What's what?

Shatner'sBassoon's picture
Shatner'sBassoon started the topic in Friday, 6 Nov 2015 at 7:48pm

AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING KALEIDOSCOPIC JOIN-THE-DOTS/ADULT COLOURING BOOK EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT IN NARCISSISTIC/ONANISTIC BIG PICTURE PARASITIC FORUM BLEEDING.

LIKE POLITICAL LIFE, PARTICIPATION IS WELCOME, ENCOURAGED EVEN, BUT NOT NECESSARY.

tonybarber's picture
tonybarber's picture
tonybarber commented Wednesday, 24 Feb 2016 at 5:34pm

stunet wrote:

"At least I'm not a homophobe."

Bill Shorten fires up. This one's for you Dog.

Yep, that was good one. He will need plenty more of those. At bloody last.

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM commented Wednesday, 24 Feb 2016 at 7:49pm

Bravo Bill! You've finally had a small win!

Shatner'sBassoon's picture
Shatner'sBassoon's picture
Shatner'sBassoon commented Wednesday, 24 Feb 2016 at 8:04pm

C'mon guys, at least get your scare campaigns straight!

tonybarber's picture
tonybarber's picture
tonybarber commented Wednesday, 24 Feb 2016 at 9:11pm

SB...I trust you read the two campaign statements attributed to O'Dwyer and Turnbull. Are they the same ?
Maybe Bowen should check his English.
Now, I am not necessarily supporting 'negative gearing' but just happened to see the variance above.

batfink's picture
batfink's picture
batfink commented Thursday, 25 Feb 2016 at 9:42pm

It took one outlier poll of 50/50 for the LNP to go straight into scare campaign mode.

Shows their character quite nicely.

For anyone worried about the possibility of no longer getting negative gearing I'll make three points;

1 it is extremely unlikely that this will reduce house prices, and it it does it won't be much, but it will take the heat out of the market which means that those lazy greedy capital gains won't be so fat.

2 - if you were negative gearing you were almost certainly not making money out of it, in fact by definition you weren't, and relying on a large capital gain when you get out means you are carrying risk, which may or may not pay off, while bankers are getting paid fat bonuses on the back of your risk regardless of the outcome.

3 - It's good public policy not to have the government intervening in the housing market, except where it buys housing for social welfare purposes.

Farkin Malcolm, he is turning out to be a bigger disappointment than Tony.. At least with Tony you always knew he was a tool, but with Malcolm there was hope.

It's like that night out where you thought you had pulled a glamour, and found out when you got her home that she was saving herself for marriage, to someone else.

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Thursday, 25 Feb 2016 at 11:59pm

The far right have him by the short and curly's batfink.... Only hope for malcolm is at the election, nutters like Nikolic, Andrews, even Abbott are dumped by a public sick of the extreme right..... In fact, that is the only hope for the moderate Libs..... If the libs scrape in, and most of the far right are in tact, they will turn on Mal, and it'll be even worse for not only moderate conservatives, but for Australia...

Sheepdog

mk1's picture
mk1's picture
mk1 commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 12:22am

I think their could be a limit on negative gearing for very high income earners or a limit on the negative gearing deduction allowed in total, I believe the govt will be looking for a token gesture that doesn't jeopardise house prices, at all, and the high income earners can re-arrange their debt levels and minimise the gearing while everyone else can soldier on as usual.

mk1's picture
mk1's picture
mk1 commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 12:25am

Noting that the rich need to be looked after - and keeping property prices high is more important than maximising the deductions to do that (they'll just rearrange their assets/income accordingly)

happyasS's picture
happyasS's picture
happyasS commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 7:36am

im not an economist, but the housing stock is said to be worth 5 trillion dollars. the proposed labor gain out of negative gearing changes was said to be at most 5 billion per year down the track. That's 0.1% of the value of housing stock in Australia. Is this really going to make any difference to house prices?

surely the real problem is lack of land release.

batfink's picture
batfink's picture
batfink commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 9:05am

Sheepdog wrote: The far right have him by the short and curly's batfink....

