$$$ for RL - Vote for Johnny!!!

[Surely]

Interest rates were 17% and they are about 7% now, but housing prices are much higher as a proportion of wages now - so we are worse off than we were when they were 17%..

Houses were affordable because everyone had to hock them because they could not afford the repayments due to interest rate rises. Supply > Demand

Obviously now, there are a lot more people who can afford to buy a house hence the high prices being commanded. Demand > Supply

Oh, and arse fell out of the dollar? I don't know what you are tlalking about there, but then neither do you.

So the words bannana republic don't ring a bell. If you don't know what i am talking about maybe you are to young to remember. Maybe you should read up on what happened around 86/7.

 

[Surely]

I know people who nearly lost there Houses to high interest rates, and guess who the treasuer was???? The one and only, Honest John. The way he's spending to get him self re - elected they are only going to rise higher.

No it was paul the recession we had to have keating.

 

[mightybears]

So you'll be voting for no one? Because the Bear's are not coming back...

we will be back, and by that i mean labor in about 7 weeks and the bears in 2010-
time is on our side!

 

[jimmyo]

Houses were affordable because everyone had to hock them because they could not afford the repayments due to interest rate rises. Supply > Demand

Obviously now, there are a lot more people who can afford to buy a house hence the high prices being commanded. Demand > Supply

That's some good doublethink there - but it doesn't help me buy a house. Houses are more expensive everywhere, not just in Neutral Bay, and when you buy one, you'll be paying more on your mortgage as a percentage of your wage than you would have in the late 80s/early 90s.

So the words bannana republic don't ring a bell. If you don't know what i am talking about maybe you are to young to remember. Maybe you should read up on what happened around 86/7.

Floating the dollar and taking down the tarriff barriers was exactly what the Liberal Party wanted to do - it just happened to be the ALP that was in power when it was done. It was done, and now Australia is enjoying the prosperity it created.

 

[Green Machine]

Here’s an interesting article from the 2001 Queensland election:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/qldelection/eqld-19feb2001-2.htm
QRL

Labor's win in the state election should be good news for the Queensland Rugby League (QRL) which campaigned against the Coalition's stance not to redevelop Lang Park.

Labor was committed to proceed with the multi-million dollar upgrade if it won the election and QRL managing director Ross Livermore says work will need to begin soon if the so called super-stadium is to be finished by 2003.

Brisbane City Council has refused to approve the redevelopment but Mr Livermore says now that the plan has been accepted by the majority of voters at local government and state elections, it is time to start.

"I don't know the reasons why they haven't approved it to date, but certainly the government and the council will be talking very seriously I would expect in the next few weeks," Mr Livermore said.

"The government can enact legislation to override it...I'm not privy to that but certainly that happened previously when we had to get the new grandstand built."

 

[B-Tron 3000]

Wow, it appeared that guy who tore apart my post really grilled me.

Are you talking about me, or the other blokes that tore your post apart?

It was hard to read by the end, I was laughing so much.

Well better get a hold of your belly, I gots some more gold coming your way!

Its good we all have opinions and thats just what it was, his opinion. It was good to read his opinion, it shows the diverseness of discussion that we have come to love on the forums.

Everyone has an opinion.

But what do you do with facts?

I use facts to tell you why you are wrong. Listen up, you might learn something.

You hate Howard and good for you.

I don't know the man, so it's a stretch to say I hate him. I don't like his policies, or his snivelling, snaky ways.

But I find it hard to hate a man who clearly has the people in the centre of his thoughts.

:lol: :lol: Funniest sentence in this thread. Also the most naive and sad.

Do you think you get to be prime minister for 10+ years and NOT be good to the people?

You can be many things and still be Prime Minister after 10 years. There's a whole bunch of people in Columbia who still think Pablo Escobar was a hero. Why? Because they thought he cared about them. He'd have had them killed in a second if they jeopardised his lifestyle.

By the way, I agreed with many of Howard's policies in the early part of his ten year reign, but I think he's gone too far this time. Way too far. And so do many others. Hence, the last ten years don't mean squat.

Or a great governer? Do you think you would have a clue after 10+ years, or not much of a clue.

Well that all depends. Y'see, he never had this much power before because he never had control of the senate. And you know what absolute power does...
Howard has finally got the chance to install his political idealogies, and he took no notice of what the people wanted or needed. That's why he's going down the gurgler, and is desperately trying to fight his way out. He's even campaining in his own seat, out of fear!

But he is one man who has done more for you and your children than you will probably ever allow yourself to see.

