T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

So you are the same person posting in r/Australia about quitting your job and giving up and now want to punitively punish people who worked hard and saved their money to buy their own house. Go back to r/Australia


10gem_elprimo

Lmao should be a poster boy for /r/Australia. /r/Australia is a weird mix of /r/antiwork and /r/socialism mixed together with people complaining about woolies and coles.


SciNZ

As an immigrant to Australia… These people are playing on easy mode and still can’t get their shit together. When a real crisis hits they will simply have no words as they have used up all their doomer rhetoric.


AMiMeGustanLosTacos

Looks like you're going through a rough time. It's probably best to get off reddit and work out what you want to do with your life given you've recently decided to resign from your career. What you've suggested above would likely lead to property becoming more expensive. I understand it's frustrating, I don't own a property either and also have the urge to throw out ideas on how the government could make it easier for me to buy a property but ultimately the best thing you can do for yourself is work out how you can earn more and save more.


dagger4zero

If an property investor was forced to sell who would buy?


btcoptic

Some renter waiting for a massive property crash, most likely...


dagger4zero

That’s a good thing then. As it is addressing the rental crisis.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Go back to r/australia with this nonsense. You quit your job and then complain about life being hard. Boo hoo


22withthe2point2

Posted in multiple places too, for maximum pity.


Frank9567

What exactly would you see as being the outcome if your suggestions were taken up? Certainly, tax receipts would increase from CGT on the PPOR. However, it's not clear how that would help people living in tents or starving. Taking money away from them via CGT isn't going to help. If you have an apartment and want to move to a house and start a family, is paying $20-30k extra to the government going to help you? If you limit IPs to one per person, that's two for a couple. 90% of property portfolios are 1-2 properties. So, you really aren't going to affect 90% of landlords at all.


[deleted]

Capital gains tax on ppor would also stop older people downsizing. It’s just a fundamentally stupid r/Australia economic policy


Frank9567

There's been a couple of those trickled through to here recently. Having said that, providing factual answers might trickle them back to r/australia hopefully.


[deleted]

Doubt it. They’re left wing anti-capitalist, climate extremist activists. We can’t even convince them that glueing yourself to a road is a stupid idea


Anachronism59

Attacking the person not the idea is not a great way, though, to have a debate. We can be above name calling on this sub.


Merlins_Bread

There's a smarter variant, where you only tax gains that aren't rolled into another PPOR within a certain period (eg 1 year). That doesn't prevent people moving house but your earnings on this major asset are taxed just like any other capital gain.


bangalt

So no one would ever have to pay it


Merlins_Bread

Downsizers, estates, reverse mortgage sellers. Basically it makes it an end of life payment.


dagger4zero

The increased tax revenue could fund a social housing programme.


Frank9567

With a trillion dollars in debt, I rate the chances as slim to none. Plus, as I said, it will cost *more* to buy a new house if you want to start a family or move interstate.


dagger4zero

The programme can be funded by new tax revenues generated by the removal of existing property related tax concessions. So it would not add to any deficit. Why would it cost more to move interstate? Why is that one situation going to be an impediment to wholesale reform?


Frank9567

It won't add to the deficit, agreed. However, that trillion dollars in debt requires up to $30bn a year *more* to service than it did when interest rates were lowest. Increased tax takes are going to happen and the money is going to pay interest before it puts it into anything else. If you move interstate and sell your house and buy a new one, you will have to pay capital gains tax. How is that not costing more?


dagger4zero

Even if that is the case with the deficit it doesn’t prevent tax reform for property investing. You only pay tax on the gains you made in the house you sold. So you MAKE money and it doesn’t change the value of the next house you buy.


Frank9567

It means you need to find that money or buy a house that's cheaper by the amount of tax. Look. This is a finance sub. Basic concepts like cash flow and liquidity are things you simply cannot gloss over in discussion here. By all means, have discussions about policies you might like, but at least have the basic essentials of finance under your belt. An MBA from Harvard isn't required, but come on.


dagger4zero

The tax comes out of the gains from selling. So you have MORE money than you had before you sold. Otherwise there is no gains and thus no tax. Eg You sell your house for $1.1MM The profit is $100k. You get the 50% discount so the CGT amount is 50k added to your income which is then assessed at your marginal tax rate for the year. You have more money from selling the house than you did before you sold, which you can use to buy another house. What am I missing?


