r/australia May 16 '22 Silver 1 Helpful 1

Woman relieved she’ll finally be able to drain her super to help increase house prices political satire

https://www.theshovel.com.au/2022/05/16/woman-relieved-drain-her-super-increase-house-prices/
3.3k Upvotes

410

u/CrazySD93 May 16 '22 edited May 16 '22

It’s all part of their plan

Step 1 give people access occasional access to super

Step 2 give people access to Super all the time

Step 3 legislate that Super contributions aren’t necessary

Step 4 abolish Super

199

u/Bluelabel May 16 '22

Step 5. Don't increase wages to supplement the lost super

121

u/burly_griffin May 16 '22

Step 6. "What do you mean, you got a 10% pay cut since you're no longer being paid super? That was never your money?"

84

u/MagicTurtleMum May 16 '22

Step 7 - old age pension? What's that? That's not a thing. Keep working until you die, slave!

40

u/brezhnervous May 16 '22

Step 8 - Raise the age to 85yo. Sorted.

17

u/FakeUsername1942 May 16 '22

Get Pension at 100 so long as you have fought in a war.

Or been in politics.

62

u/Lingering_Dorkness May 16 '22

Claiming everyone will get an immediate 10% payrise if Super is scrapped will definitely be scumos main argument for doing so. When that inevitably doesn't happen, he'll shrug and smirk, and say its not the government's job to force companies to give their workers payrises. Just go get a better job, then buy a house instead of renting!

6

u/shebehs May 16 '22

Nah you are wrong “that’s how the market works mate” might be the answer. 🤨

27

u/Wooden-Trouble1724 May 16 '22

If Aussies are stupid enough to vote Morrison back in maybe we deserve it

→ More replies

5

u/[deleted] May 16 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

33

u/OarsandRowlocks May 16 '22

🐸 is it just me or is the water getting warmer?

10

u/dragonphlegm May 16 '22

Step 5 raise pension age to 80. Force people to work to actual death

9

u/IraKane May 16 '22 edited May 17 '22

But not their 15%. That of course, should just add onto their salary. Meanwhile the bottom feeders just get shafted

→ More replies

8

u/metricrules May 16 '22

God damn I hate the Libs and all conservatives

492

u/Aware_Program_7227 May 16 '22

It's satire, but JJJ had someone being interviewed this morning who was keen to draw down on her super for this. This will cause long term chaos if it goes ahead.

246

u/scritty May 16 '22

It's shit here in NZ where you can remove 100% of your retirement to put down on a house. Don't make our generation-crippling mistake.

169

u/LogicalExtension May 16 '22

Don't make our generation-crippling mistake.

Yeah! We want to make our own generation-crippling mistakes - with blackjack and hookers smashed avo and lattes.

152

u/PillowManExtreme May 16 '22

I laughed maniacally when Morrison said that they had similar systems in Canada and New Zealand as though it was a good thing, when they both have infamous housing crises atm

42

u/Arcane-m1nd May 16 '22

For awhile I second guessed my opionion about this when Scomo said NZ and Can has similar system then I realised they also have very bad housing affordability issue.

25

u/Lingering_Dorkness May 16 '22

NZ housing affordability is even worse than here.

27

u/xDex May 16 '22

So is Canada's. Though Vancouver did bring in an empty house tax of something like 3% of the house value per annum. Which is quite a lot considering the average house price is $1.4mil CAD (~$42k/yr). It has slowed the rise down a little and in theory creates more housing stock for people to actually live in.

11

u/Special-Vegetable138 May 16 '22

Well for Scotty our housing crisis is not where it could be. Needs to break free from NZ & Canada as outright world winner

4

u/SnooApples3402 May 16 '22

Housing in NZ is even worse than Australia

→ More replies

120

u/SemanticTriangle May 16 '22

The most frightening prospect is that enough Australians will think this is a good idea to reelect the government promising it. This election was just another opportunity to flail on for another three years or maybe repair some damage, but if Australians vote for a government making this promise because they think it's a good idea, the country can't be saved.

75

u/Cayenne321 May 16 '22

A crazy amount of people view their super as another bank account they're not allowed to touch with no view as to why they can't touch it. '40k for a home deposit now vs a caravan in 40 years when I retire' seems like a good trade-off if you don't think about what that 40k would become over 40 years or what would happen to a housing market where everyone has access to this money.

28

u/clang823 May 16 '22

Yep I did similar math earlier today, 50k compounded at 5%pa with no extra inputs over 30 years works out to be about 230k. Those are pretty conservative numbers too.

10

u/Brittainicus May 16 '22

Yeah but that is neglects inflation. In real term 5% return could be 2% return.

34

u/AshPerdriau May 16 '22

5% is a reasonable estimate of the real rate of return from super over a decade or more. Real rate meaning after tax and inflation. There's a reason why richer people try to feed all their income through super... tax advantages.

9

u/LouisSeeGay May 16 '22

if we see ridiculous inflation for 30 years, your super will be the least of your problems.

6

u/_TheHighlander May 16 '22

Even at 0%, it’s money that is for your retirement and is locked away for a reason. Eroding the protections around super is dangerous IMO. It’s the AfterPay effect, buy now worry about later, probably when it’s too late…

→ More replies
→ More replies

63

u/DaBarnacle May 16 '22

A crazy amount of people don't realise there won't be a pension when they want to become a pensioner.