Care to elaborate? So far neither you or your mates have successfully elaborated anytime I've asked you to.

Go back to a Labour govt, and you can kiss prosperity goodbye.

Elaborate please.

Its true, some of our prosperity has come from the mining boom,

Some?! Try nearly all.

but its the way we deal out the money internally as a country that allows us to maximise our prosperity.

I couldn't agree more. That's why I'm NOT voting Howard. Why would I vote for a government that is going to give all the money to their business cronies at the expense of me the worker?

Per capita, individuals are more wealthy now than ever before

True.

Now, care to break that per capita wealth down into percentiles across the community. You'll find that all the wealth is in the hands of a few.

....its true too we have more debt than ever before, but thats an individuals problem.

True as well.
The individual is quite within their rights to own nothing, and live a day to day existence. However, if they want babies and a home, well that's a different story.

IF YOU are not going ok in this environment, I dont think you can blame the govt, you can only blame yourself.

Nonsense. There are plenty of people out there who are working their arses off for minimal wages.

This is prosperity, and you can make a killing out there. Howard govt delivered it.

to whom? Howard delivered it to certain elements of society.

Labour ruined the economy.

What year are you in?

Labour is in no condition to run the country. Rudd is as poor a choice as Latham. All his policies dont go far enough. They are mere knee-jerk reactions to the govt.

So, let me get this straight - Rudds policies are knee-jerk, but they don't go far enough? So he's reacting without thinking, but doing so in a conservative manner?

Honestly, what are you talking about?

Do you want Rudd to go further, to be more left-wing? I'm afraid you'll need to explain yourself again.

The Howard govt has a vision for Australia.

Please, elaborate. I fail to see how their vision is benefiting me, or any other average joe.

They got us out of drowning in debt.

:lol:

They changed the tax system for the better,

Now, that's an opinion. And one you share with most people earning high wages I gather.

and gave this country prosperity.

Blah blah blah blah.

Again with the prosperity. I'm hearing a lot of talk, but not seeing much prosperity.

People think that everything should be great and if a govt is going well then there should be no problems, because logically thats the bar they set in their minds.

But guess what. Life IS full of problems.

I agree that life is full of problems. However, I don't think people are so naive as to expect the government to always make the world seem rosy. Many times the people vote in the devil they know purely because they don't see an alternative. That is why Howard has survived so long.

And i tell you one thing....if Labour had been in for the past decade, this country would be a huge mess.

Is that so? Despite the fact that you have no way of proving that, here's something to chew on:

Labor (spelt without the 'u'. Honestly, anyone who doesn't know that should be automatically banned from voting) has not been run by the same people for the past decade. You aren't deciding whether or not to vote for the Labor gov that was run by Latham, or Keating, or Hawke, or bloody Whitlam! You are evaluating the Labor government as run by Kevin Rudd!! Get it? It's 2007, not 1987!!

The Howard govt is setting us up for a prosperous future with tactical decisions.

Best sentence on this topic ever! Howard is setting us up with Tactical Decisions! Luv it.

Rudd is a knee-jerk reaction kind of guy.

Again with the knee-jerks.

And he is the head of a party that is clearly second in ability to govern.
It has been that way for a while, and I think you will find that it will take a generation to change.

You mean, like from 1996 to 2007? Labor has been a joke of a party at times in the last decade. Now they finally found a guy who can play the game and it's game over for Howard.

If you want to vote rudd go ahead.

Oh I will.

Just remember what his party has been capable of: creating bad debt and governing poorly.

What about introducing some of the most forward-thinking, socially aware policies this nation has seen.
What about opening up the idea of bargaining wages at a workplace or enterprise level, rather than the awards? You Libs are right into that, right? Well Labor started it!!

Even if rudd were a great politician, one man can't save an entire party.

On the contrary, one great leader can save an entire nation.

Whats more, the people behind Labour, the "power" men, the backers, etc....they have a warped sense of what to do,

Yeah, they're, like, so out there man! They're just wacky!

I'd trust the Coalition backers more. Their goals are at least in line with the country's.

And what goals might that be, that the country is so in agreement with? I know I'm like a broken record, but I have to say it again:

Please, elaborate.

 

[Tekken Lord]

Originally Posted by Babyface O'reilly

Rudd's mentioning of Howard's lack of Kyoto action was to demonstrate his dithering. Labor have already stated that they want to go beyond it by reducing ommissions by 60% by 2050. The Greens want 80%. Naturally Howard is opposed to it. Don't forget he regards himself as a climate skeptic.