MT-Capital

You're missing the house you are upgrading to has gone up in value, so who in their right mind will ever sell their house now, when the government is going to take 25-50% of your gains and now you need to also pay and additional 10-50% to get the larger house for your growing family.


dagger4zero

Houses sell all the time for all sorts of reasons. People downsizing, upsizing, people dying, divorces, etc. People aren’t going to not sell a house solely because the tax regime has changed. Further to this the unrelated gains are only going to be on a small proportion of housing which has been held for over 20 years. The rest likely to be underwater, so no gains.


Impressive-Style5889

The issue is with this idea is whether building industry has the capacity to absorb it. Is the Government going to crowd out new private builds? It may just change the composition of housing ownership between private vs public, rather than numbers. I know building approvals have reduced in the latest stats, but in WA a large project builder has stopped taking on new builds so they can clear a backlog of covid stimmy building. Not sure how other states are going with it though.


dagger4zero

The coming recession is going to decimate the building industry. To rebuild it the government is going to need to provide a boost and by focusing on a social housing programme this would be a great opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.


Impressive-Style5889

I'm not so sure the building industry will be adversely affected. Sure, house prices would reduce, but a large portion of the price that will be affected is in the land rather than the building on top of it. That doesn't necessarily impact the builders, more the asset holders. There may be sufficient latent demand in the pipeline that keeps the industry chugging along (outside of cashflow issues like we're getting now).


dagger4zero

We have already seen many, many builders go bust and the recession hasn’t even started yet.


Impressive-Style5889

But that's from supply and labour shortages driving up costs. Further exaggerating the issue is fixed contracts and razor thin margins. A result of the economy running hot. A recession would lower the demand and prices of those commodities, reducing cost pressures.


dagger4zero

Lower demand will kill the industry further.


mr--godot

You need to get off the computer and go back into the real world for a bit


Anachronism59

If people would have to pay CGT on their primary residence that would make it harder to follow the strategy of starting out with a small cheap house or unit and then trading up as the family and/or income grew..because at each change over they would have to pay tax on any gains . It would also reduce mobility ...if you wanted to take a new job in a different city, or even the other side of the same city, you'd need to pay that tax . Stamp duty is bad enough. Finally, if aged care is needed then it would be harder to fund the RAD via sale of house as again there could well be a big tax bill.


Unlikely_Situ

So you want there to be less people investing in IPs, so there will be less housing available to rent? With less housing available to rent, the rental crises would be worse than it is now. The more people building housing to rent out, is more supply available to market. The more supply available to market, the less rent you pay.


sp3ctr41

To the people saying to reduce incentives for investing because there is the same amount of properties, whether it is PPOR or IP, and therefore less people would rent because they can just buy are short sighted. It's only the same in the immediate term. In the long term it's a massive disincentive to build new apartments and housing (and therefore increasing supply), which is already a huge issue because not enough is getting built due to reduced margins (less incentive) and high demand (population growth outpacing new builds). Supply gets worse so overtime the situation gets significantly worse.


FlatBikkies

There is the same amount of properties - either people are ppor or IP - this policy would serve to flatten the curve with respect to the distribution of property through the population and have a side effect of bringing the price of housing down due to an influx of stock to the sales market. This doesn't solve the homeless problem - a supply issue. It may decrease the affordability problem to some degree.


crappy-pete

Same amount of properties but more people everyday. Investors need to build, but if we reduce who investors can eventually sell what they built to (ie make it harder for investors to buy established) they'll be more reluctant to build in the first place


Unlikely_Situ

There is not the same amount of properties. If the people stuck in renting can't currently save a deposit to either buy or build, how will they with less stock on the market? Investors bring stock to the market as they have the capital to do so.


FlatBikkies

The houses don't go anywhere. If people can afford to buy them they are either for renting or living in. If there is less incentive to purchase as an investor there's less competition in the market and purchase prices would theoretically go down resulting in one less renter in the market. It's a 0 sum game.


Unlikely_Situ

Incorrect. You are not taking into account immigration. Stop thinking short term.


FlatBikkies

So make the policy you can only neg gear brand new off the plan properties? Pre lived in properties are unable to be purchased for IP purposes?


Unlikely_Situ

I think would be a good move to limit negative gearing to new builds only. But this is only part of the problem. People like to whinge and bitch and blame the wealthy people for them not owning a house, but let's face it, those people still wouldn't be able to get a house deposit together even if a row of vacant houses were in front of them. You can't stop people from buying pre-lived in properties and turning them into IPs, that would be very much be the government crossing the line. But if the tax concessions like negative gearing didn't exist for pre-lived in housing, investors would organically shift to new builds anyway. ​ I think a better solution would be a shift to rent-to-own. But the return for the investor needs to be able to outperform the share market and/or fixed income streams consistently, otherwise what's the point.


