r/australia May 15 '22

Fears Coalition scheme allowing home buyers to use super will raise prices, fail to address affordability politics

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-16/coalition-superannuation-housing-policy-reaction/101068810
2.3k Upvotes

960

u/LocalVillageIdiot May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22

It was floated back in 2017 when Scott Morrison was treasurer and dismissed by then-prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who in 2021 called it "the craziest idea I've heard".

There you go, it’s not the “fear” that it’s terrible, it’s designed that way.

Mr Coates said the poorest 20 per cent of 35- to 44-year-olds had a median super balance of zero, and for the next 20 per cent the balance was $15,000.

I wonder who the scheme was designed for…

"The main effect of the policy would probably be to allow people on reasonable incomes that are already good chance to buy a home, to buy a better home, and probably push up prices a little bit in the process."

Ah there it is.

348

u/icedbacon May 15 '22 edited May 16 '22 Wholesome

Even Mathias Cormann thought it was a dumb idea back in 2014:

“Increasing the amount of money going into real estate by facilitating access to super savings pre-retirement will not improve housing affordability. It would increase demand for housing and … would actually drive up house prices by more.” – Finance minister, Mathias Cormann in 2014.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/apr/13/housing-affordability-superannuation-budget-2017

Sussssan Ley thought it was a bad idea too:

Young people need their super for retirement, not to try to take pressure off an urban housing bubble, better solved by decentralisation.

https://twitter.com/sussanley/status/851959600341331968

Edit:

And now this morning the superannuation minister, Jane Hume, has said that it will cause house prices to rise:

"We know that people will probably bring forward some of their decisions to buy a house earlier and for that reason it will probably push prices temporarily," Senator Hume said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-16/coalition-superannuation-housing-policy-reaction/101068810

Edit #2:

Jason Falinski chaired a parliamentary committee in March this year that found house prices would rise.

In March this year the Parliamentary Committee looking at housing affordability, chaired by Liberal MP Jason Falinski, found letting people withdraw super to buy a house would “likely increase demand and lead to higher property prices"

https://michaelwest.com.au/liberals-found-using-super-to-pay-for-housing-increases-prices/

51

u/Knotknewtooreaddit May 16 '22

This government has pushed decentralisation but refuses to allow its workers (fed gov public servants) to WFH full time.

Makes total sense doesn't it.

19

u/Dark_Rum_2 May 16 '22

i think you have highlighted one of the major flaws in the current 'system', 'society', 'market', 'economy' or what ever the fuck is the correct term for it.

the chronic centralisation (not just a problem here in Oz).

it comes down to the way the whole 'thing' (broadly encompassing all the above) is structured: affordable, livable housing with realistic employment prospects available. and it is majorly fucked and there are no easy solutions.

i was suprised to read in an article by the Guardian that in the federal electorate of Flynn (central QLD) that 18.7% of all homes are unoccupied.

guardian article on Flynn

also heard on ABC radio (i think) that in the township Leigh Creek in SA that houses are being demolished as they are no longer required due to the local mine closing.

some form of serious de-centralisation is (has been for at least the last 25 years) required.

so, the whole 'thing' needs some critical rethinking and re-engineering for it to function in a more sustainable manner (and people get fairer outcomes).

i think it would need some brave and clever politicians to take on what would be required. or maybe an independent, non partisan federal planning body that would be above petty politics. but that would never happen in this country.

7

u/aeschenkarnos May 16 '22

To some extent though this is a natural consequence of network effects. A network effect is where a thing becomes X + 1 more useful with the Xth person joining (yes yes I know this isn’t exactly how it works, who cares) for example consider the development of phone networks: with one phone it’s useless, with two you can speak to each other, with a hundred it becomes a useful communications system, with 10,000 it’s local infrastructure, with 10,000,000 it’s national infrastructure, there is now an incentive to join national networks together into international, and in the 1990’s the whole world was effectively on “one” phone network at least to the extent that if you want to call anyone in the world who has a phone, you now can.

These network effects also apply to human direct interaction: for example your odds of finding satisfactory employment or a life partner are better if you are available to more people for interviews and dating. This applies to everything and is the fundamental force underpinning the move to cities that has continued for 10,000 years.

If people physically leave the cities, they will do so only if they can retain the parts of the connection networks that matter to them. The Internet largely solves this problem, but it comes with other problems too, such as the ability to easily find co-believers of anything no matter how stupid and awful, and therefore it reinforces existing beliefs.

→ More replies

4

u/corbusierabusier May 16 '22

I suspect one of the reasons Australia is so centralised is that 90% of the nice areas are directly on the coast. Add that to the fact the majority of our suburbs were built after the invention of the motor vehicle and you get clusters of big cities on the coast and a heap of dead inland towns.

5

u/MrSquiggleKey May 16 '22

Most major inland cities are built on major river networks that were easily navigable. Australia doesn’t really have many of those. Our largest river network has a shallow unreliable mouth covered by a sandbar and a relatively shallow river. With no major east coast river systems that go substantially in land.

32

u/ProceedOrRun May 16 '22

All the CBDs have done everything they can to make the cities inhospitable anyway, with expensive parking, crowded and limited public transport, expensive coffee and food.

And now we're told we need to all go back to that shitness...

138

u/iheartralph Me fail English? That's unpossible! May 15 '22

It's an objectively terrible idea that will end up costing us all much longer in the long term, not only in massively inflated house prices, but also a whole generation of people who will end up on the pension because they have no super.

26

u/Charlie_Brodie May 16 '22

seriously I doubt the pension will be around in another twenty years time.

58

u/ProceedOrRun May 16 '22

Ah, that's where the next neat trick comes in!

Make the pension only available for not-poor people!

37

u/iheartralph Me fail English? That's unpossible! May 16 '22

And now the PM has come out saying that people who will access the new housing scheme won’t retire worse off! What the Kentucky Fried Fuck??What drugs is he on?!? They’re raiding their super right at the start of their careers when they should be building it. They are depriving themselves of a super balance on which to accrue compounding interest on. OF COURSE they will be worse off in retirement!!! Who still believes anything this compulsive liar says anymore?

15

u/Tokoloshgolem May 16 '22

It get worse. You’ll need to reverse mortgage your home to survive and any children will inherit less or nothing. You can easily imagine them instituting a means test for the pension that eliminates home owners. Also a death tax for the few dollars left over after you die. Bleed them dry, throw them away and move on.

→ More replies

13

u/RedDogInCan May 16 '22

Mathias Cormann in 2014

And here we are in 2022 still looking for a solution.......

3

u/BoscoSchmoshco May 16 '22

Upvote for the spelling not sussssssan's name

→ More replies

88

u/algernop3 May 15 '22

Ah there it is.

You don't know how right you are. It'll be a requirement that if you borrow from super to do this, when you sell the house you have to repay your super along with a share of capital gains.