So true SD. That's his problem. Even before this. Turnbull was Comms Minister and a huge fan of the internet and technology. You would think that in his heart he would have thought that the NBN was a great idea, while having to prosecute a lame-brained half arsed hybrid solution of his party, principally because it was a Labor Party solution.

Either he didn't believe in the party policy, or he did and he isn't half as smart as he thinks he is.

Same now. Many of the policies he believes in he can't enact because the party policy is the opposite. It shows, Malcolm has to prosecute policy that he doesn't believe in and he isn't convincing. Do you think a lawyer who made his name on his capacity to convince others of his argument would struggle if he really believed something. The right wing will bring him down, which will destroy the LNP for a long time, or Malcolm will get the better of them and get rid of the extremists in his own party.

batfink's picture
batfink's picture
batfink commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 9:17am

happyasS wrote: surely the real problem is lack of land release.

Fair question happyass. But that only looks at the supply side of the argument. The other side, and the one that will make a difference, is looking at the demand side of the equation.

Our current immigration rate is as high as it has been. Do we really need to bring in all these extra people, not really. Bob Carr talked about this the other day and I am with him. So more immigrants increases demand. Second is the fact that we allow non-nationals to buy our houses. Why would we do that? Most countries have stopped that, and Canada was the last similar western country to do that (a few years ago).

Third is investment in existing housing stock. Not that there is a problem with that, but negative gearing basically means that the government susbsidises investments, which just means that an investor can afford to pay more than a home owner. And finally, capital gains concessions, which mean that earning a dollar on non-productive speculation is taxed at half the rate of your labour.

The marginal difference in demand, and the subsidies, makes a big difference to the cost of a home.

The effect of the high house prices is that everyone with a loan works for a bank 2 or 3 days of every week, and that is a cruel and unusual form of slavery.

batfink's picture
batfink's picture
batfink commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 9:20am

mk1 wrote: I believe the govt will be looking for a token gesture that doesn't jeopardise house prices, at all, and the high income earners can re-arrange their debt levels and minimise the gearing while everyone else can soldier on as usual.

Absolutely mk1. They are looking at that exactly.

I have asked one of the news sites to examine the question of how many politicians are currently negative gearing, just to stir the pot a bit.

A recent news item advised that there are 65,000 people who declared no income as a result of negative gearing concessions. 65,000, NIL income.

Does anyone imagine that those 65,00 are struggling to put bread on the table?

floyd's picture
floyd's picture
floyd commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 9:36am

Negative gearing allows people to deliberately arrange investments so that annual losses can be off-set against other income e.g. salary. These arrangements are made in the hope that the return on capital appreciation (or profit) of the investment will far outweigh the "losses" made during the period the investor holds the investment (aided by a 50% discount on the tax paid on the profit made when the investment is sold thanks to Howard).

Investments can include shares or property.

In the current debate two sets of figures are being used to argue for or against changes to the negative gearing of property.

The Property Council of Australia, the IPA and the Government are using figures to show that "mum and dad" investors on very modest incomes hold the majority of investment properties and any changes will hurt ordinary folk the most. These organisations do concede that very wealthy people do have investment properties but they make up about 1% of all investors.

........... sounds simple change negative gearing rules and you hurt ordinary "mums and dads".

But its very very dishonest coz the income figures they quote for these "mums and dads" is TAXABLE INCOME and that is the figure AFTER ALL POSSIBLE DEDUCTIONS AND LOSSES (ON PROPERTIES) IS DEDUCTED FROM THEIR TRUE GROSS INCOME. So a taxable income of $80k could in fact be a Gross Income of $200k plus. Many of the people with negative geared properties have taxable income around $10k!!

Put it another way. What bank in their right mind would lend $500k-$1m to a people with an income of $10k-$80k???

The second set of figures being used in this debate are those from most leading economists in the country and the Labor Party that shows more precisely and honestly where the tax concessions are going and it paints a completely different picture to that of the Government, that is, negative gearing arrangements massively favour high income earners and not small low income mum and dads.