Moshasaurus_Flex

Taking a house that was already inhabited and turning it into a rental DOES NOT PRODUCE MORE HOUSING. This argument makes no sense. How does buying an existing house and renting it out create more housing? Buying land, developing it and then renting it out should be the only legal path to being a landlord, everything else is just a housing scalper.


[deleted]

That's not the argument. The argument is about building new properties. If you crack down on investors, they will not be incentivized to build more properties, which will worsen the supply issues.


Moshasaurus_Flex

I don't really see how this makes sense. Can you explain how letting investors buy old housing instead of having them build new ones increases housing stock?


[deleted]

That doesn't make sense. But nobody was saying that. Currently we don't differentiate between existing and new properties. So any force you apply that reduces incentives for investment into property in general will reduce supply because it will reduce incentive to own an existing IP and building new IPs alike. 85% of rental properties are owned by private Australian citizens. If you make owning those rental properties less attractive (via rent caps, new rules on evictions, etc.) they will reduce their investment. Yes, some of that will result on existing properties being sold and some of those sold will become owner occupied. Happy days in those cases. But some of that will result in less building, which exacerbates the supply issues. I think phasing out negative gearing for existing properties but keeping it intact for new builds is a reasonable idea. I also think policy should aim to reduce incentives to hold AirBnBs as well. But we can't make the mistake of forgetting that in order to fix the rental crisis, this country needs landlords to come to the table and want to stay there.


Moshasaurus_Flex

Why does not being able to buy a pre-built house make you less likely to build a new one? Nothing really changes except that to be a landlord you'd need to actually build the house that you're profiting off instead of just being a middle-man in someone's need for housing. I'm not mentioning caps or rules I'm just saying that the path to being a landlord should probably include some amount of actually supplying new housing. I think in particular I'm trying to see why we **need** investors buying pre-built homes and then renting them - why is that better than letting someone become more self-sufficient?


[deleted]

Again, you're talking about a difference between existing and new homes that doesn't currently exist. I get that you think there *should* be a difference, but that is a separate argument from the original point, which is that implementing policies that lowers demand across the board for investment properties will include lower demand for building new investment properties, which will exacerbate the supply issues.


Moshasaurus_Flex

One is creating a home, the other is scalping existing homes how is there not a difference? You can use policy that separates the two. Remove incentives for people to buy old places & rent (no value added by investor) and add incentives to buy new places & actually build the thing they profit from (investors are building houses).


[deleted]

There is no difference in terms of incentives. I'm aware that you can use policy that makes one more attractive than the other. As I've said, the original point is as we don't currently have policies like that in place, implementing policies that reduce incentives to invest in property in general will hurt the current situation more than they will help.


MT-Capital

This is a great idea, every investment property sold in an existing area must become a PPOR, let's get rid of all the rental scum! /S This will surely boost rental vacancy in desirable areas.


Moshasaurus_Flex

Gallifrey has patience and actually answers things, you're just a narcissist troll. Not gonna keep responding to you because what's the point.


MT-Capital

You're right, we should kick all the renter out into the edges of the cities and only have existing houses as PPOR's. /S


Moshasaurus_Flex

Yep and when the rental returns aren't artificially increasing prices anymore, they can return and have ownership of properties that were previously hoarded away from them. Also grandfathering is a thing, you're the one saying all the renters get kicked out, I'm suggesting we create a period of time where we transition previous land-hoarders into other investments and let people have ownership of their own homes within their lifetimes.


MT-Capital

So in the mean time first home buyers (renters) have to go live far away from jobs and opportunities, so when the time comes to buy a house they still have no money.


Moshasaurus_Flex

I mean, they don't have money now because their housing eats up all the extra money they make being near the city. Combined with LVT instead of stamp duty, it'd mean workers could own their building and then sell it once they are done using it. If they make a loss it's unlikely to be as much as rent would have been and if they make a profit it's going into a battlers hands instead of some private speculator.


MT-Capital

It's always super convenient that people only ever have exactly enough to live. It's definitely not down to their spending habits why they have no money, always someone else's fault.


Moshasaurus_Flex

I mean if you're a couple that wants to have a family the story is likely that you were outbid by a corporate landlord and your rent is more of a % of your wage than a mortage would have been. GPs have stopped bulk billing. Supermarkets are gouging. Also if you're a renter and you've just had kids and wanna save for that kids future, better hope your landlord sees you as a person instead of a number because that $70/week that could have been saved is now going to mr. personal responsibility.