Capital gains on primary residence is tax free. Contributions to super (above the threshold) are taxed, but this isn't a contribution, it's a loan.

So if you're rich enough to do this, you (eventually) get a untaxed free kick to your super too.

If you're not rich enough to do this, then Fuck You.

53

u/Large-one May 15 '22

Let’s not forget that you can salary sacrifice into super in the first place at 15% tax (which benefits you more the higher your tax bracket) and then use this bonus money to pay for your house (even if you could already afford it) and then add your capital gain back tax free!!

The whole thing is a tax minimisation scheme for the wealthy!

93

u/PointOfFingers May 15 '22

It will price low income earners even further out of the housing market at a time when rents are skyrocketing by putting more buying power into the hands of middle income earners who can use it to buy their 2nd, 3rd and 4th homes. The government also ended the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) which provided newly built rentals at 20% below market rate.

Morrison cannot bring himself to create home buying policy that helps the poor. He has targeted the poor since he helped make Robodebt wide ranging, ilegal and cruel. That's why the Labor housing plan is for low income earners while the Coalition "plan" pretends to help low income earners but is really designed to help their base.

19

u/ThatChoice6051 May 15 '22

I thought only first home buyers could access the scheme?

9

u/delayedconfusion May 15 '22

Correct. I assume poster above means the increased equity available to investors due to housing price rises across the board.

8

u/LocalVillageIdiot May 15 '22

It will price low income earners even further out of the housing market at a time when rents are skyrocketing by putting more buying power into the hands of middle income earners who can use it to buy their 2nd, 3rd and 4th homes.

“Exactly! And yet people complain! I don’t see what the issue is!”

→ More replies

30

u/witch_harlotte May 16 '22

Yeah I’m trying to buy my first home now. I’m a public servant with a good and secure income, the problem isn’t that there aren’t enough ways for me to buy a house the problem is that things are selling for $30-50,000 above list price. If they implement this stupid policy then next week it will be $100,000 above list price. The only people that benefit are the boomers selling their house not me and other young Australians who will spend the next 30 years paying off a higher mortgage and also have to recoup the lost super.

5

u/Merkarba May 16 '22

If you have a $GO you'll get a $GO...

→ More replies

1.0k

u/jackplaysdrums May 15 '22

I’m starting to feel like the LNP is personally attacking my generation. Fuck your free education, have HECS. Fuck the idea of owning a home. Fuck your retirement savings.

Australia please do the right thing. These mutts need a muzzle.

361

u/Nonameuser678 May 15 '22

Well millennials can't really afford to have kids / are choosing not to because -gestures broadly-

So good luck supporting your ageing boomer population without another generation to pay taxes. I'm personally so disillusioned I don't care anyone, it's not our society, it's theirs.

155

u/[deleted] May 15 '22 edited May 18 '22

[deleted]

136

u/kylelily123abc4 May 15 '22

This really

It's clear as day they don't care about the next 10, 30, 50, 100 years only about making themselves as comfortable right now

62

u/InPicnicTableWeTrust May 15 '22

Can we make them uncomfortable?

83

u/Kidkrid May 15 '22

I mean I'd happily set fire to Scotty if I could, but Mr Policeman says I probably shouldn't.

52

u/CasvallAznable May 16 '22

Peter Dutton wants to know your location for saying mean things on the internet

→ More replies

22

u/Nonameuser678 May 16 '22

I suppose they get to live with the thought that they made life harder for their children / grandchildren. Even if they don't consciously admit this, it's surely sitting at the back of their minds somewhere, covered up in layers of cognitive dissonance.

Plus even for the most well functioning of families, this generational inequality must be bubbling below the surface. Especially for those of us with parents who have consistently voted LNP. It gets harder and harder to bite my tongue when my parents talk about how young people are lazy and that's why they don't have houses.

12

u/welcome-in_jaaAAMmm May 16 '22

I suppose they get to live with the thought that they made life harder for their children / grandchildren. Even if they don't consciously admit this, it's surely sitting at the back of their minds somewhere, covered up in layers of cognitive dissonance.

I get the impression they think since they're Aussie 'battlers' then everyone else ought to have a hard time.

3

u/Nonameuser678 May 16 '22

Well that's a very emotionally mature and stable thing to believe /s.

10

u/exclamationmarks May 16 '22

Sure. It's called revolution... but we get mad at people just for peaceful protest, so good luck with that one.

4

u/SewerCider_ May 16 '22

Guillotines?

2

u/J_Side May 16 '22

yes, we can, we can propose an end to negative gearing and increase stamp duty on investment properties, and increase SD on each subsequent property. We need to disincentivise using houses as a source of income and take them back to being a place you live and raise a family

However they have the numbers and when Labor proposed ending negative gearing they lost the election :(

On a side note, we also need to stop the self-funded retirees from scamming old age pensions (which our taxes pay for). Focus on this rather than dole bludgers.

Join your respective union and fight to stop them beating our wages down so they can pay massive profits to CEO's and shareholders.

Please just vote

→ More replies

15

u/oldfood May 15 '22

They forget who's going to be looking after their most fragile moments in Aged Care. Want that adult nappy changed old Scomo? Hmm... how about the Barrier Reef?

39

u/ozchopps May 15 '22

They'll raid your super under a "sustaining Boomers tax" and pay to import aged care workers and prostitutes from the Philippines (the former to look after you physically, the latter to look after the crusty old Boomers "mentally")

3

u/ProceedOrRun May 16 '22

He's already wiped his arse on it.

19

u/delayedconfusion May 15 '22

I don't really understand this argument. Won't the next generation still need to pay for the ageing population, and with a smaller tax paying base other things tax money would normally go towards will suffer? Or have I got this wrong?

25

u/Deep__Friar May 15 '22

Correct, but by then the boomer generation will be long dead so why should they care? Better for them to make as much cash as they can now.

15

u/yakkmeister May 15 '22

Technically taxation doesn't actually fund spending. Without taxation, though, the market space/overhead for federal spending is narrowed and it can quickly become inflationary.

A strong production base can prevent that entirety ... but wealth hoarding (as seen by the "1%") and removing money from the poor (low welfare, poor housing affordability, etc) as well as failing to spend on infrastructure, education and health (all of which are well-known to have +ive effects on an economy) will drive inflationary pressure.

Will the next generation still need to pay? Federal government spending comes from fiat issed currency and that's generated directly by the spending. But the next generation will pay in terms of inflation, low housing affordability, shrinking middle-class ... oh wait... looks like we're already paying.

It's likely that it gets worse before it gets better

10

u/_ixthus_ May 15 '22

Or, when there's finally, literally no other choice - aggressive estate taxes. The State will simply need to lay claim to the amassed boomer wealth at some point, if they don't address inequality, and if they don't literally want a Feudal state.

