What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

2019 Federal Election

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
63,431
Do people really know what they want?

If they do name something it is often unrealistic and they aren’t willing to compromise.

I think a lot of people just want to complain.

I hear the labor voters at work constantly bag libs AMD vice versa. What shits me is they dont do there little parts. They cry about the environment not being looked after but leave lights/AC on when not home and never use public transport. And forget about giving to charities.
It is just a lack of responsibility and wanting to blame someone else. The leader of the nation seems a popular one....
I honestly couldn't care who wins. I will make the best out of the chances I get.
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
63,431
Ideally we need to peg back growth, whilst increasing wages. so eventually we return to some kind of sanity where housing is affordable.

Without a crash and burn that destroys consumer confidence.

Are houses that unaffordable?
Most people wanting the perfect job and to see the whole world and travel while eating out 3 times a week arent buying houses sure....
I'd say our lifestyles are more expensive then past generations. Mobile phones,Internet and turning over constant gadgets.
I have friends earning a low wage who saved and bought units.
But it is easier to have a cry and blame to government then to sacrifice and work hard I guess.
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
63,431
It's a generation of I want.
I want a good job
I want to live in location I want
I want to travel
I want everything and I am entitled to it.

If people commit to a plan and work hard by the time they reach early 30s they would reach a level where there knowledge and experience would get them a nice pay pack.
If chose travel,New cars and partying that's fine but reality is there is some other person hungrier and more determined then you that has been working hard and they will take that higher paying job when the chance arrives.
 

Bandwagon

Super Moderator
Staff member
Messages
45,581
Are houses that unaffordable?
Most people wanting the perfect job and to see the whole world and travel while eating out 3 times a week arent buying houses sure....
I'd say our lifestyles are more expensive then past generations. Mobile phones,Internet and turning over constant gadgets.
I have friends earning a low wage who saved and bought units.
But it is easier to have a cry and blame to government then to sacrifice and work hard I guess.

We've gone from it costing two to three times the average wage in the seventies to buy an average house, to six to eight times, in places like Sydney and Melbourne it's 10 - 12 times annual earnings.

So yeah, that's just not affordable for a lot of people.

It was that a low skilled worker could put a roof over his or her families head provided they had a bit of discipline and were prepared to make a few sacrifices here and there, now a days we get the classic " get a better job" ,

We got it all wrong somewhere along the line where we as a nation decided that a house was no longer primarily a home, and it became an investment
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
78,008
The elephant in the room on this kind of argument is that if indeed this policy is responsible for falling values ( or part thereof ) , given that Labor is yet to form government, and it is yet to become law, that would mean that the market has already factored in Labor forming government and it becoming law.

Which then means that the pain from the policy in terms of values is done with.
Well I had a meeting yesterday with a merkin from Morgan Stanley and we were talking OT above the property market. He spoke in detail about the APRA effects on the property market and how their research has shown that it has had a negative effect on consumer confidence. This impacts retail sales etc and it flows over the economy like a dust cloud over Mildura. They argue that the APRA shenanigans may well have doused the flames of the property market, however what they have created is a semitrailer without breaks. For example, APRA released the grip on one testicle in December by loosening the restrictions in investment lending. APRA thought that this would breath some life back into the market. Nothing.

The states are starting to complain because stamp duty is down and they are seeking compensation via the GST. However because retail in down as well, GST is shrinking as well.
 

Bandwagon

Super Moderator
Staff member
Messages
45,581
Well I had a meeting yesterday with a merkin from Morgan Stanley and we were talking OT above the property market. He spoke in detail about the APRA effects on the property market and how their research has shown that it has had a negative effect on consumer confidence. This impacts retail sales etc and it flows over the economy like a dust cloud over Mildura. They argue that the APRA shenanigans may well have doused the flames of the property market, however what they have created is a semitrailer without breaks. For example, APRA released the grip on one testicle in December by loosening the restrictions in investment lending. APRA thought that this would breath some life back into the market. Nothing.

The states are starting to complain because stamp duty is down and they are seeking compensation via the GST. However because retail in down as well, GST is shrinking as well.

Yes, it's very clear that the ready availability and the subsequent restriction of money is the primary driver of both the rises and recent falls within the market.

