Paul Keating attacks Coalition’s super for housing policy as economists warn of soaring prices   

May 16 2022
New Daily.
A Coalition plan to allow first-home buyers to use their superannuation to buy property has been slammed as a “frontal assault” on super that would light a fire under house prices.

Announced at the party’s campaign launch in Brisbane on Sunday, the policy would allow first-home buyers to use up to 40 per cent of their superannuation savings, up to a maximum value of $50,000, to help buy a home.

The uncapped ‘Super Home Buyer Scheme‘ would apply to new and existing homes, with the invested amount and a share of any capital gain to be returned to home buyers’ superannuation funds once they sell their property.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison told the campaign launch that helping young voters buy their own homes was the best way to help them achieve financial security in their retirement.

But economists said the policy would drive up house prices while former Labor leader Paul Keating, the architect of the compulsory super system, said it amounted to “no more than another frontal assault by the Liberal Party on the superannuation system”.   :(

“The Liberals hate the superannuation system – they object to working Australians having wealth in retirement independent of the government,” Mr Keating said in a statement.

“The Libs believe ordinary bods should be happy with the age pension. Let them know their place.

“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.”


Economists warn of short-term price shock
The policy idea was previously spruiked by Liberal MPs including Tim Wilson, who is at risk of defeat in the Victorian seat of Goldstein, but it failed to get up under former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull.

The Coalition says the plan would make it easier for Australians to buy a home by reducing the time it takes to save for a deposit by an average of three years.

But economists argue the policy would simply push up house prices, at least in the short term. 

Grattan Institute economic policy program director Brendan Coates told The New Daily the plan would increase prices by boosting demand. But he added that prices should stabilise down the track.

Mr Coates said he was unable to estimate how much house prices would go up in the immediate future if the policy was implemented.

“Once you deal with that bring forward with demand, as people saving for a deposit use the scheme to get themselves over the line, the impact of housing prices over the long term will be relatively modest,” he said.

Over the long term, accessing up to 40 per cent of super will just become “an established part of how a lot of people think about getting into the housing market”.

Mr Coates said the policy should not affect people’s ability to save enough money for retirement, as under the superannuation guarantee “people save too much anyway”.

The current rate of employer-mandated contributions is 10 per cent of a person’s salary, but this is legislated to rise to 12 per cent by July 2025.

“The rate of compulsory super is already too high and so from that sense I don’t think this is going to condemn anyone to a life of poverty in retirement if they use this to buy their own home,” he said.

“It provides more support to people that already have more because they’re using their own super to get into the market.”


‘Reckless inflation’
Independent economist Saul Eslake was more scathing of the plan, telling The New Daily that “this reckless inflation of house prices must stop … and this is what this scheme will not do”.

He said if the maximum amount is withdrawn, the policy would allow single households to pay $250,000 and couples $600,000 more than what they otherwise would on a new house.

“We have now almost 60 years of evidence going back to the first-home owners grant scheme that the Menzies government introduced in 1964 … that schemes which allow Australians to pay more for housing than they otherwise would result in more expensive housing, not in higher home ownership rates,” he said.

“You have to ask yourself: Why do politicians keep doing things in the face of such overwhelming evidence that they don’t work?

“The only answer that I can give is, for all the crocodile tears they shed about the difficulties faced by would-be young first-home buyers, they know that in a typical year there are only 100,000 of them who succeed.

“What they also know is there are 11 million people who own at least one home, within that there are two million people who own two or more homes, and the last thing they want is any government to do anything that restrains the rate at which house prices go up.”

Mr Eslake conceded that the house price increase would “have a one-time impact” and the rate of house price inflation would not go up permanently.

“But, the house prices will be higher than they otherwise would have been,” he said.

Both Mr Eslake and Mr Coates agreed that capping the policy would have gone some way towards limiting a potential house price hike.

Declining affordability
Data released earlier this month by CoreLogic and ANZ Bank revealed that many households have gone backwards in their efforts to overcome the property deposit hurdle in the two years to March, with soaring house prices far outpacing income growth.   :(

Modelling released five months ago by the McKell Institute found that allowing prospective buyers to access $40,000 of their superannuation would push up house prices in Sydney by more than $40,000 and in Brisbane by almost $100,000.

It found an additional $25 billion of debt would be incurred by Melbourne households while debt in Sydney would increase by $23 billion.

Labor’s housing spokesperson Jason Clare described the Coalition’s policy as “the last desperate act of a dying government”.  :(

“Every heavy hitter in the Liberal Party of the last generation that have looked at this issue have knocked it on the head – whether it is John Howard, Peter Costello, Malcolm Turnbull or Mathias Cormann,” he said.