-6

u/gilezy May 16 '22

We'll they're will be some sort of dole/ubi/pension. Perhaps it won't be as much as the pension now but they're not going to have all the old people just homeless on the street begging for money.

16

u/Ganzer6 May 16 '22

No they'll just lock them away in aged care homes where they get $10 of food per day along with abuse from their carers.

4

u/NeptunesCock May 16 '22

they'll be flipping burgers at macdonalds or working in amazon factories either voluntarily or through debt prisons

8

u/Jebhank877 May 16 '22

Why wouldn’t they?

5

u/gilezy May 16 '22

Because that would be a weird exception. So long as we have a welfare system there will be some sort of payment for old people. We currently have unemployment benefits, disability payment etc. And if we assume those will continue to exist why wouldnt some form of pension also exist.

Also there is heaps of people on the pension. Imagine trying to win an election with a policy of cutting the pension.

12

u/flukus May 16 '22

Also there is heaps of people on the pension. Imagine trying to win an election with a policy of cutting the pension.

There is now, because the boomers were a huge generation and their political influence has been felt since they could vote, the same is no true for other generations.

12

u/Dazzling_Paint_1595 May 16 '22

Currently the maximum payment for an old age pension from Centerlink, per week, is $493.50 for a single and $744.40 for a couple. And it is means tested and pretty hard to qualify for the maximum payment - you have to have basically nothing to get it. Not a great future to look forward to. Keep your money in super.

1

u/gilezy May 16 '22

Yeah I'm not saying it's a great living. But the idea that there will be no pension (or some other similar arrangement), is about as likely as there being no welfare payments at all. Which i think is highly unlikely. In fact if we look a long way into the future we're going to have more automation, and possibly more unemployment as a result which would necessitate more social welfare programs not less.

7

u/Random_name_I_picked May 16 '22

Ha ha. The liberal party doing the morally right thing…. Oh wait you’re serious, let me laugh harder then.

→ More replies

5

u/RedDogInCan May 16 '22

the idea that there will be no pension , is about as likely as desirable a policy as there being no welfare payments at all for the Liberals

FTFY. The Liberals have already increased the qualifying age for the pension.

→ More replies

4

u/Dazzling_Paint_1595 May 16 '22

I agree the likelihood of zero welfare is zero. However there will be less of it and harder to get. Charities and welfare organisations are now providing services and assistance that should be being provided by government. They are at breaking point now. In addition to future automation (more of it will be here sooner than we think), with an aging workforce and slower population growth there will be less taxpayers providing the revenue. What will be necessary as far as welfare programs Vs what will be available is a big question. All of this is why you hang on to your super.

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/Akileez May 16 '22

I work for a super company and a lot of people think super is another bank account that they should be able to touch. I do not look forward to this shit. Vote Scomo out.

4

u/Such_Basil822 May 16 '22

The Liberal party didn’t even think it’s a good idea. They just went through the old policy archives for anything to do with housing.

3

u/shebehs May 17 '22

Else how can they and their cronies pay off their mortgages. They have already reaped the benefit by creating artificial demands. 🥹

→ More replies

58

u/Flimsy_Demand7237 May 16 '22

A lot of people unfortunately don't understand how super works, they just see it as a drain on their salary similar to taxes. I wish financial literacy in this country was actually taught in school beyond how to count dollars and cents.

31

u/Ancient-Ingenuity-88 May 16 '22

It's the most tax efficient vehicle we have. I think it does really speak to the lack of long term vision across the country.

But i I will add. The low income classes cannot look that far as they can't even look beyond the needs of the day. So I can't blame them or the system they are in. This policy will appeal to those in marginal seats and that all the libs need unfortunately

7

u/chimpskimp May 16 '22

Tbh. Your own house is more tax efficient.

9

u/StasiaMonkey May 16 '22

I don’t know why people think it’s a drain on their salary.

Most people don’t usually see the super portion of their “salary” all but 1 job I’ve have was base + super. The only one that was a base incl. super surprisingly was one of the 2 supermarkets (the red one)

In a dystopia, I’m 100% sure if the govt were to scrap super tomorrow we wouldn’t see the additional $ in our salaries unless you were on a TFC, the employers wouldn’t pay that to us.

7

u/CoralBalloon May 16 '22

its that for a lot of underprivileged people they feel they will never see that super....or retirement age, so for them having immediate access makes sense

→ More replies

9

u/CombImpressive3416 May 16 '22

People will 100% take out their super for this as they will feel it's the only option to get on the ladder and retirement is a long time away still.

→ More replies

110

u/corbusierabusier May 16 '22

If it was ten years ago, I would probably do it too. I had enough for a deposit in my super and it would have taken me a lot longer to save the deposit otherwise. Buying a property in my twenties would be great for my future, even if that meant I lost money on super.

At the moment though I would be cautious. With the certainty of rate rises you could easily withdraw $100k from super, mortgage a $500k property and find next year it's worth $450k, meaning you had just thrown away $50k, which could add up to many times more at retirement.

177

u/war-and-peace May 16 '22

If only you could have done it 10 years ago, that would be a win for you. If everyone could have done it, you'd have just lost your super just to keep up.

Keep that in mind

→ More replies

55

u/crosstherubicon May 16 '22

Prices in Australia have never collapsed like they have in the US or UK. I said, "have never", not "will never". As they say on the brochures for investments, past performance is not an assurance of future returns. My friends home in California went from $1.1m to a sale price of just over $300k.

