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

            • Scantu on 17/05/2022 - 16:15
              -1

              @gromit: It doesn't work like that. You made assertions that literally your feelings dictate the future price of real estate. I did not.

              • gromit on 17/05/2022 - 16:17
                +3

                @Scantu: I made no such assertions. I simply stated current facts. buying at the peak of a market while selling while another is dumping is not a good strategy. Real estate is heavily influenced by interest rates, interest rates are going in precisely one direction for at least a couple of years.

                • Scantu on 17/05/2022 - 16:18
                  -2

                  @gromit: You are again literally saying your feelings will control the price of real estate. You don't know the first thing.

                  • gromit on 17/05/2022 - 16:19

                    @Scantu: LOL seriously, you saying real estate is a good future investment is NOT you making a statement based on feelings, but my statement based on historical and current facts is?

                    • Scantu on 17/05/2022 - 16:37
                      -1

                      @gromit: Sure, you are predicting near term movement based on your feelings. Long term growth is all but guaranteed given the nature of how population and inflation works.

                      • gromit on 17/05/2022 - 19:12

                        @Scantu: of course it is all but guarenteed long term, but almost certainly at a much lower rate than other investments, as has proven to be the case historically. Even in the last 10 years with the huge growth in house prices it has not outperformed stocks or super.

      • dufflover on 17/05/2022 - 16:43

        Real estate is a good investment.

        Is irony the right word here?
        Good housing policy that actually deals with the issue would be changing exactly that.

        • Scantu on 17/05/2022 - 18:23
          -2

          No, it isn't. It's empirically a good investment.

          Good housing policy that actually deals with the issue would be changing exactly that.

          Why are the two at a dichotomy? You have no evidence for that assertion.

          • dufflover on 17/05/2022 - 19:05

            @Scantu: You're right, housing in the old days was still a "good" investment when people were after maybe one or two for a future rental income, but you're being disingenuous to not admit the last decade or so is practically ponzi-scheme-driven demand relying on capital gains.

            Those The Block auctions that illustrated this perfectly still come to mind.

            • Scantu on 17/05/2022 - 19:17
              -3

              @dufflover:

              you're being disingenuous to not admit the last decade or so is practically ponzi-scheme-driven demand relying on capital gains

              This is literally your feelings, I assure you you actually, genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. People whose life profession it is to study these things would not even remotely make that claim.

              Those The Block auctions that illustrated this perfectly still come to mind.

              Yes… TV auctions.. makes sense for your level of understanding

              • dufflover on 17/05/2022 - 19:45
                +1

                @Scantu: Superiority complex much? It's just example. Obviously not super representative, but certainly a bit of a epitome illustration of what happens with less cashed up people at an auction.

                If you want to deny there's a lot of investor driven demand then so be it. Luckily I bought a home in an area not quite obsessed with speculators or investors. Was night and day the differences in the people when I was at various inspections. Back then the loan stats weren't so skewed to investor loans either.

                But in the end no after what happened to Labor last time I don't expect anyone politically for now to do anything about the demand side.

                • Scantu on 17/05/2022 - 19:47
                  -1

                  @dufflover:

                  It's just example

                  It's a bad example because the point you're making isn't real.

                  If you want to deny there's a lot of investor driven demand then so be it.

                  Point to where I said that

                  I've made one claim. Housing is a good investment. That's it.

    • Dowhatuwant on 18/05/2022 - 14:23

      Sorry, what blue chip shares are at an all time low?

    • netjock on 18/05/2022 - 14:54

      Is it financially responsible to dip into superannuation, which is largely blue chip shares, to sell them at an all time low for cash

      Don't worry everyone is an expert at buy low sell high.

      We've had on OzB people pretending cars are an investment.

      I'm not sure whether tradies will need to have financial services licence to handle your money because both proposals have financial implications.

  • hasher22 on 17/05/2022 - 13:15
    +2

    Politicians putting the housing marking problem in the 'too hard basket'… so….. bandaid fixes all around guys!

  • Wasabi Ninja on 17/05/2022 - 14:20

    By the time they retire they’ll be forced to sell their house to be eligible for a pension. No way they’ll let people keep houses if they need a pension 40 years

  • StalkingIbis on 17/05/2022 - 15:30

    Both schemes are horrible, but this one is slightly better.

    I dislike the labor scheme more though, for a few reasons.