It comes after a parliamentary committee chaired by Liberal MP Jason Falinski recommended in March that the government allow buyers to use their superannuation as security for a home loan but not as a deposit.

In its final report released on March 18, the committee noted that “allowing first-home buyers to access or borrow against part of their super to purchase a home would, in the absence of increased housing supply, likely increase demand and lead to higher property prices”.

Labor’s housing affordability policy is based on the government taking on up to 40 per cent of the cost and equity in a new home up to a value of $380,000.

Under the ‘Help to Buy’ plan, home buyers would avoid paying lenders mortgage insurance and would take on far less debt. They could then buy back the government’s stake in stages, or pay it back after the eventual sale of their homes.

Mr Eslake said that Labor’s policy would also put upwards pressure on house prices, but to a lesser degree than the Coalition’s plan due to stricter eligibility requirements.

What Paul Keating didn't say was this : he himself proposed the same idea when he last ran for PM.

The average super balance for men aged 25-34 is $41,700 according to the ABS.

That means if they didn't take out the 20k during COVID, that's only 16k or 8k if they did. If that 8-16k makes all the difference they're going to be annihilated by the rate rises.

It's also in the range of the first home buyers grants that just pushed the prices up for the exact amount of the grants, which Barnaby just addmited was the point, to reduce the projected 10-15% drop in the next year.

It's not good policy, no matter how many "But Labor" cries the Neanderthals make.

Keating is right

Lots of people raided their super during the scam damic
To buy things like mag wheels and tattoos

Insane

Same as Clive Palmer's insane idea to repatriate overseas invested super

What businesses are you going to invest it in in Australia

Hills hoists and victa mowers :D :D :D

The only way to reduce house prices sto increase supply

We need less public servants
Social workers
Support workers
Occupational health and safety officers
Human resources staff
Environmental officers
Lawyers
Bean counters
People holding up traffic control signs
Dietitians
Occupational therapists
Workers compensation staff
Speech therapists
Exercise physiologists


We need some people who know how to use a hammer
And a shovel
And we need them to knock up some houses

Allowing people to access super
Just increases the demand side
Whilst doing nothing for the supply side
And the consequence has to be increased prices

This policy will translate into future tax burden for tax payers in 20 to 30 years time.   

It is another government intervention in market economy.

Higher house prices will lead to further restrictions of business activity. 

This policy will be a disaster for small business. 

Liberal has run out ideas, this is more a far left leaning idea, not right wing, free market idea.  Do not vote for this. 

It is moving your own money from one asset class into another and ending the loss of money that you never get back by renting.

Getting out of renting is the big thing. Instead of having to save up over 5 years for example to get a deposit together, wasting 5 years of lost rent money, you get to start building your biggest asset - a home.

Having a home in retirement beats the crap out of renting in retirement.

BTW ... I'm not saying this policy is going to save the ScoMo government. I reckon ScoMo is GAWN.

I do think this first home buyers policy is better than Albo's first home buyers policy though.



The Libs reckon this:

The Coalition estimates a couple purchasing a medium value home of $750,000 and who have saved a 5 per cent deposit ($37,500) would have a mortgage of $712,500 and a monthly repayment of $3,180 (this factors in a 3.45 per cent interest rate based on the average discounted mortgage rate according to RBA data)

The same couple who used the maximum permitted amount under the scheme ($100,000) would have a deposit of $137,500 (or 18 per cent) and have a mortgage of $612,500 with a monthly repayment of $2733

The Coalition estimates the couple would save around $446 a month (about $5350 a year) if they used the scheme and it will cut three years off the time it takes to save a deposit.


Seems like a good idea to me.

When the home is eventually sold, the money taken out from Super has to go back in plus the capital gain made so in the end, the Super balance is not damaged very much.

In the meantime, it prevents losing all that rent money which otherwise would have been lost forever.

Quote:

“The Liberals hate the superannuation system – they object to working Australians having wealth in retirement independent of the government,” Mr Keating said in a statement. “The Libs believe ordinary bods should be happy with the age pension. Let them know their place.

The Liberals don't even like the idea of "ordinary bods" being happy with just the age pension seeing as they've 'toyed' with the idea of putting the pension age up to 70 and also putting age pensioners on the cashless welfare card.

Hopefully, these stupid ideas (along with the Federal Liberals) will be put in the bin for good after next Saturday.

