Pre-Election First Homebuyer Promises - 5% Deposit for All Vs Deduct Mortgage Payments from Income Taxes

• 1
• 2
• 3

• • • • • • • • • • • • 

                        wtfisgoingon on 13/04/2025 - 22:13

                        +1

                        @mskeggs: Look, I'm sorry but it's really hard to take you seriously if you think the tax system is a meaningful problem. It's just not. The amount of money going into the system overall is tiny relative to the size of the housing market. It won't make a meaningful dent to reform them. I should say if I could snap my fingers and do it I would, but I don't think it's worth the political cost.

                        We have case studies where overhauling and dramatically cutting back on zoning laws and regulations helps the market. Austin Texas is one of the very few cities in the developed world where housing supply has remotely kept pace with the absolute explosion of people moving there. Proportionally far more than immigration creates here. They did it by overhauling all their regulations and allowing much higher density housing.

                        It's not the whole solution. But it's going to a damn sight more than tax reform, and it has far far fewer negative economic effects than immigration. It's a no brainer.

        • 

          tenpercent on 13/04/2025 - 15:00

          @wtfisgoingon: Unless you come up with a magical solution (which actually accounts for qualified labour and materials bottlenecks in the construction industry) to rapidly build an additional 100k new dwellings (on top of any other new dwellings) in order to house the current homeless population AND come up with a magical way to sustain a 30% increase in the number of new dwelling completions (in addition to the 100k requirement for the current homeless population) in order to house the excess immigration which is displacing 10k people into homelessness each and every month, then we do need a temporary complete pause or a longer temporary reduction in immigration to allow construction to catch up.

          • 

            wtfisgoingon on 13/04/2025 - 15:04

            +1

            @tenpercent: Labour is the biggest issue, and as I noted above we're literally half as productive as only 20 years ago when it comes to building houses. We need to focus on lifting that number and it will make an absolutely massive difference. A big part of that is overhauling bad and duplicative regulation, and shutting NIMBYs out of the conversation.

          • 

            freefall101 on 13/04/2025 - 17:10

            +6

            @tenpercent: Increase migration for construction workers. You cannot get a skilled visa in Australia as a bricklayer, it's simply not eligible.

            Of the 700k visas we've issued each year, less than 100k were skilled. We've got China suffering a housing industry collapse where we could poach workers from.

            There's two easy solutions on construction materials, either prop up our local manufacturing or let it go. China has cheaper materials and we have tariffs on them, despite that our largest glass manufacturer just went bust which will hold up a pile of projects. A trade agreement with China for zero tariffs on construction materials would let them dump their oversupply here as their building industry recovers, and we get cheaper houses. We'd kick our existing manufacturing capabilities and dual cab ute sales right in the nads to get those cheaper houses.

            Or we could do what Dutton plans on doing for gas, actually keep some of our raw materials for glass, bricks, steel, etc instead of shipping it overseas and make sure we have our own, but the "rapidly" side of that isn't going to happen.

        • 

          arkie0 on 13/04/2025 - 18:13

          @wtfisgoingon:

          I haven't seen any analysis that it will make a meaningful dent in our housing problem but I've seen a lot of analysis that says it might cause a recession and make us a lot poorer.

          Analysis here lol

          • 

            FlyingMiffy on 14/04/2025 - 13:40

            +1

            @arkie0: The only thing ill say is that the construction industry here is broken and it absolutely contributes to the supply problem in housing affordability. From process to culture - its ridiculous. In one example, when we did a KDRB for our home, we saw the worst behaviours. A tiler would turn up (apparently drove 2 hours to get to our job) just to leave after 10 mins - why - because apparently the orientation instructions for one wall in one bathroom wasnt clear. So instead of starting work on the 95%, he called it a day and went home. He upped it too by not telling anyone why he postpone the work for 6 weeks. The fix was a 2 min phone call. Now are you surprised that every build is over time and budget?

  • 

    Protractor on 13/04/2025 - 16:46

    Rubbish proper NG reform would flip most of the problems on the head. Especially going fwd.

    tOo mAnY mIgRaNts

    • 

      tenpercent on 13/04/2025 - 16:48

      How?

• 

  brendanm on 13/04/2025 - 14:05

  +5

  So they both just push prices up, nice.

• 

  RogerLoger on 13/04/2025 - 14:50

  +2

  Either way is a vote-buyer, not a problem fixer.

  Marketing #101. Price is driven by supply and demand.

  Anything government does to help individuals with affordability increases demand without fixing the supply shortage. Investors benefit from property price rises. At a guess, many politicians invest in property.

