              @spackbace: Rent money is no more 'dead' than the money used to pay rates, repairs, loan interest, etc. Right now it feels worse because you could own an appreciating house. But if prices were flat, there's not much difference between costs of owning and renting (especially for strata units).

              • spackbace on 16/05/2022 - 17:27

                @nigel deborah:

                But if prices were flat

                Which hasn't been the case for many Perth suburbs, unless you look at fringe suburbs

                • nigel deborah on 16/05/2022 - 17:28

                  @spackbace: True for most of the country, yeah. But with rates going up, we might see it flatten out. Assuming this liberal scheme doesn't happen.

                  • spackbace on 16/05/2022 - 17:32

                    @nigel deborah: Unless you buy badly, property is still an appreciating asset, especially if you view it as a 10+yr proposition

    • jorf on 16/05/2022 - 09:51
      +6

      It's not a great idea at all. In fact, it's possibly the stupidest idea that this government has come up with so far.

      All it will do is increase house prices further and those who withdraw will lose years of compounding super interest. It's stupid policy from a desperate government.

      • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 09:55
        -5

        Stonks hodlers and boomers that are waiting to retire fear a 👊 to their nest 🥚 when zoomers and millennials 🏃 for the 🚪.

        This policy will be good for people that were born in the past 40Y and bad for boomers that hodl most of the world's wealth.

        • jorf on 16/05/2022 - 10:02
          +6

          You are deluded if you think that everyone who thinks this is dumb has some massive stock portfolio that they're worried about. It's bad policy that will contribute to rising prices and keeping people poor into the future. For the Liberals, it's purely about keeping the property gravy train going. Without that, they have nothing and they know it.

          Also, I know you think you're cool by using emojis everywhere, but it just makes you look about as smart as Scott Morrison.

          • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 10:07

            @jorf: I would like nothing more than to see young people take out their 💵 from pension funds and spend it on hard assets that benefit them financially.

            • jorf on 16/05/2022 - 10:39
              +6

              @rektrading: "Young" people mostly don't have enough super to allow them to access this rort. It's going to be the 40+ crowd that can maybe use this - the ones that only have 20 or so years remaining in work, so have limited time to repay (if at all). So more people end up on the pension. Guess who pays for that?

              • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 10:45

                @jorf: Anyone born in the past 40Y and generations after that can take advantage of this policy.

                It doesn't matter if it's 10s, 100s or 1000s.

                • jorf on 16/05/2022 - 10:51

                  @rektrading: You don't comprehend well do you?

                  • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 10:54

                    @jorf: I can read between the lines that there are people that want to keep the status quo and block young people from owning a home.

                    • jorf on 16/05/2022 - 11:54
                      +3

                      @rektrading: You should read the lines themselves, rather than in between them.

                      • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 11:56

                        @jorf: I'm pro with any policy that let young people take "their" money out of the funds to buy hard assets.

                        • jorf on 16/05/2022 - 12:03
                          +6

                          @rektrading: It's not "their" money, it's superannuation. It's money you wouldn't have if it wasn't mandated (no, you wouldn't have just received it as extra salary if it didn't exist) and it's money that is designed to fund your retirement, not fuel the housing market. It is dumb AF to use it for this.

                          Even the Liberals themselves, prior to the announcement of this stupid policy, were against it.

                          • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 12:11

                            @jorf: It's "their" when they take it out to buy a home.

                          • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 12:13

                            @jorf: The home can be used for retirement.

                            • jorf on 16/05/2022 - 12:18

                              @rektrading: Explain how.

                              • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 12:23

                                @jorf: They can keep the home until they die.

                                The home will then go to the next of kin tax-free just like all the other assets in their estate.

                                • jorf on 16/05/2022 - 12:54

                                  @rektrading: What has that got to do with anything? Raiding your super to buy a house means the money is locked up in that house. How much the house you live in is worth has nothing to do with your ability to survive in post-employment years.