My argument was not that the negative gearing policy was a driver, it was an argument that if it was a driver now, then by extension that would mean that it was at least to some extent already priced into the market. The government can't have it both ways on that score. Either it has been priced into the market or it has not.
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
63,431
We've gone from it costing two to three times the average wage in the seventies to buy an average house, to six to eight times, in places like Sydney and Melbourne it's 10 - 12 times annual earnings.

So yeah, that's just not affordable for a lot of people.

It was that a low skilled worker could put a roof over his or her families head provided they had a bit of discipline and were prepared to make a few sacrifices here and there, now a days we get the classic " get a better job" ,

We got it all wrong somewhere along the line where we as a nation decided that a house was no longer primarily a home, and it became an investment

Sure but also factor in the 70s most of households had one income as wife stayed home
Interest rates also where not 3.6% but well over 10%
I was paying 8% when I purchased my home 14yrs ago. And my pay packet has gone up quite a bit. I assumed most peoples had.
It was always going to happen. The people working longer hours and saving more would have excess money.They would use it to educate their offspring better who would end up with the better jobs and also invest in other areas.Buying properties being one. And it just snowballs. The wealthy pull us all along for the ride. In 50yrs most likely the gap will be even bigger and we will end up like Germany where most people just rent. The way the system is set up it can only operate this way.
It is survival of the fittest just like any other animal. Atleast the wealthy help us all out by donating to charities and research meaning cures for diseases increases our life expectancy. Not to many other animals are so kind.
 
Last edited:

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
78,008
Sure but also factor in the 70s most of households had one income as wife stayed home
Interest rates also where not 3.6% but well over 10%
I was paying 8% when I purchased my home 14yrs ago. And my pay packet has gone up quite a bit. I assumed most peoples had.
It was always going to happen. The people working longer hours and saving more would have excess money.They would use it to educate their offspring better who would end up with the better jobs and also invest in other areas.Buying properties being one. And it just snowballs. The wealthy pull us all along for the ride. In 50yrs most likely the gap will be even bigger and we will end up like Germany where most people just rent. The way the system is set up it can only operate this way.
It is survival of the fittest just like any other animal. Atleast the wealthy help us all out by donating to charities and research meaning cures for diseases increases our life expectancy. Not to many other animals are so kind.

Sydney & Melbourne have also become cosmopolitan cities, listed as most desirable holiday destinations and best cities to live.

Our immigration policies allow only skilled white collar workers, who bring with them either cash reserves or an above average earning capacity.

Public transport is shit and the road systems are poor, so it is hard to encourage urban spread. Leaving merkins to opt for buying in traditional areas and putting upward pressure on demand.

All of these things push prices up. A lot of merkins wish for property prices to stagnate and correct to improve affordability (shutup @strider ). However that is the opposite of a dynamic growing city. High property prices are a indicator of success for a city. We should wear it as a badge of honour rather than trying to stagnate growth. Sydney and Melbourne now get mentioned in top 10 lists along with New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, San Francisco, Hong Kong, Vancouver & Singapore. Go us !
 

Bazal

Post Whore
Messages
103,683
Sydney & Melbourne have also become cosmopolitan cities, listed as most desirable holiday destinations and best cities to live.

Our immigration policies allow only skilled white collar workers, who bring with them either cash reserves or an above average earning capacity.

Public transport is shit and the road systems are poor, so it is hard to encourage urban spread. Leaving merkins to opt for buying in traditional areas and putting upward pressure on demand.

All of these things push prices up. A lot of merkins wish for property prices to stagnate and correct to improve affordability (shutup @strider ). However that is the opposite of a dynamic growing city. High property prices are a indicator of success for a city. We should wear it as a badge of honour rather than trying to stagnate growth. Sydney and Melbourne now get mentioned in top 10 lists along with New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, San Francisco, Hong Kong, Vancouver & Singapore. Go us !

Yes.

A badge of honour that means many people will never be able to afford a house...how very Republican
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
78,008
Yes.

A badge of honour that means many people will never be able to afford a house...how very Republican

Well they will never be able to afford a property in Manhattan, however with could transport systems out to Queens or Brooklyn affordable housing will be made available. Likewise Sydney. I liked Turnbull's concept of a 30 minute city. His notion was to have all residential areas no more than 30 mins away from the CBDs of Sydney City, Parramatta, Hurstville, Chatswood etc. High speed rail will also allow merkins from the burbs to shoot into their desired city for easy access to work.