I don't know if I support Labor's plans but something must be done about negative gearing. Historical graph lines of Australian house prices show we are seriously in a bubble, prices could crash if the heat isn't taken out of the market, the Reserve Bank has been saying so for 2 years now, negative gearing creates lots of heat that ordinary wage and salary earners and 1st home buyers can never compete with............ this is an issue and a time where political leadership is needed.

To happyasS question of land release .... the footprint of Melbourne and Sydney already exceeds that of the majority of large international cities like London .... the problem isn't land its better urban planning within existing urban boundaries ........

tim foilat's picture
tim foilat's picture
tim foilat commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 11:01am
talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 5:07pm

The excuses for Mal, aka the shinier shovel, are embarrassing. Wake up and smell the concrete! Fuck, where do you start with him? The Rainman period?

http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2012/09/09/malcolm-turnbull-the-rain...

theween's picture
theween's picture
theween commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 5:48pm

Dear Swellnet

Please get this pathetic, crude drivel off your website (reminder that the intelligent, the young and the fairer sex sometimes visit).

The Ween

wellymon's picture
wellymon's picture
wellymon commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 6:03pm

theween wrote: Dear Swellnet

Please get this pathetic, crude drivel off your website (reminder that the intelligent, the young and the fairer sex sometimes visit).

x100 theween.
Here here, what absolute crap..........

Our brains are too small at the moment to comprehend the reality of what's happening in our forests . We're only just waking up so to speak . The big problem is we think we know everything, we are specks of dust on a timeline and we know nothing .

talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 6:05pm

theween wrote: Dear Swellnet

Please get this pathetic, crude drivel off your website (reminder that the intelligent, the young and the fairer sex sometimes visit).

Whoah, meta.

talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 6:07pm

wellymon wrote:
theween wrote: Dear Swellnet

Please get this pathetic, crude drivel off your website (reminder that the intelligent, the young and the fairer sex sometimes visit).

x100 theween.
Here here, what absolute crap..........

Whoah, meta!

talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 6:08pm

talkingturkey wrote:
wellymon wrote:
theween wrote: Dear Swellnet

Please get this pathetic, crude drivel off your website (reminder that the intelligent, the young and the fairer sex sometimes visit).

x100 theween.
Here here, what absolute crap..........

Whoah, meta!

Whoah, meta!

wellymon's picture
wellymon's picture
wellymon commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 6:09pm

Too much Meta TB;)

Our brains are too small at the moment to comprehend the reality of what's happening in our forests . We're only just waking up so to speak . The big problem is we think we know everything, we are specks of dust on a timeline and we know nothing .

talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 6:21pm

Anyway, anyone remember the HIH-FAI-Goldman Sachs-Turnbull affair?

http://barnabyisright.com/2011/07/20/malcolm-turnbull-the-goldman-churia...

talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 6:23pm

Surely 'utegate' at the very least rings a bell?

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/06/22/utegate-explained/

happyasS's picture
happyasS's picture
happyasS commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 8:49pm

floyd wrote: Negative gearing allows people to deliberately arrange investments so that annual losses can be off-set against other income e.g. salary. These arrangements are made in the hope that the return on capital appreciation (or profit) of the investment will far outweigh the "losses" made during the period the investor holds the investment (aided by a 50% discount on the tax paid on the profit made when the investment is sold thanks to Howard).

Investments can include shares or property.

In the current debate two sets of figures are being used to argue for or against changes to the negative gearing of property.

The Property Council of Australia, the IPA and the Government are using figures to show that "mum and dad" investors on very modest incomes hold the majority of investment properties and any changes will hurt ordinary folk the most. These organisations do concede that very wealthy people do have investment properties but they make up about 1% of all investors.

........... sounds simple change negative gearing rules and you hurt ordinary "mums and dads".