  CONFLICT OF INTEREST!
  https://www.yourinvestmentpropertymag.com.au/expert-insights…

• 

  SBOB on 13/04/2025 - 15:12

  Vote #1 for kicking the can down the road.

• 

  tenpercent on 13/04/2025 - 15:37

  All Australian politicans proposing policies for house prices

• 

  DingoBilly on 13/04/2025 - 16:34

  +1

  Both are (profanity) stupid. I honestly can't believe how bad these policies are. Housing prices are so artificial in Australia it's ridiculous.

• 

  Protractor on 13/04/2025 - 16:43

  +4

  More expensive houses.
  More heaps of dodgy houses.
  Lifelong mortgages to live in a house you hate.
  Business as usual for the drivers of the problem.
  Cowards in Canberra keep their jobs and the cash from lobbyists

• 

  Traya1 on 13/04/2025 - 17:19

  +6

  Insanity

  Fastest population growth in the developed world - all good mate
  50% CGT discount - no worries
  Negative gearing - she'll be right

  The list goes on and on, we are not a serious country

• 

  Checkmate3023 on 13/04/2025 - 17:57

  +1

  LNP policy is better as it gives FHB an even playing field with investors who already can claim there loan interest on tax it also pushes up supply as it only applies for new builds.

  The ALP policy seems to only give loans to people who probably cant afford them - you got no right buying a house if you can't save at least 10% deposit (esp if you can only save 2%) - however the banks would want this as it is risk free extra money for them with LMI…it add fuel to the fire and make the problem worse

  Factually speaking the only way to improve the housing crisis is to reduce demand or increase supply - linking this to the parties other policies

  Reduce migration (LNP)

  Build more houses (ALP)

  This sub has a hard on for the ALP but factually speaking the housing crisis comes down to simply supply and demand economics - With this new policy the LNP wins hands down (if they actually do what they say)

  However if you are heavily invested in the property market you could argue the ALP provides a lot more fuel to the fire and this policy makes the crisis worse but investors backpocket better….

  • 

    A Banana4scale on 14/04/2025 - 16:59

    +2

    Reduce migration

    LNP had 9 years to do this (7 if you exclude the covid years).

    Build more houses (ALP)

    ALP had 3 years to do this, they did SFA.

    This two party system ain't the answer.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 15/04/2025 - 15:33

    The ALP policy seems to only give loans to people who probably cant afford them

    That's incorrect. Affordability is based on income. A lower deposit brings forward purchasing that would otherwise occur in future years. It doesn't allow people to buy who otherwise cannot afford a mortgage.

• 

  freefall101 on 13/04/2025 - 18:39

  -1

  The ALP policy seems to only give loans to people who probably cant afford them - you got no right buying a house if you can't save at least 10% deposit (esp if you can only save 2%) - however the banks would want this as it is risk free extra money for them with LMI…it add fuel to the fire and make the problem worse

  You need 20% to avoid LMI, which means on a $500k property you’re looking at $100k. How does someone in their 20s save that? Rents are through the roof - personally my loan repayments were lower than my rent was. If you borrow $450k on a $500k property you’re looking at $9k LMI, which means minimum $60k savings. It’s not easy to save that.

  And people still need to meet the standard loan requirements, they can’t just turn on the money pump because the government is involved. People pay lots in rent. So long as the loan repayments are less than their rent, they’re fine. Rents have been going up, but we’re likely about to go into several years of slowly declining interest rates.

  It won’t do anything to reduce housing prices, but most young people just want to get into a house they own at this point.

  • 

    tenpercent on 13/04/2025 - 19:12

    Where are they finding a $500k property anymore?
    $1mil is pretty much the cheapest price in Sydney for a shitty run down fibro shack in the far outskirts of Western Sydney.
    Even regional towns have a median price of $666k now.

    • 

      freefall101 on 13/04/2025 - 19:29

      +1

      Apartments is what I was thinking, or outer suburb house in Melbourne, but mostly I went as low as possible because it only gets worse the higher prices get. For someone entering into the market for the first time, saving $150k+ to break into the market is pretty much impossible unless mum and dad are there to lend a hand.

      Sucks to be young these days, expected that somehow most of your income either goes on rent or saving towards buying, like that's a totally normal thing. I'd rather see a full overhaul of the industry geared towards actually lowering the cost and upping the supply, just hope whoever manages it does better than China did with their house building explosion.