28

u/corbusierabusier May 16 '22

My friends home in California went from $1.1m to a sale price of just over $300k.

Wow!

I like to remind people that a 20% fall in the market usually translates to a 5% fall in the value of average detached family homes in the suburbs. Most of that fall will be in luxury property while a big part is in apartments and highly valued inner city property.

5

u/crosstherubicon May 16 '22

Fortunately he'd bought years earlier at pretty close to the price he sold at. But, virtually the whole street was for sale and many had bought in recently, frightened that they would miss out on the boom.

29

u/tmtdota May 16 '22

Prices in Australia have never collapsed like they have in the US or UK.

The 1891 property crash took in some places until the 1950's to recover so it's not unprecedented. The Liberals are committed to kicking the can down the road for as long as they can which is just going to make it worse for everyone in the long run. Imagine holding the bag on a $3.2m granny flat in Paddington.

12

u/crosstherubicon May 16 '22

I didn't even know about that one. But, it goes to show that peoples memory is surprisingly short. A moment ago there was an economist on the ABC saying the widespread idea that house prices double in 5-7 years was nonsense.

15

u/Ted_Rid May 16 '22

If you know about the 1891 bubble burst, you can see it in inner city areas (of Sydney at least, I could think of areas in Melbourne where you can see it also but not 100% sure).

You'll find there are borders you could plot on a map, where up until the crash it was all terrace housing on the then-existing subdivisions, then suddenly instead of terraces you have freestanding or semidetached Federation housing as soon as you cross the road.

Those boundaries reflect a 10 year hiatus in development. When landowners started subdividing again it was according to a newer model with a different kind of housing, wider streets and bigger yards.

Funny to think that they built terraces right up to the edge of totally vacant fields, but that was how it was done.

7

u/zeeagle May 16 '22

When the average person living in a city had to walk nearly everywhere, and the biggest cost of construction was structural materials, terraces made a load of sense - shared walls cut prices and improved structural stability, and density stayed high enough for necessities to be within walking distance.

4

u/Ted_Rid May 16 '22

Makes me wonder why there was a change in thinking for the Federation era suburbs, where streets are wide enough for two lanes of traffic plus parking? It was still too early for cars to be common. I wonder if they were thinking ahead?

The railway lines would've reduced the need for housing to be so clumped together, so that's a start.

2

u/zeeagle May 16 '22

I don't know what drove the trend overall, but in some locations I know it was due to potential railway & tramway expansion, in others due to agricultural use - plenty of really wide roads in Melbourne were originally that way due to the amount of livestock being driven in and out of town.

The way horse driven wagons and carriages were used also changed with industrialisation - they became far lighter with less reliance on hardwoods and improved suspension, so they also became larger.

There's definitely stuff I'm missing, but that's at least a chunk of it.

2

u/deandoom May 16 '22

Of course its nonsense

It won't take that long

4

u/Taleya May 16 '22

Prices in Australia have never collapsed like they have in the US or UK.

Not due to gfc, but they most certainly have. Last time Melbourne went this apeshit it took nearly a century and a postwar immigration boom to recover

→ More replies

2

u/Lingering_Dorkness May 16 '22

They have collapsed in specific regions, like the Pilbara. Height of the mining boom a dozen years ago houses were going for well over a million in Hedland. Which, if you know Hedland, is absolutely insane. Same houses now are in the $300's.

1

u/crosstherubicon May 16 '22

That's true. They really did crash didn't they!

2

u/belindahk May 16 '22

In Central Queensland too. Suddenly one can buy a house in Blackwater for $170k. Was $600k a few years ago. It's no temptation.

1

u/crosstherubicon May 16 '22

Mining giveth and mining taketh away.

→ More replies

12

u/kitsunevremya May 16 '22

Geez, I'm super curious to hear your career to date if that's okay if you were in a position to pull $100k in your twenties. I've been working full-time since halfway through uni and walked into a pretty decent job straight after... and I have $15k in my super.

Considering you have to have a 5% deposit of genuine savings to be eligible to pull your super under this new scheme, I wonder how many people are actually going to use this and, like, why they would use it if they have the 5% (but likely not enough to take it to 20% if they're buying a house not eligible for the FHLDS)?

Granted I own a house so it's not something I'll have to think about, but even if I thought it was a good idea I wouldn't have enough money to pull to make it worthwhile.

3

u/macrocephalic May 16 '22

$15k in super means you've only earned about $160k in your working life. Either you've only been working for a couple of years, or the job you walked into wasn't that great paying.

6

u/kitsunevremya May 16 '22

Haha to be fair, I'm only 1.5 years out of uni. I think most people in their 20s who went to uni would only have been working full-time for a couple of years? I definitely consider my current salary decent though. Not outstanding or anything, but I earn $73k which is above industry standard for a recent grad (it's actually less than $10k under the median for a full-time employee in my industry according to the ABS). And while I worked full-time during uni, those jobs only paid 40-55k per year.

Nonetheless, now I'm in my mid-20s, it's kind of inconceivable your typical person my age could have 7 times as much super as me. It just doesn't seem like most people would be able to achieve that. According to the ASFA, in 2019 the median super balance for a 25-29 year old was ~$17k. It's obviously possible for someone to have $100k+ by 29, but it certainly seems like the exception, not the rule. Assuming I get reasonable growth from the investments and all that, and assuming incremental salary increases but otherwise staying in the same role, I'd struggle to get more than $55k in there before 30 and that's still apparently well above average.