But its very very dishonest coz the income figures they quote for these "mums and dads" is TAXABLE INCOME and that is the figure AFTER ALL POSSIBLE DEDUCTIONS AND LOSSES (ON PROPERTIES) IS DEDUCTED FROM THEIR TRUE GROSS INCOME. So a taxable income of $80k could in fact be a Gross Income of $200k plus. Many of the people with negative geared properties have taxable income around $10k!!

Put it another way. What bank in their right mind would lend $500k-$1m to a people with an income of $10k-$80k???

The second set of figures being used in this debate are those from most leading economists in the country and the Labor Party that shows more precisely and honestly where the tax concessions are going and it paints a completely different picture to that of the Government, that is, negative gearing arrangements massively favour high income earners and not small low income mum and dads.

I don't know if I support Labor's plans but something must be done about negative gearing. Historical graph lines of Australian house prices show we are seriously in a bubble, prices could crash if the heat isn't taken out of the market, the Reserve Bank has been saying so for 2 years now, negative gearing creates lots of heat that ordinary wage and salary earners and 1st home buyers can never compete with............ this is an issue and a time where political leadership is needed.

To happyasS question of land release .... the footprint of Melbourne and Sydney already exceeds that of the majority of large international cities like London .... the problem isn't land its better urban planning within existing urban boundaries ........

Floyd, by better urban planning do you mean higher density housing? in other words, government releases land but specific that townhouses or units are to built. no doubt that will increase housing supply and make us look more like London and new York. in my mind that would help to reduce prices as 1. land per dwelling is cheaper, 2. infrastructure costs are less per dwelling, 3. building costs of units is less that houses.

but only if the government forces the developers to sell it within a certain time frame. what happens at the moment is a buddy buddy relationship between govt and developers. the govt might release the land but the developers often drip feed it out. there is a bottleneck to keep land values high. the govt is addicted to it and so are the developers.

my thoughts are simplistic and i think back to high school days.....demand and supply. at the moment with extraordinarily low interest rates the buyers purchasing power is huge. a mate of mine is building a house, the bank gives him a LVR of 90% because hes in a permanent full time job for 7 years. wtf is that about? demand is sky high and very stable low interest rates play a big part, not to mention adding foreign investment. never before in history have interest rates been so low, and in the current international money market there is no sign of them increasing in the near term. may well drop again and that will force prices even higher.

im on the fence regards negative gearing. like i said, the labor proposed saving of 5Billion PA amounts to less that 0.1% of housing value stock in Australia. think about that. 0.1%. that not going to do shit. it might impact the top end of investors who heavily negatively gear but not much else. there is still magnitudes of demand hanging around in the market. so in my mind much more would need to be done. the banks could treat property more like stocks and not allow such high LVR's but the problem is that property has become such a stable bet in Australia that the banks are willing to loan in excess. its all tied up tighter than a fishes arsehole and that's part of the problem. stripping negative gearing from new builds could be a very poor idea. there is nothing a common individual can better do for the economy (besides having a job of course) than building a house. it employees lots of people. the govt subsidies for building a house are just pathetic.

i don't see this as an easy soln... aussies are addicted to big two storey free standing houses with a backyard. while interest rates remain low and wages relatively high compared to other countries then prices will increase. its naïve to think there is bubble going on. its been a bubble since 2000 remember? well, that's not a bubble, that in my mind in a strong market.

i really feel sorry for those young people who cant afford. it seems that unless you parents owned a house, or you have a well paying job that your prospects of home ownership shot. i thought it was supposed to be the great Australian dream to own a house. maybe im just too old school.

floyd's picture
floyd's picture
floyd commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 10:06pm

Record low interest rates + Record high house prices + Record levels of household debt + Record low wage increases + Record number of interest only loans being written + Stagnating national and international economies + Government with no economic plan = when the bubble does burst it will also be a record!!

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 10:24pm

floyd wrote: Record low interest rates + Record high house prices + Record levels of household debt + Record low wage increases + Record number of interest only loans being written + Stagnating national and international economies + Government with no economic plan = when the bubble does burst it will also be a record!!