=======================

Turnbull's vision for '30 minute' cities
Naomi Woodley reported this story on Friday, April 29, 2016 18:05:00

| MP3 DOWNLOAD

PETER LLOYD: Malcolm Turnbull has outlined another of his big ideas.

The Prime Minister has outlined a vision of "30 minute cities", where congestion is eased and housing is more affordable.

But Malcolm Turnbull says much of the Government's plan to achieve that is still under development.

Next week's budget will include $50 million to speed up planning and development work on major projects, and there'll be a new government unit to encourage private sector investment.

By contrast, the Greens say the Government should be issuing long-term bonds, to invest up to $75 billion in infrastructure over the next 10 years.

From Canberra, Naomi Woodley reports.

NAOMI WOODLEY: The big picture infrastructure policies of the Government, Opposition and Greens are now all on the table ahead of this year's federal election.

Although as the Prime Minister acknowledged at the city summit in Melbourne today, there's still work to do.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: This is early days in the development of this policy. We're releasing this today and we are seeking the work in a very collaborative way and we're looking forward to the input from you.

NAOMI WOODLEY: Malcolm Turnbull has outlined his vision for so-called 'city deals' to be struck between all levels of government, to deliver suburbs where residents can get to school or work within a reasonable amount of time - like 30 minutes.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: They'd be a contract between all the stake-holders; the Government, business, industry and the community. An agreement if you like that identifies the clear and measurable goals for a city or a region and agrees on a coordinated investment plan.

NAOMI WOODLEY: Next week's budget will include $50 million to spend up planning and development work and for a financing unit to come up with new ways to fund projects. Malcolm Turnbull says the federal government's days of simply offering up cash grants are at an end.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: The critical thing that we need to do is ensure that our investments make a difference. That every dollar we spend is coordinated with the other levels of government to ensure that we get those outcomes of better, more open space, better amenity, greater liveability, more opportunities to work closer to where you live.

And of course a very important issue, more affordable housing.

NAOMI WOODLEY: The Prime Minister says public money is still required but the Government wants to pursue ways to capture some of the value a project would bring to its local area.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: How can we leverage the tax payer's dollar to get a better urban outcome from the investment?

NAOMI WOODLEY: The Opposition leader Bill Shorten says the Government's plan is light on detail, compared to Labor's policy.

BILL SHORTEN: Six months ago, Anthony Albanese, my transport spokesperson and myself outlined a $10 billion concrete bank with firm proposals to help reinvest in public transport in our big cities. To help reinvest in necessary roads to clear congestion so that people can have better productivity and better quality of life.
NAOMI WOODLEY: Labor would turn infrastructure Australia into that $10 billion financing facility, with just over $6 billion of that to be raised by issuing Government bonds.

The Greens also see a role for Government bonds, but on a much larger scale and managed by an independent infrastructure bank. The Green's Senator Peter Whish-Wilson says $75 billion could be spent on infrastructure in the next 10 years using Government debt issued at today's low interest rates.

PETER WHISH-WILSON: This has been encouraged by the International Monetary Fund for example, and even the Governor of the Reserve Bank, so now's the time to be doing it.

NAOMI WOODLEY: Senator Whish-Wilson has been chairing a Senate committee considering Australia's system of funding infrastructure.

PETER WHISH-WILSON: One thing that the committee heard was that there is a significant appetite out there to invest in infrastructure, but many investors, be they super funds, or be they other investors, feel that the system is too political, it's not transparent, they don't have the information that they feel is necessary for their risk profiles.

NAOMI WOODLEY: Today, the committee's made 11 recommendations, including an increase in government borrowing, and a requirement for states and territories to introduce a broad-based land tax if they want access to funding from government bonds.

Neither Labor nor the Government issued a dissenting report or any additional comments, which Peter Whish-Wilson says is encouraging.

PETER WHISH-WILSON: I think the bigger story here is that the three major political parties in this country are essentially moving towards in the same direction. The new process, the new way of financing and structure in this country.

NAOMI WOODLEY: He says the social benefit of infrastructure must be a future consideration, as well as projects in regional areas.