  • 

    Checkmate3023 on 13/04/2025 - 20:03

    -4

    freefall101 - what you have described is essentially 'kicking' the can down the road and the average full time salary in Australia is 103k pa if you cannot save 100-150k then you arent going to manage a 30 year loan

    what the LNP actually improves supply and afforability for 1st home buyers it is hands down the better policy it long term actually helps the situation - the ALP policy makes the problem worse

    this is interesting because the political agenda from ALP voters on this one is clear esp on reddit but to some extent here - if Albo was smart he would copy the policy it is a very good idea - Dutton has 'stolen' a fair few ALP policies ie medicare funding increases this is some Albo should take one

    this might flip the election around as i honestly believe Albo and the ALP have the LNP beaten in almost every key issue - i prefer Nuclear but it is a dogs breakfast without costings so ALP was winning on most fronts but this is one of the biggest issues facings young Australians and it is the 'core' voter base for ALP and Greens if just a few vote LNP it could the tip the balance in favor of the LNP

    • 

      gromit on 14/04/2025 - 07:52

      -2

      Both policies are awful. The LNP requires new builds which while encouraging supply a gnats fart, it pretty much eliminates the majority of buyers as building costs are through the roof, FHB should not be building in this market and a 5 year exemption on tax just means in 5 years they will just hit an unaffordable mortgage cliff. What both should be doing is encouraging supply which means investors that can afford to build.

      • 

        Checkmate3023 on 14/04/2025 - 20:01

        -3

        the LNP requires new builds which while encouraging supply a gnats fart, it pretty much eliminates the majority of buyers as building costs are through the roof

        but not all buyers but 'some buyers' it improves supply and couple that with reduce migration it reduces demand - it isnt going to 'fix the problem' but it is a step in the right direction - which is way more then you can say about the ALP policy

        the only thing the ALP is going right is promising to build more houses but that broke that promise last election….so i fail to believe they will meet the targets they set out after failing last time

        • 

          gromit on 14/04/2025 - 23:11

          +1

          @Checkmate3023: Neither are a step in the right direction. Both are poorly thought out attempts at buying votes that will do SFA for the actual supply problem.

          • 

            Checkmate3023 on 15/04/2025 - 07:24

            -3

            @gromit: you dont understand the housing crisis if you think that

            it is legit supply and demand - LNP want to reduce demand and increase supply

            the ALP do want to increase supply with there building policy but this 5 down policy doesnt nothing to improve supply or or reduce demand and it will increase house prices

            im not even trolling this is just straight up economics

            • 

              gromit on 15/04/2025 - 07:28

              @Checkmate3023: Except they will do neither. You don't understand the housing crisis if you think it will, at least not in a way that makes a sparrows fart of difference.

              • 

                Checkmate3023 on 15/04/2025 - 07:30

                @gromit: please explain it to me - im being legit explain why building more houses and reducing migration doesnt help the crisis

                im not troll i want to hear what you have to say

                • 

                  gromit on 15/04/2025 - 07:35

                  +1

                  @Checkmate3023: Even the migration reduction they are looking at (and almost certainly will not achieve) leaves immigration much higher than is sustainable under current housing crisis, he only plans to bring permanent migration down by 45k a year. Their plan targets a small subsection of first home buyers, most of whom have very little impact on the new home builds. What they BOTH need to be doing is incentivizing investment in new builds and massive training and incentives to get builders into the industry. The current state of the industry and the states red tape makes it virtually impossible to meet the demand side for many years even if immigration was stopped dead.

                  • 

                    Checkmate3023 on 15/04/2025 - 07:46

                    -1

                    @gromit:

                    Even the migration reduction they are looking at (and almost certainly will not achieve) leaves immigration much higher than is sustainable under current housing crisis, he only plans to bring permanent migration down by 45k a year.

                    as someone who things permenate migration should be ZERO and we should only have working visas or a similar system to UAE - i dont disagree with you have any reduction in the numbers is a positive for housing demand would you not at least agree with that

                    their plan targets a small subsection of first home buyers, most of whom have very little impact on the new home builds.
                    incentivizing investment in new builds

                    the Liberal Policy does that your talking on average around 55k over 5 years of tax writes offs this is a 'massive' boost - i agree it will only about 1 in 10 [from the numbers] 1st home buyers that benefit but the idea is that perhaps some 1st home buyers who where looking to but established might be incientizied to build because of the tax benefits

                    you need to understand investors often do buy off the plan due to savings on stamp duty and the generous tax benefits - this gives 1st home buyers some of that benefit

                    new builds and massive training and incentives to get builders into the industry.

                    about 5 percent of our population is in the build and construction industry it is some of the highest numebrs in the world as a subection of a working group - im not disagreeing that there needs to be training

                    the current ALP goverment removed in-stant tax write offs which most tradies used purchase things like Utes. However the Free tafe might support training of new trades people.

                    the LNP could do more to improve apprenticeship numbers i do not disagree with you there

                    but overall the LNP policy is a positive step but i agree way more need to be done in cutting migration numbers

                    • 

                      gromit on 15/04/2025 - 07:53

                      +1

                      @Checkmate3023: my main issue is both parties policy is little more than lip service to the issue, it is intended to buy votes not address the core problems. Is it better than nothing, maybe. however it is just yet more kicking the problem down the road and letting the "next" government deal with it as neither side seems interesting in fixing it.