Smirko also has a new home builder policy and an old fart downsize policy which could all work together to make owning a home easier for the young'uns.   8-)

I reckon this suite of policies has merit and I know it does because the Lefties are going ballistic over it.  ;D

aquascoot wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 8:32am:

The only way to reduce house prices sto increase supply We need less public servants Social workers Support workers Occupational health and safety officers Human resources staff Environmental officers Lawyers Bean counters People holding up traffic control signs Dietitians Occupational therapists Workers compensation staff Speech therapists Exercise physiologists We need some people who know how to use a hammer And a shovel And we need them to knock up some houses

I wanted my son to reject masculine stereotypes. Then he fell in love with tractors

After turning 2 years old, my son, Avishai, started demanding that he only wear tractor shirts, and my mind spiraled into darkness. I catastrophized worst-case scenarios, imagining a world where he fell for everything stereotypically manly. I envisioned him on a football field, barreling through mega-muscled opponents. Imagined him waxing a sports car on a warm summer day. I have always judged other guys who seemed boxed in by masculinity, but 3 ½  years ago, when I became a stay-at-home dad, my bias skyrocketed.

To me, femininity was connected to empathy and kindness while masculinity equated to being frigid. Men didn’t hug. Men didn’t say I love you. Men were angry. Aggressive. Inept as parents. I became determined. I was going to create a bond stronger than any parent had ever achieved, but I told myself that to do so I needed to distance myself from anything deemed masculine.

To me, femininity was connected to empathy and kindness while masculinity equated to being frigid.

I immediately cut my hours at my social work gig, taking on the role of caregiving full time. It made sense because my wife made more money and I was accustomed to being around kids; it was what I did for a living. Every day I fed Avishai and cuddled him and soothed him. We co-slept, and he snoozed with his head resting on my chest, listening to the rhythm of my heartbeat. I began attending mommy-and-me playgroups and bristled when other caregivers made jokes about me providing daddy day care. I held resentment that so much of society acted as if dads couldn’t care for their kids (therefore putting pressure on women for the brunt of the caregiving) — but I too looked at dads that way. I shuddered at jokes about men being incapable of figuring out how to work a diaper, yet I felt most couldn’t. I became even more of an avid stereotyper: I grimaced at anyone driving a Ford car, the John Wayne of automobiles. I hated men who wore plaid. Felt ill if someone mentioned a wrench or another tool. When my mom-in-law bought Avishai a coverall with footballs on it, I shoved it into the depths of his closet, never to be found.


My body spiraled into panic any time I attempted manual labor. When I left for college, I swore I’d never hang a picture frame again.
https://www.today.com/parents/essay/man-boxes-stereotypes-tractors-rcna25364
Not a spoof.

lol @ frank.

low status males like that who try to suck up to women are actually kind of disgusting to women.

the last thing a woman wants is to have a son who is too anxious, too sensitive, too delicate.

hence they reject the advances of men who try to be their "girlfriends'

its a non fruitful mode of being

Under Labor's scheme, a home buyer could end up almost half a $Million worse off.


First-home buyers could save about $1000 a month on their mortgage repayments by choosing Labor’s Help to Buy scheme over the government’s First Home Guarantee, but may trade off up to $455,000 in equity gains, new modelling shows.

https://i.imgur.com/UBKhnE6.jpg


https://www.theage.com.au/property/news/will-first-home-buyers-be-better-off-using-the-liberal-or-labor-low-deposit-schemes-20220513-p5al1a.html

The Govt has no business co-owning a % of private dwellings.

Using some super to help by a house is far better but Id add the catch that whatever you pull out of super either has to go back into your super if the property is sold, (+ appreciation) or go into another PPOR.

Something to keep in mind, Paul Keating is an elitist pig who personally sneers at the Everyman.  He spends half his life at the Double Bay auction rooms snapping up property and personally driving up prices.

His kids and grandkids have also followed in his footsteps and also rich pretentious money bragging schits.

aquascoot wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 8:32am:

The only way to reduce house prices sto increase supply We need less public servants Social workers Support workers Occupational health and safety officers Human resources staff Environmental officers Lawyers Bean counters People holding up traffic control signs Dietitians Occupational therapists Workers compensation staff Speech therapists Exercise physiologists We need some people who know how to use a hammer And a shovel And we need them to knock up some houses Allowing people to access super Just increases the demand side Whilst doing nothing for the supply side And the consequence has to be increased prices

Despite your obvious paranoia of those smarter than you and your childish one size fits all solution to everything (that just happens to match your ideology 100%, not reality) you're starting to get there.  You've at least identified the supply issues even if you've peppered the "scam demic" throughout your posts...

So let's see if we can extract your solutions from this mess you've posted.  You want to cut some areas of the public service and welfare in order to build more home to increase supply?

Those areas being anything Labor appears to actually take seriously like Worker safety, the environment, a safety net for the people etc.

Ok, but how would cutting funding in those areas help the free market build more homes?

Unless you're suggesting more public housing or a fleet of public servants building homes?