You saw that russell brand vid I posted, mate?? Have you ever seen pollies openly WANTING to keep housing so expensive???

Sheepdog

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 10:36pm

So I bought a block of land for $55000.

18 months later it went up to $320,000.

The population of this town has increased by approximately 10 percent in the last 15 years.

If that isn't a ponzi situation with investors competing with and selling to other investors all working under the assumption of endless capital gains then I don't know what is.

I could name two dozen towns in the same situation.

Actually, pretty much any small regional , coastal town in Oz is the same.

A hoax is what it is.

I suppose you could claim that it's the holiday houses of an increasing population.

Except that the population hasn't increased to the exponential extent as the real estate prices.

But Australia's non compunctious flirtation with high levels of personal debt has.

Purplepills's picture
Purplepills's picture
Purplepills commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 11:04pm

Up like a staircase down like an elevator - think of this when you look at a chart with boom and bust scenario.

Govt intervention policy only thing that stop housing falling off the cliff in the last ten years Howards deregulation of banks the CCT exemptions and FHOG then Rudd with the FHOG mk II then FRIB and opening our doors to more 'relaxed' foreign investment ( ie. we will turn a blind eye ) then the doozie of SMSF being able to buy up existing stock. Shame shame shame where the hell is Hinch when you need him?

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 11:12pm

Blowin wrote: So I bought a block of land for $55000.

18 months later it went up to $320,000.

The population of this town has increased by approximately 10 percent in the last 15 years.

If that isn't a ponzi situation with investors competing with and selling to other investors all working under the assumption of endless capital gains then I don't know what is.

I could name two dozen towns in the same situation.

Actually, pretty much any small regional , coastal town in Oz is the same.

A hoax is what it is.

I suppose you could claim that it's the holiday houses of an increasing population.

Except that the population hasn't increased to the exponential extent as the real estate prices.

But Australia's non compunctious flirtation with high levels of personal debt has.

Not often we agree lately, blowin..... But I'm with ya on that one....

Sheepdog

mikehunt207's picture
mikehunt207's picture
mikehunt207 commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 11:16pm

Something fishy in the Australian real estate world for sure. Working in the building industry and meeting young clients signed up for 500k+ first homes regularly makes me wonder how the fuck they expect to pay for it. Our town has gone from a country town to semi urban sprawl in the last 20 yrs with estate after estate being developed everywhere - build it and they will come mentality from the local shire(selling the surfer lifestyle to the masses and now China , the surf lineups are full beyond belief ,a massive Hilton style hotel approved on the beach in front of Boaties,the roads are like driving in the city almost and when the bubble pops what will happen? I imagine a shitload of people owing a lot more than their house is worth and not being able to pay for it. 1929 here we come. Watch this space

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 11:27pm

Massive hotel in front of Boaties ?

WTF ?

Got any more details Mikehunt ?

mk1's picture
mk1's picture
mk1 commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 11:30pm

I thought property was going to tank 5 years ago, had all the analysis in, but it didn't. Why not? The only thing I learned from all that was - money, it ain't what it used to be.

Hope the above makes sense :)

mikehunt207's picture
mikehunt207's picture
mikehunt207 commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 11:38pm

40 odd villas, bar, restaurant the whole shooting match at top carpark above the White Elephant cafe, all approved and going apparently. Fuck knows what they plan to do with sewerage for a start. No word who is the developer but high end . Chinese maybe? done and dusted. CUNTS. Margs shire sold out more than normal.

mikehunt207's picture
mikehunt207's picture
mikehunt207 commented Friday, 26 Feb 2016 at 11:42pm

It will block out views for some of the rich on the hill so hopefully someone with more power than us surfers (c,mon Margaret Court!) will have a go at fighting back because nobody else is

caml's picture
caml's picture
caml commented Saturday, 27 Feb 2016 at 12:22am

That does sound a bit more than normal re shire selling out

mikehunt207's picture
mikehunt207's picture
mikehunt207 commented Saturday, 27 Feb 2016 at 12:26am

Augusta Margaret River Shire have a website with proposal and details available to read.

floyd's picture
floyd's picture
floyd commented Saturday, 27 Feb 2016 at 4:47am

Yes Purplepills, self managed super funds being able to (1) borrow money to (2) buy investment properties .... double jeopardy right there and a double helping of taxpayer funded tax concessions for the wealthy!!

nochaser's picture
nochaser's picture
nochaser commented Saturday, 27 Feb 2016 at 8:44am

MK1 - government intervention via policy. We are now in a worse position than we were during the GFC but don't have mining nor the interest rates to buffer the fall this time.