I agree with your plant more trees statement and people do care. They're called the Greens. So if you're genuine vote for them. You can't seriously claim that Johny will do more than they would surely!
Nuclear?
I don't buy it. It's the lesser evil compared to coal I guess but storage of waste is what puts most people off. Besides, Howard used to be in bed with the coal comapnies now he's getting into bet with the uranium groups. He's traded one mining lobby for another. He doesn't give a sh*te about the environment it's about retaining power.
Anyway are you confident that we won't have another Chyrnoble? If you are will you want a nuclear plant in your suburb?
The sunniest country in the world should be leading the world in solar power but Howard won't fund it and our best brains have gone to the US. Hydrogen is another because a bi product of it's manufacture is oxygen.
PS
The countries that aren't doing well as you mentioned have a long term plan and have allowed for short term losses. England on the other hand are already doing well.
cheers

No i won't claim Johny can do more than the greens would, but i'm not going to waste my vote on the greens. They would sacrifice our economy for the environment, and i want a government in charge that is economically viable. I know it seems a bit hypocritical but i don't really think it is, greens would be better for the environment but worse for Australia, well that's how i see it. I want what's best for Australia first.

I have no problem with nuclear power or if the plant was right next door, if it melts down it doesn't really matter how far away i am really. On the matter of solar power until recently i have believed we should use solar power for all of our power requirements. But their are a few issues i have with it now, one it is very very expensive to set up, economically it's not worth it nor is it viable financially. And have you ever had a hot shower using solar power, if you haven't may i recommend that you never do. But seriously its an area the government has let the country down in, but for now it's just not an option. The best for now is nuclear power. Something very interesting about nuclear power is it's only 5% efficient, which means only 5% of the possible power output of the atoms is released in a nuclear reaction. It is the most efficient form of power generation that we are capable of.

Oh and to the person who can't understand that i like some of the policies (some) that labour has, that doesn't mean i think overall they'd be better than liberal or that Rudd would be a good leader for this country. And i don't base my opinions on what the media states i watch the parliament, and to be honest labour seems very lacking. If you still don't get it i like the principles of communism but that doesn't mean i'd want to live in communist Australia.

It seems a lot of people think i'm liberal, well this is my first time voting so i'm still making my mind up but it looks like i'll be swinging that way. Neither look to good at the moment but i've seen enough of labour that i'll only be voting them in when they convince me they can do the job.

 

[Canard]

Tekken

I think your protest of saying "Im not liberal" falls a bit flat, when you have "Kevin Crud....shame etc. etc. in your sig".

Being a FNQ resident (of which I was for 28 years), Im guessing you are also a dyed in the wool National party supporter. (a member of the "coalition")

If so how can you justify on League Unlimited, that party's TOTAL opposition to the Lang Park redevelopment? And now the coalition is suddenly converted to being big League fans??? mmmm

 

[taipan]

I haven't heard any pro-John Howard comment from someone that doesn't sound like a member of the Liberal Party.

That's as dumb as saying every pro Rudd comment is from a member of the Labour party. I am voting Liberal not because I am a member of the party, I am not, never have been, prior to Howard I voted Labour.
I look for the best party to manage the economy meaning jobs money for infrastructure and social welfare,the best party to look after our defence forces. I have been a member of a union,and I have seen a damn lot of waste.Unions are essential,but not their excesses.I don't want my taxes to go on someone who want's to bludge around at byron bay,instead of getting off his ar*e and contributing.

I know people are losing their homes because of interest rates its gut wrenching,guess what it happened in greater numbers under labour when interest rates were 15% plus.Stuff all is said about that.

What turned me further off Labour was the comment by McLellan (a future Foreign Affairs minister perhaps)"That the Bali bombers should not receive the death penalty" then Rudd chastising him.
Both parties have their good points,the trouble is I am still waiting for a full rundown of Labour's.

 

[Surely]

There is also one small point to consider, the only way the GST can be increased is if all state governments and the federal government agree to it.

The other to consider is after many years in power the only thing the ALP in qld has done is f**k health, f**k the transport system, introduce pokies and legalise prostitution, rudd was the chief beauracrat for ALP in qld.

 

[langpark]

So all labor voters are uneducated union bogans? Let me guess a tertiary education is something the middle class and above should only have access to. Fuggwit.

Keep digging................

well he implied that anyone on here who supports Howard must be an undercover liberal party member :crazy: because rudd is gonna get 100% of the votes of course.