                      I am in the middle of a house build at the moment, the amount of time and money wasted on red tape, government approvals and pointless additions to my property to appease the planning and design requirements is truly insane. As long as they keep faffing about at the edges this issue is not going to be resolved. Both parties policies also do nothing to prevent their policies from also further jacking up house prices.

                      • 

                        Checkmate3023 on 15/04/2025 - 08:38

                        @gromit: Ill start by saying nothing you have said is wrong

                        You are generally correct

                        Im not here defending the government or the opposition but ill make a few arguementd

                        Both parties policies also do nothing to prevent their policies from also further jacking up house prices.

                        Adding supply will reduce the average and median property price down but if you're looking at Point piper, Bighton, Toorka etc these areas are expensives and always will be and will likely be more expensive in 10 years from now as long as we continue high migration policy.

                        red tape, government approvals and pointless additions to my property to appease the planning and design

                        The biggest waste of money is 1st nations tape because some elder says this rock was magical.

                        both parties policy is little more than lip service to the issue

                        My question is 'what' would you do?

                        Over 2 3rds of the population own property we have seem how bad it can be for state revenue when property is in a down turn ie Victoria the bankrupt state

                        Both parties also understand inflation is an issue and our economy is legitimately housing and mining

                        I would agree both are spendings too much but the last PM that tried to stop the spendingbwas abbott and he was knifed by his own party

                        Ill go back to the core issue supply and demand - you don't want house prices to go through the floor nor do you want it to sky-rocket- ideally housing should rise by ~inflation + 2%

                        If the arguement is we do not have a proper financially conservative right wing party i would agree but voting patterns have supported crazy spending and debt - i personally do not agree with it but you gotta read the room

                        • 

                          gromit on 15/04/2025 - 09:32

                          @Checkmate3023:

                          My question is 'what' would you do?

                          address immigration with a focus and incentive on builders and supporting industries
                          incentivize apprenticeships and Tafe (the one time tax write offs for tradies really didn't do much apart from fund bigger utes)
                          get involved with the states to fix the land release and red tape issues that drive up costs and slow down builds.
                          tax breaks or incentives for anyone building new houses, that includes FHB, investors etc.
                          less tax breaks on investment in old stock.
                          programs and infrastructure investment to incentivise people moving away from cities to regional hubs

                      • 

                        Checkmate3023 on 15/04/2025 - 09:06

                        @gromit: Just for clarification- building approvals and a lot of the red tape you are probably experiencing is due to local and state government not the Federal government

                        • 

                          gromit on 15/04/2025 - 09:26

                          @Checkmate3023:

                          Just for clarification- building approvals and a lot of the red tape you are probably experiencing is due to local and state government not the Federal government

                          Yep aware of that, I think the federal government need to step in to sort out state land release and red tape issues as the states are too inept with no real incentive to do it themselves.

                          • 

                            Checkmate3023 on 15/04/2025 - 09:39

                            @gromit:

                            Yep aware of that, I think the federal government need to step in to sort out state land release and red tape issues as the states are too inept with no real incentive to do it themselves.

                            this is fair enough - personally i would 'get rid' of state governments altogether as this would solve a lot of over bureaucracy problems we have and get rid of a lot of needless red tape

• 

  Stewardo on 13/04/2025 - 18:39

  +1

  Both proposals should have an ineligible post code clause.

  • 

    Checkmate3023 on 15/04/2025 - 07:31

    all supports should only be for new builds it is the only way to improve supply of housing

    • 

      tenpercent on 15/04/2025 - 07:43

      +1

      Agreed. But not all new builds. It should exclude knock-down-rebuilds unless it's knock down a single occupancy house and replace with multiple occupancy like a duplex, and not granny flats because that's just wasting land on low quality and overcrowded accommodation.