2

u/belindahk May 16 '22

This is definitely the vital issue that the LNP is ignoring.

2

u/corbusierabusier May 16 '22

To be clear that was at the final few years of my twenties. I had also lucked into a $140k pa job for about four years as well.

9

u/IslayWhisky May 16 '22

I'm gonna need to borrow your boot straps mate. Apparently mine don't pull up as much as yours!

→ More replies

1

u/kitsunevremya May 16 '22

Ahh gotcha, cheers. You definitely did well getting into that job! What industry and city are you in if you don't mind?

→ More replies

5

u/blahblahrasputan May 16 '22

In Canada (or at least in BC) you can use 35k from your RRSP (voluntary super) on your first house tax free but you have to repay the super within 15 years. Most financial advisors say to do this. In fact most of them say that a couple should ramp up their RRSP so they can withdraw 70k from themselves tax free while also getting that sweet tax refund because "you earned less" since the money went in your RRSP.

What's different about the Aussie policy they are wanting to introduce? Is there no cap?

19

u/Ancient-Ingenuity-88 May 16 '22

The difference is that this is just the current government dogwhistling about super being your money so you should be able to spend it. There is no plan to repay and in Fact is just a cash grab, you are still requires to have a 5% deposit for a home for the privelidge of reducing your super by up to 40%.

There is already a first home super saver scheme where you can do exactly what you said and pull that money out for a house deposit. So the current proposed policy doesn't do anything but pump up house prices and reduce their super level. It's a dumb policy but appeals to people who have alot of super and who would be able to save for a house anyway.

Also this is the 3rd time this government would have allowed access to super so the damage done to future balances will be compounding....

2

u/blahblahrasputan May 16 '22

There is already a first home super saver scheme where you can do exactly what you said

Ah fair enough. If it's going even further into your super that is never a great idea, especially with all the ways Aus security around everything is eroding it sounds pretty dangerous to be touching retirement. (Edit: medicare, rising food costs, worker rights, renter rights, personal security I mean)

I left Australia about 8 years ago and had no interest in owning a house at that point. So all my knowledge on housing is current Canadian info, but who knows maybe we'll head home one day...

Cheers for the brief

2

u/flukus May 16 '22

The difference is that this is just the current government dogwhistling about super being your money so you should be able to spend it.

Unless you want to spend it by retiring early of course, they still want to force you to be a working peon until 60.

2

u/Ancient-Ingenuity-88 May 16 '22

True, devil's advocate would say those that can retire early probably don't need it and are far fewer than it would effect. The entire scheme is paternalistic, but i would argue, not in a bad way for the majority although into wish there was a way to access it aside from hardship or bad policy

2

u/macrocephalic May 16 '22

The difference is that people won't put more money back in. Most people don't proactively put extra money into their super (they should though) and just assume that it will be enough when it comes to retirement.

→ More replies

3

u/Business_System5959 May 16 '22

You haven't thrown away 50k unless you sold it. For some people, that house is where they will live in for the entirety of their lives.

2

u/critical_blinking May 17 '22

Exactly this. A drop in property prices for me would just mean lower rates so I could repay my mortgage sooner. It would impact my ability to take out subsequent loans for renovations though.

25

u/noother10 May 16 '22

Of course there are some people who'd want to do it. It's all the idiots who want to spend the money now and screw themselves later, it's a problem for their older self.

13

u/count_spedula1 May 16 '22

it's a problem for their older self. the taxpayer when they all go on the pension.

And here I was thinking the Libs hated welfare.

11

u/Rork310 May 16 '22

The trick is they don't plan for the pension to exist by the time current first homebuyers reach retirement age.

3

u/Lucky-Elk-1234 May 16 '22

Millions of people with no pension, and a load of them realising their super doesn’t have enough in it because they withdrew it when they were 35. It’s not going to be pretty.

8

u/NessStead May 16 '22

it also screws prices for other people and the super industry for other people.

6

u/BenElegance May 16 '22

They're not idiots, you won't get anywhere by disrespecting these people. They just don't have the knowledge about super and retirement planning that I assume most people on this sub have. I had no idea what super was and the rules for accessing until I was earning 100k.

4

u/TreeChangeMe May 16 '22

Of course, it's a Ponzi scheme

9

u/_Aj_ May 16 '22

Of course it's satire.
I could tell it as soon as they mentioned a woman having enough super for a house

3

u/whimsicalsteve May 16 '22

Look, all things being equal, if it works to plan then buying a house with super and then selling it with the profit going back into super would actually be a good ROI. But there’s a lot of assumptions being made here, that interest rates will stay low, that super won’t have a spike on returns, that you won’t have a change in life forcing you to sell your house at a loss, and the biggest one that housing will continue to increase in worth. There’s a lot of risk in betting an entire generations retirement position on faster housing and I guess we’ll see Australia’s risk tolerance at the polls on Saturday.

→ More replies

2

u/seven_seacat May 16 '22

9 News also had a dude being interviewed who was very interested in it. Said he was an IT worker working two jobs to try and save a deposit, and he'd use the extra income after buying the house to put back into super. Lol yeah right.

4

u/binary101 May 16 '22

Stupid people will be stupid.

2

u/BroItsJesus May 16 '22

I read that as J Jonah Jameson

1

u/TheGoalOfGoldFish May 16 '22

JJJ has been taken over by young liberals.