Interesting, but I can't see you actually wanting that.  You've been more willing these years to see people die than your money going to things, like welfare, that you don't believe in.

We need a 2 pronged approach, one to help in the short term in the most efficient way possible to get more affordable housing and then address a more long term view of the issues that have created this mess at the moment.

The Libs and Nats have let slide that the housing market is a safe investment option.

And that's their problem.  They see housing as a financial market, not as HOUSING!

They've tailored their current announcement with the specific goal of lowering the impact on house prices.  They're worried about the market before the people having a roof over their heads.

And they're doing it by pushing people closer to poverty in their old age while at the same time giving people who are already in that age bracket, like them, tax breaks to sell their larger homes that first home buyers are unlikely to be able to afford anyway.

Their two solutions won't even come close to addressing the issue and in fact be worse for housing affordability and supply than them doing nothing.

Doing nothing is tipped to see a 10-15% drop in house prices over the next 12 months.

Captain Nemo wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 12:38pm:

Under Labor's scheme, a home buyer could end up almost half a $Million worse off. First-home buyers could save about $1000 a month on their mortgage repayments by choosing Labor’s Help to Buy scheme over the government’s First Home Guarantee, but may trade off up to $455,000 in equity gains, new modelling shows. https://i.imgur.com/UBKhnE6.jpg https://www.theage.com.au/property/news/will-first-home-buyers-be-better-off-using-the-liberal-or-labor-low-deposit-schemes-20220513-p5al1a.html

Half a million worse off, if they can afford to buy today which in turn would see them not needing this assistance anyway.

You understand that right?

If they don't buy today without Labor's help they'll be $1.5 million worse off.

The point is to help them get into the market.  If they're not in the market they lose all the gains, so they're 1 million better off with Labor's help.

It just depends on what point you want to make by how you look at it...

We know what point you're trying to make.

Scomos scheme looks OK at first glance, however the likely scenario, as pointed out above, is that housing prices will increase and no one will be any better off. Maybe if housing prices were capped this could work but that is not going to happen.

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 1:00pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 12:38pm: Under Labor's scheme, a home buyer could end up almost half a $Million worse off. First-home buyers could save about $1000 a month on their mortgage repayments by choosing Labor’s Help to Buy scheme over the government’s First Home Guarantee, but may trade off up to $455,000 in equity gains, new modelling shows. https://i.imgur.com/UBKhnE6.jpg https://www.theage.com.au/property/news/will-first-home-buyers-be-better-off-using-the-liberal-or-labor-low-deposit-schemes-20220513-p5al1a.html Half a million worse off, if they can afford to buy today which in turn would see them not needing this assistance anyway. You understand that right? If they don't buy today without Labor's help they'll be $1.5 million worse off. The point is to help them get into the market.  If they're not in the market they lose all the gains, so they're 1 million better off with Labor's help. It just depends on what point you want to make by how you look at it... We know what point you're trying to make.

If they buy under ScoMo's plan they could be $450,000 better off than under the Albo plan.

You understand that right?

https://i.imgur.com/UBKhnE6.jpg

Captain Nemo wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 1:50pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 1:00pm: Captain Nemo wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 12:38pm: Under Labor's scheme, a home buyer could end up almost half a $Million worse off. First-home buyers could save about $1000 a month on their mortgage repayments by choosing Labor’s Help to Buy scheme over the government’s First Home Guarantee, but may trade off up to $455,000 in equity gains, new modelling shows. https://i.imgur.com/UBKhnE6.jpg https://www.theage.com.au/property/news/will-first-home-buyers-be-better-off-using-the-liberal-or-labor-low-deposit-schemes-20220513-p5al1a.html Half a million worse off, if they can afford to buy today which in turn would see them not needing this assistance anyway. You understand that right? If they don't buy today without Labor's help they'll be $1.5 million worse off. The point is to help them get into the market.  If they're not in the market they lose all the gains, so they're 1 million better off with Labor's help. It just depends on what point you want to make by how you look at it... We know what point you're trying to make. If they buy under ScoMo's plan they could be $450,000 better off than under the Albo plan. You understand that right?

Scomo's plan would contribute on average 8-16k only on average super levels.

That would be $8,000 to $16,000 less to save up for a deposit.  8-)

Also, you would not have the government owning part of your home.  8-) 8-)


In my opinion, Jim Chalmers has not put in the hard yards like Keating did before he got into power.

It is all going to end in tears for Labor down the track.