    • The risk to taxpayer of owners trashing place and losing money.
    • The loss to owner for paying for repairs and renos themselves, then losing 40% of that at sale time.
    • The ability to be exploited. I would love to pay 40% of a loan and then spend the other 60% investing in another home or shares.

    Both will push property prices up.

    Liberal scheme uses the applicants money so at least taxpayers arent footing the bill.
    Applicants will have significantly lower balances at retirement.

    Labor scheme will result in significantly greater advantage for applicants.

    • qazwsx on 17/05/2022 - 16:38

      Applicants will have significantly lower balances at retirement.

      Never saw this as a big issue. You have two main outcomes:
      - they sell the property and return funds back to super together with the share of capital gains; in which case the property has been an investment with investment returns being redeposited, or
      - they keep their property, the funds don't get returned to super but then they reach retirement with property ownership - obviously if you own your residence, then you need less money to retire on

      All up to me it becomes, in theory, much about nothing. Both are similar end positions conceptually.

      Also don't fall into the fallacy of thinking that super is the only thing you have to retire on. You retire on all your assets, both assets in super and assets outside of super.

      • StalkingIbis on 18/05/2022 - 10:03

        Sorry, I should've expanded that idea further.

        Less balance at retirement, so you will likely pick up the pension payments and end up taking govt money in the future, rather than now like the labor plan.

        I hate both plans.

        Govt, stop giving out money!

    • BobLim on 18/05/2022 - 01:09

      On the plus side, if the public owns a portion of the house, hopefully that portion of the house will be used for public housing? Seems fair

  • Dack Smith on 17/05/2022 - 15:44
    -2

    Why not?

    Why should the government control our super and not us? It’s my money right?

    Seriously OP, maybe just try to think smarter a tiny bit sometimes ?

    • tonka on 17/05/2022 - 16:00
      +1

      I like the other posts, where people give their opinions without feeling compelled to insult the OP.

    • brendanm on 17/05/2022 - 16:14

      Why should the government control our super and not us? It’s my money right?

      The idea of super is to provide people with money in retirement, so the taxpayer isn't shouldered with the burden. Not only that, this policy will increase house prices.

      Seriously OP, maybe just try to think smarter a tiny bit sometimes ?

      Indeed, a compelling argument.

      • rektrading on 17/05/2022 - 18:18
        +1

        This policy is similar to people who buy real estate using self-managed pension funds with the main difference that they can't live there.

        These types of funds put more upwards pressure on prices than this policy seeing that they can own as many IPs as they can afford.

        • brendanm on 17/05/2022 - 18:38

          I simply think that it's stupid that they set up super to take the load off the taxpayer (eventually). They also state that housing is unaffordable. They then do something that combines both of these things, simultaneously eroding super, while also increasing house prices.

          Great for me, I have super and a house, not so good for others perhaps.

          I have no problem with real estate as an investment.

      • matbargain on 18/05/2022 - 07:37

        Having super act as a retirement fund instead of the pension is a bit of a flawed concept anyway. Nothing stopping anyone from spending it all in a couple of years on cruises and holidays and ultimately getting the pension. Super should be made available for everyone to withdraw at any time.

        • brendanm on 18/05/2022 - 07:40

          Yes, people have continually proven to be responsible with money 😂

  • ribze1 on 17/05/2022 - 20:17

    Very bad policy.
    Won't matter, they'll only be the Government for the next four days.

    • drfuzzy on 18/05/2022 - 15:22

      Why do you think Labor's policy to co-own a house is any better?
      The hit to retirement is roughly the same.

  • RatBargain on 17/05/2022 - 23:12
    +1

    Scunt Morexcuson had years to do something useful. This reeks of desperation & incompetence

    Make interest tax deductible only for PPOR

    That would have actually been good for society

    • Scantu on 18/05/2022 - 10:31
      +1

      You have a poor conceptualization of how housing works.

      If they did what you suggested, many people would be homeless immediately and the economy would probably collapse.

      Stick to talking about what you know about hey?

      • CrowReally on 18/05/2022 - 15:21
        +1

        I'll bite. Why would denying interest deductions on investment properties make many people homeless immediately and cause the economy to probably collapse?

        • drfuzzy on 18/05/2022 - 15:24

          It wouldn't.
          But it would reduce housing supply over the longer term.
          The reduced supply will increase homelessness as more people are priced out.