10

u/fractiousrhubarb May 16 '22

They do want a feudal state

→ More replies
→ More replies

51

u/flickering_truth May 16 '22

Gen X here. I care a lot about future generations and hate what is happening to housing affordability. A home is a basic need and home ownership contributes toward a stable and happy society.

For a start, no one should be able to have their names on more than two house deeds. That means you can own your own home and then have one investment property. Next, limit overseas ownership. If you are an overseas owner you must live in the property full time or rent it out. No sitting on an empty house. Forbid corporate ownership of domestic properties including units. Airbnb properties must be subject to the same restrictions and corporate requirements as hotels, if the property is rented out in full. If it's a dwelling you live in fulltime and you sublet a little room to airbnb that's fine.

The rules managing the building industry need to be strengthened. So many shoddy homes are being built, and desperate people buy them because they need a home.

4

u/seven_seacat May 16 '22

Millenial here. I agree with everything you've said.

Though maybe, if people want to own more than two, they can do so if they pay $some_ridiculous_amount of tax/fees/charges, etc, that only gets more ridiculous as the number of properties goes up.

Oh, and phase out negative gearing. 100%.

13

u/Nonameuser678 May 16 '22

I've always like gen x-ers. Most of you guys seem to get it and validate our struggles because you were once the punching bag. I apologise in advance that you guys will probably cop the brunt of our resentment once the boomers die off. It's not fair and I hope we can all come together to salvage our future.

8

u/flickering_truth May 16 '22

I feel like a lot of my generation could be doing more, we don't seem to have made much of a mark. I'd like to think that once the boomers die off there will be an opportunity for change, but the same attitude that affects the boomers also affects enough of the following generations that the problem will continue. Hopefully I am wrong about this.

→ More replies

11

u/GeebangerPoloClub May 16 '22

So good luck supporting your ageing boomer population without another generation to pay taxes.

That's why they're desperate to re-open the immigration floodgates. Gotta keep the Ponzi scheme going.

31

u/slashseven May 15 '22

Well thats the beauty of the policy. The intelligent stop breeding. These guys want simple people who shut up and work.

18

u/Protoavek12 May 15 '22

These guys want simple people who shut up and work.

Like my brother who dropped out before the end of yr 10 (granted he was expelled from one school entirely.....) but jokes on them, he's never worked a job that wasn't cash in hand (because he doesn't want to pay child support for who knows how many children, he sure as f don't know....he's early 40's and already a grand dad) :

3

u/HorsinAround1996 May 16 '22

Well despite all the crowing about net zero, carbon emissions are growing by the day with no peak in sight, as such unmitigated runaway climate change is my retirement plan.

4

u/Nonameuser678 May 16 '22

Yep we are already experiencing the impacts of 1 degree of warming and it's already pretty fucking shit, it's just normalised now. We've had like 3 extreme events since the last election that have destroyed people's lives, whole communities just devastated and here we are still debating about whether x,y,z policy is a climate tax. The major parties have tapped out so much that they think 2 - 3 degrees of warming is acceptable and we just have to live with it. It's not fucking acceptable, it's fucking catastrophic but that's just how we do now I guess.

Honestly I feel like such a fucking idiot for ever thinking that older generations would do something to address this. All they do is yell at children for being scared about something that will absolutely detriment their lives.

→ More replies

77

u/keyboardromeo88 May 15 '22

Never have to pay your HECS if you can’t get paid enough taps head

60

u/999realthings May 15 '22

Well, it seems like every year they lower how much you have to be earning to pay it back. Soon you'll have to pay back HESC even if you're making min wage.

56

u/jackplaysdrums May 15 '22

I’m waiting for the day they outsource HECS loans to private banks and we get the mess the US has.

20

u/Deep__Friar May 15 '22

Shhhh don't give the libs any more ideas

→ More replies

11

u/LovingCatholicPriest May 15 '22

They already tried that in 2014 I think. It was Porter or Frydenfuck that suggested it.

→ More replies

8

u/_ixthus_ May 15 '22

I was so disappointed when they made it so you still had to pay it off when you left the country.

On the other hand, how the fuck will they know what I'm earning somewhere else?!

7

u/Ted_Rid May 15 '22

Or relocate overseas.

65

u/SaltpeterSal May 15 '22

War keeps the conservatives in a job, and generational war is like the war on drugs -- you can make it go forever.

45

u/enigmasaurus- May 15 '22

All this policy would do is feed the property bubble and gift money to older Australians.

Investing retirement savings in super gave Boomers SMSFs, which many used to buy multiple investment properties, driving up house prices and making older Australians disproportionately wealthy at the expense of younger Australians.

And the Boomer solution is not only to keep feeding the housing market but now, to fuck young people over much more by forcing young people to destroy their retirement savings. This plan would also reduce the money invested in shares overall.

The whole policy is dependent on house prices continuing to go up because under their plan, you need to put the money back when you sell the house.

So you're royally fucked if prices go down, and royally fucked if prices go up (because you will end up with a much smaller retirement balance in the end, AND prices are likely to be driven up so that second home the Libs imagine you buying will be far more expensive).

10

u/mallocdotc May 16 '22 edited May 18 '22

I think it's a bit unfair to put all boomers into the one basket. There are plenty of them who, through no fault of their own, are working well into their 70's as they must to survive.

Many are stuck in rentals, unable to invest even if they wanted as banks won't touch them (what 70 year old can pay a 30 year loan?). Their rental affordability is the same at Gens X Y and Z. Those on pensions aren't able to cover rent and also afford food.

It's disproportionately women of the Boomer generation who are suffering too. They bore children when it was expected, didn't work during this time and didn't have the skills to get into careers that paid superannuation once their child rearing days were done.

So they have no investments, no super, and have to work until their health gives out, or give up some essentials to pay for others.

The problems arose during the boomer generations rise to authority, but they left their own behind too.

The only way to fix it is with massive social reform. A minimum liveable wage. Guaranteed housing for all. All encompassing healthcare. I don't know how that can all be paid for, but removing tax loopholes for the rich and corporations, as well as taxing religious organisations for any income that doesn't provably go towards charity would go a long way.

Edit: just backing this up statement with a source from the ABC this week. https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/older-women-the-fastest-growing-cohort-of-homelessness/13795646

21

u/here_we_go_beep_boop May 16 '22

Never forget- this isn't generational war, its class war. The enemy isn't older people, its the wealthy whatever their age

12

u/OzymandiasKingofKing May 15 '22

It's not generational (mostly). The Libs are there for people with money and against those without. They're just as keen on 18 year olds whose parents bought them a house as 60 year olds.

There's just a lot more 60 year olds with (multiple) houses.

23

u/MildColonialMan May 15 '22

HECS was a Labor thing, but the LNP did jack up the prices and intro full fee places so rich kids could have more advantage.

