How Many People Here Are Secretly Scared of an Increase in Housing Supply?

AustriaBargain on 07/02/2024 - 15:07

“We have consistently said, including to the Greens, that the key to the solution for housing in this country is housing supply" - Albanese

If housing supply were raised to such a degree that house values in most areas dropped dramatically and rents stabilised back to where they used to be years ago, that would mean people with investment properties could lose out on hundreds of thousands of dollars that they otherwise would have eventually realised. If supply was aggressively dealt with and the bubble outside of inner and Harbourside Sydney popped for good then some investors could lose millions.

How many people here who own investment properties, or whose parents own some, are secretly scared of house prices being lowered sometime in the future and rents going way down? Do you feel your own wealth, or wealth you stand to inherit one day, is being attacked by talks from the PM and endless talk from the Greens about tackling housing supply and ending incentives for investment in existing properties?

Financial

Comments

                                                • brendanm on 14/02/2024 - 08:24

                                                  @larndis: Congrats on twisting words to try and contort what I have said 👏

                                                  Businesses should pay their fair share, presently they don't, hence a simple fix for taxation issues is to actually make them pay up.

                                                  • larndis on 14/02/2024 - 09:07

                                                    @brendanm: Sorry you feel that I've misunderstood you.

                                                    Can you clarify, is the tax system really simple or not?

                                                    If you want to provide:
                                                    *Your proposed change to corporate tax law
                                                    *Modelling of the estimated impact of the change
                                                    *Modelling of the contribution of skilled migration to the economy
                                                    *Forecast growth rates of each

                                                    that would help me to better understand your proposal

                                                    • brendanm on 14/02/2024 - 10:29

                                                      @larndis: Haha, this coming from someone who thinks a surplus instantly makes for a good budget?

                                                      • larndis on 14/02/2024 - 19:58

                                                        @brendanm: Is that the best you've got? So no actual answers then.

                                                        I'm very willing to wager my knowledge and experience in this area far exceeds yours.

                                                        If you don't know those things then on what basis did you determine that corporate taxes can easily cover the lost revenue from ceasing skilled migration?

                                                        • brendanm on 14/02/2024 - 21:06

                                                          @larndis:

                                                          I'm very willing to wager my knowledge and experience in this area far exceeds yours.

                                                          Yes, sorry to question the all knowing tax knower of ozbargain.

                                                          If you don't know those things then on what basis did you determine that corporate taxes can easily cover the lost revenue from ceasing skilled migration?

                                                          The amounts are very large, and we don't need "skilled migration", we have enough uber drivers already.

                                                          • larndis on 14/02/2024 - 22:30

                                                            @brendanm: Wow you really got me. What thorough and well thought out analysis.

                                                            You might have missed that you are the one claiming to have the answers. I don't need to be anything close to all-knowing to know far, far more that you evidently do.

                                                            • brendanm on 15/02/2024 - 12:45

                                                              @larndis: I've given you some companies already. If you choose not to look, that's on you. Just bring in another million people, that'll sort it out, everyone will be able to afford a house when supply demand ratio is even worse.

                                                              • larndis on 15/02/2024 - 21:01

                                                                @brendanm: Yep, you're right. The govt could easily fix everything by just taxing multinationals 'properly' but they don't want to because…..

                                                                Keep believing everything you hear on sky news mate, and enjoy feeling superior to everyone even though you actually understand almost nothing.

                                                  • Jaduqimon on 14/02/2024 - 09:17
                                                    +1

                                                    @brendanm: What is the "fair share". Who determines what's fair? Currently it's the tax legislation that determines the "fair share".

                                                    Companies that are not abiding by the tax legislation are being prosecuted. The ones that are following it are paying their fair share.

                                                    • brendanm on 14/02/2024 - 10:29

                                                      @Jaduqimon: "Fair share" is government closing loopholes.

                                                      • larndis on 14/02/2024 - 19:59

                                                        @brendanm: Which loopholes precisely?

                                                        • brendanm on 14/02/2024 - 21:05

                                                          @larndis: Look at the profits of google, Microsoft, apple etc, then the tax they pay. I know it's hard, but I believe in you.

