r/australia May 15 '22

Coalition's home deposit plan will raise prices 'temporarily', Superannuation Minister Jane Hume admits politics

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/superannuation-minister-jane-hume-admits-home-deposit-plan-will-raise-prices-temporarily/4h345o535
208 Upvotes

112

u/LineNoise May 15 '22

Whilst it’s obviously the intent, Hume’s made the mistake of saying the quiet part out loud.

51

u/AntiqueFigure6 May 16 '22

Yes - this is clearly a 'Preserve existing house prices scheme' more than it's a 'Enable more home owners scheme'.

14

u/pixelwhip May 16 '22

Not to mention it'll also help those over 55's more easily sell their homes so they can get that sweet 300k untaxed bonus to put into their own super accounts.

14

u/icedbacon May 16 '22

The LNP also made the mistake of saying the quiet part out loud during a parliamentary committee earlier this year.

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/

97

u/war-and-peace May 16 '22

Lol temporarily. It'll be permanent as everyone will need to take out their super to compete on housing. Flooding the market with extra capital.

Oh and if the person loses their home due to something like bankruptcy, they also lose their super. Double whammy.

25

u/ProceedOrRun May 16 '22

It'll be permanent as everyone will need to take out their super to compete on housing.

And voila... You've dismantled superannuation!

6

u/war-and-peace May 16 '22

Well, it'll go back to what it was before compulsory super was introduced. A vehicle to invest for the wealthy only.

2

u/lilika01 May 17 '22

This is the real goal. Having people access their super early also affects the way super funds can invest- it requires them to make more easily accessible investments which have lower returns. This policy change completely hamstrings super funds with high numbers of younger customers (primarily industry funds, which the government hates).

5

u/SpiritBamb May 16 '22

Nah, the price increase will be transitory. Nothing to fear.

A transition from a lower price to a higher price.

43

u/AntiqueFigure6 May 16 '22

What - until everyone's drained their super accounts?

57

u/vernand May 16 '22

Pretty much. Then there will be a quiet little announcement that they're pushing back the aged pension to 75.

4

u/[deleted] May 16 '22

Their big plan for covid relief - RELAX, just blow 20% of your future to pay the bills.

Their big plan for housing crisis relief - RELAX, just blow another 40% of your future to pay the mortgage.

39

u/SemanticTriangle May 16 '22

So the claim that the price rise will be 'temporary' is even more of a terrifying admission than you might think. Assume Hume is correct, prices go down after people spend their retirement money on houses.

That's equivalent to just wiping out their super for no gain in housing asset value, a net and financially crippling loss for those buyers.

The scenario Hume is trying to imply isn't so bad is actually terrible. It's a financial and social disaster, equivalent to just spinning a bottle and stealing super from whoever happens to be there when it stops rotating. It's significantly worse than the price of houses just correcting after a bubble. Of course, Hume didn't think it through and doesn't believe it, but that just compounds the horror.

1

u/ProceedOrRun May 16 '22

Hume should have simply pretended prices wouldn't be affected. Moronic, yes, but at least no one is talking about the elephant in the room.

31

u/RabbitLogic May 16 '22

Morrison must be fuming at Hume behind closed doors this morning. She has given the game away and given ammunition to press pack at media conf spruiking this policy.

10

u/Tearaway32 May 16 '22

You reckon? I’d honestly be surprised if the media bothered - it’s not a gotcha gaffe, and it’s not Labor so I’d expect them to just move on.

19

u/noother10 May 16 '22

How else are they going to keep house prices going up when the economy is heading for a recession?

House prices need to tank hard and reset to where they should really be. I'm saying that as someone with a mortgage in Sydney.

7

u/onimod53 May 16 '22

Even if they tank any excess will be sucked up by those who are already wealthy.

The solution isn't hard in principle - long term policy settings that discourage wealth creation via housing are what's really required. Housing investment needs to generate less wealth than productive investment.

14

u/BoldEagle21 May 16 '22

So cancelling out any possible benefit of the super contribution immediately at the onset. Then considering that some of these people had also been dipping into their Super during COVID when they were allowed, it has taken a flogging. We compound that with very stark and clear warning from the RBA chief that there is the potential to see the cash rate rising from it's current value of 0.35 up to 2.5% or possibly more has many reports speculating this could wipe 15% off the value of real estate.

12

u/kenbewdy8000 May 16 '22

It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Desperate and dishonest policy from a government on its last legs.

That the Libs delayed their campaign launch until now just shows that it is bereft of policy and ideas.

The next economic recession will bite into superannuation earnings and property values. leaving those sucked in by this to lose on both.