 

[B-Tron 3000]

It's LABOR, not LABOUR!!!!!!!

If you can't grasp this basic concept, then perhaps the more complex ideas of politics are beyond you!

 

[Preniers]

I find it funny that people are whinging about how Howard is going to fix all these problems. He has been in power for 11 years...he has caused these problems...and had muchj time to fix em.

What a joke...I like Howard as a man...but as a politician he is f**ked...he has f**ked this country over...so why should we bote for him on the promise he will fix it. He is the one who f**ked it. Kevin Rudd hasnt done so yet. So wouldnt it maker sense he has more chance of fixing it then howard.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

I know people are losing their homes because of interest rates its gut wrenching,guess what it happened in greater numbers under labour when interest rates were 15% plus.Stuff all is said about that.






Howard and Costello have been living off it for ten years and they still roll out "the recession we had to have" comment.

How far back to you want me to go.
Howard's form as treasurer?
Menzies got us into WW2 and Curtain got us through it?
Medicare, The Harbour bridge, Snowy River scheme, Opera House. All these by Labor. Labor build! There's a history of it.
The Internet issue and the environment wasn't on Howard's radar until Rudd came out with it as policy.

The Libs put it into surplus and say what a good job they've done instead of spending on infrastructure. Their idea of job creation is by lowering wages, that might create more jobs but people won't have enough money to live. No wonder we're all sinking under credit debt.


I'm not trying to influence you're vote because I think you've already made up your mind and that's your choice. But there's more to Labour than you know. Or want to know.
cheers

 

[Surely]

I find it funny that people are whinging about how Howard is going to fix all these problems. He has been in power for 11 years...he has caused these problems...and had muchj time to fix em.

What a joke...I like Howard as a man...but as a politician he is f**ked...he has f**ked this country over...so why should we bote for him on the promise he will fix it. He is the one who f**ked it. Kevin Rudd hasnt done so yet. So wouldnt it maker sense he has more chance of fixing it then howard.

Umm what problems have the federal government caused.

Lets see Police .... ummm no thats the states
education .... ummm no thats the states
Health .... ummm no thats the states responibility again.
Metropolian road systems ... ummm no state and local council
Water .... state, yep they've f**ked that too.

To top is all off, the states get all of the GST revenue, for this they were supposed o scrap other taxes such as land and payroll taxes, have they, a big f**king no !

So what have the federal government done, a budget in surplus, a AAA credit rating restored (lost under the last labor govt)
Lowest unemployment rates in years
Actually delivered tax cuts unlike Keatings LAW tax cuts. you only pay more than 30c in the dollar once you earn more than 50K now.
f**k all disruption to society through union strikes.


Housing affordability, ask developers and they will tell you the reason for the high cost of land to build a house on is, wait for it, state and local government taxes and fees.
The other issue here is no one wants to live in a basic 3 bedroom house with one bathroom and no garage, they all want the 4 b/r double garage and ensuited masterpiece.
It's called walk before you can run, ask your parents what their first house was like.

I know its pointless arguing politics, but a lot on here seem to be blaming federal for state issues. I suggest you have a good look at what the state goverment actually does in your state aside from totally f**k things. Forget stupid issues like iraq, we were always going to go there under liberal or labor, and kyoto, the only result of which will mean you will pay more for products and nothing will change.

 

[Bring it home Knights]

I'm still waiting for the grant he promised Newcastle to build a new grandstand 5/6 years ago!

 

[B-Tron 3000]

Umm what problems have the federal government caused.

Lets see Police .... ummm no thats the states
education .... ummm no thats the states
Health .... ummm no thats the states responibility again.
Metropolian road systems ... ummm no state and local council
Water .... state, yep they've f**ked that too.

To top is all off, the states get all of the GST revenue, for this they were supposed o scrap other taxes such as land and payroll taxes, have they, a big f**king no !

Not entirely true. I'm not trying to defend the state government, which has cocked things up nicely, but the fact is that the Federal and state government jurisdictions overlap on almost everything.

And, generally, by law, the Feds are able to get their way on many issues.

Eg - education. The university laws are designed by the Fed gov. They also set guidelines for where money is pumped into education, private or public, who pays for degrees, scholarships, whether we focus on Tafes or unis, apprenticeships and the skills sets behind them etc. Why do you think that most teachers will vote Labor?