                                                    • larndis on 14/02/2024 - 22:26

                                                      @Jaduqimon: It's just lazy thinking that suits his anti-immigration agenda. It's easier to believe that there is a huge untapped pool of unpaid corporate taxes that governments don't want to collect, rather than try to understand some of the complex issues at play.

                                                      • Jaduqimon on 15/02/2024 - 06:24
                                                        +1

                                                        @larndis: Ya I've stopped responding to him after he fail to provide specific examples. When he brought up the big tech companies, that sealed the deal that he doesn't know what he is talking about beyond reading some sensationalised news headlines.

                                                        • brendanm on 15/02/2024 - 12:46

                                                          @Jaduqimon: That's cool, you are happy for them to make a profit here and not pay tax.

            • Gnostikos on 08/02/2024 - 19:33
              -2

              @Jaduqimon:

              Yes some refugee on an individual basis no doubt will be contributors but in aggregate a bunch of screened, skilled migrants coming to au will in aggregate benefit au more than a bunch of refugees

              So your argument is that economic migrants, who are seeking to enter a country for entirely selfish/materialistic reasons to financially enrich themselves are somehow going to be more likely to culturally assimilate, respect the laws/customs of the nation that they view as a giant ATM machine and altruistically contribute to the societal good for the benefit of all whilst aggressively competing against the citizens of that country for resources/wealth…

              …compared to people who have zero wealth or means, who would see any improvement in their standard of living as a huge success and who usually know first-hand the importance of having things like: strong borders/immigration controls, cultural homogeneity and a strong, self-sufficient national economy, due to being persecuted/oppressed/impoverished for those very reasons in their home countries?

              Are you saying skilled migrants lower your standard of living?

              Stop with this charade. "Skilled" at this point simply means a cleverly-forged resume that HR couldn't weed out and/or having better nepotistic connections in-country to land a job. Go work in IT for a bit and see how "skilled" all of the recent Indian migrants coming into Australia are.

        • Drakesy on 07/02/2024 - 19:03
          +1

          Refugees, no, skilled migrants yes please.

          Funny thing is we're bringing in these skilled migrants and a large portion aren't even ending up in jobs that they're qualified to do.

          An example was Engineers Australia complaining that only 50% of immigrant engineers end up in jobs related to their field. Maybe we've imported too many or maybe they're just not up to scratch?

          Don't blame the industry for not hiring them, maybe, just maybe we're at capacity.

          • JIMB0 on 07/02/2024 - 21:15
            +2

            @Drakesy: Several of the production workers where I work claim to be engineers. Yet they're working on a production line for ~$30/hour.

            • Grunntt on 08/02/2024 - 14:33

              @JIMB0:

              Several of the production workers where I work claim to be engineers. Yet they're working on a production line for ~$30/hour.

              I've employed a few of the 'skilled workers' on a production line - I really hope the skills they displayed were not typical of their engineering skills..

          • Jaduqimon on 07/02/2024 - 19:43
            +3

            @BashfulYak: need to increase the population to keep the pension ponzi scheme going

          • brendanm on 08/02/2024 - 11:42
            +3

            @BashfulYak: GDP must go up, even if GDP per capita plummets. Thankyou politicians.

          • ripesashimi on 08/02/2024 - 12:32
            -1

            @BashfulYak: What is your plan for half the country to get laid? Its depressing enough as is.

              • Gnostikos on 08/02/2024 - 19:37

                @BashfulYak: You haven't heard? One of Australia's biggest national issues right now is that 50% of the population (*citation needed) can't get laid. On a historical scale, it ranks up there with the worst genocides ever recorded.

                  • Gnostikos on 09/02/2024 - 13:45

                    @BashfulYak: I was just taking the piss out of ripesashimi's bizarre statement. I also have no idea what he's referring to.

          • BarginBrah on 08/02/2024 - 17:07

            @BashfulYak: Based.

      • 900dollaridoos on 09/02/2024 - 11:57

        1 in 34 people in australia arrived in the past 12 months. How on earth could that be a problem?
        /s

  • JimmyF on 07/02/2024 - 15:43

    How Many People Here Are Secretly Scared of an Increase in Housing Supply?

    Anyone who owns a property, regardless of how many don't want the value to go down! So yes lots of people!

    Australia has some kinky thing with property and it can only ever go up!!

    • us3rnam3tak3n on 07/02/2024 - 16:12
      +1

      Are these people also fearful of shark attack when they take a bath?