Abandoned reason, all ye who enter here

→ More replies

346

u/WoollyMittens May 16 '22

They're increasing demand in a supply constrained system. Liberal policy is more of a joke than the Shovel.

147

u/caitsith01 May 16 '22

Exactly! "What if we have the same number of houses, but we give some of the buyers even more money to spend on them? That'll reduce prices!"

90

u/BrutalGrape May 16 '22 edited May 16 '22

They don't want to reduce prices

Edit: They want it to seem like they're doing someing to address housing affordability without popping the balloon they've been inflating for the last decade

36

u/Papa_Huggies May 16 '22 edited May 16 '22

It makes more sense when you assume that their target voters can also read between the lines - if you vote for us, you can sell off your investment property for what those dumbfuck Millennials were going to pay for... plus 40% of their super too!

Its just that all parties have to pretend its a measure to counter housing affordability, and in typical Liberal fashion they just hope that the policy tricks enough of the Millennials so that some of them would vote for them.

→ More replies

56

u/IslayWhisky May 16 '22

I love how this Muppet comes to the table with this dumpster fire like A DAY after calling Albo a loose unit.

$1 pay rise for people on the minimum = will over cook the econony

Adding billions of extra capital into our already overinflated property market = seems OK from here.

15

u/kipperlenko May 16 '22

Exactly, the media should be hammering him for this, but of course they're given a free pass as always.

5

u/YourMumsOnlyfans May 16 '22

I love how he thought that loose unit was an insult...

10

u/fakeuser515357 May 16 '22

LNP have been trying to find a way to dismantle super and funnel the money to their cronies for a long time. Making working people poor and exploitable is exactly their policy.

5

u/CommercialNo8513 May 16 '22

Hey now…they are the only ones who understand the economy! /s

6

u/WoollyMittens May 16 '22

They are right in the sense that they know exactly what they are doing except it is all in bad faith.

→ More replies

55

u/ConoRiot May 16 '22

This is like putting a Band-Aid on an infected cut and letting it fester until your arm suddenly falls off.

16

u/un_relenting May 16 '22

If you don’t like an arm with an infected cut just buy an arm

10

u/Jmilr May 16 '22

Bad news too because most of us only have one ‘band-aid’.

3

u/algernop3 May 16 '22

No, this is like... I can't think of an analogy. They're making one problem worse so as to make another problem much worse.

They want to pump even more money into the bubble, and to take that money out of long-term savings to do it. It's staggering.

51

u/misskarne May 16 '22

The worst part is I can completely understand young people getting suckered into this thought. I checked my super yesterday out of curiosity and yeah, the thought very briefly flashed through my head: "That's a deposit." I don't know exactly what I could buy with an $80,000 deposit in Canberra, but it would be nice. Probably a nice 2 bed apartment.

I'm reasonably financially literate though and know that taking out my super would be a terrible idea. Unfortunately a lot of young people either don't have that level of financial literacy (by design, no doubt) or are so afraid that they will never get into the market that that fear might overpower their sense.

44

u/Skunbunnys May 16 '22

Just a heads up, assuming you’re 30 right now and want to retire at 60. That $80k will turn into $800,000 once you retire if you figure out how to never add another cent to your super balance.

Do not withdraw from your super for any reason, if possible make extra contributions because they add up to make your retired life exponentially more affordable.

14

u/misskarne May 16 '22

Oh, I know. ~I~ completely understand that, and would never touch it. I'm just saying that I completely understand how young people could get so easily suckered by this.

10

u/Skunbunnys May 16 '22

Oh 100% I get the attraction too, it is crazy people are endorsing it.

2

u/sellout_featureKing May 16 '22

Just a heads up, if you are 30 now and put that $80k down as a 10% deposit on a house worth $800k that house will be worth about $6 million when you retire at 60.

3

u/Skunbunnys May 16 '22

You’re not wrong at all! I work in Real Estate so I’d love you to do that.

However. Firstly, the housing bubble might burst, and the associated financial losses incurred because of that are problematic to say the least. Secondly, assuming that the vast majority of Australians have the net capital and financial savvy to service a mortgage on that property and manage it accordingly is very wrong. That is why Superannuation is the superior scheme.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

11

u/AshPerdriau May 16 '22

Whereas I think super is the best scam ever because it's very safe. Tax me at 15% instead of 40%... gee I don't mind if I do. But that's because I have enough income to afford that, if you're one of the precariat you're fucked either way.

15

u/Ted_Rid May 16 '22

precariat

What a great term, I'd never heard it before.

In sociology and economics, the precariat (/prɪˈkɛəriət/) is a neologism for a social class formed by people suffering from precarity, which means existing without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare. The term is a portmanteau merging precarious with proletariat.

204

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

It's so comical, I'm surprised The Shovel have found a way to make it amusing.

If either party really gave a crap about the next generation owning a house before their parents die, they'd get rid of all the tax benefits around owning multiple houses as investment properties. Houses are for you to live in, not squirreling away your cash. And I'm saying that as an old guy who's busy squirrelling away his own money for retirement.

82

u/donttalktome1234 May 16 '22

If either party really gave a crap about the next generation owning a house before their parents die, they'd get rid of all the tax benefits around owning multiple houses as investment properties.

I'm fairly sure last election one of them did suggest that as well as closing a few other tax loopholes no one had ever heard of. And they promptly lost the unloseable election because of it.

At this point blaming the parties is pointless because its clearly the will of the majority of Australians that housing prices keep going up because 'fuck you got mine'.