          • CrowReally on 18/05/2022 - 15:25
            +1

            @drfuzzy: It would make investment properties more expensive to own than PPOR properties. Wouldn't that shift the market to these properties now being sold and bought by PPOR buyers?

            • drfuzzy on 18/05/2022 - 17:33

              @CrowReally: I think you are assuming a closed system with a fixed number of homes. The issue is new homes being built to meet investor demand. If the population is growing we need new homes.

              • CrowReally on 18/05/2022 - 17:40

                @drfuzzy: Sure, we're always going to need new homes because the population is increasing.

                That's a separate matter from the proportion of investor to PPOR ownership.

                Why would denying investment property interest deductions reduce housing supply over the longer term? Doesn't it just make it harder for investors to buy the new houses we're making?

                • tonka on 18/05/2022 - 17:43

                  @CrowReally: I think the problem is the maybe 15-20% of people that are neither investors or prospective home buyers (ie lifetime renters not capable of purchasing). The investors act as a proxy for them to ensure they are represented in the supply and demand equation.

                  • CrowReally on 18/05/2022 - 17:47

                    @tonka: I understand what you're saying. There's going to be some battlers who decided to work hard and put a million into the housing market as an investment instead of shares and we'd be unfairly targetting them.

                    This is where you make more nuanced rules though ("Ffffffffine, everyone gets interest deductions on ONE investment property, but that's it"). Otherwise you get the 30+ property holders wheeling out the first paragraph battlers as an example on STOP TARGETTING INVESTORS YOU'RE KILLING THE MARKET

                    Otherwise you're blinded by "some people are using housing investment to fill a social need" when you're trying to look at "why does this particular investment have so many rules that seems to allow incredibly rich people to treat the necessity of housing as a playpiece"
                    "

                    • tonka on 18/05/2022 - 18:33

                      @CrowReally: I just think that blaming investors for over demand on real estate is simplistic. It's renters creating demand for investment properties, not investors, if people want to discourage investors they need to get rid of rental demand first. . Real demand is driven by the need for homes, not houses (with the exception of the small % that are empty, but they shouldn't be negatively geared anyway.).

                      • CrowReally on 18/05/2022 - 18:39

                        @tonka: I agree with what you're saying and it should be a two pronged solution - build extra housing on the edge of town [less desireable areas], but you also need the investor disincentives in place or well, they just snap those up as well and add them to the portfolio, RENT FOR THE RENT GOD style

                        • tonka on 18/05/2022 - 18:45

                          @CrowReally: What of the companies that just build huge complexes of units and just rent them out. That act as modern day social housing instead of gov't and get lot's of concessions to do so. Surely they are then worse than private individuals doing it on a smaller scale.

                      • RatBargain on 18/05/2022 - 23:44

                        @tonka: @tonka You should take a breather from Murdoch LNP news & press conferences

                        Renters don’t create demand for investment properties 🤣

                        Low interest rates, greed and speculation on capital growth does. Ask the RBA if you have any doubts.

                        If you owned any IPs, you would know this. Rent is cream on top. What kind of moron NGs a property purely for a net loss?

                        Of course investors like me are the problem, we take up supply and inflate house prices. Rental demand is stable and consistent with population growth. Renters are not to blame

                        • tonka on 19/05/2022 - 00:22

                          @RatBargain: Amazing how people are willing to make asses of themselves by making wild assumptions about people they have no way to know are true. All it means is instead of a put down I get a laugh at your expense and absolute certainty you are someone who has no idea. .

                          • RatBargain on 19/05/2022 - 00:43

                            @tonka: Sure 😉

                            • tonka on 19/05/2022 - 00:50

                              @RatBargain: Mate, you've touted yourself as a clever big businessman, yet here you are on an internet forum picking fights, trolling and willy waggling. But feel free to whack me with a few more emojis and weird assumptions instead of reasoned adult discourse .

                              • RatBargain on 19/05/2022 - 01:05

                                @tonka: Picking fights? No, just responding to fools
                                Heard of fire? I got time

                                Still can’t believe you said renters are to blame 🤣😂

                                • tonka on 19/05/2022 - 01:08

                                  @RatBargain: What are you after here, just heckling someone? Hoping for an argument? Does your life have no meaning with all your supposed wealth that that's all you can do for jollys at 1am?