      • JimmyF on 07/02/2024 - 21:06

        Please explain how you link the two…..

        Anyone who has spent money on a property, doesn't wish to see that money 'shrink'. aka spend $1m on a house, no one wants to turn around and sell it for $600k 10 years later.

        • us3rnam3tak3n on 08/02/2024 - 10:22
          +1

          I just find a significant increase in housing supply to be very unlikely in the foreseeable future. If anything population growth will continue to outstrip building of new dwellings.

          • JimmyF on 08/02/2024 - 11:26

            @us3rnam3tak3n:

            If anything population growth will continue to outstrip building of new dwellings.

            So your view is the population will be going up, while new dwellings will lag behind?

            I just find a significant increase in housing supply to be very unlikely in the foreseeable future

            Supply and demand forces will be at play, if there are 4 people wanting to buy 3 houses what do you think will happen to prices? Supply and demand model says the price will go!

            Now if there are 3 people wanting to buy 4 houses, the opposite happens.

            But I agree, people are paying crazy prices for houses that 5 years ago would have been worth 1/2 or at best 2/3 of what they are paying now. Not sure how a place that was sold in 2019 for say $700k is now asking $1.5m! But it is happening!

  • ttt888 on 07/02/2024 - 15:45
    +3

    Increasing housing supply??
    In australia definition of housing for many are landed property close to CBD (within 20km)… you can't increase land in these areas anymore..

    We have a housing supply issue because many can't accept apartments and units as housing… Unlike in many other nations worldwide.
    And the day aussies accepts this then it will be like in many other countries.
    Those living in apartments/units are for everyday joes.. Those in landed properties are RICH people.

    • brendanm on 07/02/2024 - 17:26
      +2

      Apartments are gross, and not everyone wants to live in the city.

      • ttt888 on 07/02/2024 - 18:26
        +3

        Thanks for confirming hence no fear for new housing supplies.

        Landed property will still be in high demand even within 30km of cbd.

        • brendanm on 07/02/2024 - 19:05
          -2

          Thanks for confirming hence no fear for new housing supplies.

          I don't know what you are even saying.

          Landed property

          I didn't know it could fly. The more you know.

      • TiredKitty78 on 12/02/2024 - 12:57

        The shoes boxes of land developers are selling and propagandising as what todays Australians want, aren't much different to apartments. Assuming large apartments with very good insulation aka 'party walls'.
        Except…they completely are different.

        Todays Australian are only ok with shoebox blocks because everyone is to busy working to care for a house with a yard.

  • markathome on 07/02/2024 - 15:46
    +7

    I have to question what is the point of this post? If you have a meaningful proposal to stop upsetting those investors/people let's hear it.

    But, on the flip-side, I face the prospect of having to move back in with my parents because of the housing crisis. That sucks way more than a one-off $75k loss on housing.* It also limits progress in other parts of my life. So yeah the pain of those at the ass-end of the housing crisis is more important than the investors.

    To make it even worse, when I do move back in with my parents (who are home owners), as long as I do so with a taxable income (which I can almost guarantee you I will), economists at the ANU will regard this an great example of the economy working to solve the hosing crisis.

    * many people, including myself, earn at least that amount each year of their working lives

  • pegaxs on 07/02/2024 - 16:14
    +18

    people with investment properties could lose out on hundreds of thousands of dollars that they otherwise would have eventually realised.

    Any deals on tiny violins?? These are the very people who created the problem in the first place. One IP, ok, two, borderline…. these people with 10+, cry me a river.

    These the same people on over $200k/year crying because they only got half of their tax cut, and not can only afford one ivory back scratcher rather than the usual two for the financial year?

    If the government was serious about making housing affordable, the first thing they should do is axe negative gearing on the 2nd and subsequent IP, and for each house you have in your portfolio, the tax doubles. So, at about 10 houses, the tax owing on the house is worth more than what the house is worth.

    • dmac on 09/02/2024 - 22:25

      Friends of the politicians will make sure that doesn't happen any time soon.

  • niknah on 07/02/2024 - 16:27

    I've had this happen in my area. A large area with apartments blocks were built across the road. The prices paused for a little while then went back up. If something crashes in the economy like in Perth it'll go down but not by too much, it's not like the stock market.