Whats Australia's third biggest industry - students! after iron ore (massive bubble burst) and coal.

And the big 4 banks make up 30% of our stock market.

We are stuffed and boaties is too, will it look like dreamland - that sucks corruption of local planners?

Purplepills's picture
Purplepills's picture
Purplepills commented Saturday, 27 Feb 2016 at 4:25pm

What region Blowin?

simba's picture
simba's picture
simba commented Saturday, 27 Feb 2016 at 4:54pm

Go and see the movie "The Big Short' and see whats potentially going to happen again.....banks run by greedy cocksuckers.

simba

batfink's picture
batfink's picture
batfink commented Saturday, 27 Feb 2016 at 6:25pm

tim foilat wrote: Negative gearing or not there will be a correction in house prices

That is the key to it TF. The current level of house prices is way way unsustainable. It will give out at some point, and the least likely outcome is that the prices slowly go down. It's much more likely to be quick and frightening.

And the problem is that the higher they go the bigger the bust. The oz economy has substantial built-in risks and the LNP are carrying on like 'mum and dad investors', assuming that prices will keep going up forever. When the bust comes, unlike USA, the risks are carried by the mums and dads. In USA, if you can't afford your mortgage you just leave, and the bank gets the house and the risk if it doesn't pay the outstanding mortgage. That's why the GFC had banks going bankrupt, rather than individuals.

The knock-on effects in our economy will be much worse, and may last a generation. There will be anarchy.

A policy that helps bring down house prices now will help to limit the risk.

But the point remains, the correction will come, sooner or later.

And yeah, Simba, The Big Short is a movie well worth seeing. Here is it just as corrupt, but in a different way. Too many big players have a piece in this.

happyasS's picture
happyasS's picture
happyasS commented Saturday, 27 Feb 2016 at 8:34pm

the US bust was due to many factors that we don't have, one of which was a large surplus of built homes sitting there unsold. Australia does not have that problem whilst the developers dribble out new land. as demand slows the dribble will just get slower.

a correction, yes, but rather as a long stagnant period of no growth, or maybe even a 10% -15% fall over a 12month period if interest rates pop up a few notches in a hurry. that wont cause chaos though, people will just ride through it in my opinion like they've done in the past. they've been talking up a bust for over 15 years now. but it doesn't happen.

but hey, if it means immigrants choose to live elsewhere than Sydney or Melbourne then that's gotta be a good thing.

tim foilat's picture
tim foilat's picture
tim foilat commented Sunday, 28 Feb 2016 at 6:17pm

"the US bust was due to many factors that we don't have, one of which was a large surplus of built homes sitting there unsold", makes no sense, the primary reason behind the property crash in the states was easy money, loose lending, hence the term sub prime crisis. Loans to people with marginal ability to pay them back, when things changed - interest rates, employment rates - too many of these loans defaulted, banks had to recover losses, houses get sold for whatever they can get, property market crash.

Yes we've had the same loose money policy here in Australia, and yes now we're seeing oversupply (that's what happens with easy money). It's not developers who determine the supply and demand or price, the market does this.

10% falls are already happening in some cities in regional areas, it hurts, a 10% loss on a half mil or more is significant to a lot of people not to mention the loss of confidence in the market, is a 10% drop realistic? People are wary of investing in a market like that, with the investor class withdrawing from the market supply goes up, price down. Job losses everywhere, more economic pain = mortgage defaults go up, prices go down. Interest rates go up = mortgage defaults go up, prices go down. Sounds like it could spell chaos to me.