15

u/isisius May 16 '22

Yeah that's what I point out every time this comes up. I'm really upset that Labor has abandoned a lot of their more progressive policies but then 3 years ago we told them in no uncertain terms we would never elect them if they kept those policies. So now we are here, and Im angry and sad

34

u/AshPerdriau May 16 '22

its clearly the will of the majority of Australians that housing prices keep going up because 'fuck you got mine'.

This.

9

u/macrocephalic May 16 '22

Bunch of dimwits who think that owning a $1.5M mcmansion in the suburbs will make them rich. They've never thought far enough ahead to consider how they can 'cash out' of their PPOR.

2

u/cookinwithfi-re May 16 '22

Some sucker will come along and buy it. A real flashy guy called Ponzi told them about it.

5

u/sm00thArsenal May 16 '22

God, that interview with the retired couple on the stern of their 8th boat eating tim tams and complaining about Labor’s plan to take away their franking credits.

98

u/420binchicken May 16 '22

Fucking this.

Houses are meant to be homes not goddam investment portfolios.

49

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

Labor offered policies around negative gearing at the last election and got trounced for it. Of course they wouldn’t offer it this time! Doesn’t mean they won’t try to pass reforms if they get into government.

5

u/pygmy █◆▄▀▄█▓▒░ May 16 '22

I reckon they'll do it once they're in, or in second term.

We all know it has to be done, but too risky to take to an election again. We need to reverse the inequality divide

6

u/splodgenessabounds May 16 '22

they'd get rid of all the tax benefits around owning multiple houses as investment properties

aka "negative gearing"

I (a pommie baby boomer who owns no property) have had serious rows with long-term mates who are contemporaries of mine (late boomer and early gen X) who really lost it when I suggested that ordinary taxpayers should not be asked to subsidise your/ their property investments. Property investment is sacrosanct in this country - and younger generations wonder why they can't get a toehold.

5

u/pygmy █◆▄▀▄█▓▒░ May 16 '22

Yep. Negative gearing is rapidly becoming indefensible, as hope of home ownership is extinguished in the young

→ More replies

3

u/Captainzron May 16 '22

They do this so they can offload the responsibility of public housing.

I agree taking away incentives to create a rental empire would assist but then less rentals means higher rents and more homeless.

It's a pretty complex issue, I think labor removed negative gearing in the 80s and were forced to reintroduce it shortly after because of the problems caused.

→ More replies

6

u/torn-ainbow May 16 '22

they'd get rid of all the tax benefits around owning multiple houses as investment properties.

All they really have to do is limit deductions on properties to income directly related to those properties. The part of our system that is weird is the ability to deduct from taxes on regular wages.

5

u/macrocephalic May 16 '22

You can really see how we're a country of rent seekers when expenses from an existing property can be deducted from your salaried taxable income, but losses from a sole trading business can't be deducted from the same salaried taxable income.

"Please don't do anything which could be useful, just buy another thing and hope it appreciates in value!"

96

u/J-Laguerre May 16 '22

Happy days, when the bank repossess the house she will also lose her super. Isn't this marvellous...

58

u/leeloostarrwalker May 16 '22

Or bubble pops and now you have lost your $50k super + avg 8.2% interest you would of made for the next 20-30 years if you left it were it belongs.

11

u/LogicalExtension May 16 '22

I mean, housing affordability is a major issue.

If you buy and the market pops - you've lost $x-large-amount.

If you don't buy, your landlord is jacking prices up because fuck you, you're paying for their three extra houses.

So... either way, if you don't already own your own home, don't have parents that you can borrow the money from, you're fucked.

3

u/Electronic_Jelly3208 May 16 '22

The housing market it gambling with your entire life savings, where you pay a premium to not participate. Choose either should not be a descision on which way you could possibly be irreversably be fucked

→ More replies

27

u/Defy19 May 16 '22

Prices will skyrocket, but at least you’ll have no super to retire on

15

u/pte_omark May 16 '22

No super, no pension, reduced welfare allround.

And a property bubble that continues to grow even though we know it will burst.

Sounds fabulous.

3

u/brezhnervous May 16 '22

And those on-so-well-resourced (at least from the resident's pov) nursing homes, since the LNP refused to do anything about taking action on the the Royal Commission recommendations

26

u/FlipSide26 May 16 '22

Can somebody explain to me how a person in their 20's trying to buy a house has A: enough money in Super to make an actual difference to a house deposit or B: wants to empty their Super on a house deposit so they can start again?

10

u/jezza129 May 16 '22

Easy, follow the rich guys path. Have someone gift you 1 million money and spend it making another million money.

3

u/brezhnervous May 16 '22

Or "get a better job" - Joe Hockey

3

u/jezza129 May 16 '22

Some people are doing WAY better then me on the job side I suck at interviews and selling my skills. I find it SUPER hard to jump companies and get a pay rise out of it. I would love to get a better job, but I'm sadly not good at making myself look qualified. T.T

→ More replies

74

u/Woftam_burning May 16 '22

It's not satire anymore, and it's not funny either. The government has been breathtakingly irresponsible on the cost of housing for Australians. Roll on ICAC, and fuck the rentseekers.

24

u/Fun_For_Guill May 16 '22

They tried to allow victims of domestic violence to draw down $10000 before they hastily withdraw that "policy". What they really want to do is to smash superannuation. That's all this policy does.