  • Ryanek on 07/02/2024 - 16:34
    +8

    Oh no… the poor land lords.

  • djsweet on 07/02/2024 - 16:51
    +3

    If house prices rapidly and dramatically decrease it won't just be investors losing out. It will be anyone with a mortgage. Imagine saving up for 10 years, giving up every luxury for years on end, working extra, sacrificing time with your kids etc etc just to scrape together enough for a house deposit. Then as soon as you settle, your house value falls through the floor and you now owe the bank more than your house is worth. Its not just the investors that will get screwed to the glee of the common battler. I am not an investor, nor do I own a house. But one day, if I can manage to buy one, I will be pretty screwed if it suddenly tanks in value.

    • mskeggs on 07/02/2024 - 16:57
      +4

      Wouldn’t you be quite chuffed if you bought the day after, however?
      There is literally nothing that could happen to make Australian property fall off a cliff.
      At best it might sag a bit, and cease going up violently higher.

      • djsweet on 07/02/2024 - 17:18
        -1

        Well yeah, everyone likes to make money right?
        Just pointing out that falling house prices wouldn't just hurt investors and rich folk, which seems to be a strong sentiment in this chat.

    • Ugly on 07/02/2024 - 19:24
      +3

      Why would you be screwed if the value went down?
      You’re living in it - that doesn’t change and neither does the amount you owe. You would only realise a loss if you sold it.

      • dtc on 07/02/2024 - 20:21
        +2

        How do you move to change jobs or have a new relationship if selling puts you into debt. Can’t divorce because you can’t move without being in debt. Can’t upgrade because you sell and you have a msssive debt and so can’t borrow enough to buy a new house

        Basically you are fine if you never want to/have to move

      • larndis on 08/02/2024 - 11:43
        +1

        What if you lose your job, get divorced, need to move for work, etc etc

  • transplanted on 07/02/2024 - 17:03

    I don't worry, these are all material things, we are all going to die soon and we won't take any of that in our graves. Your relatives will benefit when you die, that's good. But to be too stressed about housing and cost going up and down, yeah, nah!

    • Jaduqimon on 07/02/2024 - 17:16
      +2

      exactly I don't know why people fussing over housing crisis. In the end the guy with 10 IPs will be in same position as a renter. dead.

  • djkelly69 on 07/02/2024 - 17:19
    +1

    Disclaimer - no one in my immediate family or others close to me own investment properties, but…

    You don't think negative gearing + 50% CGT discount + ?? has been a pretty sweet ride for investment property owners?

    • Jaduqimon on 07/02/2024 - 17:37

      its only negative gearing. 50% CGT applies to all assets not just IP

      • dtc on 07/02/2024 - 20:22
        +1

        Negative gearing applies to all assets as well. Housing isn’t given any special or unique tax treatment

        • Jaduqimon on 07/02/2024 - 20:34
          -2

          well not quite. losses from other asset classes like Stocks cannot be used to offset your salary.

          • quick-dry on 07/02/2024 - 20:57

            @Jaduqimon: if negative gearing were shifted away from 'normal people', then it'd transfer more power to people who could reorganise their finances to be buying through a 'business', like anyone who is a contractor.

            It's a tax deduction like any other cost of generating an income. I'd argue that losses in other ways should be opened up (and thjat's not self interest. I dont have any losses to write off - but it's all odd. Why would a loss from selling your partial ownership interest in Company A be relevant to your ownership interest in Company B)

            • dtc on 08/02/2024 - 09:20

              @quick-dry:

              Why would a loss from selling your partial ownership interest in Company A be relevant to your ownership interest in Company B)

              The reason is that you are a single taxpayer and all your income from Company A and Company B is counted as your income (and added together); the corollary is your costs and losses should also be aggregated into a single number and offset against the income.

              There may be good policy reasons to deal with housing differently purely because its housing and there is a conscious decision to treat housing differently to other assets. However, absent that specific policy reason, treating an individual as a single tax payer (all income and all losses aggregated together) makes for a more efficient and standardised tax system.

              • quick-dry on 09/02/2024 - 03:47

                @dtc: exactly, I agree. That’s what I was getting at.