                        • duchy on 19/05/2022 - 14:38
                          +1

                          @RatBargain: Renters do create demand for investment properties. If you had any investment properties (but I doubt that), then you would understand the concept. Rental demand is dependent on local supply, jobs and heaps of other variables. People move for jobs and schools quite often actually. Local supply takes years to build. Hence the rental demand. If you as an investor buy from an Owner Occupier, you actually increase the rental pool and help to ease the pressure from rental demand. Currently Moreton Bay is a 0.3% vacancy rate. It took me 2 days of advertising my house to gather 14 genuine offers. The market is crazy.

        • Scantu on 18/05/2022 - 16:07

          Because housing would instantly become unprofitable. There would be a mass sell of due to this fact, which would cause many people to become homeless. The immediate influx of supply and lowering of demand will cause many people's personal wealths to collapse, causing ripples throughout the financial system as people clamor to rectify it, sending other assets into death spirals as well.

          There's no "biting" to be done here this is literally just the reality of supply and demand on an economy that has its backbone in housing, it is not my opinion.

          When you run a business, your profit is your revenue minus your cost. If you can't deduct your costs, you aren't running a business.

          • CrowReally on 18/05/2022 - 16:12
            +1

            @Scantu: "It's only profitable if we are allowed to have interest losses for this asset class count"

            Under that logic once a mortgage is paid off, the investor needs to dump that property FAST FAST FAST because they're lost their precious outgoing interest deductions. And yet, where are the articles sayinbg "whatever you do, don't pay off that mortgage". Maybe availability of interest deductions aren't the sole cause for the industry 'working' after all.

            Instead, it's a major proof of the fact that the policy is pushing the investment class into untenable areas. This is exactly why we need a crash so that the only people who are buying these properties are ones that intend to use them as shelter. Google "vacancy tax" while you're in the mood for looking at tax-based incentives for investment properties (Warning: have pearls ready to clutch while you do so)

            I like how there's a sudden "lowering of demand" in your mysterious cash modelling as well. Let me guess, people who want shelter don't want to buy, only to rent?

            You've had an lot of incredibly arrogant, shitty takes in this thread. I guess I'm part of the (growing) club now.

            • Scantu on 18/05/2022 - 19:49

              @CrowReally: What you have written is gobbledygook. I can't get past your first sentence.

              You don't need to deduct interest if you aren't paying it because it's no longer an expense.

              I can't get past the fact you don't understand such a simple fact, this conversation can never be productive. It's akin to not understanding 1+1=2. Goodbye.

              • CrowReally on 18/05/2022 - 19:51

                @Scantu: Your lack of comprehension doesn't reflect badly on me.

                I never said anywhere about people not paying interest. I did however respond to a comment on deductibility of same. Have a re-read.

                Then: take your broken English and your broken brain and trot off.

                • Scantu on 18/05/2022 - 20:33

                  @CrowReally: I can't even… You don't understand simple math or business and somehow that means I have broken English. Too funny.

                  • CrowReally on 18/05/2022 - 20:47
                    -1

                    @Scantu: "I can't get past the fact you don't understand such a simple fact, this conversation can never be productive. It's akin to not understanding 1+1=2. Goodbye."

                    Smart people don't say things like this because smart people don't need to say things like this.

                    All the time in the world for shitposting but then it's big brain time "i can't even" "what even is this" "bye".

                    If you don't want to talk with the big boys and use the big words that's fine, but the <forced laughter> "you guys don't even make SENSE imma go" isn't the powerplay you think it is.

                    • Scantu on 18/05/2022 - 20:50

                      @CrowReally: Whatever you think I am, you're further down the chain so, self burn I guess. You don't understand foundational concepts about running a business.

          • RatBargain on 19/05/2022 - 00:40

            @Scantu: A complete fallacy sold to you by the LNP. You seemed to have slurped up every last drop. Fire sale?? 🥲

            Nobody but the exceptionally greedy would be forced to sell because their taxes increase by a few g’s per IP. If they geared themselves so highly, they are not within their means; well deserving of a first home buyer to relinquish

            No, the poor IP owner will not be homeless because of the monumental property growth which has occurred.

            This does EXACTLY what society needs. It will slow (not stop) the growth of housing. It would stop the masses who can’t afford to speculate from speculating - freeing up supply.

            It will allow renters combined with PPOR tax deductibility into home ownership.

            A perfect outcome. Punish renters and put them on the street? That is the dumbest bs LNP and Murchdoch will have you believe.