                                  • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 13:05

                                    @jorf: People can use the asset to extract equity to accumulate more assets for retirement.

                                    • jorf on 16/05/2022 - 13:13

                                      @rektrading: Ok, you're just clutching at random arguments now.

                                      • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 13:16

                                        @jorf: I personally know people that are stacking homes using equity from their first home, second, third, etc, and they keep buying more.

    • Autonomic on 16/05/2022 - 10:03

      The people that reject this idea are overexposed in stonks and fear that this will tank their portfolio.

      Lol. The ASX is 2% of the worlds market cap and only a small fraction of Australians will even be taking advantage of it. AND that money will go directly back into the pockets of Australian companies. This policy will have zero impact on stock prices.

      • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 10:11
        -1

        Why are boomers so scared when it has zero impact on their nest 🥚?

        • Autonomic on 16/05/2022 - 10:15
          +2

          Boomers aren't scared. Limit property investing or turn off negative gearing if you want to scare boomers.

          • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 10:16

            @Autonomic: So why are they rejecting a policy that can give young people the opportunity to buy a home?

            • Autonomic on 16/05/2022 - 10:17
              +2

              @rektrading: Which boomers are rejecting this? The boomers in charge are promoting it.

              • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 10:18

                @Autonomic: The ones in this thread.

                • Quantumcat on 16/05/2022 - 12:29

                  @rektrading: The people in this thread don't want middle aged people to suffer and not be able to afford to retire, plus a house with negative equity when the pushed-out peak finally passes

                  • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 12:36
                    -1

                    @Quantumcat: It sounds like boomers have been pamping money on into their nest eggs and are overexposed to volatile stonks.

                    They've had pretty good growth in the past 20Y. They shouldn't be too greedy thinking that the easy train would give them xxx the next 20Y. It's time to take the medicine and let the young people have a go.

  • nubzy on 15/05/2022 - 22:29

    Younger generations are starting to turn their back on traditional work and opting for various forms of self employment instead, so they may not even have super. Either way the future is bleak and it's no wonder why so many are stressed out and miserable these days.

    • MrThing on 15/05/2022 - 22:33
      +8

      As has been already written in the media, australia is going down the rabbit hole that america is in now and has been since the days following "trickle down economics", where there is a huge class of ultra poor people struggling to get by.

      whilst the ruling political party protect the interests of big businesses and the ultra wealthy.

      • 82norm on 16/05/2022 - 09:45

        Not to mention themselves.

  • netjock on 15/05/2022 - 22:47
    +5

    Worst part is some people are actually going to vote for it without looking into the detail. A bit like all those people who missed out on the Home Builder grant for one reason or another.

  • tsunamisurfer on 15/05/2022 - 22:49
    +16

    This is a huge mistake to follow other huge mistakes to boost the demand side in an attempt to resolve the issue.

    • Gareth on 15/05/2022 - 22:55
      +5

      Exactly, because the problem is obviously the demand side. /s

      Typical, rather than doing something that might be unpopular, they'll just let you steal from your future to buy a house.

      • rektrading on 15/05/2022 - 23:09
        -7

        Owning hard assets like 🏘️ is for the future.

        Many people live and 💀 in the same 🏠 they grew up in. Allowing people access to "their" 💵 so that they can set up now is the 👉 thing to do.

      • Boshait on 16/05/2022 - 08:56
        -1

        Overall high property prices are good for the nation. It means more money enters the country when foreigners buy real estate here.

        • Quantumcat on 16/05/2022 - 12:30
          +4

          It means though that more of the country's wealth is tied up in property doing nothing and is not invested in businesses and other things that generate productivity and GDP

      • ln28909 on 16/05/2022 - 11:23
        +2

        Owning land is the most idiot proof things out there, not to mention the power of negative gearing

        For the average person, as long as you can get your foot in, you're ahead

  • tonka on 15/05/2022 - 23:12
    +1

    This may work for people if they salary sacrifice into superannuation if they are actively trying to save a deposit. Sacrifice from income that is over $45K per year to save 34.5% income tax and pay 15% contribution tax instead.
    Apart from that, this is for the 35-40 crowd who if they haven't tried to buy a property yet probably either can't get a loan anyway or are like my single child friends who expect to inherit and would rather party.