      • 

        Checkmate3023 on 15/04/2025 - 09:07

        +2

        I would put 1 clause a knock down of a uninhabited property shouldnt be excluded

        We have a shit load of old buildings in Victoria no one lives in or will live in because they are completely cooked that could be unlocked as residential and commercial use

• 

  gromit on 13/04/2025 - 19:34

  +1

  Both are just a recipe to push up house prices, pathetic attempts at buying votes

• 

  nk10025 on 13/04/2025 - 20:14

  🎓 "HECS-Free for the First Year" Policy
  Summary:
  A federal policy that makes the first year of university or TAFE HECS-free (i.e., no student loan debt accrued) for eligible young Australians, regardless of income.

• 

  AuQld on 13/04/2025 - 21:11

  +6

  Useless, just build more houses and cut immigration numbers. Doing this will add 200k to existing house prices.

  • 

    Checkmate3023 on 15/04/2025 - 07:32

    -1

    LNP do want to cut migration and the policy does result in building more housing

    • 

      tenpercent on 15/04/2025 - 07:52

      +3

      How does the policy result in building more housing if the construction industry is already running near capacity (with qualified labour and materials availability both being bottlenecks)?

      • 

        AuQld on 15/04/2025 - 13:46

        How does the policy of giving people more access to money not increase the cost of houses. More demand = higher prices. Reduce demand + increase supply = More available houses at lower prices

        Construction industry is not at capacity, councils and regulation are the bottle necks and largest contributor to the increase in prices.

• 

  Hardlyworkin on 13/04/2025 - 21:42

  Make it easier to build a prefab home as not currently realistic to most. Reward building better homes than the same crap of the past 40 years.

  • 

    R4 on 14/04/2025 - 00:11

    +2

    Agree. Look at Germany's HUF houses - very high quality prefab buildings.

    It can be done.

• 

  OhNoUShiz on 13/04/2025 - 22:40

  Any other parties to vote for except these two jokers?

  • 

    gromit on 14/04/2025 - 15:28

    -1

    It really is either a choice between a giant douche or a turd sandwich, everything else is even less palatable.

  • 

    belongsinforums on 14/04/2025 - 19:12

    -1

    greens or indie. or pauline if that's your thing

• 

  R4 on 14/04/2025 - 00:09

  +5

  More vote buying by both sides using our money. Pathetic.

  Slash immigration. Build more houses. Do this.

  • 

    Hardlyworkin on 14/04/2025 - 07:17

    -1

    Solve one problem and create another. Business will struggle to fill positions if immigration is heavily reduced.

    • 

      R4 on 14/04/2025 - 08:32

      Immigration is good.
      Mass immigration is bad.

      We need the right immigration - skilled and permanent, not the student visa rort we have ATM. We can have some unskilled migration but that can never lead to PR.

      • 

        Hardlyworkin on 14/04/2025 - 10:17

        -2

        We still need people to do the part time and casual jobs Aussies don't want or can't do . Cleaning food service etc

        • 

          R4 on 14/04/2025 - 10:29

          @Hardlyworkin: I agree. For that we could have workers on temporary visas that could never lead to permanent residence or have access to Medicare and Centrelink. Some kind of guest worker program.

          • 

            A Banana4scale on 14/04/2025 - 17:05

            +1

            @R4: In the 2019-20 financial year, for those aged 15-64 years, the proportion of migrants who received unemployment payments was 11%, compared with 13% of the total Australian population aged 15-64 years.

            Not only that, new migrants have to wait 2 years to access any Centerlink benefits.

            Across the world, in most OECD countries, migrants tend to make less use of social benefits compared to the native population. The net economic benefit is always postitive.

            • 

              R4 on 14/04/2025 - 20:39

              @A Banana4scale: Cool but the bsee that you avoided mentioning Medicare.As long as they get zero access to that then even better.

            • 

              [Deactivated] on 15/04/2025 - 11:02

              @A Banana4scale: …because migrants are working age adults. The stats won't show anything else.

          • 

            MrThing on 14/04/2025 - 18:29

            @R4: we have that already; working holiday visas

            • 

              R4 on 14/04/2025 - 20:38

              @MrThing: Then we don't need any more temporary workers. So zero post-grad working for international students.

              Works for me.

      • 

        gromit on 14/04/2025 - 12:17

        +1

        Student visas bring in a huge amount of money to the country and help fund uni places for our kids as well as fill loads of temp jobs that the average Aussie would not dream of doing. A stable student intake combined with skilled migration is a necessary evil.

        • 

          R4 on 14/04/2025 - 12:36

          @gromit: I agree that a stable student intake is required but right now it's not stable. There are far too many international students here. They should have no postgrad work rights (which is the main driver for many of them to choose Australia) and should not be allowed to bring their families. Being on a student visa should not lead to eventual PR except in very limited cases. As it stands, universities are essentially selling residence and it shouldn't be that way. IMO the financial benefits that students bring are currently outweighed by the negatives. The system is not fit for purpose.