            Also buying a house is not a “business”

            A first year undergrad could tell you that. An actual loss making business doesn’t passively grow ~10-15% p.a. You’re buying an asset. Maybe you should stick to topics know

            • qazwsx on 19/05/2022 - 01:09

              @RatBargain: PPOR interest tax deductibility: bad idea. Owner occupiers already get a leg up on CGT, land tax, (in some cases) stamp duty. Adding PPOR interest tax deductions into the mix is more middle class and upper class welfare (and it will benefit the upper class more by virtue of higher marginal tax rate). Doesn't address the problem either which is more about upfront affordability at initial purchase, less about being able to service your loans in the future. In my view, high cost to the budget and will be of minimal or no effective assistance in tackling affordability particularly compared to the budget impact.

              (ok I'll cover my bases - it does help affordability a bit, because ppor interest deduction theoretically means less net expense = more net income = higher borrowing power (but with your cash flows up to 12mths in arrears because you need to wait on the tax refund to get the benefit of the lower net expense). but borrowing power is only one part of purchase affordability; the deposit is often where a lot of younger home buyers come unstuck, and ppor interest deductions does nothing on this aspect)

            • Scantu on 19/05/2022 - 08:09
              +1

              @RatBargain: I don't care which political party says what, I'm just giving you the reality.

              Perhaps that's projection if you think you can only resolve "facts" to a political parties schtick.

              Also buying a house is not a “business”

              It literally is though, you saying it isn't is not a reality and it reveals your complete lack of ability to comprehend the market so honestly I don't think it's worth me having this conversation if you don't know the basics

      • RatBargain on 18/05/2022 - 23:21

        @tablewhale

        Presumptive you, as Australia’s sole authority on how housing “works” 😅

        My wheelhouse is actually finance & economics. I’ve run a business for 15 years. I’ve paid off several IPs and my PPOR. I’ve also traded into a 7 figure+ equities nestegg. But please tell me what I’m not qualified to comment on

        • Scantu on 19/05/2022 - 08:10

          If I tell you that 1+1=2 does that make me an authority on how maths works? It's just a basic reality.

          Nice job on being lucky :)

  • sashatheman on 18/05/2022 - 09:24

    If you are a first home buyer changes are that your Super balance is not going to be much. $50k could possibly be all of your super. Bad idea.

    • Scantu on 18/05/2022 - 10:32

      That's why you'd voluntarily contribute to super and tax the tax writeoff first, then buy your house

  • [Deactivated] on 18/05/2022 - 10:49

    Any recommendations for Superfunds to consider at while we're here?

    I've been thinking about diving into it more, better late than never.

    • rektrading on 18/05/2022 - 11:34

      Look for the ones where the CEOs and executives don't get $1M salaries or performance bonuses in the $100,000s.

      https://www.afr.com/wealth/superannuation/top-paid-super-fun…
      Top paid super fund executives revealed
      Patrick Durkin Patrick Durkin BOSS Deputy editor Dec 16, 2019 – 12.00am

      UniSuper's chief investment officer John Pearce has topped the ranks of the best paid super executives with his $1.7 million pay packet, one of 12 super bosses making more than $1 million.

      https://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/superannuation/indus…
      Industry funds confirm CEOs earning over $1 million
      By Mike Taylor 4 December 2020

      At least two industry superannuation fund chief executives are receiving total salary packages in excess of $1 million, while at least two more are receiving over $800,000.

      https://www.investmentmagazine.com.au/2022/03/2022-super-fun…
      2022 Super fund salary survey
      Stewart HawkinsStewart HawkinsMarch 30, 2022 | 5.04pm

      Top earners
      AustralianSuper CIO Mark Delaney was the highest paid individual in the industry for the second year in a row, with a total REM of $1.733 million (including a short-term incentive component of $931,000), yet his remuneration was fairly static compared with the previous survey period’s $1.705 million (including $950,000 in short-term incentives).

      UniSuper’s CIO John Pearce was second on the salary table, also for the second year in a row, with $1.585 million. His short-term incentive component was $837,000.

      In third place, and the first non-CIO on the list, was the Future Fund’s CEO Raphael Arndt at $1.576 million (short-term incentive component $831,000) beating out Aware Super’s CIO Damien Graham who for this survey was fourth on the overall list, being paid $1.341 million (with a short-term incentive component of $297,000).