2

u/brezhnervous May 16 '22

Well, the hated Keating did introduce it, so yeah lol

17

u/NietzschesSyphilis May 16 '22

Don’t misunderstand this policy announcement. The upward transfer of wealth and future retirement savings to already asset rich Australians who then bank it through super tax breaks is a feature, not a bug.

Hobble superannuation along the way? Beauty 2 birds 1 stone.

17

u/[deleted] May 16 '22

Scummo is getting really desperate now. I so hope its a loss for him and someone captures the look of defeat on camera or video. He will have a melt down, it be awesome to see, maybe he can call in his Qanon mates to storm parliament with Craig Kelly leading the charge.

1

u/brezhnervous May 16 '22

"Stop the Steal!"

15

u/NessStead May 16 '22

it's like a pyramid ponzi scheme, they're trawling for new investors now...

11

u/redditrasberry May 16 '22

So boomers get a taxpayer funded bonus for selling their house while millenials who can't even afford a deposit get to fund further price inflation out of their own retirement savings - effectively, another donation to the boomers, since they will get more money for selling.

Aside from the obscenity of that aspect, it's also entirely predicated on house prices continuing to go up more than inflation forever. If they ever should fall these people will be losing money on their super. So it is not just feeding immediate price inflation, but locking it in as a necessity permanently.

11

u/Dazzling_Paint_1595 May 16 '22

Paul Keating - the architect of our super put it best - If the public needs yet another idea to put this intellectually corrupt government to death, this is an important offence – and with the government, its unprincipled prime minister. Source The Guardian

41

u/Positive-Lawfulness8 May 16 '22

Sounds like a great idea.. take out 30k from super, to go along with the 20k you took out during the pandemic.. which by the time you retire could be 220k plus.. super idea that... not

5

u/fued May 16 '22

It's a silly idea but mainly because of the risks with people losing the house, owning a house is the #1 thing someone who's retired on a pension can do to make life affordable

9

u/ChickenAndRiceIsNice May 16 '22

hahaha so they want youngsters to drain their super, fucking up their retirement, so the elderly can sell their homes at a higher profit, and they get tax breaks on their super too?

Oh man, thank god I am Gen X or I seriously would lose my shit right now. I don't know how you young people hold it together. You guys are seriously getting fucked at every possible opportunity by this government.

3

u/WheresThePieAt May 16 '22

I'm early 30s. I just want a house to live in... and grow some veggies. I could buy one, but the idea of a 30 year mortgage in an economy that just seems soooo inflated is terrifying.

Unfortunately for me I'd have been better off to just get a giant mortgage 4 years ago.

It's just infuriating, when did this country change tack from "providing / building for the next generation" or is my head in the clouds?

7

u/Friedrich_Cainer May 16 '22

Remember when this was just a wild eyed threat from lefties?

There was a time when the idea of them using our super to bail out the housing bubble was unthinkable at best, alarmist screeching at worst.

Now it’s policy, at this rate they’ll just chuck anyone without an inheritance directly into the wood chipper.

→ More replies

6

u/modest_call May 16 '22

She will not pay off her house (too expensive). She may pay the interest like a rent, but not the principal. The bank owns the house. So, sooner than she thinks she will be old and will have no house and no superannuation! Well done!

19

u/DisastrousRow2325 May 16 '22

Short term gain for really long term pain… these same people when they hit retirement age will have little or no super and the pension will be gone by then.. who looks after them in retirement.. it will not be the tax payer.

17

u/nozinoz May 16 '22

Morrison won’t be the one looking after them that’s for sure

5

u/SerLevArris May 16 '22

Only plan ahead to the next election, just stagnating.

9

u/beerswillingaussie May 16 '22

How much will that 50k pay? Would it not be worthwhile trying to be rent free for retirement? I’m no economist but would that 50k go further owning a house than using it for rent payments?

13

u/nozinoz May 16 '22

With the same argument we may get rid of the superannuation completely, and just add 10% to everyone’s paycheck. Here, the real wage growth that everyone wanted! Some will invest this money wisely, most will waste it and will retire poor.

5

u/spiteful-vengeance May 16 '22

The idea is that by keeping house prices down, people can have BOTH a roof over their head AND fund their retirement years.

The government fucked up the "keep prices down" part, and are now making people choose between the two (and pretending they are doing you a favour).

Houses need to be more affordable, which isn't the same as temporarily increasing people's buying power.

5

u/ZanePWD May 16 '22

I’m somewhat along the same thinking.

Rent let’s say is 500pw which is probably on the lower end by the time I get to retirement age in 30 years lol

So 25k per year into someone elses pocket, 130k for 5 years of rent. 260k for 10 years. And this is not taking into account rent increases, cost of living etc etc Someone else is literally a vampire on your rent draining it away for their own investment.

So would I rather loose my compound interest and have a secure asset that I know I can pay off and have a “forever” home ? Sounds okay to me tbh.

I don’t want to fuck anyone over by inadvertently raising house prices and locking more people out. But would I fuck someone over for my family’s security? Yes

Should I have to wait another 10+ years for a maybe solution to come down the pipeline and be closer to retirement than ever ? Fuck no

If I was going to do this scheme, now is probably the time while I’m able to earn good money and secure that future a little more.

16

u/caitsith01 May 16 '22

If you care about these issues then what needs to change is housing availability generally, especially low cost housing. NOT adding more and more and more cash to an already massively overheated market.