          • 

            A Banana4scale on 14/04/2025 - 17:10

            +2

            @R4:

            IMO the financial benefits that students bring are currently outweighed by the negatives. The system is not fit for purpose.

            Unfortunately your opinion conflicts with the underlying statistics that these students eventually contribute more to the economy than they take out. Younger graduates turned skilled migrants help support the tax base, and for a long time. They help fill low-skilled labour gaps initially, and are more willling to fill skill shortages in regional and remote areas.

            • 

              R4 on 14/04/2025 - 18:03

              -1

              @A Banana4scale: Agree that's the case for some of them but not the majority - most the Uber Eats drivers, 7-11 workers etc are on student visas or extended visas or some other bullshit visa. For most of them doing this, this was their primary reason for choosing Australia, not to study. The majority will never get PR and just want to work in the West for a while. I work with some Pakistani engineers (who are here on PR - and rightly so) and they tell me that this is what's happening. Also, we have record skilled migration, yet still have a massive skills shortage. This shows that a lot of 'skilled' migration (especially from Asia) is not really skilled and is just people milking a very lax immigration system that is implemented by governments that know this but doesn't really care - as long as GDP is growing (per capita GDP be damned), they're happy and can crow that we're not have recessions (when in reality we should be).

              The immigration system is a mess but the sheeple keep voting for it unfortunately.

      • 

        MrThing on 14/04/2025 - 18:28

        +1

        dunno why you got negged but your absolutely right

        student visas is the backdoor to PR, once they finish their studies they should be given a short period of time to find a job in a demand industry as per the immigration dept or be told to pack their bags back home.

• 

  IamHere2 on 14/04/2025 - 05:12

  We already have low deposit home loan scheme in SA. It's good in theory but the problem is there interest rate are 8.39% . So, essentially first home buyer is paying the LMI, but instead of one go, it built into the interest rate.

  https://www.homestart.com.au/rates-fees

• 

  Lunarboogie on 14/04/2025 - 06:34

  +1

  Dutton's announcement essentially broadens the NG rort to first home buyers, but is at least better targetted in that it only applies to new builds which should increase demand for new supply.

  I find it deeply ironic that people who support NG (and there's an army on here) yet are critical of this.

  If investors can write off interest for their properties, why not young people who need it?

  I'm against NG in principle but if the pollies don't have the courage to rescind it, I'd rather my taxes subside a young person than fat cats on their 5th policy.

  Albo's policy is a joke and will ignite further price rises across the board. Another weak announcement from a weak PM

• 

  ForkSnorter on 14/04/2025 - 06:35

  +3

  Another strategy to increase the value of politicians' property portfolios. Will this ever stop?

  Making it easier for poor 25-year-olds to take on a massive mortgage doesn't solve the housing crisis or even address it. In fact, it will probably make it worse.

  What would address the housing crisis is limiting negative gearing and CGT discount to new builds, which will lure investors away from the existing property market and put greater pressure on increasing the housing supply.

  But this wouldn't help drive up the value of politicians' property portfolios, and it might also lose them the vote of wealthy property investors who want to scam more money out of the Australian economy, the ATO, and the Australian people.

• 

  Lastchancetosee on 14/04/2025 - 07:49

  +1

  It seems to me that the LNP offer will primarily help those who could have purchased any way, like Morrison's $25k Covid handout, whereas the ALP offer may make hiusing more accessible for those who are further from the mark.

• 

  82norm on 14/04/2025 - 07:51

  +1

  Unless either parties do something about negative gearing, nothing will change. Thanks Johnny Howard for this mess.

• 

  joshash on 14/04/2025 - 07:53

  +1

  The people who will benefit from this most are the children of wealthy parents. Together with the price rises it will cause, it will massively increase already rising inequality.

  The investment property ownership of Australian politicians who manage housing policy borders on outright corruption.

  The only 'labor' most Australian Labor politicians have ever done is work as union delegates and advisors.

  At least the Liberals don't pretend to represent the working class

  • 

    rezdo on 17/04/2025 - 09:54

    The LNP pretend they are for all, when in fact they are just puppets to big business and mining which pay next to no tax. Labor's policies are significanly closer to working Australian's and we need more union involvement to improve conditions and lift wages, and less vested interests from people just biding their time until they go work for said mining companies or weapons manufacturers. With that said, in my electorate, I will be voting independent for a climate 200 backed candidate with Greens and Labor following, LNP last where they put you..