                The comment I was replying to was talking about stocks as a separate thing. IMO it really doesn’t make sense to treat those as related things, but not another investment (would those ppl consider shred ownership of an investment property as a “share” and thus related? )

          • dtc on 08/02/2024 - 09:12
            +1

            @Jaduqimon: Of course they can. If you borrow to buy shares and the income from the shares is less than the interest cost, you can tax deduct that interest from your salary.

          • larndis on 08/02/2024 - 11:46
            +1

            @Jaduqimon: You are confusing capital losses with expenses. dtc is correct there is no special treatment of housing.

            • Grunntt on 08/02/2024 - 14:39
              +2

              @larndis:

              dtc is correct there is no special treatment of housing.

              I find it amusing in these dramatic subject threads when people ignore the truth when it's spelled out for them.
              It doesn't fit their world view of the big bad property investor that gets all of that special treatment.
              When it's pointed out their view is wrong they don't interact with that part of the thread so they don't have to consider the uncomfortable idea that they may have been wrong.

          • tomfool on 10/02/2024 - 22:13

            @Jaduqimon: Losses from the sale of property cannot be claimed as an offset against income, capital losses can only be claimed against capital gains and have to be carried forward until there is a capital gain. All investments are treated equal property does not get any special treatment investing in shares gives the exact same opportunities.

  • brendanm on 07/02/2024 - 17:20
    +6

    Better solution would be to stop importing so many people

    • BobLim on 09/02/2024 - 07:23
      +1

      First line of any project marketing or business case:

      With Australia set to reach xx M people by 20yy, we need to act now and spend htese billions on z.

      Could just sop right there - change the baseline assumption.

    • liongalahad on 10/02/2024 - 04:20
      +1

      if only Australians were able to fill the huge jobs demand, right?
      Without immigration, Australia is doomed.

      • B-Moose on 10/02/2024 - 07:15
        -1

        We've had the highest immigration rate in the developed world for 20 years. Why do the jobs and skills shortages still exist? Answer is the whole 'skills shortage' is a scam to bring in low paid workers for big business.

        • liongalahad on 10/02/2024 - 16:12
          +1

          No. The reason for it is a hugely growing economy needs more people to contribute to it. And the more people there is the more economy grows, it's a feedback loop. You stop immigration, economy stalls.
          I see it in my own job, we need to hire skilled engineers, there's none of that available over here, need to get them from overseas and sponsor them or we would not grow. And I guarantee we offer top dollar wage (no matter if you Australian or a foreigner)

  • p1 ama on 07/02/2024 - 17:26
    +7

    If housing supply were raised to such a degree that house values in most areas dropped dramatically and rents stabilised back to where they used to be years ago, that would mean people with investment properties could lose out on hundreds of thousands of dollars that they otherwise would have eventually realised.

    The fundamental issue in this country is that people are unrealistic about living in a city the size of Sydney or Melbourne. Our population has grown exponentially since the 1970s, yet we still want to live like we're in the 1970s.

    When you have that volume of people, all wanting to be closer to the CBD for work, then the only solution is building up, and building with higher density, as seen with plenty of megacities around the world. Melbourne and Sydney are no longer small cities, they are huge population centres which are built extremely flat, with the ridiculous situation of people commuting for almost an hour one-way every day to get to work.

    I've worked in various cities, including Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, and Amsterdam (amongst others), and it was eye-opening to see the way that people lived - the average family size in Australia is 2.59 people. It's ridiculous that the average family wants to live in a 4BR brick veneer home with a big backyard and white picket fence. FWIW, I live in a 2BR apartment with a family - we all have enough space to feel comfortable, there's a park within walking distance I can take my kid to, public transport right on my doorstep, and I'm < 15 mins from the CBD, with convenient access to schools and shops. Best of all, price was < $400,000.

    The reality is that all cities with the same living attitudes as Melbourne and Sydney (of having large populations commuting to city centres, but living on large blocks of land in large houses) face a housing problem. Examples of this include LA, Toronto, and many others.

    • AustriaBargain on 07/02/2024 - 17:36
      -3

      Average growth rate has been more steady, average of 1.4% rather than exponential. Which is still fairly high for a developed nation.

      • p1 ama on 07/02/2024 - 20:33
        +6

        Average growth rate has been more steady, average of 1.4% rather than exponential.

        Percentage growth rate per annum is the definition of exponential.