Last time Labor had a treasurer named Jim it ended badly too.  ;)

Captain Nemo wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 2:09pm:

That would be $8,000 to $16,000 less to save up for a deposit.  8-) Also, you would not have the government owning part of your home.  8-) 8-) In my opinion, Jim Chalmers has not put in the hard yards like Keating did before he got into power. It is all going to end in tears for Labor down the track. Last time Labor had a treasurer named Jim it ended badly too.  ;)

theres a hole in your bucket, dear labor, dear labor

There have been many calls over the years for people to be allowed access to super to buy homes.

"The Singapore-inspired idea for using super for housing that could cut costs 50% "

"HouseMate buyers would be permitted to use their superannuation savings and contributions for both the deposit and ongoing repayments"

https://theconversation.com/the-singapore-inspired-idea-for-using-super-for-housing-that-could-cut-costs-50-174401

Gordon wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 12:49pm:

Something to keep in mind, Paul Keating is an elitist pig who personally sneers at the Everyman.  He spends half his life at the Double Bay auction rooms snapping up property and personally driving up prices. His kids and grandkids have also followed in his footsteps and also rich pretentious money bragging schits.

Paul Keating (the grub who introduced Uni fees in Australia) himself originally came up with the idea of accessing super to fund a property deposit. In fact the hypocritical Keating himself took that policy to a Federal Election!

Lisa Jones wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 7:48am:

What Paul Keating didn't say was this : he himself proposed the same idea when he last ran for PM.

*swish*

UnSubRocky wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 3:20pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 7:48am: What Paul Keating didn't say was this : he himself proposed the same idea when he last ran for PM. *swish*

Are you swishing about?

Lisa Jones wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 3:27pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 3:20pm: Lisa Jones wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 7:48am: What Paul Keating didn't say was this : he himself proposed the same idea when he last ran for PM. *swish* Are you swishing about?

Swish is the sound that a basketball net makes when the basketball gets through the hoop with a "nothin' but net" result. It means that I think you nailed it. I recall something of what you were saying, back in the early 1990s.

Belgarion wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 1:23pm:

Scomos scheme looks OK at first glance, however the likely scenario, as pointed out above, is that housing prices will increase and no one will be any better off. Maybe if housing prices were capped this could work but that is not going to happen.

This very issue was discussed at yesterday's Liberal Party Election Launch in Brisbane. Less than 100 000 First Home Owners applications go through the books each financial year (this was the approx figure under a very low interest rate/flexible financial provider lending rules regime). That figure will drop even more now that interest rates have gone up and lending criteria has tightened.

This initiative is hoping to keep that number at around 100 000. In short it's making sure First Home Owners have some extra help to get over the line. 

(Please don't ask me what I think about the idea. Let's just say I'm very critical of it but not for the reasons you've given ie raising prices in real estate). 

"Paul Keating, who poured scorn on Treasurer Joe Hockey last week for raising the idea of allowing young Australians to buy their first home by tapping into their super, briefly promised the same thing in 1993."

https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/paul-keating-promised-first-home-buyers-access-to-super-20150316-1m0bz6

UnSubRocky wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 3:36pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 3:27pm: UnSubRocky wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 3:20pm: Lisa Jones wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 7:48am: What Paul Keating didn't say was this : he himself proposed the same idea when he last ran for PM. *swish* Are you swishing about? Swish is the sound that a basketball net makes when the basketball gets through the hoop with a "nothin' but net" result. It means that I think you nailed it. I recall something of what you were saying, back in the early 1990s.

Ah.

Unfortunately....I am getting super cynical with every passing year. I'm seeing Labor leaders running with Liberal policies/Liberal leaders running with Labor policies to a Federal Election.

They must both think we're blooming fools not to notice this.

God help us all. We've got idiots running this country.

lee wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 3:40pm:

"Paul Keating, who poured scorn on Treasurer Joe Hockey last week for raising the idea of allowing young Australians to buy their first home by tapping into their super, briefly promised the same thing in 1993." https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/paul-keating-promised-first-home-buyers-access-to-super-20150316-1m0bz6

Yep. Ohh how well I remember the 1990's. I was so involved in Uni politics back then. So many of us were pro Labor students when we first started Uni. Then Keating started screwing with Uni funding and making us pay fees whilst selling off Uni places all around us to Chinese overseas students making future domestic students unable to get into Uni because all Uni entrance marks went through the roof. And the fees kept increasing every semester too. Aussie students were forced into lower ranking degrees which they didn't really want to get into but had no choice but to accept. Many just had no money to afford the fees so they went to TAFE which was more affordable when they should have been in Uni. What a disgraceful dhead Keating was.

Keating also introduced the idea of using your super to help fund your home loan during a period where he was struggling to find an excuse for the interest rates he ushered in and which were hurting so many Australian families (they were around 17% ffs)! Mortgagee sales were taking place EVERYWHERE! Parents who had gone guarantor for their kids loans lost their homes too! Older parents AND their kids found themselves bankrupt and on the streets.