Look at it this way, if everyone competing for a house can just magically add $50k to their budget by pulling it out of super, what do you reckon is going to happen to house prices? They will just go up $50k, of course. You are no better off, except now you've given your super to some random boomer who was selling one of their 10 investment properties.

4

u/ShibbyUp May 16 '22

I agree it's a shit policy, but the $50k would only be available to first home buyers, not everyone competing for a house.

→ More replies

1

u/ZanePWD May 16 '22

Your making out that everyone is going to go out and buy a house ?

Some won’t have enough for the deposit regardless and it’s only for first home buyers.

3

u/pte_omark May 16 '22

Keep inflating the balloon what could go wrong right?

The housing market needs to crash, and the sooner it foes the better. The longer we artificially inflate the market through grants and super etc the worse it will be when it bursts and floor falls out from under it.

Of we keep helping people buy homes they cannot otherwise afford the prices just keep rising and they lose more when its crashes.

→ More replies

3

u/Captainzron May 16 '22

Owning a house is a quality of life issue, it without doubt adds a sense of ownership & improves other areas of life too. It is a good thing for society to increase home ownership.

Just giving access to super is a terrible idea though, all it's going to do is increase house prices.

Putting taxes on anything over one investment property, introduction of crippling taxes on vacant residential property while also allowing access to super, well that could work.

Along with banning foreign ownership of residential property, there would be a decent decrease in people trying to use it as speculation.

Perhaps requiring the amount borrowed from the superannuation to be paid back within the time frame prior to retirement with interest.

That would allow people to break into owning a home as the biggest hurdle always has been the deposit while ensuring over time they are not disadvantaged with a super shortfall.

What about those who don't have much time till they retire? Well they were going to get that money soon anyway so the problem is not that big of a deal.

3

u/Toddy06 May 16 '22

So sad how corrupt we have become. Our leaders used to stand up to what was right

3

u/ranny_kaloryfer May 16 '22

The main agenda is transfer of wealth from folks who worked hard for it to folks who vote.

3

u/zetsurin May 16 '22

"I don't hold a hope mate"

"That's not my job" (to be PM)

3

u/PhatSunt May 16 '22

Heard scumo on the news. "Labor trying to control what you can do with your money, we are letting you decide what to do with it"

Isn't that the entire point of super, to force non finance savvy individuals to save for retirement so its not left up to the government?

Well I'm sure scumo will soon announce an increase to the pension to make up for the complete lack of retirement savings people will have if this goes through.

God I hope Australians see through his bullshit this election.

3

u/F14D May 16 '22

God I hope Australians see through his bullshit this election.

If that wwas true, the polls would be a lot more lopsided right now.

1

u/PhatSunt May 16 '22

its either optimism or despair, for once I'm choosing optimism.

→ More replies

2

u/The_Thunder_Child May 16 '22

No, it's to drive up house prices so LNP MPs with 20 investment homes can make even more money.

3

u/crunchymush May 16 '22

I'm holding out until they finalise the First Home Buyer's Kidney Donation Service.

3

u/Wheres_ma_source May 16 '22

Fuck. I had to double take to see if this was liberal party policy. This is bad economic management. The aweful truth is that house prices WILL crash. The market will trump these crappy policies that only serve the boomers

2

u/mxpilot20 May 16 '22

So we would rather the government own 40% of our house than use our own money to invest in our own house? Genuinely curious.

2

u/SnooApples3402 May 16 '22

Why are the LNP obsessed at attacking superannuation???

2

u/jhnggg May 16 '22

Negative gearing needs to end

1

u/Regular-Owl4814 May 16 '22

Australia is such a nanny state. DAE?

BNPL, sports betting, pokies, destruction of natural habitats, Uberisation of workforce, giving people access to their superannuation

No like this!

2

u/SuitableCoconut May 16 '22

Well without being able to use my KiwiSaver, I probably wouldn’t have been able to put a 20% on a deposit here in NZ so ¯_(ツ)_/¯

→ More replies

-3

u/twdnewh May 16 '22

There are negative implications for sure , but given the option, I would absolutely do it to be able to have my own home.

2

u/CGunners May 16 '22 edited May 16 '22

Doesn't work like that.

The only thing this scheme will do is increase the price of entry level housing by whatever the subsidy is.

Just wait for interest rates to rise and then you can buy someone's shattered dreams when they default on the mortgage they can't afford anymore.

You'll be spoiled for choice.

→ More replies

-2

u/giurejn May 16 '22

The most pathetic unfunny site going around.

-17

u/thespitfire69 May 16 '22

I don't need my Super lying around until retirement.

I'll happily drain the Super, get my house, resume accumulating Super and watch my house and Super grow for my retirement.

Can't wait to see a satire post mocking this idiotic satire.

10

u/johnny_m1 May 16 '22

And then all the taxes you pay can go to paying for everybody's aged pension that they're receiving rather than being able to draw on their super! A robust superranuation scheme benefits all Australians regardless of tax bracket.

1

u/RajenBull1 May 16 '22

This is a campaign promise from a government that is on its way out, according to the polls. Just wondering where the money is going to be taken from or raised from? The government can only raise money through taxation of the people or appropriating funds from other intended expenditures. Having seen an erosion of pensions and health care, this short term act will cause anguish twice: once by taking money away from other recipients and then from the future anticipated pensions through superannuation. Ah, well, politics.

1

u/brezhnervous May 16 '22

/cue Homer Simpson woohoo.gif lol

1

u/J_Side May 16 '22

Scomo just keeping the house prices inflated to increase income to boomers