The good news is the Chinese and the Saudis are and will be buying the property up like hot cakes and your rent will come down.

happyasS's picture
happyasS's picture
happyasS commented Sunday, 28 Feb 2016 at 9:59am

tim foilat wrote: "the US bust was due to many factors that we don't have, one of which was a large surplus of built homes sitting there unsold", makes no sense, the primary reason behind the property crash in the states was easy money, loose lending, hence the term sub prime crisis. Loans to people with marginal ability to pay them back, .

tim, I never said it was the primary reason, I am merely pointing to one of the differences between the US and the AUS. housing excess stock is not the same here. and another difference that you have highlighted is that of subprimes. we don't run those here either.

the banks already last year made changes including higher interest rates for investors and changes to LVR rules for large loans.

where has seen a 10% drop in prices? can you point to the city.

rees0's picture
rees0's picture
rees0 commented Sunday, 28 Feb 2016 at 10:43am

Would like to hear what city has seen drops of %10 tim. Roxby downs maybe but thats hardly a city.

Fhog or great start grant in qld, it applies to such a small number of sales it has no real effect on market price. Perhaps when buying off plan from large developers you are open to some suspicious building costs however.

As for negative gearing it's here to stay. Every politician has a real estate portfolio bigger then most why would they choose to lose money?

Im a sparky this year is going to be my busiest since i started 10 years ago so much work around. Tell me thats not a sign of prosperity. I've just built my own house and it was no walk in the park getting the bank loan. Had to jump through all sorts of hoops and i needed 40k. Big short this is not you guys are tripping if you think the current situation in aus is anything like that.

Purplepills's picture
Purplepills's picture
Purplepills commented Sunday, 28 Feb 2016 at 3:29pm

Here reesO what Govt and the FHOG did or does

rees0's picture
rees0's picture
rees0 commented Sunday, 28 Feb 2016 at 5:25pm

Interesting purple but im not sold that it has anything to do with market price, and how is it a bad thing? Getting some form of assistance is not contributing to some sort of bust scenario. Houses are plenty affordable if your prepared to work and make a few sacrifices.

Even wih the 15 (best case) depending on what state, you still need to save at least double that. I dont feel thats unresponsible lending.

Hear alot of talk of how unaffordable housing is. Theres 3 bed houses for sale 15 mins from the beach for low 300's how is that not affordable? Some even with fresh renovations. Might not be specialty organic stores or waves on your door step however.

Purplepills's picture
Purplepills's picture
Purplepills commented Monday, 29 Feb 2016 at 8:08am

What happens reesO is that you have an influx of First home buyer's all competing for the same stock it then inflates price - simple supply and demand. The recipients of the sale via the FHOG then contribute when they reinvest a flow on effect. It's a straight hand out to the stimulate the building industry and encourage first home sitter's with the FHOG bait. They need FHO to keep kicking the can along the street or else the ponzi scheme collapses. The government in recent policy decisions have also replaced FHO with international investor's and mum's and dad's super funds.

Something they didn't count on was that inflating would lead to another phenomenon First home buyer are now 30% investors they have to buy to invest then live at home with mum and dad (also assisted by bank of mum and dad) just to get a leg up in the market.

Current loans are 40% interest only - how is that not irresponsible lending. The CBA were lending 97% LVR.

[Basel 3 sorted our banks out somewhat and they stung their customers next Basel 4 and guess who will get stung. The RBA will have to cut interest rates to balance what the banks have already taken.]

As for price collapse just look at any mining town reesO they are the canary in the coal mine - supply and demand again with loads of money floating around (read irresponsible lending) from QLD to WA falls from million plus to 'offers over 500K' or the former investor of the year http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/02/2012-property-investor-of-year-g...

Coming to a suburb near you soon. BTW where you buy and where are the 300K beach houses.