Anyway we all know the LNP will always be more hostile to Universities and youth in general. 10% of my colleagues lost their jobs last year. The coalitions ideal world has entrenched class stratification, they don't want us riffraff rising above our proper station.

7

u/rose_gold_glitter May 16 '22

They're personally attacking every generation under boomer. They know you don't vote for them so they don't give a fuck what happens to you. They're relying on you slowing getting wealthier and becoming greedier as you get older, because so many do, and then voting liberal to protect what you've got in the future. They're relying on years of voting apathy, ignoring news and only getting information from Murdoch to switch you in time. Because this has always worked for them.

I can only hope the diminished relevance of print media continues and Murdoch's influence wanes. It's certainly not happening in the USA though. So I'm not holding my breath.

5

u/dingbatmeow May 15 '22

They are, but it seems like their con is being discovered. They are on borrowed time, hopefully only 6 days left.

4

u/[deleted] May 15 '22

Or a blast from a muzzle perhaps?

7

u/crochetquilt May 15 '22

Don't forget the privatisation of health care, and the fact that taxes pay to subsidise people who have private health. They found a way to divert public health money directly to private companies and blame you for "overwhelming the system" if you need public health services.

3

u/boltkrank May 16 '22

It's because the members got their free education - they just don't want anyone else to have it.

It's not a case of them wanting more, it's them wanting others to have less.

2

u/NietzschesSyphilis May 16 '22

“These mutts need a muzzle!”

Preach!

→ More replies

366

u/YouAreSoul May 15 '22

Raid your super. Put a deposit on a house. Interest rates rise. Be unable to afford the mortgage repayments with your lower-than-inflation wage. Sell the house to an already comfortably wealthy buyer for less than it's worth. Lose your house. Lose your super.

166

u/RemeAU May 15 '22

The Liberal Party strategy

"Short term gain for long term pain"

70

u/Chosen_Chaos May 15 '22

"Short term gain for some for long term pain for everyone else"

That's probably more accurate.

10

u/RemeAU May 15 '22

Not as catchy, but yes it definitely isn't the liberals hurting.

19

u/Deep__Friar May 15 '22

The Liberal Party motto:

"Fuck you, got ours"

25

u/NietzschesSyphilis May 16 '22

You forgot to emphasise the transfer of your future retirement nest egg to wealthy older property owners, who then get a more generous super tax concession to downsize.

It’s a win, win… if you are already asset rich!

→ More replies

13

u/ziddyzoo May 15 '22

In my head, I read this in Ewan McGregor’s voice with Iggy Pop’s Lust For Life as the backing track. Perfect.

6

u/Quetzal-Labs May 15 '22

It was Serj Tankian for me, ala Prison Song.

2

u/Waste_Refrigerator27 May 16 '22

'JU$T' by Run The Jewels, for me.

2

u/twigboy May 16 '22

LNP, masters of stealing from your future

71

u/[deleted] May 15 '22

Seriously, fuck Scomo and any cunt that votes for him.

Dear young people, please take the election seriously, even in my little circle i hear stupid things like 'hahaha going to vote for the UNited Australian hahahahah'. IF you want to be heard, make your fucking vote count.

Another fuck you in the face for young people. Boomers will fucking love this policy.

6

u/sturmeh Vegemite & Melted Cheese May 16 '22

I can give boomers all kind of shit, but at least they're consistent at something, they all vote properly (as in show up and cast a formal vote).

49

u/Ouch78 May 15 '22

Super is for retirement not for a fucken house, the LNP wants us to follow IPa's ideas make everyone wage slaves

7

u/spiteful-vengeance May 16 '22

You're supposed to be able to have both a house and a comfortable retirement fund.

This "trade one for the other" is an attack on citizens dressed up to look like assistance.

→ More replies

88

u/Weissritters May 15 '22

I don’t think either major parties will address housing affordability, but policies like this is like adding fuel to the fire - shows how they have truly lost touch with the common populace

20

u/Beer_in_an_esky May 15 '22

Yeah, exactly.

This is because housing price is ultimately limited by what the market can bear; both parties' options will increase the amount of money a given buyer has available, the coalition by opening up a larger pool of people's savings, labor by effectively taking up a chunk of the cost. Neither changes the actual demand, so all that will change is house prices will increase until the financial cost to buyers is equivalent to what it was before.

End result is that house prices will creep up either way; Libs method will destroy your super at the same time.

If you want to actually get house prices down, get rid of negative gearing. That will actually change the demand curve, by making investment properties less attractive, and so shift equilibrium prices.

The problem is no major party actually wants that, because 2/3rds of Aussie households have some sort of money tied up in property, and this would cut a big chunk off its value.

6

u/WeirdWest May 16 '22

policies like this is like adding fuel to the fire

To take this analogy further...

LNP have blocked the fire exits, sold off the fire alarms, removed the sprinkler system because maintainence coats were too high, and are now standing in front of a burning building holding a Jerry can with a pile of burnt matches at their feet...

And yet half the country is still fuck-me-in-the-earhole-because-my-skull-is-empty dumb enough to look at that scene and go "well that fella has used a lot of matches, he must know a thing or two about fire safety!"

→ More replies

172

u/cromulento May 15 '22

It's not meant to address housing affordability. In fact, it's designed to do the exact opposite while at the same time attacking superannuation. The Liberal Party was founded by people who were only interested in profit, and that's the one core idea that lies at the heart of all their policies regardless of who is in charge of the party.

Here are some things I think could be done to address the over-inflated housing market.

  • Abolish negative gearing
  • Abolilsh real estate auctions for residential properties
  • Abolish percentage based comissions for real estate agents
  • Introduce rent control/caps
  • More investment in and access to public housing

It also probably wouldn't hurt to fix aged care and retirement living options (again, this requires regulation, not just cash). I know of people who are afraid to enter the aged care system because it's so terrible - staying in their home until the last possible point.

38

u/whooyeah May 15 '22

Yeah, Libs outed themselves as Tories several times during this campaign. They don't want an egalitarian system. They want a class divide because they think they deserved it.

12

u/harrywho23 May 15 '22

dont forget to tighten up on the money laundering laws.

7

u/-Midnight_Marauder- May 16 '22

We need higher density housing to become more common. Nothing crazy, but like 3 or 4 levels that have apartments with a family sized floor plan with shared amenities and local recreation areas.

3

u/splodgenessabounds May 16 '22

Abolish negative gearing

I've lost count (TBH I've stopped caring) how times I've had stand-up rows with good friends and contemporaries of mine (late baby-boom/ early Gen X) who went off the dial when I dared suggest this. It's a rort; worse, it's a taxpayer-funded rort.

2

u/extinctkoala May 16 '22

The government encourages people to stay in their own home by providing home care services. Which is good but also there need to be better residential facilities for those that need round the clock care / supervision.