• 

  wannagrababargain on 14/04/2025 - 10:05

  +4

  What can I say only that the policies that keep the Australian house price ponzi going are getting more and more elaborate. Need to push more and more people into the debt machine to prop it up.

  It's interesting how the coalition scheme seems to be geared to stimulate new builds. The cynic in me would say this is just to prop up the property developer mates of the LNP. I can see an unintended consequence of this being a boom of sh*tbox apartments/units being thrown together to a spec to fit within the scheme. Property developers taking the cream off the top more or less subsidised by taxpayers and underwritten by the labour of FHBs. Looser lending criteria would probably mean higher interest rate for loans offered under this scheme. Government doesn't underwrite anything as opposed to the Labour scheme (presumably the Government underwrites the LMI instead?).

  Labour on the other hand seems to want to stimulate new builds by direct public housing construction. 5% deposit or Help to Buy to make housing more accessible but not really more affordable, you'll pay so much more interest eventually. Even 5% is barely any equity, many of these loans could turn upside down relatively quickly, the ALP hope being that house prices will never fall?

  Both schemes encourage people to take on more debt than they probably should. Renters which make up 1/3rd of Australia seemingly ignored by both policies? Nothing in there directly addresses the Rental market.

  What I don't like is people just outside the caps are left in the cold. It's a hard cap with no sliding scale. In the end it probably doesn't matter though, the market finds an equilibrium. Everything worth around $500k will suddenly be priced at $650k overnight. Everything above $650k will be better value for money because less subsidies.

  • 

    Cluster on 14/04/2025 - 12:46

    +2

    Whether it's pumping more money into the housing market, or the ALP subsidising the cost of solar PV batteries, both do not benefit renters. The entire goal of both sides of government is to get people to buy homes. That keeps home prices booming and our economy growing. If ever people lose confidence that houses always go up in value, we'll have a crisis that will make Ireland, Spain, and China housing crashes look like a children's picnic.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 15/04/2025 - 11:04

      +1

      Increasing house prices is damaging the economy. It's an unproductive asset class. The narrative that it's 'good' for the economy for housing to increase in price is rubbish pushed by the mass media.

      Consider what proportion of media advertising is funded by the real estate industry

• 

  Cluster on 14/04/2025 - 11:18

  +2

  Which one is going to result in more land opening up for homes, and more high rise affordable apartments being built?

  The answer: None. Both are just designed to pump more money into an overheated market.

• 

  ramb9 on 14/04/2025 - 11:20

  +1

  ALP only applies to like 10000 people - so given the volume, it should have lower impact to house prices.

• 

  OzzyOzbourne on 14/04/2025 - 12:42

  Handing out taxpayer's money never solves the underlying problem, it usually makes it worse. But people will vote for this as they see it as free money. Similar to this below and every other government handout. The poor fund the rich and the gap widens.
  https://youtu.be/ARYedMkqFVM?si=VhHO9AkoZNIqpP34

  • 

    tenpercent on 14/04/2025 - 17:39

    -1

    It's not really handing out taxpayer money. It's collecting less taxpayer money. Bit of a difference.

    • 

      OzzyOzbourne on 14/04/2025 - 23:40

      And the lost tax revenue will be made up by….

      My point is, someone somewhere pays and it's usually the "not haves".

      Making it temporarily slightly easier to purchase something that is overpriced due to fundamental issues with the system is just kicking the can down the road and not fixing the underlying problem.

• 

  zah on 14/04/2025 - 13:34

  Can they just find a way to keep house prices within 10-20% of current prices after 20 years?
  Much easier for me to save 1m in 20 years and buy with cash than to pay 1.8m over 30 years to pay off said mortgage with interest. Not to mention all of the financial stress, struggling with job mobility worrying about paying off mortgage etc. Seen too many people my age neck deep in stress over this and that’s why I believe it’s not for me.

  • 

    Brianqpr on 14/04/2025 - 15:00

    They don't want that as their claims of economic credibility depends on a strong housing market.

  • 

    Gdsamp on 14/04/2025 - 15:05

    you must generate value for the big banks for a healthy super balance in retirement

  • 

    Cluster on 14/04/2025 - 15:17

    +1

    It's virtually impossible to cap house prices.

    Even if government declares that houses must not be sold for more than a 1% price rise per year, people will find creative ways around it. Cash in a brown paper bag 'left' in the kitchen during handover, etc.

    And how many investors would be willing to pay 5% on a mortgage to get a 1% return?