        The maths refresher is that if you're growing at 1.4% p.a., then Nt = N0 * (1 + 0.014) ^ t, where Nt is the population at time t, N0 is the population at time 0, and t is the time you're interested in. The relationship between Nt and t is exponential.

    • FlyingMiffy on 08/02/2024 - 20:33

      Probably the best comment on this thread. Most of the arguments on housing comes from a place of entitlement. If people were more practical and actually took ownership and accountability of their own decisions, there wont be a problem. But hey, its more fun blaming someone else.

  • Hugh G Rection on 07/02/2024 - 18:41
    +1

    im excited, i have been waiting to buy more property that is cheaper. i don't want to buy a closet for a million dollars right now. hoping price to drop so i can buy all my children homes. i will rent them out until they finish there uni degrees, then kick out the renters and hand my kids the keys.

    • tharlow on 08/02/2024 - 09:04
      +1

      Please shell out a little extra for some smart locks — I really, really hate keys!

  • Almost Banned on 07/02/2024 - 18:41
    -1

    I am not the least bit worried about a substantial increase in the housing supply - because if it ever happened it would take ages to ramp up.
    I am worried that this government might introduce a change to negative gearing and particularly to eliminate it for established dwellings.
    That would signficantly hit the established homes market and might be enough to cause a real dip there.

    • AustriaBargain on 07/02/2024 - 19:01
      +1

      That would be a good thing for the majority of Australians. Houses were still rented out and maintained even before the housing bubble and they will continue to be rented out and maintained after. A house that rents for $300 a week is still worth renting out even if it used to rent for $700 a week, no one would leave it empty just to spite the government over increasing supply and cutting handouts.

      • Almost Banned on 07/02/2024 - 19:43

        According to some sources about 1 in 10 houses are CURRENTLY left untenanted. While that is probably an over-estimate, it certainly isn't helping the housing crisis.
        The other thing about negative gearing for established houses is that it provides an incentive to set rents at below full cost recovery. If that were no longer the case I suspect rent rises would be even worse. I know I would jack up the rate at mine. But some owners will just leave it vacant.

        • Gdsamp on 07/02/2024 - 20:57

          The other thing about negative gearing for established houses is that it provides an incentive to set rents at below full cost recovery

          any idea if most IPs or LLs are still NG'd nowadays? 60% in 2019

          • Almost Banned on 07/02/2024 - 21:03

            @Gdsamp: I'd be surprised if it were less than that figure and given interest rates would strongly suspect it to be much higher.

        • JIMB0 on 07/02/2024 - 21:11

          That's because tenants are a pain in the ass. They argue over a rent increase and say they are going to leave, then end up staying. They want to fill the place with their friends to help pay rent, want cats/dogs etc. Sometimes I think we'd be better off leaving it empty.

        • trapper on 08/02/2024 - 11:18

          Two empty houses I know of in my area are kept that way because the owner's don't want mess up the CGT exemption.

          One the owner now lives with his new partner and is waiting to see how that relationship goes before selling up.

          The other is an elderly owner who is in care now, so the house sits empty until he eventually dies, then the kids will inherit it and sell.

          • Grunntt on 08/02/2024 - 13:55

            @trapper:

            The other is an elderly owner who is in care now, so the house sits empty until he eventually dies, then the kids will inherit it and sell.

            Why would they leave it sitting empty?
            It is only exempt from the pension assets test for 2 years and would also impact any means-tested care fees.

            • trapper on 08/02/2024 - 15:18

              @Grunntt: Two years is two years.

              • Grunntt on 08/02/2024 - 16:26

                @trapper:

                Two years is two years.

                Different assumptions I guess - I assumed he was living more than two years and it looks like the kids are working on a quick sale.

                so the house sits empty until he eventually dies, then the kids will inherit it and sell.

            • Gareth on 08/02/2024 - 18:15
              -2

              @Grunntt:

              Why would they leave it sitting empty?

              Do you know how easy it is to sell with only a Power of Attorney? In our experience, we found it would be much easier once the Supreme Court had granted probate than potentially have to justify why the PoA had been activated, and possibly even defend the validity of the PoA. A few months later, and probate is your aunty.

              The effort to empty the house and get to a sellable state can take a while too - especially if there is debate or confusion regarding the contents' destination. (Would you want to be reading the will months later, and wondering where bequeathed items are now?)