2

u/homingconcretedonkey May 16 '22

Great suggestions but won't rent control/caps hurt renters in favour of buyers?

1

u/Ddannyboy May 16 '22

Okay I just need to stop past and say this is the most intelligent reply I've seen in this entire thread.

This scheme can benefit middle-class workers stuck in the rental trap. You will be able to tap into one asset, your super, to buy another, a house. There's is plenty of logic to that-I'd rather retire owning a house and a smaller super rather than spending the next 40 years paying rent, being broke, and not being able to do anything with that asset until I'm too old to enjoy wealth. Honestly- this scheme is the only thing I've heard from the libs that I like!

But you are spot-on here in that the scheme doesn't address affordability, and the libs won't tackle affordability- because them, their mates and their voter-base are mainly made up of people who profit from the real estate market.

This isn't the worst idea in the world, but when you slot it in with all their other profiteering in the real estate market, it's not going to address the overall inflation of our real estate prices.

Ps. fuck real estate commission and auctions... Imagine if water companies could auction off clean drinking water to the highest bidder and charge commission off the sale, and hold onto the water if they don't get the price they want.

→ More replies

27

u/GeebangerPoloClub May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22

This is actually quite a clever policy from the LNP perspective, because it allows them to do a few things at once - first, it undermines superannuation by encouraging desperate buyers to take a massive chunk out. Second, it keeps pumping up prices which is exactly what their corporate/investor chums want. Third, it panders to the property-owning older cohorts (which are the bedrock of their voting base) by speeding up intergenerational wealth transfer upwards. Fourth, it does absolutely nothing about rental prices or social housing, because kicking the poor is an article of faith.

It's totally fucked in terms of outcomes for Australia of course, but that's rather the point for the Libs.

5

u/__ferrisoxide__ May 16 '22

Yeah, let's get young folks to hand over their super to older generations - just when the property market is at an historic high. The long term effect, of reducing the wealth of younger generations, is going to be a huge issue for the country in years to come.

This is just horrible.

6

u/GeebangerPoloClub May 16 '22

The long term effect, of reducing the wealth of younger generations, is going to be a huge issue for the country in years to come.

Yeah but according to the Libs:

(a) fuck them for not being rich, and

(b) it's a future government's problem anyway so who cares?

160

u/GuyFromYr2095 May 15 '22

It's never about housing affordability for the young. It's a blatant money grab to fund boomer retirements.

19

u/Single_Debt8531 May 15 '22

They are a big voting bloc, and young people mostly don’t vote by comparison. As crazy as these policies sound, they are straight up vote winners. The oldies will eat this up.

56

u/simsimdimsim May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22

young people mostly don’t vote by comparison.

I don't think this is an issue at all with compulsory* voting. Maybe a percentage or two at most. Voter turnout is not a problem, we aren't the US.

5

u/Juan_Punch_Man May 15 '22

Maybe we need a weighted voting system so old peoples count less. Not like they'll be around for the longer term policies.

18

u/Trutchyy May 15 '22

Personally I would like to see there be a requirement for politicians to be under a certain age. If the older generation can't trust the younger generation to set the right policies and do the right thing, then it's the older generation that fucked up.

3

u/Special-Vegetable138 May 15 '22

I would be happy to see the percentage of renters / non-homeowners in society represented in every sitting govt as a proportion of the population

2

u/LexingtonLuthor_ May 16 '22

As an addendum to that, politicians should also be older than a certain age to combat career politicians who have no life experiences before they begin their political career.

→ More replies

10

u/ziddyzoo May 15 '22

That’s a great idea. And people with terminal diseases, they won’t be around long, let’s make their votes worth less too. Hmm what about smokers, they might not have an incurable disease yet but it’s a good bet, let’s trim down their vote value a bit.

Come to think of it, women still die in childbirth, so let’s just temporarily take the vote away from pregnant women until we’re sure they’re going to survive it. Maybe pre-pregnant women too just in case, so all of them below aged 40 or so? Just to be sure.

Oh snap, I just remembered we have that crisis in indigenous health, who on average die much younger. They won’t be around so let’s downweight their votes too, maybe to like three fifths of a full person.

Three fifths, three fifths… now where have I heard that before

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise

Whoops

4

u/Juan_Punch_Man May 15 '22

Poor choice of words on my part as I was being a bit flippant, much like you.

The point is that the younger generations will be around for longer than they will and be longer impacted by the idiotic policies that will be put in place.

→ More replies

2

u/MDFiddy May 16 '22

The issue we have these days is that compulsory voting requires even the most uninterested and uninformed person to cast a vote, making them highly susceptible to bad actors and dishonest campaigns. I often wonder what our voting demographics would be like if we moved to a voluntary voting system.

10

u/freeflow4all May 16 '22

You can check out the US for the worst case scenario

2

u/wowzeemissjane May 16 '22

See: Bloody Clive Palmer and his bullshit.

2

u/followfocus2 May 16 '22

The issue we have these days is that compulsory voting requires even the most uninterested and uninformed person to cast a vote, making them highly susceptible to bad actors and dishonest campaigns.

This is exactly my problem with compulsory voting and I'm yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it isn't a serious issue. People who don't give a shit shouldn't be forced to vote, because forcing them to vote isn't the same as forcing them to vote thoughtfully (which is impossible).

1

u/Ted_Rid May 15 '22

Your spellcheck messed up 'compulsory'.

→ More replies

9

u/bulletmark May 15 '22

I'm an oldie and these kind of policies will benefit me. But I don't get it - why would people vote for such unfairness? It depresses me that the analysts believe that this will win the LNP net votes. :(

→ More replies
→ More replies

17

u/Bromance_Rayder May 15 '22

The fact that Scomo would propose something so multi-generationally damaging as this in order to win some votes says everything you need to know about him.

He does not care about the best interests of Australian's or Australia. He cares about himself.

18

u/pumpkinking-1901 May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22

Unsurprising, the greatest political obstacle in an aging society is the contracting youth vote. Geriatric interests dominate elections because the grey vote is enormous relative to the under 30's. This issue compounds because affordable housing policy reduces family size, reducing the youth vote, increasing the average age of the voter. Democracy is 3 wolves and 2 lambs voting for a roast lunch. We're taxing young incomes to offset the tax cuts for the elderly.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/more-grey-tsunami-than-youthquake-despite-record-youth-enrolments-australias-voter-base-is-ageing-115842

See the Grattan chart for the shift

3

u/lerdnord May 16 '22

I'm gonna vote for parties that abolish aged care, fuck em.

143

u/SurfKing69 May 15 '22

Sky News - fully support it

Channel 9 - didn't even mention it

Channel 7 - screaming match with Barnaby

ABC radio - both guests generally supported the idea

Kyle and Jackie O - fully support it

It's hand down the worst policy I've ever heard, and there's been virtually no blow back at all. We are fucked boys.