      • tonka on 18/05/2022 - 14:35

        Would that be counter productive though, some of the biggest funds in Australia are also the best performers. And you would think the CEO of say Australian Super would earn more than a smaller fund with lower performance.

        • rektrading on 18/05/2022 - 14:39

          It's not difficult to be a "best" performer. All they have to do is to pamp the pension fund into an index fund.

          The CEOs don't need get pay $1M to copy and paste.

          • CrowReally on 18/05/2022 - 15:23
            +1

            @rektrading: I can see you know about as much about the non-crypto market as the crypto market.

            "lolol ez bruh, just copy and paste this one simple trick"

            • rektrading on 18/05/2022 - 15:30

              @CrowReally: Gm cult member,

              How are you doing?

              • CrowReally on 18/05/2022 - 15:33

                @rektrading: like an IGN review I'm probably about a 7/10. how are you?

                speaking of cult members, why did you say "gm" to me just now? (answer: this is part of the cryptobro lifestyle. everyone says 'gm', because they're all such free-thinking individuals).

                • rektrading on 18/05/2022 - 15:42

                  @CrowReally: I'm 👍 every day. There is no better feeling than ⏰ up in the 🌅, taking a deep breath and feeling alive.

                  Thanks for asking.

          • tonka on 18/05/2022 - 15:46

            @rektrading: There's over 500 funds in Australia and it's one of the biggest industries we have. To be honest that comment discredited you to me a bit.

            • rektrading on 18/05/2022 - 15:54

              @tonka: 500 pension funds but which one of them can beat the SPX?

              https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average…
              The average annualized return since adopting 500 stocks into the index in 1957 through Dec. 31, 2021, is 10.67%.2

              • tonka on 18/05/2022 - 15:59

                @rektrading: Probably one with high risk plan offering exposure to the SPX. The returns advertised are their standard plans offering balanced returns which are just that, balanced.
                Do you have any expertise on this, there are plenty that beat out the SPX.

      • mdavant on 19/05/2022 - 06:14

        Or union owned/run ones.

        Or any with ex politicians involved.

        • rektrading on 19/05/2022 - 07:35
          -1

          Corruption runs deep on all sides of politics.

          It's how 👍 they hide it that makes the difference.

          October 1, 20219:56 PM GMT+10
          Last Updated 8 months ago
          Australia's NSW state premier resigns over corruption probe amid COVID-19 battle

          It's 👵 news but it shows they always 🏃 before they get caught.

  • JimB on 18/05/2022 - 11:25
    +1

    It's good for me^ but I don't think it's a good idea overall.

    ^ I own a couple of properties that are prime first home owner properties, so surely it boost demand/prices of these properties.

  • bobolo on 18/05/2022 - 14:25
    +3

    I am one of the much hated property investors with dozens of properties.

    Even I recognize housing affordability is a big issue, and all these govt. schemes/incentives are only designed to sweep the problem under a rug

    At some point, someone is going to have to bite the bullet and remove the very liberal property investment incentives and tax breaks. The immediate effects will not be pretty, but in the long run, they'll be hailed as some kind of hero

    With that said, nobody in our current govt has anywhere near enough spine to do this. So in the meantime……weeeeeeee$$$$$$!!!!

  • drfuzzy on 18/05/2022 - 15:20
    +2

    Both Liberal and Labor plans are equally bad for retirement - they just package the damage differently.

    • mdavant on 19/05/2022 - 06:17
      -1

      Shhh, you will be negged by the lefties.

    • Scantu on 19/05/2022 - 08:11

      The Labor one is worse imo, in terms of real $ value.

      The lnp one is perhaps worse in concept.

      But the lab one forces you to buy back your home at an inflated value, you actually benefit from the growth under lnp

  • drfuzzy on 18/05/2022 - 15:28

    I would prefer both Liberal and Labor to scrap their housing policies and instead tackle housing prices by 1) abolishing stamp duty in favour of an additional annual land tax to encourage more housing mobility, 2) reduce red tape from the building industry to drive down costs (streamline council and authority approvals, get rid of NIMBY complaints, reduce time for planning permits).

    • qazwsx on 19/05/2022 - 01:13
      +2

      yeah but… wrong level of govt for this saturday…

      • mdavant on 19/05/2022 - 06:18

        Nup, I blame Tony abbott

      • Boshait on 21/05/2022 - 23:06

        Correct. State governments control supply.