    Even rules surrounding not leaving properties empty and unused for years are easily circumvented. Check water and power use? Easy. Turn up to the property every few weeks and waste water for a day. Run power hungry appliances like a heater on a timer. Run lights on a timer. Etc.

    • 

      zah on 14/04/2025 - 16:28

      Sigh. You’re right. I’m not going to bother with property ownership at all.

• 

  meowbert on 14/04/2025 - 14:19

  +1

  Libs have least worst solution. Real solution - zero immigration, everything else is a farce and open to abuse as it always has been.

  • 

    Brianqpr on 14/04/2025 - 14:59

    +4

    Neither side will let prices fall, even the LNP proposed changes to immigration are only for a couple of years and will make little or no difference.

    The real cause is the investor tax breaks which will continue.

    • 

      tenpercent on 14/04/2025 - 17:38

      +1

      The real cause is the investor tax breaks which will continue.

      How do investor tax breaks contribute to either:

      • lack of supply of dwellings for people to live in, or
      • increased population wanting to live in dwellings?
      • 

        Brianqpr on 15/04/2025 - 07:28

        +1

        Prices would be lower without investor tax breaks as there would be less investors in the market.

        While other factors are relevant, they are less relevant.

        • 

          tenpercent on 15/04/2025 - 07:38

          -1

          @Brianqpr: The only two relevant factors are total number of dwellings available to live in, and total number of family units wanting to live in dwellings.

          Disincentivising NG investors has no impact on either of those. It may bring house prices down briefly and in doing so shift ownership from NG investors to positively geared investors (who tend to be larger investors) and possibly a few lucky first home buyers who happen to be in the market at the time the new policy takes effect. But it will be a brief game of musical chairs.

          The rental market will be unaffected and the rental crisis will continue. No new dwellings and no fewer people means homelessness will not be improved and the homelessness crisis will continue.

          • 

            Brianqpr on 15/04/2025 - 14:52

            +2

            @tenpercent: This is nonsense.

            If there were no investor tax breaks this would significantly reduce demand. Investors don't need the properties to live in so are attracted by the potential financial benefits. If those benefits are not as attractive many will invest elsewhere, leaving more properties for people that want to own and live in them.

            Less demand and competition means lower prices. Lower prices mean that buying vs renting costs may work in favour of buying. To say the investment tax concessions make no difference is just ridiculous and smarter people than us have done studies to show it has a big effect.

            Of course supply is an issue too, but the fundamental problem of excessive property prices was well underway long before immigration increased. Its roots are in the late 90s/early 2000s.

            With respect, homeless people are never likely to be buying property.

            • 

              tenpercent on 15/04/2025 - 14:59

              -1

              @Brianqpr: You're confusing two issues.
              1. Demand for living in housing (buying + renting), and
              2. Demand for buying housing

              With respect, homeless people are never likely to be buying property.

              That's not the point. The point is they're never going to be even living in a property (such as renting) if we continue bringing in more family units faster than we are building new dwellings to accommodate them. If we cannot build faster than bring in immigrants then homelessness (and/or overcrowding) will simply increase.

    • 

      meowbert on 14/04/2025 - 18:45

      Yeah but, if there is no growth (i.e. increased demand driving up prices) you won't get investors - two birds with one stone. That's why I say zero immigration.

      • 

        Brianqpr on 15/04/2025 - 07:29

        Who's going to pay the tax needed to fund pensions for our ageing population if there's no immigration?

        • 

          tenpercent on 15/04/2025 - 07:49

          @Brianqpr: We don't need to halt immigration entirely or reduce it forever.

          It just needs to be paused or reduced while construction of new dwellings catches up with the number of people already here.

          And once the housing stock has caught up with the existing population and any new arrivals, immigration just needs to be capped at a non-fixed level that is linked to the completion of new dwellings.

        • 

          meowbert on 20/04/2025 - 17:59

          @Brianqpr: Reduce the highly exploited NDIS? Reduce government waste and obvious fraud? Stop centrelink payments for non-Australians? Stop paying pension to people who live in 6 million dollwr houses?

• 

  Brianqpr on 14/04/2025 - 14:58

  +1

  The main message is that neither party ever wants house prices to fall.

  Like every other attempt to address the issue these measures will cause prices to rise.

  • 

    ramb9 on 14/04/2025 - 15:30

    +1

    I wouldn't want house prices to fall if I had a $33m portfolio in property lol.

    • 

      Brianqpr on 14/04/2025 - 16:54

      Indeed, although I suspect I wouldn't care too much if it was that valuable.

      Could always make some well timed share trades to make up any losses 😄

• 1
• 2
• 3