  • tsunamisurfer on 07/02/2024 - 19:29
    +2

    The market WILL normalise, the question is how long is it going to take.

    The market knows that rents are high and wants to take advantage BUT cost of building is very high and risky with builders dropping dead.

    If left alone the market will bring this back into order.

    • AustriaBargain on 07/02/2024 - 19:32

      What about corrupt politicians making sure new land takes as long as possible to release? They don't even need to be corrupt, just incompetent and allow others to make sure it happens. if you owned a dozen investment properties and stood to retire with tens of millions of dollars of fun money because of the bubble, wouldn't you make sure the bubble was as big as ever decades from now when you're ready to cash out?

      • tsunamisurfer on 07/02/2024 - 19:39
        +1

        People love to say most polis have multiple IPs and just pass laws for themselves.

        I don't necessarily agree.

        The majority of the voting public are home owners that do not want to see their house values drop, its natural to feel that way, so they will vote to preserve it as much as possible.

        • AustriaBargain on 07/02/2024 - 19:52
          +2

          If you own just the home you live in then why do you care if house values drop, what difference does it make to them? And if they have children they should want house values to drop so those children can better afford their own house.

  • Brick Tamland on 07/02/2024 - 19:44
    +1

    Definitely need to keep housing supply down make sure families are homeless to ensure your investments dont drop

  • Ghost47 on 07/02/2024 - 19:52

    I guess in a way I'm scared because if things don't change they'll definitely be poorly built (i.e. fast, quick or cheap, pick two) and the last thing we need as a nation is housing to become even more of a consumable than it currently is or more Opal, Mascot, 23 Halifax situations cropping up.

    Anything built in the past 20 years isn't worth what the vendor and REAs say it is. IMO the real issue is that until builders are actually held to account and the build process is closely scrutinised the entire way, poorly built residences will continue to be built and that should be what is considered to be the problem with the increase in housing supply, not that people's wealth will decrease. IMO that's a short sighted view of the larger issue, and it should also be a concern for everyone because you don't want to be like that retired couple that bought that penthouse in the Mascot Towers for $1m or whatever and end up having $400k because it's defective.

    • AustriaBargain on 07/02/2024 - 19:53

      They could put tents on vacant blocks and people would still rent them because what other choice to people have, live on the streets?

      • Ghost47 on 07/02/2024 - 19:59

        If renting a tent on a vacant block offers more safety than sleeping in a tent in the park then yeah, doing that would be better, no?

        I'm not trying to say it's a good thing, but the government is living in a pipe dream if they think they'll ever reach their housing targets in a timely manner.

        • AustriaBargain on 07/02/2024 - 20:03

          How long does it take to train people to build roads, houses, lay wires, and pipes? Or to import container ships full of materials.

          • Ghost47 on 07/02/2024 - 20:05

            @AustriaBargain: If you want it done properly (i.e. prudently and pragmatically) then I would say it will take a lot longer than it takes now. And we should be aiming for high-quality housing.

            As I said, fast, cheap, quick, pick two.

            • Jaduqimon on 07/02/2024 - 20:07
              +1

              @Ghost47: agree. government is stuck. too much red tape then houses get built slowly… too loose then you get potato builds.

              • Ghost47 on 07/02/2024 - 20:21

                @Jaduqimon: Yeah and the last thing we need are potato builds. Imagine buying a new place only to need to spend $20k on repairs after five years, stuff that.

            • AustriaBargain on 07/02/2024 - 20:07

              @Ghost47: We could just settle for more cheap houses now, like we are already used to, and worry about replacing them with better ones later. People are already paying a fortune in rent for bad houses and would be happy to see supply go up so they can pay a reasonable price again.

              • Ghost47 on 07/02/2024 - 20:22

                @AustriaBargain: You do raise a good point. It's definitely a tough situation and quite the man-made mess we're in. Thanks to all our politicians for being so damn dumb.

    • this is us on 07/02/2024 - 20:07
      +1

      It's like there already. With few exceptions, construction in Australia is pretty shit. Everything is about the land… It's like a 200,000 replaceable house on a 3M land.

      • Ghost47 on 07/02/2024 - 20:23

        Indeed, but I would say quality has worsened a lot since the 70s and 80s.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join