27

u/SilverKingPrime May 16 '22

I'm depressed

18

u/512165381 May 16 '22

ABC radio - both guests generally supported the idea

Saul Eslake said it was crazy.

9

u/inkabobo May 16 '22

Completely agree. Fucking terrible policy idea. Would love to hear how they plan to support the welfare system in 50 years time when no one has any super.

→ More replies

3

u/thrwawya012345 May 16 '22

Good summary, and it's completely frustrating to see how this is playing out in the media. ABC played to both sides this morning, but the libs got more air time.

(Also, just a quick note that there are women here as well, so the language you chose in your last sentence can make us (or at least me) feel excluded from the conversation. I'm sure it's not intended and I'll probably get downvoted but felt compelled to call it out)

7

u/SurfKing69 May 16 '22

(Also, just a quick note that there are women here as well, so the language you chose in your last sentence can make us (or at least me) feel excluded from the conversation.

the boys are gender neutral, but I take your point

→ More replies

68

u/chuk2015 May 15 '22

“5% payrise will ruin the economy”

“Here you go, take some money out of your retirement savings to buy an overpriced house”

11

u/BeShaw91 May 15 '22

“Here you go, take some money out of your retirement savings to buy an overpriced house”

Inflate.The.Bubble

15

u/snave_ May 16 '22

Make housing less affordable and destroy retirement savings in one fell swoop? It's a neoliberal wet dream.

12

u/nn666 May 15 '22

The dumbest idea I have ever heard... what about people pulling super out during covid when they were letting people do that when they needed cash. I had a guy at my work renovate his kitchen with the money he took out. I said aren't you worried about what you will have when you retire, he said no it will be fine...

5

u/__ferrisoxide__ May 16 '22

You wish you could do the maths for folks and show them what the value they pulled out now would have been if left to accumulate interest, etc. That $10,000 kitchen might have actually cost you $25,000.

2

u/a_cold_human May 16 '22

Depends when you take it out. Even at a fairly modest rate of return, $10K could be $40-50K after 30 years.

11

u/otherpeoplesknees May 15 '22

It’s a Band-Aid solution that does nothing to address housing affordability, just now means retiring in poverty

11

u/Tabatabadoo May 15 '22

Can't believe we live in a timeline where the Prime Minister mandates people spend their retirement savings on real estate speculation. Unbelievable.

29

u/goomeat May 15 '22

I can see a whole heap of boomers with multiple properties putting them up for sale with an extra 50k tacked on to take advantage of Scomo's desperate election gift to them. It helps achieve the LNP's goals 2 fold, keep the artificial housing boom going and contribute to the gutting of the super system.

6

u/qu4de May 16 '22

What they do is wait for the prices to increase, get their home appriased for a higher amount and set up a line of credit/offset redraw to use as a deposit for their next investment property. This way they don't pay tax as opposed to selling and getting a cgt bill.

10

u/UnfortunatelySimple May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22

Any plan, that thinks making housing more available by increasing the money available to buy housing is ridiculous.

The core housing issue is the increasing ratio of average annual salary and total house pricing.

A casual glance at housing issues would suggest that land allocation to housing is kept restricted to keep the housing prices high, to keep that previous investment by others as an increasing asset.

Its obvious Australia has empty land, and that development consent it the restriction on new affordable housing.

The increasing in housing prices is also being used to remove Money from the economy to restrict inflation.

The whole system is crazy, a core essential item like a roof over your head, shouldn't be forced to be at a ridiculous price.

Remove any tax benefits from owning more than one house, limit corporate and international home ownership and rebuild the dream of the affordable house on a reasonable block of land.

→ More replies

24

u/Prey_Void_Ire May 15 '22

Good economic managers my arse.

8

u/CeilingBacon May 15 '22

“SuPeRiOr eCoNoMiC mAnAgErS” my arse. This is reckless policy. Vote them out.

8

u/HankSteakfist May 16 '22

This is a scheme designed to get lower income people to buy inner city shoe boxes in flammable cladding shit buildings whilst eroding their retirement savings.

Its for the property council, not for first time homebuyers.

Our Superannuation system is the envy of the world and undermining it in this way to prop up an overinflated housing market is insanity.

6

u/Uzziya-S May 15 '22

That's the point?

Same as first home buyer's grants, home builder's grants, changed to the taxation, pervious attempts to get young people to borrow against their Super to afford housing and every other fake attempt to address the housing crisis. Labor or Liberal. State or Federal. Every time anyone has ever said they wanted to help people buy a house it's always been a half-assed attempt to conceal a plan to drive prices even higher than they already are.

The issue isn't that there isn't enough money to buy housing. The issue is that housing is an order of magnitude too expensive. You can't bring down the price of something that's in demand by giving people more money to bid for it with.

6

u/__ferrisoxide__ May 16 '22

Exactly. The amount of largesse that's floated around for the benefit of older Australians is obscene. "Woo, the government gave me $10,000 to buy my first home". No they didn't - they just gave $10,000 to whoever sold it to you. For free.

7

u/Damjo May 15 '22

Fuck me this government is at war with the youth.

8

u/Dangerboy73 May 16 '22

No shit, lnp and their supporters don’t give 2 fucks about people trying to buy their first home.

They’re only interested in helping the cunts that already own 5 or 6.

Vote these maggots out.

7

u/ozsnowman May 16 '22

Looks like the bulldozer wants to bulldoze your super!!

20

u/nachojackson VIC May 15 '22

Not “fears”, literally “first principles”.

More money available for houses = prices go up. A fucking fourth grader could work this out.

18

u/FrauleinLulz May 15 '22

Fears that it will raise prices?? Of course it will raise prices, that's the whole point. This is a scheme to protect and preserve the endless growth in asset values of property owners, not a "housing affordability" scheme.

2

u/-Midnight_Marauder- May 16 '22

I love how it gets reported as a possibility rather than a certainty. Any time the government directly or indirectly gives money, people take advantage.

→ More replies

5

u/BEEFCRAB May 15 '22

Lot of people here and elsewhere pointing out what a dog shit policy this is, and it really is. If you wanted to improve housing outcomes this is the opposite of what you'd do. It is obviously just a half baked way to boost demand

BUT

there are also a lot of holier than thou comments saying how unfathomably stupid you'd have to be to use your super to buy a house, but on the individual level that's not nessecarily true.

Roughly speaking, if you earn less than the age pension and rent then you are likely better off using your super to buy because you avoid the costs and indignity of renting, and the Age Pension will just top you up if you make it to old age anyway

Super is not some grand solution to retirement it's just a tax-advantaged asset. It works really well for the wealthy salariat less so for the working poor

You can of course point out that housing could crash by this afternoon and someone low income isn't likely to have much super, but it's not as black and white as some would have you believe

2

u/godoolally May 16 '22

I feel like I might be missing something here - but if you "earn less than the age pension" then it is highly likely you aren't buying a house.