  • PabloHorteg on 18/05/2022 - 18:03
    +1

    Intergenerational theft continues.

    Asking the young people to damage their retirement savings to prop up the property bubble that mostly benefits boomers.

    Fun fact, a boomer with a multi-million dollar home and 1 million in income-generating assets (shares or cash), will pay no income tax (threshold is 1.3 million). Even if their income from their million dollars is $60,000+ a year. No income tax. In fact, they are likely to benefit from tax refunds for their unused franking credits.

    A young person, who works full time in retail and earns $60,000 will pay tax. They won't get generous negative gearing write offs or tax avoidance scams. They pay tax.
    The system is rigged to favour the wealthy.

    The policies that mostly benefit boomers (tax concessions for retirees, negative gearing, etc) cost about $60 billion per year. Meanwhile.. the young have Robodebt and a warming climate. The boomers have rigged the system.

    • Scantu on 18/05/2022 - 20:35
      +1

      Hahahaha what the actual (profanity): this is blatantly false:

      Fun fact, a boomer with a multi-million dollar home and 1 million in income-generating assets (shares or cash), will pay no income tax (threshold is 1.3 million). Even if their income from their million dollars is $60,000+ a year. No income tax. In fact, they are likely to benefit from tax refunds for their unused franking credits.

      This is literally a total fabrication. I don't understand how you have been deluded into believing something that's completely a lie, and a big one at that?

    • brendanm on 18/05/2022 - 21:09
      +3

      Le evil boomers.

      Fun fact: your fun fact isnt a fact at all.

    • qazwsx on 19/05/2022 - 01:18
      +1

      Are you trying to talk about super funds in pension phase? otherwise really got no idea what you are on about.
      If you are talking baout pension phase, (1) you should state it, and (2) bad comparison as pension phase has a lot of conditions associated with it, and to accumulate that much super under current rules often means non-concessional contributions were made in the past - I know older rules were more generous on contributions, but this is getting too technical now.

  • CuteWittleCorgi on 18/05/2022 - 20:47
    +1

    Instant $50k+++ added value to everyone’s houses clapping

    • Scantu on 19/05/2022 - 08:12
      +1

      Nup, not that simple.

      This would be true if the money was being created out of nowhere but it isn't.

    • rektrading on 19/05/2022 - 08:22

      Inflows and outflows change the prices.

      A $50,000 inflow won't do anything to the price alone.

  • diddy50 on 18/05/2022 - 21:45
    +4

    Great policy idea. Especially for those that want to own a home.

    I hear a lot of whingers, mostly from people who have a house. Go figure!

  • diddy50 on 18/05/2022 - 21:47
    +3

    Also states and local council need to allow for and release more land, scrap stamp duty and reduce planning red tape.

    • duchy on 19/05/2022 - 14:43

      Stamp Duty is a MAJOR source of income for state governments. It will take 20 years for Canberra to switch to land tax. But you can see that the property market in Canberra is more fluid already. It's easier to downsize or move when you get a new job.

      I agree - Stamp Duty causes too much friction in the property market and land release is another. There is a good reason for slow land release -> there's no infrastructure to support wide cities. Planning is not ideal.

  • kazuyamishima on 19/05/2022 - 14:40
    +1

    So, it won't be easy under Albanese??

    • cwongtech on 19/05/2022 - 14:48
      +5

      It won't be easy either way because of Morrison's Mistakes..

      Do you want to pay for more cash splashes for Morrison's Mates, funded by you?

    • duchy on 19/05/2022 - 15:20

      That slogan sounds like a prophecy, doesn't it? Somehow I am not sure it's wise to predict future in an election marketing slogan.

    • mdavant on 20/05/2022 - 11:15

      This will be a good election to lose

  • ForkSnorter on 19/05/2022 - 15:44
    +1

    LNP's plan will simply increase house prices, defeating the purpose of the policy.

    The government should not continually design policies to help people into the housing market and spend decades in mortgage stress.

    Life shouldn't be about mortgages.

    The government should find ways ways to reduce the cost of housing so that more people can 1. get into the housing market more easily; 2. pay off their house more easily.

    • rektrading on 19/05/2022 - 15:55
      +2

      The debt isn't designed to be paid off.

      The ruling class want people to borrow so that they can keep working until they die.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join