PETER WHISH-WILSON: Places like Rockhampton, Launceston, Geraldton, and the kind of infrastructure that these places are calling out for include water pipelines, power stations, new dams for water supply, new communications towers, new shelters for women.

There are a number of things there that we would classify as infrastructure that aren't getting financed because our systems set up for financing big iconic projects.

NAOMI WOODLEY: The Greens say a series of smaller projects can be just as beneficial to the nation as a major road or rail link in Australia's big cities.

PETER LLOYD: Naomi Woodley reporting.

https://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4452888.htm
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
63,431
I am in and industry where it's easy I guess to pick up extra work and hours if I want to so perhaps I am being a little rude in inconsiderate
 

Bazal

Post Whore
Messages
103,683
Well they will never be able to afford a property in Manhattan, however with could transport systems out to Queens or Brooklyn affordable housing will be made available. Likewise Sydney. I liked Turnbull's concept of a 30 minute city. His notion was to have all residential areas no more than 30 mins away from the CBDs of Sydney City, Parramatta, Hurstville, Chatswood etc. High speed rail will also allow merkins from the burbs to shoot into their desired city for easy access to work.

=======================

Turnbull's vision for '30 minute' cities
Naomi Woodley reported this story on Friday, April 29, 2016 18:05:00

| MP3 DOWNLOAD

PETER LLOYD: Malcolm Turnbull has outlined another of his big ideas.

The Prime Minister has outlined a vision of "30 minute cities", where congestion is eased and housing is more affordable.

But Malcolm Turnbull says much of the Government's plan to achieve that is still under development.

Next week's budget will include $50 million to speed up planning and development work on major projects, and there'll be a new government unit to encourage private sector investment.

By contrast, the Greens say the Government should be issuing long-term bonds, to invest up to $75 billion in infrastructure over the next 10 years.

From Canberra, Naomi Woodley reports.

NAOMI WOODLEY: The big picture infrastructure policies of the Government, Opposition and Greens are now all on the table ahead of this year's federal election.

Although as the Prime Minister acknowledged at the city summit in Melbourne today, there's still work to do.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: This is early days in the development of this policy. We're releasing this today and we are seeking the work in a very collaborative way and we're looking forward to the input from you.

NAOMI WOODLEY: Malcolm Turnbull has outlined his vision for so-called 'city deals' to be struck between all levels of government, to deliver suburbs where residents can get to school or work within a reasonable amount of time - like 30 minutes.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: They'd be a contract between all the stake-holders; the Government, business, industry and the community. An agreement if you like that identifies the clear and measurable goals for a city or a region and agrees on a coordinated investment plan.

NAOMI WOODLEY: Next week's budget will include $50 million to spend up planning and development work and for a financing unit to come up with new ways to fund projects. Malcolm Turnbull says the federal government's days of simply offering up cash grants are at an end.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: The critical thing that we need to do is ensure that our investments make a difference. That every dollar we spend is coordinated with the other levels of government to ensure that we get those outcomes of better, more open space, better amenity, greater liveability, more opportunities to work closer to where you live.

And of course a very important issue, more affordable housing.

NAOMI WOODLEY: The Prime Minister says public money is still required but the Government wants to pursue ways to capture some of the value a project would bring to its local area.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: How can we leverage the tax payer's dollar to get a better urban outcome from the investment?

NAOMI WOODLEY: The Opposition leader Bill Shorten says the Government's plan is light on detail, compared to Labor's policy.

BILL SHORTEN: Six months ago, Anthony Albanese, my transport spokesperson and myself outlined a $10 billion concrete bank with firm proposals to help reinvest in public transport in our big cities. To help reinvest in necessary roads to clear congestion so that people can have better productivity and better quality of life.
NAOMI WOODLEY: Labor would turn infrastructure Australia into that $10 billion financing facility, with just over $6 billion of that to be raised by issuing Government bonds.

The Greens also see a role for Government bonds, but on a much larger scale and managed by an independent infrastructure bank. The Green's Senator Peter Whish-Wilson says $75 billion could be spent on infrastructure in the next 10 years using Government debt issued at today's low interest rates.

PETER WHISH-WILSON: This has been encouraged by the International Monetary Fund for example, and even the Governor of the Reserve Bank, so now's the time to be doing it.