Health. Again, the entire system revolves around medicare, and the battle between private and public health systems. The government's tax system encourages, almost enforces, people to go private. And that is so that if/when they try to out medicare they have a whole bunch of people that don't care. Now, that might be ok if private health care actually helped, but most of the time you'll have to pay a premium on top to get an operation, so what's the point? Point is, the gov want those that can afford such premiums to be in the box seat, while the rest of us pay for private health care, thinking we are alright, losing interest in public health systems, and then BAM - we're f**ked when we actually need to use the system we've been paying for for the last 5, 10, 20 years of our life.

So what have the federal government done, a budget in surplus

How have they achieved that? By taxing businesses that are experiencing a boom from the Chinese and Indian markets. Not really their political brilliance, though credit must go to them for lowering business tax to encourage business growth in the country. Still, considering that the markets that are booming are because of our local resources, we probably could have made more money with higher business taxes.

a AAA credit rating restored (lost under the last labor govt)

Fair enough.

Lowest unemployment rates in years

LOL.

Employment that consists of higher than ever casual and part-time employees. Jobs are being filled, but in most industries they are sh*t ones with sh*t conditions.

Actually delivered tax cuts unlike Keatings LAW tax cuts. you only pay more than 30c in the dollar once you earn more than 50K now.

The Lib tax cuts have been designed to lower the tax of the upper brackets much more than the lower brackets. Not a bad thing on the surface, given the idealogy that you should have something to strive for, but when taken into consideration with the fact that they continually refuse to raise the minimum wage to decent levels because - and this directly from their rhetoric - the tax system is the method used in Australia to redistribute wealth.

f**k all disruption to society through union strikes.

LOL. LOL. LOL.

People aren't allowed to strike because the government has installed laws that forbid unions from scratching their own arses. They can't enter a workplace on their own terms, employees are pressure not to join, they can only strike at very rare times.

So what this does is two things. First, it stops the employer from finding out valuable information that might help it, as employees are more likely to open up to a Union who they think can help them. Second, it instills a frustration in the worker who is being repressed, and that frustration manifests itself in other forms of industrial action - go-slow tactics, work-to-rule, deliberately damaging goods being produced or organisational belongings, hiding knowledge from the boss. Of course, these things can be avoided by good management and decent conditions, but how often do you get those? And besides, really good managers encourage union participation, they aren't afraid of it.

Far from the freedom that they preach in their ads, the government's laws on collectivism have us bordering on authoritarianism.

You might not have strikes, but that doesn't mean that you have a happy, productive workforce.

Housing affordability, ask developers and they will tell you the reason for the high cost of land to build a house on is, wait for it, state and local government taxes and fees.

Or it could be interest rates as compared to wages too. The taxes that are so expensive are paid once, when the deposit is needed. That's the easy part. The week to week repayments are the tough bit.

The other issue here is no one wants to live in a basic 3 bedroom house with one bathroom and no garage, they all want the 4 b/r double garage and ensuited masterpiece.
It's called walk before you can run, ask your parents what their first house was like.

That's a pretty broad generalisation.

I know its pointless arguing politics, but a lot on here seem to be blaming federal for state issues.

True, but it's also true that a lot of issues are covered by both, and that the performance of a state government, particularly when working under a fed gov of the opposite nature, shouldn't impact on the decision being made in the upcoming election.

Forget stupid issues like iraq, we were always going to go there under liberal or labor,

Fact - we went there under Liberal. Nothing else can be substantiated.

and kyoto, the only result of which will mean you will pay more for products and nothing will change.

Nothing will change? Well, I'll guess we'll find out, won't we? Because your man is dead in the water.

 

[eelandia]

Umm what problems have the federal government caused.

Lets see Police .... ummm no thats the states
education .... ummm no thats the states
Health .... ummm no thats the states responibility again.
Metropolian road systems ... ummm no state and local council
Water .... state, yep they've f**ked that too.

To top is all off, the states get all of the GST revenue, for this they were supposed o scrap other taxes such as land and payroll taxes, have they, a big f**king no !

So what have the federal government done, a budget in surplus, a AAA credit rating restored (lost under the last labor govt)
Lowest unemployment rates in years
Actually delivered tax cuts unlike Keatings LAW tax cuts. you only pay more than 30c in the dollar once you earn more than 50K now.
f**k all disruption to society through union strikes.


Housing affordability, ask developers and they will tell you the reason for the high cost of land to build a house on is, wait for it, state and local government taxes and fees.
The other issue here is no one wants to live in a basic 3 bedroom house with one bathroom and no garage, they all want the 4 b/r double garage and ensuited masterpiece.
It's called walk before you can run, ask your parents what their first house was like.