The recession Australia HAD to have (his words). Pathetic arsehole!

So many pro Labor Uni students like myself became Liberal Party supporters. And it was more out of disgust after we found ourselves protesting and getting arrested for the right for all Australians to access a University education with reasonable entrance marks and no fees. As was the case prior to Keating's grubby fingers getting into higher education.

I know I'm supposed to shut up and pretend I don't know any of this but it's pretty hard to because I was there holding a placard and watching my Uni friends being thrown to the ground and getting arrested for protesting against a govt which no longer cared about its own kids who were fighting for the right to continue to access higher education without further financial stress.

At the end of the day we need to decide what is important.

Keeping property prices artificially high so first home buyers will always need help entering the market, or do we help people currently priced out now in the short terms while making longer term plans to improve supply and affordability, wages and support for families so both parents can continue to work and earn without half their pay going to child care?

I'd choose the latter which is more in line with Labor's platform rather than the Libs treating housing like a financial market first and housing second.

"Can't afford to rent, just buy!"

Or we could just talk about past Labor policy to deflect away from the enormous shortcomings in the current liberal policy and avoid entirely identifying their fingerprints all over the current mess we're in.

Play politics or put Australia first?

Why do the conservatives always choose play politics...?

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 5:11pm:

Why do the conservatives always choose play politics...?

Because the left try forget about past policy. ; ;)

super is really going to suffer over the next few years.

a trillion dollars in printed money devalues the value of saved money.

the aussie dollar is already dropping.

inflation is not going to be able to be stopped.

you would need interest rates at 5 % to slow it and that number would see so much mortgage stress, it would translate into bank stress and the government cant see bank failures.

so they are stuck , unable to fight inflation at a time they are running budget deficits (ie printing money which is pure inflation) and when fuel and energy prices are about to sky rocket.

energy security is economic security .

we could have it but we would rather export coal and gas to asia to be burnt  ::) ::).

china is being very sneaky.

they are going to benefit from cheap gas as russia wont be able to sell it anywhere else and they are creating weird lockdowns which , it appears, are designed to bugger up supply chains and cause a lot of stress in western economies.

when we no longer make cars, computers, whitegoods, clothes, shoes, electronics and furniture as well as steel and building materials,pharmaceuticals  we are going to be totally screwed if china simply stops producing that stuff, even temporarily /

i think thats what they are doing

they have about 15 trillion in savings on their books.

they can starve us out.

the days of abundance and the days of entitlement are over.

and about time.

the trouble is the politicians wont come clean to the electorate and tell it the way it is

lee wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 5:18pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 5:11pm: Why do the conservatives always choose play politics...? Because the left try forget about past policy. ; ;)

Past policy is important, but you're trying to dismiss any criticism Labor have because of a past position they took, that no longer applies today, so you don't have to deal with those criticisms, that's simply playing politics.

The landscape today is very different to Keating's day. We're living longer and Super is more important, especially as the population continues to age and the nationalism pushed by the current Government is keeping immigration levels low.

Taking 40% of someones super now makes a huge difference.

Especially with interest rates rising making repayments higher and the Liberals plan designed to basically be seen as doing something about housing affordability while at the same time the primary goal is to keep the current market high, not more affordable.

It's smoke and mirrors when very real and lasting consequences to us the people.

But Labor once held a similar position so who cares?

Please...

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 1:00pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 12:38pm: Under Labor's scheme, a home buyer could end up almost half a $Million worse off. First-home buyers could save about $1000 a month on their mortgage repayments by choosing Labor’s Help to Buy scheme over the government’s First Home Guarantee, but may trade off up to $455,000 in equity gains, new modelling shows. https://i.imgur.com/UBKhnE6.jpg https://www.theage.com.au/property/news/will-first-home-buyers-be-better-off-using-the-liberal-or-labor-low-deposit-schemes-20220513-p5al1a.html Half a million worse off, if they can afford to buy today which in turn would see them not needing this assistance anyway. You understand that right? If they don't buy today without Labor's help they'll be $1.5 million worse off. The point is to help them get into the market.  If they're not in the market they lose all the gains, so they're 1 million better off with Labor's help. It just depends on what point you want to make by how you look at it... We know what point you're trying to make.

I heard on the radio today that Labors policy is based on a similar scheme which has been running successfully in WA for almost 30 yrs now.

The libtards are looking desperate trying to shoot it down ;D ;D

Captain Nemo wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 1:50pm:

If they buy under ScoMo's plan they could be $450,000 better off than under the Albo plan.