Mate if you have bought to live in with a 25 year mortgage this doesn't really concern you markets will fluctuate. Australia with 25 years of growth and a mining boom of biblical proportions that the property market 'corrected' 3 X during the boom (until govt intervention) and now with the largest household debt in the world per GDP and our biggest industry mining has collapsed - what are we going to do inflate the housing market even more to counter act the fall from mining. We are heading for a recession. (Think Paul Keatings great words BTW last great reforms were carried out by the labour govt under hawke and keating bozo howard reaped the benefits of their decisions and the start of a mining boom then went on to de regulate the banks and the CGT which started this housing boom)

sypkan's picture
sypkan's picture
sypkan commented Monday, 29 Feb 2016 at 10:33am

from purlpepills

As for price collapse just look at any mining town reesO they are the canary in the coal mine -

yep saw a story the other week some Qland mining town, maybe rockhampton. there was some aspirational voter investor type chick complaining the bank had lent her so much money, because prices had gone down so much, reckons the bank should/woould have known, she probably should have known too, the writings been on the wall for a while now, years even. bit much blaming the bank, I'm no hardcore capitalist but buyer beware is pretty much the basis of our society.

from purplepills
biggest industry mining has collapsed - what are we going to do inflate the housing market even more to counter act the fall from mining.

well that has been their plan for the last few years, economists, both parties and anyone else with an opinion. haven't really heard any other suggestions, except 'dining boom' maybe (wishful thinking). all the experts, that's all they've got?replace a once in a lifetime mining boom with a housing boom. the mining boom was a housing boom as people across oz filled property portfolios and renovation rescued all their windfalls away. yeh good idea experts, save the inflated economy's momentum by encouraging a boom that's already happened, such vision.

I don't understand the big hoo haa about negative gearing. labor has brought out a reasonable plan to fix the budget, and address house prices. it's pretty fair because if you're already in you re grandfathered, and it doesn't cut it out altogether because they've got the new home thing. yet the carry on has started, ad campaigns like the mining tax, and another polarised debate. it's pretty fair, but I doubt it'll raise the revenue labor's modelling reckons, because people will change behaviour, which is kinda what it's designed to do. but hey the other sides doing a great job exaggerating their possible revenues as well, it's just how we play now

the bottom line is the economy is fucked. spending went through the roof with the boom, middle class welfare is our problem, but that's overtaken negative gearing as being unraiseable, so we'll talk about negative gearing and other minor issues/incomes. no matter what is raised the public has a hissy fit, so both sides (especially turnball) are too chicken do what's required, so the public can enjoy a five year recession instead of one or two years because Australia has becone too immature to accept reality.

rees0's picture
rees0's picture
rees0 commented Monday, 29 Feb 2016 at 12:34pm

https://m.realestate.com.au/property-house-qld-nambour-121694894

https://m.realestate.com.au/property-house-qld-nambour-121795854

https://m.realestate.com.au/property-house-qld-nambour-121982522

Theres 3 all under 350k, thats only one suburb too theres plenty more all within 20 mins max of the beach. Would be paying more renting a 2 bdroom unit in coolum then the repayments on those property.

No incentive either for great start grant you do however get a stamp duty exemption as a first timer.

Me i bought land first. Sunshine coast Just under half acre 8 mins to the beach by car for 170 k 18 months ago then saved for the construction side. Ironic thing is i couldnt even use the grant as a deposit so it had no bearing on my choice to build. I do however get it once complete which will come in handy for that holiday me and my partner need.

I see alot of new homes both investment & owner occupied, majority are +30 couples not first time buyers, majority of investments are either chinese or owner occupier duplexes.

Maybe im not seeing it from my side but first home owners are not a majority share of the market. That share reduced even further when you take out the ones buying existing property.

Only need to look at europe etc. people cant eveb dream of owning a 1 bed apartment whilst theres literally hundreds of houses in locations around aus well within peoples budgets but thier to prcious to live somewhere they think is shit for a few years..

Aus is still by far the best place to live in the world im gratefull for the oppurtunity to buy property. Its certainly a privilage and not a right. Doom and gloom has been forecast for as long as i can remember so i think i'll stick with history.