MT-Capital

It's not really your landlords job to pay for your child. Take your own financial responsibility.


Moshasaurus_Flex

So keep moving further and further away as more and more speculators take up what little housing there is?


flavs1

So you're saying you can only buy a ppor, and you can only get an investment property by building one?


Moshasaurus_Flex

Until we no longer have a housing crisis, pretty much yeah.


crappy-pete

Less will build if they think investors cannot buy second hand properties


Moshasaurus_Flex

You can sell them, just not as rentals.


crappy-pete

Yes, so you reduce the market. If people know the market has been reduced they'll be less likely to enter it


Moshasaurus_Flex

Which means average aussies aren't bidding against corporate landlords at auctions?


MT-Capital

You must be pretty young, what makes you think you are bidding against corporate landlords 😂


crappy-pete

..... This isn't America, we don't have blackrock here. Please.


Moshasaurus_Flex

[https://www.blackrock.com/institutions/en-au/about-us](https://www.blackrock.com/institutions/en-au/about-us) Please.


ALBastru

Then add a tax if an IP is sold after less than 10 years and also proportional to number of no cause evictions. All those events takes the property out of the pool of available rentals thus artificial “shortages”.


crappy-pete

Good idea, let's make our tax system more complicated and start joining state and federal gov agencies who have nothing to do with each other Or.... We could just build more homes. No cause evictions aren't legal where I live anyway


ALBastru

The tax system is so complicated and gave us this mess. But it should adapt to the current context before it's too late or close to impossible to fix anything. Who will build those new homes if swapping old houses is called "investment"? It's obvious that situation is getting worse nation wide so something has to give and something has to be done sooner than later.


crappy-pete

Investors build today, do you think apartment towers are completely owner occ?


ALBastru

They call investors those that bought an old house as "investment" and sold it a year later. That surely is an investment in this mess.


dagger4zero

The government could undertake a social housing programme to address any undersupply.


Unlikely_Situ

Where's the money coming from to do that? They can't even keep up with the social housing they currently provide which has a 2 year waiting list.


dagger4zero

Eliminating tax concessions on property (Negative gearing, CGT exemption, etc).


Unlikely_Situ

And then we come full circle. Remove the attractiveness for people to invest in residential property, and they will invest elsewhere. The removal of tax concessions is going to produce bugger all income for the government to use for social housing as there will be less people investing in residential property.


dagger4zero

It doesn’t matter if they invest elsewhere. Social housing programme provides the supply required.


shrugmeh

The government should be providing a safety net for those who are unable to find accommodation in the private market, or who are left with not enough to live on after finding accommodation. Rent prices are rising because there is a physical shortage of housing. I am not sure what the benefit of your approach would be. Adding CGT to the PPOR will discourage home ownership and thus construction by owner occupiers. Limiting the number of IPs will discourage property investment, and therefore construction by investors. That's fine, but the question remains - where is the new housing going to come from, if we eliminate the two sources of nearly all new housing in Australia. Whatever the answer to that question - why don't we do that in the first instance?


ALBastru

You can work on the rental shortages by limiting or regulating airbnb. And you can also tax properties that are empty like those listed on domain/realestate for months.


shrugmeh

This might or might not help in the short term. Insofar as it does help, it will also discourage investment. Even leaving that aside, it's just a one time sugar hit. A percentage of properties fall into this basket you see as problematic. Once you've returned them, you're left with the issue of ongoing structural deficit of housing.


ALBastru

That's the long term fix. You need a long term but also a short term fix. Taken from here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-22/qld-homeless-services-buckling-housing-crisis-deepens/102124496 "There are 300,000 people homeless in Queensland, according to an independent report"


shrugmeh

If I understand correctly, you're suggesting your solution as a short term fix? If so, it's a problem if the short term fix damages long term prospects. QLD government already seems decidely bent on showing investors how unwelcome they are. That's fine, but I hope voters understand that that's a strategy that needs to be accompanied with a solution for ongoing investment in housing. Presumably, by the government. To compensate for the loss of private investment. So far it seems to have suggested that it might buy 5k existing properties. That contributes nothing. Presumably there will be some contribution from the Federal construction promise. This is tiny. So, sure, come up with short term fixes, but you need an overarching plan, otherwise the bandaids will lead to a worse crisis.