Only if you ignore the jump in house prices this will cause in the first place

aquascoot wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 8:32am:

The only way to reduce house prices sto increase supply

Finally horse crap gets something right

Everything else is just tinkering around the edges

Captain Nemo wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 2:09pm:

Also, you would not have the government owning part of your home.  8-) 8-)

No one will be forced to take labor up on their offer. if you want 100% ownership you can still have it.

I'm betting the majority of people trying to get into the marker won't mind.

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 5:43pm:

The landscape today is very different to Keating's day.

Did lee mention that Keating also planned on raising super to 15%, or did he leave that bit out  :D :D

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 5:43pm:

We're living longer and Super is more important, especially as the population continues to age and the nationalism pushed by the current Government is keeping immigration levels low.

Wow a whole 6 years longer.
ProudKangaroo wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 5:43pm:

Taking 40% of someones super now makes a huge difference.

And I never said anything different. I have always believed super should b e for retirement. You take 30K out now and that is 30k at 6% compounded pa lost. Over 24 years about a 120k shortfall. Over 36 years about 240k.

And that was the same in 1993.

Abolish negative gearing and thousands of homes will flood the market....The Government (State) needs to build more social housing???

::) ::) ::)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj3yCInCGos

Part 1 of a 5 part series on Paul Keating in power. 5 hours worth of documentaries. Some episodes on John Howard afterwards.

lee wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 6:05pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 5:43pm: We're living longer and Super is more important, especially as the population continues to age and the nationalism pushed by the current Government is keeping immigration levels low. Wow a whole 6 years longer. ProudKangaroo wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 5:43pm: Taking 40% of someones super now makes a huge difference. And I never said anything different. I have always believed super should b e for retirement. You take 30K out now and that is 30k at 6% compounded pa lost. Over 24 years about a 120k shortfall. Over 36 years about 240k. And that was the same in 1993.

When I bought my home almost 30 years ago it was about $103,000


Now, it is worth about $700,000


The other point being ... once the home is sold, the money taken out from Super has to go back into Super and the capital gain and it will not be taxed.  8-)

This is a great bonus to Super in the end and the saving in lost rent money that would be gone forever.

The ScoMo plan is actually a good one compared to the Albo plan, especially when you see that Albo's plan could end up costing $450,000 of lost equity at the time of sale.

lee wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 6:05pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 5:43pm: We're living longer and Super is more important, especially as the population continues to age and the nationalism pushed by the current Government is keeping immigration levels low. Wow a whole 6 years longer. ProudKangaroo wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 5:43pm: Taking 40% of someones super now makes a huge difference. And I never said anything different. I have always believed super should b e for retirement. You take 30K out now and that is 30k at 6% compounded pa lost. Over 24 years about a 120k shortfall. Over 36 years about 240k. And that was the same in 1993.

But you're putting money into another appreciating asset, one that often out performs shares.

Gordon wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 8:41pm:

But you're putting money into another appreciating asset, one that often out performs shares.

And often not. Property location, location, location.

Shares - an index fund

Although for your own investments a mix same as your super fund.

Well - I agree - and I could not count the number of times I've agreed with Keating on the fingers of one hand - there are far better alternatives to putting the brakes on rampant and runaway investment buying and foreign ownership, such as:-

. high interest rates on investment loans, which would have the dual benefit of keeping the investment insanity under control and also making the banks, with their own investment in keeping the market forever upwards, toe the line when it comes to marginal lending

. stipulating that a specified and very high percentage of every development MUST be for private homing and not investment

. changing the rules that permit serial investment buying on 'ghost candidate' equity, such as 'just bought one, now got equity DEEMED to be there in future by the bank, and now another one thanks!', when genuine cash equity in deposits saved and actually apparent in bank balance misses out as a result.  As before - this encourages the banks in their determination to see the market rise endlessly and damn the potential home OWNER, and to pressure their political mates and cronies to go along with this insanity (too big to fail - help us out here!).  The amazing thing is that a bank considers equity as a potential future gain and not actual incoming/outgoing on current value, and thus promotes the endless gain in market price so as to garner endless income for themselves!!!

. you can see where this puts struggling prospective home OWNERS (who the banks and their mates would like to see forever in rental so as to guarantee their money flow) - way behind the game since they only have real cash in the bank (well pharken DUH??!!??)