    • pandadude on 15/05/2022 - 23:25
      +2

      Inherit depends if the is house to inherit.

      Under the government aged care scheme if both parents are in aged care facility then the parents would be expected to sell the house to fund the aged care home accommodation costs / aged care fee. The whole thing can get complicated but in the end they may or may not be cash available inherit.

      • tonka on 15/05/2022 - 23:45
        +1

        Gonna take more than that to get them to give up their thrice yearly overseas trips. Probably smarter than me though, once I pay of my mortgage I'll have to party overseas with a walking aid.

  • Loot N Plunder on 16/05/2022 - 07:14
    +7

    A short sighted policy that would do more damage than good
    All this is going to do is raise house prices and push low wage earners into a life of renting.
    Australia's housing problem is caused by a lack of AVAILABILITY this causes competition.
    Australia has so much land and we fight for tiny bits its time we built much more.

    • brendanm on 16/05/2022 - 07:19
      +9

      Australia has so much land and we fight for tiny bits its time we built much more

      It's time people learnt they likely can't buy in their ideal location for their first home.

    • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 07:26
      +3

      Everyone wants a slice in the CBD or next to the beach. That isn't going to happen and the sooner people accept that the sooner they can buy something closer to their price tag.

  • Boogerman on 16/05/2022 - 07:51
    +8

    Just inflates house prices & kicks the can down the road so Zoomers & Alphas have to stump up an even bigger deposit (if they can before retirement) & pay it off until they die.
    This policy is purely to protect politician's property portfolio wealth under the guise of caring for younger generations' housing interests
    The best way to get the younger generations into housing is for house prices to fall, 40%+ & no government subsidies

    • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 08:12
      -1

      The best way to get the younger generations into housing is for house prices to fall,

      People who can't afford the prices now will be worse off when prices damp which brings in more competition.

      • BigBirdy on 16/05/2022 - 08:49
        +7

        People who can't afford the prices now will be worse off when prices damp which brings in more competition.

        Rek logic

        • Boogerman on 16/05/2022 - 08:51
          +3

          Stunning, innit?
          My guess is he has a house price to protect

      • Boogerman on 16/05/2022 - 08:50
        +1

        So cheaper prices make it worse?
        Gawd…

        • ln28909 on 16/05/2022 - 11:27
          +1

          Yes, a house is an idiot proof investment, it will always go up, otherwise why would people go 10-20x leverage to buy one

          Cheaper price would be absolutely devastating, if house price is down 5-10%, many would enter negative equity which shouldn't happen

      • Boshait on 16/05/2022 - 08:58
        +1

        If they couldn't afford a house before and they can't afterwards, how are they worse off?

        • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 09:21
          +1

          Lower prices bring in more competition from high net individuals and funds paying with cash.

          They'll front-run borrowers.

    • 82norm on 16/05/2022 - 09:38
      +1

      Someone should tell Albo to give up his 3 rentals he owns in the inner west.

      • Boogerman on 16/05/2022 - 10:29
        +2

        Someone should tell Karen Andrews to give up her 9 investment properties.
        Such low brow discussion…

  • kev98 on 16/05/2022 - 08:48
    +7

    Such a stupid policy that only kicks the can down the road in terms of affordability. Why wont the government have to balls to tax investment property purchases (based on percentage of purchase price), this is sure to reduce prices or at least stagnate prices that will help first home buyers.

    Hopefully first home buyers won’t fall for this crap. Given any previous initiative of this type will essentially ensure prices are just going to increase relative to the incentive, and in turn this scheme will end up having little positive influence on them buying a home.

    • lowlifesphere on 18/05/2022 - 06:56

      Because there are 2 million property investors in Australia. 2 million voters can swing an election.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join