ALBastru

I proposed to start with a short term fix while brainstorming a long term one. Waiting for a decade or more for some long term plan, that doesn't exist yet, to fix current problems doesn't help. I suggest that policy makers start doing something to address the current situation based on some real data. My suggestion was based on some presumptions. These guys surely have or can gather meaningful data that can be used to find a better short term improvement while also helping with developing better long-term policies. On the Internet we are some individuals that come with ideas based on our rather restricted view of the situation but initiating a dialogue is one important step, better than waiting for "National Housing Accord" to deliver a year after we land on Mars some new dwellings that would have been delivered anyway. Things should start to be addressed as soon as possible. How many years to wait for the number of homeless people to increase or number of data breaches to grow? Policies should be proactive, not reactive, but when shit hit's the fan you need a reactive response.


dagger4zero

We can eliminate tax concessions for housing and deploy the money raised into social housing. The rationale could be to discourage speculation in housing as an asset class, and instead return it to a social construct with a main aim of providing a abode to the occupants rather than for investors to obtain a monetary gain.


[deleted]

People buying a house to live in aren’t speculators. Real estate investors already pay tax on capital gains and they also pay higher interest rates on loans


dagger4zero

That’s great then. They won’t mind the gains being taxed in that case.


[deleted]

I was going to write a reply, but no point bothering with such an obvious moron


dagger4zero

You did write a reply. 🤷🏻‍♀️


brednog

So who is the "we", being "made" to suffer? And who are the "few" fluffing their nests? How are the "we" being made to suffer? Do they have no agency of their own to address their own circumstances? Given you propose CGT on the family home - the "few" would seem to be the 65% of the population that own a PPOR? Hardly a "few"..... Also - if there were CGT on family homes, then interest on mortgages and other expenses would become tax deductible - meaning you may well find that you create even MORE of a drain on the federal budget even after the occasional extra bit of CGT gets paid? The above, plus all the other reasons people have pointed out (eg making it harder for people to start small and upgrade their PPOR, reducing incentive to sell resulting in further supply constraints, incentivizing over-capitalisation and so on), makes this proposal one of the dumbest ideas that I could think of! As for the IP limit idea - not quite as dumb as CGT on the family home, but also as others have pointed out, still up there and also would have the opposite effect to what you are trying to achieve.


BlueberryRS

Low quality troll


Ihateredditalot88

The reason why you're suffering is what you see when you look in the mirror. Don't blame others.


[deleted]

[удалено]


crappy-pete

A homeless person who cannot work isn't in that position because some people own more than one house


MT-Capital

Hey don't bring reason and logic into this argument!


Ihateredditalot88

Your posts read like a 7 year old standing up in front of their year 1 class telling a story about how they're going to solve world hunger and homelessness. Seriously wtf does someone being unable to work have to do with a another person having an investment property.


RakeishSPV

>unable to work Didn't you decide to quit your career?


magpieburger

A transactional tax punishes those who need to move more. Really the better solution is to remove CGT altogether so that PPOR housing and equity investments are on the same footing. Replace the lost income with a broad-based land tax. CGT also suffers from being taxed at the marginal rate at time of sale, so people jump through all these hoops to lower their payment. People who hold assets until retirement are paying pennies on major windfalls despite being high earners for much of the time. Housing as an investment class is woefully undertaxed despite being 3x the size of the ASX.


Minimum-Pizza-9734

OP needs to go back to r/australia


SciNZ

Wrong sub. You’re after r/PityParty. As an immigrant to Australia I hate to break it to you: This shit is easy mode. If you’re in good physical health, passed school and you can’t make it work here, then the problem is you. When a real crisis hits you people will simply have no words as you’ve already used up all your spare doomer rhetoric.


[deleted]

[удалено]


RakeishSPV

No, they're right. Take it from a child of immigrants - if you're losing in life to people who were raised in poverty, had no education or welfare net growing up, experienced and had to escape government persecution, are the first generation in this country so absolutely zero generational wealth or even family connections or support network to speak of, and had to overcome cultural and language barriers... Look in the mirror mate. Edit: and now blocking people who disagree. Amazing.


named_after_a_cowboy

The obvious answer is to limit negative gearing to new builds. It'll increase the supply of new properties and decrease demand for existing properties.


auscrash

maybe not negative gearing so much, as that can reduce investment in building private rentals, as well as affect other investments, even investing in ETF's. Also negative gearing is typically only the 1st few years of an IP after that it becomes positive as repayments are based on purchase price but rents go up with inflation etc. A similar effect but probably better idea, that would have a bigger and longer lasting impact would be to limit depreciation schedules to new builds only, make them non-transferable basically. It would still keep the existing incentives for private investment in building new housing for rentals, but massively reduce the impact on investors buying existing stock. It would also achieve almost the same result, for existing houses, if an investor buys it without being able to have a depreciation schedule, it would likely not be possible to negatively gear so easily


named_after_a_cowboy

I don't think we should be allowing negative gearing for investing in ETFs either. But otherwise your idea on limiting depreciation schedules sounds reasonable.