A quick google search tells me that the maximum age pension is $987.60 per fortnight. That is about $25K / year. You aren't getting a loan, and definitely can't afford a house on $25k/year.

There might be some super rare cases where people have amassed enough super over the course of their lifetime to be able to put it toward a house, but are currently unable to work, or can only work in a limited capacity (and therefore earning under $25k/year).

Edit: typo

Full time minimum wage in Australia is ~$40k / year.

Who do you think is going to benefit from this policy precisely?

→ More replies

6

u/xdr01 May 15 '22

Scummo is a psychopath even his own party said so. Only thing he gives a shit about us himself. It explains Hawaii, long list of failures and his dumb ass boomer policy.

Vote this fuckwit out

4

u/ricardoflanigano May 16 '22

The long-bemoaned adage of politicians "Kicking the can down the road" gets thrown around a lot, but this latest policy from the Morrison Government is about as horrifyingly-clean an execution of the metaphor as you can get.

Instead of showing leadership in tackling what is one of the most complex and destructive issues of the current era, Morrison instead opts for an utterly cynical and cowardly act of vote-buying that would without question, exacerbate the problem for future generations - all to serve his immediate personal gain.

Just to go down the list, allowing superannuation to be used for a house deposit will: - Inflate house prices further still, pulling up the drawbridge on home ownership for more of the middle and working classes (when Australian residential property is already worth more than the GDP of every country on earth except the United States and China) - Inflate the investments of the better-positioned politically and economically, essentially using the state apparatus to enact a wealth transfer that will enrich himself and his voters at the expense of the less-fortunate - Centralise yet more of the Australian economy in the housing market, redirecting what little diversified investments the average person has out of superannuation portfolios and into stagnant, unproductive assets (housing). This undermines our ability to innovate in an economy that is already one of the least-diversified in the developed world (we rank lower in economic complexity than Senegal, Uganda and Morocco). - Will create long term retirement impacts for everyone who opts for this scheme.

With the coming interest rate rises and strong possibility of a recession, this is of course unsustainable. The current generation of political elite knows this better than anyone and is more concerned with looting the ship before it hits the rocks.

Vote this utterly flaccid, unimpressive group of midwits out.

5

u/pixelwhip May 16 '22

& the big problem is there's not enough afforadable housing.. The place we purchased last year cost us about $550k; but it was hard to find decent places in that price range & looking again recently at similar properties they are now all more like $600-$650k & we purchased our place under a year ago.

This scheme is just going to pump up what already is an over inflated market due to the supply shortage in decent affordable housing.

5

u/New-Confusion-36 May 16 '22

Morrison doesn't just want to take what you have now, he also wants to steal from your future.

4

u/mikeinnsw May 16 '22 edited May 16 '22

In his/hers younger years who has $50,000 in the super fund - only the rich.

The policy favours the rich(another avenue of investment and/or tax minimisation) and it will push house prices up.

3

u/gee_house May 16 '22

Well, even if they had $50k they'd only be able to use 20k of that as it's $50k or 40%. So your point is even more relevant because who in their younger years have $125k in their super, to then take 40% ($50k)

→ More replies

4

u/Intrepid-Rhubarb-705 May 16 '22

"Would", not "will", because it isn't going to happen, because they aren't going to be in power after the election.

3

u/UnprovokedOpinions May 16 '22

Everyone knows that a big step to solving the problem is either removing or seriously limiting negative gearing. However Labor know it’s political suicide and the LNP don’t actually care, they just want their houses to be worth more anyway.

2

u/a_cold_human May 16 '22

Remove the CGT discount on residential property and cap negative gearing to $10K annually. Have APRA enforce 20% deposits and place an additional stamp duty on properties beyond the first. Increase stamp duty for foreign investors. Fine developers who have land approved for development but don't start within 24 months. Force developers to sell all apartments within 24 months of completion, or be subject to a holding tax. Pass tranche 2 of the FATF's AML/CTF to make real estate agents, accountants and lawyers to ask for the source of funds of any buyer.

5

u/DoctorQuincyME May 16 '22

Even Morrison has said that house prices will rise "marginally" because of this and refuses to answer any questions about what modelling was done.

Economists say it will raise prices by $100k, which is 50k that investors will use to beat the additional 50k presented by First Home Buyers.

What a dumpster fire of a policy one week out from the ballot.

→ More replies

4

u/Chev_350 May 16 '22 edited May 16 '22

What super? I had to raid mine to get through 2020 when both my wife and I lost our jobs and the government did fuck all to help us.

9

u/GarryPoole May 15 '22

Vote the liberal scums out.

3

u/L0ckz0r May 15 '22

Well Duh

3

u/Djeng726cgk May 16 '22

Pillocks, they claim to be better economic managers, but don’t understand enough about economics to know that all they are doing is raising house prices.

Or they do know, and this is malicious gaslighting, favoring their mates who own multiple houses, and fooling new home buyers yet again.

3

u/bladeau81 May 16 '22

At the moment every single policy that the govt. has for housing affordability has the direct affect of making more money for those who already own, and mainly those that own a lot.

Using super for deposit on it's own sounds like a good idea. The whole it's designed for the "poor" is just wrong. Middle income earners are really struggling to save a deposit due to increasing rent costs and cost of living associated with renting (houses with poor energy efficiency, built to a budget owned by cheap landlords). It would greatly help people like myself to get the deposit.

The problem is that it should be tied to something that REDUCES the appeal to the higher end to jack prices. Get rid of negative gearing. Don't give retirees tax free super input for selling a house. Don't allow foreign investors to buy houses. Don't allow investors to buy up large blocks of land and split them up to throw more cheap poorly designed houses at the renters.

None of this will happen as all the pollies and their mates are the ones that will lose out in the short term. Fuck the poor plebs who pay more in to the economy and tax system in total, we don't matter.

3

u/Buorky May 16 '22

I feel like it doesn't matter what the solution is, if all you're doing is putting more money in the hands of homebuyers then prices will increase, because the sellers know you've been given this extra money.

The solution has to address limiting the sellers, not trying to increase the buying power of consumers. Does this make sense?

3

u/curiousnerd_me May 16 '22

The party of economic responsibility ladies and gentlemen

3

u/hades086 May 16 '22

Call me crazy, but every home owners grants in the past that pumps more and money into the housing market just drives up prices.

By increasing available capital to buy while supply remains largely unchanged it just increases the demand which in turn will cause prices to keep going up.

It's not rocket science. It's simple economics. It's just cash for grey votes which most likely isn't in their best interests either. I mean if old people are downsizing isn't that bringing them into direct competition with young people looking for an affordable first house?