. putting severe bans on foreign ownership and restrictions on ownership by non 100% citizens, and banning foreign investment buying, both for homing and other land uses

. cash for purchase by foreigners must be accessed here to buy here under the same rules and at the same rates - the influx of ready from Offshore does nothing but raise the market prices for the locals and thus destroys The Australian Dream

. freeing up this 'equity' on superannuation to 'help home owners into a home' will only serve to raise the prices again, and thus is self-defeating, and will not resolve the long term issues around eventual retirement, but will make those worse

Now - as to why the twerps in Cambra will not come at this - they are all in the game together with their mates, so they have a vested interest in perpetuating the rise and rise of homing cost, until the inevitable crash and disaster brings the whole lot down... in the meantime, the prospective HOME owner is left out in the cold time and again to suit these parasites, and is forced to pay rent to sustain this filthy market in which many of these 'political leaders' have a huge stake.

Not to mention the brown paper bags.......

It's time for the parasites to take it on the chin for a change..... they've had their free run.....

whiteknight wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 6:13am:

Paul Keating attacks Coalition’s super for housing policy as economists warn of soaring prices    May 16 2022 New Daily. A Coalition plan to allow first-home buyers to use their superannuation to buy property has been slammed as a “frontal assault” on super that would light a fire under house prices.

Gillard was good, but Keating was our last *great* PM

lee wrote on May 16^th, 2022 at 8:54pm:

Gordon wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 8:41pm: But you're putting money into another appreciating asset, one that often out performs shares. And often not. Property location, location, location. Shares - an index fund Although for your own investments a mix same as your super fund.

You'd have to try pretty hard to get a dud property that doesn't perform as well as a balanced share portfolio.

It's also likely that $50k invested in property will outperform super shares because it's heavily geared.
50k = 90k

Gordon wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 12:36pm:

lee wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 8:54pm: Gordon wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 8:41pm: But you're putting money into another appreciating asset, one that often out performs shares. When I sold a company I spoke to Shadforths and they insisted I could not invest in real estate.  Realistically cost me $2 million.  I've left the share market, I don't expect property to grow like it has, but I am sure it won't shrink and I think the stock market is a ponzi scheme And often not. Property location, location, location. Shares - an index fund Although for your own investments a mix same as your super fund. You'd have to try pretty hard to get a dud property that doesn't perform as well as a balanced share portfolio. It's also likely that $50k invested in property will outperform super shares because it's heavily geared. 50k = 90k

Gordon wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 12:36pm:

lee wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 8:54pm: Gordon wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 8:41pm: But you're putting money into another appreciating asset, one that often out performs shares. And often not. Property location, location, location. Shares - an index fund Although for your own investments a mix same as your super fund. You'd have to try pretty hard to get a dud property that doesn't perform as well as a balanced share portfolio. It's also likely that $50k invested in property will outperform super shares because it's heavily geared. 50k = 90k

The other factors not being counted in the comparison with Super vs housing under the Lib's scheme ...

No rent to pay.
No tax on the capital gain for the dosh in the home.

8-) 8-)

Captain Nemo wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 12:41pm:

Gordon wrote on May 20th, 2022 at 12:36pm: lee wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 8:54pm: Gordon wrote on May 16th, 2022 at 8:41pm: But you're putting money into another appreciating asset, one that often out performs shares. And often not. Property location, location, location. Shares - an index fund Although for your own investments a mix same as your super fund. You'd have to try pretty hard to get a dud property that doesn't perform as well as a balanced share portfolio. It's also likely that $50k invested in property will outperform super shares because it's heavily geared. 50k = 90k The other factors not being counted in the comparison with Super vs housing under the Lib's scheme ... No rent to pay. No tax on the capital gain for the dosh in the home. 8-) 8-)

I own two houses outright and have morgages on two.  Why would I pay rent?

As I said ... "under the Lib's scheme"

We're talking about the first home buyers scheme.

Do try to keep up.  ;)

Captain Nemo wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 12:57pm:

As I said ... "under the Lib's scheme" We're talking about the first home buyers scheme. Do try to keep up.  ;)

So you're saying the fact people aren't paying rent if they buy is a factor? In what ways?

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 12:58pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on May 20th, 2022 at 12:57pm: As I said ... "under the Lib's scheme" We're talking about the first home buyers scheme. Do try to keep up.  ;) So you're saying the fact people aren't paying rent if they buy is a factor? In what ways?

Rent money is money you never get back. Paying a mortgage is money you get to keep as it is building your asset, not someone else's asset.   8-)

Captain Nemo wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 1:00pm:

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 20th, 2022 at 12:58pm: Captain Nemo wrote on May 20th, 2022 at 12:57pm: As I said ... "under the Lib's scheme" We're talking about the first home buyers scheme. Do try to keep up.  ;) So you're saying the fact people aren't paying rent if they buy is a factor? In what ways? Rent money is money you never get back. Paying a mortgage is money you get to keep as it is building your asset, not someone else's asset.   8-)

Sure, and? I mean barely at first, but eventually.

This is why it's bad that young people are locked out of the market.  It's what makes their super worthless