NAOMI WOODLEY: Senator Whish-Wilson has been chairing a Senate committee considering Australia's system of funding infrastructure.

PETER WHISH-WILSON: One thing that the committee heard was that there is a significant appetite out there to invest in infrastructure, but many investors, be they super funds, or be they other investors, feel that the system is too political, it's not transparent, they don't have the information that they feel is necessary for their risk profiles.

NAOMI WOODLEY: Today, the committee's made 11 recommendations, including an increase in government borrowing, and a requirement for states and territories to introduce a broad-based land tax if they want access to funding from government bonds.

Neither Labor nor the Government issued a dissenting report or any additional comments, which Peter Whish-Wilson says is encouraging.

PETER WHISH-WILSON: I think the bigger story here is that the three major political parties in this country are essentially moving towards in the same direction. The new process, the new way of financing and structure in this country.

NAOMI WOODLEY: He says the social benefit of infrastructure must be a future consideration, as well as projects in regional areas.

PETER WHISH-WILSON: Places like Rockhampton, Launceston, Geraldton, and the kind of infrastructure that these places are calling out for include water pipelines, power stations, new dams for water supply, new communications towers, new shelters for women.

There are a number of things there that we would classify as infrastructure that aren't getting financed because our systems set up for financing big iconic projects.

NAOMI WOODLEY: The Greens say a series of smaller projects can be just as beneficial to the nation as a major road or rail link in Australia's big cities.

PETER LLOYD: Naomi Woodley reporting.

https://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4452888.htm

Well it's better than the Mad BeetRooter telling merkins to move to Tamworth.

Still, something does need to be done about housing prices. Obviously the middle of a major city is always going to be out of reach for many people, but they also shouldn't be faced with moving to a place where there are no jobs (for eg) just to afford something
 

Bazal

Post Whore
Messages
103,683
I am in and industry where it's easy I guess to pick up extra work and hours if I want to so perhaps I am being a little rude in inconsiderate

You also have no kids, or spouse to look after. You work in an industry where you can pretty much get a job wherever you go. I presume no HECS debt eating away at income. Live alone, so bills are less and you can rent a smaller place for less.... Etc
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
78,008
Well it's better than the Mad BeetRooter telling merkins to move to Tamworth.

Still, something does need to be done about housing prices. Obviously the middle of a major city is always going to be out of reach for many people, but they also shouldn't be faced with moving to a place where there are no jobs (for eg) just to afford something

Yep hence why the expansion of cities like Parra and Hurstville etc are crucial. If you are stuck out at the back of Oran Park, you have access to fast trains to get you across the city in any direction you need. Merkins need to stop driving in their millions to work.
 

strider

Post Whore
Messages
79,045
You also have no kids, or spouse to look after. You work in an industry where you can pretty much get a job wherever you go. I presume no HECS debt eating away at income. Live alone, so bills are less and you can rent a smaller place for less.... Etc
I see what you are saying, he made good life choices
 

strider

Post Whore
Messages
79,045
Yep hence why the expansion of cities like Parra and Hurstville etc are crucial. If you are stuck out at the back of Oran Park, you have access to fast trains to get you across the city in any direction you need. Merkins need to stop driving in their millions to work.
Hurstville is the biggest shithole imaginable .... it is nothing but high rise residential ... it is so far from being any type of business hub its not funny
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
78,008
Hurstville is the biggest shithole imaginable .... it is nothing but high rise residential ... it is so far from being any type of business hub its not funny

Don['t be a hater @strider . I know you want Hurstville to become the new Parramatta. Maybe you could get a light rail too. F**k it you can ALL have a light rail !

tenor.gif
 

84 Baby

Referee
Messages
29,953
What the f**k is wrong with renting? Even with low interest rates, the cash yield is better if you rent. You take that excess cash and invest above the capital return of the property market. All of a sudden your ahead of the property market.
Or spend it on classy cars, booze and travel and then whinge you can’t afford to buy
 

Bazal

Post Whore
Messages
103,683
Who said anything is wrong with renting? It's a perfect valid option, it just shouldn't be the only option people can afford.

Odd rant.

BTW my mortgage repayment works out about $200 bucks a month less than I was paying in rent for this house. Which is very common in Canberra with rents being so high, although they have softened somewhat.
 

Latest posts

Top