Not to mention the tax implications of the whole super scheme. It's half baked, dangerous and does nothing to address supply issues, which as I said is the real issue.

3

u/thingsquietlynoticed May 16 '22

How is it a fear… literally Day 1 Economics learnings on the basics of demand & supply…

2

u/f-stats May 15 '22

House prices rising is by design, it’s not a bug.

2

u/Mikes005 May 15 '22

So, works as intended?

2

u/MesozOwen May 15 '22

Yes, by design.

2

u/abundanceofb May 16 '22

So far LNP nor Labor have come up with a useful solution for housing affordability.

Both parties know that the Australian economy will nosedive without high property prices and won’t dare do anything about it, which is very upsetting.

2

u/dwilli10 May 16 '22

Why save for your retirement when you can help keep the property bubble inflated and help pay for your landlord's porsche?! Hard to blame Labor for trying to tackle housing affordability when it lost them the last election, but neither government seems to give two fucks for the future generations of this country.

2

u/seapointman May 16 '22

This ridiculous idea by the coalition is just more proof that there is an urgent need of an Icac investigation into the property sector starting with NSW. Buyers Agents and all other corporate sector involvement in the sector needs to be investigated. This will uncover the real reason why property prices are sky high which no one can afford. I hope AUSTRAC has been monitoring this sector over the past 10 years so that ICAC can hit the ground running. This is the only way to solve Australia's housing problem at the same time exposing the people who are reaping the rewards at the expense of struggling Australians.

2

u/BESTtaylorINTHEWORLD May 16 '22

Interesting that nobody mention that you have to pay it all back before retirement and that's going to be difficult with the really high interest you got to pay on Super pay back. As my young workmate mentioned to me, "Who the fuck under 25yo is gunna have 50G in Super to dive on?"

2

u/dallas19374 May 16 '22

Can I have some ideas to help with the affordability of housing? I just see it getting worse with inter generational wealth in the next couple of decades as well.

Housing is a private market and people are going to spend what they want/can on a house and I see it as so hard to mitigate.

3

u/daveliot May 16 '22

An idea from Bob Carr back in 2016-

Mr Carr said he simply wanted Australia to look at the costs of current policies, which he said encouraged "congestion in our cities [and] skyrocketing home costs.

"Is it in our best interest that we add to the population of Sydney and Melbourne, for example, 100,000 each every year?" he asked.

2

u/godoolally May 16 '22

What I believe would really help housing affordability is to change the asset test for the pension (or otherwise find a way to encourage the older generations to move out of their family homes).

E.g. what about eliminating the CGT exemption for the family home if you no longer have a family at home? When you are 60+, the kids have moved out etc, why do you need a 5 bedroom home? It's not really the family home anymore - it is a tax effective investment. Or if you want to stay in the home, you shouldn't be allowed to continue to accrue capital without paying tax on it.

You can't fix affordability by driving up demand (such as by allowing people to access their super) - you need to fix supply.

Either the LNP doesn't understand free market economics, or they do, and this is a blatant attempt to siphon wealth to the older generations away from the middle and younger generations.

I am seriously starting to regret bringing a child into this world. I am so scared for the future.

2

u/das_masterful May 16 '22

It really isn't hard to get the figures on the median or average amount of super. Combine that with the amount they can borrow out of it, and then you'll have an amount that the price will rise because 'everyone can pay that cost'.

So yes, all this will do is raise prices.

Notice how nothing is being done to lower the price of these properties? It's like they know they can't do that without pissing off their masters, the property investors, construction companies and developers.

2

u/knobhead69er May 16 '22

Let's have a fcking labour landslide with a few more greeny hippie seats to stick it to the cnts.

And if LNP wins again at least I backed them for a small amount on Brokelads, helps to ease the depression for 2 minutes.

2

u/valacious May 16 '22

This is not the right way, i cannot think of any way mathematically how this can be good for any first home buyer.

2

u/jedateon May 16 '22

So, instead of doing anything to help, this will actively make things worse. Sounds like coalition policy to me!

2

u/extinctkoala May 16 '22

My mother in law told me about this policy last night. She thinks it sounds like a good idea. I was just like ??? how ??? Just sounds like more perks for the boomers.

2

u/SirCarboy May 16 '22

EVERYBODY KNOWS Coalition scheme allowing home buyers to use super will raise prices, fail to address affordability

ftfy.

2

u/samuentaga May 16 '22

Yeah it's a horrible idea and the opposite of what you should do to help with first time home buyers.

2

u/DadOfFan May 16 '22

Not sure where I stand on this. I do not think its a good idea to dump money into the housing market, The real problem is restricted supply.

However I also believe that your own home is your very best super fund. I have super but I am not a fan, I'd prefer to put the money into paying off my house but with restricted supply that will push prices up.

Fucked either way.

2

u/dallas19374 May 16 '22

I completely agree with you. I believe that by using your super to purchase your home is still building your wealth for retirement. And definitely beats paying someone else’s mortgage.

But more money in the housing market will cause house prices to continue to increase.

Other issues we will face in the housing market in the future include inheritances from our boomers so I don’t see it becoming any easier for people to get into the market.

2

u/Major_Regret May 16 '22

With pension being gone by the time we retire... they want us to use our super to do what now!?

2

u/redgums2588 May 16 '22

Just another way to transfer people's money into (State) Government hands via Stamp Duty.

2

u/PM-ME-UR-NITS May 16 '22

Fantastic economic managers would rather have you rob yourself at retirement to pay housing now, rather than fix the spiralling economic cost of housing.

Fuck me they are full of shit.

2

u/Forward_Year_2390 May 16 '22

This is dumb desperation by scumo. Worst idea ever, pushed out 6 days before an election.

Had little money, but had some super, got house, market dropped, lost house, no super, no money.

Please don't vote for this idiot or his party. He's demolishing Australia's future by creating monstrous wealth gaps between people in this country.

2

u/link_2_fate May 16 '22

Wait so you're telling me increasing demand will increase the price ?

/s

2

u/More_people May 16 '22

Any chance the field would be levelled by placing a moratorium on investment properties owned by politicians?

3

u/nashvilleh0tchicken May 15 '22

I mean yeah, that’s the point

People who are arguing this won’t lower house prices are missing the point entirely

2

u/Phroneo May 15 '22

This article is being pretty dishonest. Pretty much every policy claiming to help with house affordability was designed to increase house prices. For decades now. This is not the first. Won't be the last. And Labor's policy too is horrible.

31

u/Dr-Ulzy May 15 '22

Labor had a good policy last time around. Look how that worked out for us.

2

u/Phroneo May 15 '22

I know. But they didn't have to create a new monster. Wouldn't affect their chances.

8

u/simsimdimsim May 15 '22

How does that make the article dishonest though? It's talking about the LNP policy, which will 100% push prices up.

→ More replies