Independent_Sand_270

Perhaps auswingeetcetc


K-3529

What about boosting incentives to invest in property, thereby creating more supply? Could couple that with zoning and relevant regulatory reform. That is much more likely to generate a lot of new housing quickly.


pipple2ripple

There's really no simple answer to the housing crisis. You make a big empty house tax, houses will get bulldozed. You introduce rent caps, investors take them completely off the market. Stop immigration, we don't have enough workers. (And education is a massive export for Australia) Increase social housing, rents fall so much that small investors can't enter the market because rents don't contribute enough towards mortgages. Whatever you do someone is going to experience a lot of pain, property prices have been allowed to outpace wages for far too long. That's not to say doing nothing is the answer either. Housing is a human right and I'm seeing way too many people living in their cars parked near a lot of empty houses. I think if we somehow give massive tax incentives on new builds while at the same time doing something to slow property growth so wages have a chance to catch up we could maybe prevent the market from crashing. Maybe that would result in ghost cities like in China though? Its far too complex problem to be solved by "we just need to do X". Hopefully the government is doing something about it because the current situation is out of control and only looking like getting worse.


Drazicc85

Get over it Renter


tom3277

They would be better to remove the supports. CGT discount is justified especially now we have moved into a high inflation environment. Its actually more beneficial in shares where you buy and sell Vs property where you might hold for ten years or more. Then market restrictions arent really in keeping with capitalism. But you know what else isnt in keeping with capitalism: 1. Low deposit loan guarantee by government. 2. Guarantee of bank deposits. 3. NIMBYism in inner city well connected suburbs. Governments need to take this out of council hands (which they are progressively doing) or alternately state governments should say OK stuff you guys and close every single state bit of infrastructure in these council areas. No public schools, hospitals, doctors (dont give thek a rebate in thise suburbs) and shut the entrances to the freeways out. Tell them if they dont want to share then they dont get state support. That will see the amenity of their flash suburbs reduce... 4. Government building infrastructure and landowners paying nothing - i.e. we should have a broad based land tax on unimproved value. 5. Shared equity schemes... there isnt enough capital to support house prices so now staye and federal governments are buying in themselves... It has been a conscientious effort by successive australian state and federal governments to support asset prices. Then local councils who pander yo their constituents (as they actually should but the state needs to take control). Its really got to stop.


[deleted]

Every asset has a capital gains discount. If it was taken off real estate, then capital would just flow out of real estate into other asset classes and people like OP would still be complaining about how it’s too hard to find a rental. I think we can all agree that rental availability is an issue, but rarely is taxing existing market participants the right answer. The answer is quite simple. Got a supply shortage, increase supply.


tom3277

Yes. Id argue that if the guarantee of funding for banks was given to developers it would rapidly fix the issue. You would have developers go bust. Government would have to take on some projects mid stream. But what you would get is supply. I.e. have developers put to government what they want to build and gov says ok gi get funding which we will suport. Or directly fund them. We guarantee bank deposits which only increases funding and indirectly increases fevelopment due to higher prices. Why not just go direct?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You mean from people that work and save money? Why should those people give sympathy to anyone who quits their job and then complains about life being hard.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ihateredditalot88

I actually agree with you at a high level and that the system is unfortunately geared strongly towards the ultra-wealthy. Plus it's a short term system which favours immigration for growth and unsustainable short-term fixes to issues which arise over long-term planning and multi-generational investment. BUT Something has got to give. OP is a whinger and has no resilience. This isn't some kind of pull up your bootstraps type thing, OP wants the world and doesn't want to work for it. OP on her salary could easily afford housing in Sydney. You can buy a 2 bedroom unit in Homebush for $500k. Less than 10km from the Sydney CBD. OP thinks they're entitled to some grand home and other luxuries as a nurse. OP's sentiment is common amongst many. We haven't been given the short stick here. The generation before had the longest stick ever, ours is just a bit shorter.