I know its pointless arguing politics, but a lot on here seem to be blaming federal for state issues. I suggest you have a good look at what the state goverment actually does in your state aside from totally f**k things. Forget stupid issues like iraq, we were always going to go there under liberal or labor, and kyoto, the only result of which will mean you will pay more for products and nothing will change.

Police: what's the problem here. Yeah, I agree the Federal police are incompetent if the Haneef affair is a guide
Education: the funding policy of the feds is skewed to private schools. The fact it is based on students' postcodes advantages schools such as Kings and St Joesphs which have many pupils who are from low socio-economic towns but happen to be from relatively wealthy farming families.
Health: yes Mr Abbott..anything you say. It has been revealed in the past week that the feds haven't kept up on their funding like they should have.
Metro Road systems: much better than 20 yrs ago despite the tolls re M2, M4, M7, etc. Now the federally funded Pacific and New England highways remain death traps.
Water: rebates on water tanks etc...pray for rain maybe?
GST revenue: NSW doesn't get its fair share based on the GST generated in this state.
Unemployment: stat that isn't taken as serious by Economists. How many part time workers make up this figure?
Tax Cuts: Howard as Treasurer had the top rate at 60%...Labor brought it down to 49%.
Strike Action: let me see your figures as that is untrue. Minimal disruptions in the late 80's to mid 90's.
Housing Affordability: not sure who you are blaming here...states, local or punters? How about negative gearing and halving of the capital gains tax?

Please!

 

[Kurt Angle]

It's really scarey when guys talk this much sh*t.

Umm what problems have the federal government caused.

Lets see Police .... ummm no thats the states
education .... ummm no thats the states
Health .... ummm no thats the states responibility again.
Metropolian road systems ... ummm no state and local council
Water .... state, yep they've f**ked that too.

To top is all off, the states get all of the GST revenue, for this they were supposed o scrap other taxes such as land and payroll taxes, have they, a big f**king no !

The above issues are all issues with funding, and the federal government is providing for the smallest percentage per GDP grants in the history of the commonwealth. That is why the states are keeping the other taxes because they already have budgetry shortfalls.

The only reason a federal budget surplus exists because they don't give enough money to the state to fix the hospitals, or roads, or water, or...

Nothing to do with masterful economic management.

So what have the federal government done, a budget in surplus, a AAA credit rating restored (lost under the last labor govt)

It was restored in 1994, not 1996 or later. And yet I would pretty much guarantee you don't know what that means or how it is important, much like the exchange rate with the US.. you have no idea.

Lowest unemployment rates in years
Actually delivered tax cuts unlike Keatings LAW tax cuts. you only pay more than 30c in the dollar once you earn more than 50K now.

The Howard government is the highest taxing government in Australian history, it receives about 28% of GDP through taxation

The keating government got it as low as 22% of GDP.

f**k all disruption to society through union strikes.

Housing affordability, ask developers and they will tell you the reason for the high cost of land to build a house on is, wait for it, state and local government taxes and fees.

Of course they say that, because they are deflecting blame away from themselves. Taxes are an item that puts slight downward pressures on prices. The problem is the volume of suppy being released, and the release of land is being distorted by mainly developers, but also state governments.

The other issue here is no one wants to live in a basic 3 bedroom house with one bathroom and no garage, they all want the 4 b/r double garage and ensuited masterpiece.
It's called walk before you can run, ask your parents what their first house was like.

This is straight from the 60 minutes manual of 'how to try and sound intelligent when you're not'.

Historically the avergae house in Australia has ranged from 4.1 (Brisbane and Perth) to 5 (Sydney) times average male gross wages in mainland capital cities)

The average gross wages for a male right now is about $60,000.

That means the average house in Sydney should be priced in at around $300,000....

AVERAGE...

that means there should be a market that exists below average, and that' the shi*thole 'our parents first house' was.....

The thing is.. they just don't exist right now.

How this impacts affordibility is entry price. If the equilibrium was restored, and the average house cost $300,000, a 20% deposit would be $60,000.. one years gross wages.

And $550,000 that they are in Sydney, the deposit is $110,000, or nearly 2 years wages, it is this entry price.

There are a lot more complex issues arising to why the motives exist for higher than historical equilibrium housing prices, but I can say without doubt you don't have idea what they are.

 

[hineyrulz]

No it was paul the recession we had to have keating.

So now your telling me what i know, My uncle nearly lost his house when Johhny was the treasurer FACT!! He had a terrible record as treasuer, Most Johnny lovers seem to over look that fact.