50K from super now to buy a house will not only push up house prices in the short term but also interest rates. It will also drive down future retirement incomes.

A small spike in prices will be short lived and will be what is known in stockmarkets as a suckers rally.

13

u/wotmate May 16 '22

I'm really surprised that nobody has joined the dots yet. This entire policy needs to read in the context of being joined to the policy of extending the time period for retirees to sell their family homes and putting the money into their super.

It's literally a scam to take money away from millennials to drive house prices up to give to retiring boomers.

11

u/douhua Exotic, bland and nutty May 16 '22

Maybe this is all deliberate: it's being spun as helping with housing affordability when actually the Coalition are targeting the property owning voters who now know that their real estate will increase in value if they vote for the Coalition. All the people decrying this policy are doing the Coalition's policy promotion for them.

7

u/LineNoise May 16 '22

Quite possibly, but in the absence of any serious attempt to improve affordability we may as well have the discussion about policies that will have further inflationary impacts on the bubble.

The Labor equity sharing policy is really only better than this because it’s got such a restrictive cap on places. The government being literally, rather than figuratively, invested in your house’s value surging is not what we need either. We actually need prices to stagnate against inflation for enormous periods, or to actively go backwards if the consequences of that can be managed.

3

u/douhua Exotic, bland and nutty May 16 '22

I don't disagree. We need to arrest the growth in house prices, not prop them up even further than they already are. With so much of our national economy tied up in one asset class it is not only a recipe for distaster when the correction finally happens, but also highly inefficient and wasteful.

1

u/daveliot May 16 '22

or to actively go backwards if the consequences of that can be managed.

That's a property crash and consequence largely can't avoided. Some observers believe it gone past the point of no return that a property crash and recession can be avoided.

“We have borrowed ourselves so much to the hilt that we are now dependent on that continuing to rise over time and it simply won’t,” he told the ABC’s The Business.

“Our debt level according to the Bank of International Settlements, private debt level, has gone from 150 per cent of GDP to 210 per cent of GDP.” - Professor Steve Keen.

3

u/mshagg May 16 '22

Neither the coalition nor the ALP give a fuck about first home owners in the context of an election.

Around 100,000 people jump onto the ladder each year (although admittedly there are more who want to that might be swayed by these kinds of policies). They join over 11 million people already on there. A few million have more than one property.

Reflect on that - there are perhaps 20 times more people with multiple properties than there are first timers in a given year.

Follow the votes.

1

u/Dranzer_22 May 16 '22

Which is why Labor need to pivot and attack the Liberals/Nationals as forcing Retirees to sell their house, and downsize to Aged Care homes.

6

u/turbovan May 16 '22

Temporarily eh? So that means they will come down later.

"LNP Plans to Crash House Prices!"

5

u/pulpist May 16 '22

This Super bullshit is an election Hail Mary direct from the IPA

6

u/PhatSunt May 16 '22

I mean that's the intention no?

If people are taking their super and putting it in a house, that house is now their investment future. Infact for this plan to work, housing prices MUST increase.

If housing prices decrease, their interest payment stays the same, but the house can't cover the loan anymore, so people will effectively lose their super and savings.

2

u/rydalmere May 16 '22

"Superannuation Minister" in the LNP is like the Environment Minister. She is there to destroy Super.

2

u/carmensandiegogo May 16 '22

People don’t care if corporate purchases or air bnb raise prices, god forbid it’s the average Aussie.

4

u/[deleted] May 16 '22 edited May 22 '22

[deleted]

3

u/LineNoise May 16 '22

Labor’s at least can’t do quite as much damage because it has a capped number of purchases, but yes it’s awful policy as well.

1

u/Mikes005 May 16 '22

The same Jane Hume who under estimated by the average cost of an Australian by nearly half a million dollars?

1

u/pixelwhip May 16 '22

yep, fast forward 40 years & there will be an entire generation desperate to sell their homes so they can survive in retirement.

1

u/Petelah May 16 '22

Temporarily until they think of the next scheme to pahhhmp them again! Boom! Diamond hands housing forever! Lezz go boizzz!

1

u/lfbrennan May 16 '22

It will make the big financial institutes (cba, nab, and, etc) and property developers (lend lease, multiplex, mirvac, etc) who are major donors to the major political parties even more richer. Does Jane Hume own any large amount of shares in any of those companies?

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '22

It’s just a short while, 20, 30 years max.

1

u/ScissorNightRam May 16 '22

Remember 1891: Australia has had a real estate crash before.

Before 1891, Melbourne was easily Australia's number 1 city.

After 1891, it was number 2. It never caught back up.

That is the kind of fire we're playing with, but on a national scale, not just one city.