What is the solution to housing affordability? | 7.30
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- Housing affordability has taken centre stage in the last week of the election. The latest major announcement from the Coalition, just six days before voters head to the poll, would see first home buyers raid their super to help them with their deposit.
Subscribe: / abcnewsindepth
ABC News In-depth takes you deeper on the big stories, with long-form journalism from Four Corners, Foreign Correspondent, Australian Story, Planet America and more, and explainers from ABC News Video Lab.
Watch more ABC News content ad-free on iview: ab.co/2OB7Mk1
For more from ABC News, click here: ab.co/2kxYCZY
Get breaking news and livestreams from our ABC News channel: / newsonabc
Like ABC News on Facebook: / abcnews.au
Follow ABC News on Instagram: / abcnews_au
Follow ABC News on Twitter: / abcnews
Note: In most cases, our captions are auto-generated.
#ABCNewsIndepth #ABCNewsAustralia
I honestly can't be bothered anymore. The juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Thinking of taking my money and retiring overseas. I saved up for 15 years, lived frugally, didn't go on holidays, took up extra work, arguably wasted my youth only to have house prices continually increase and not be obtainable.
That’s horrible man. Same boat and we just decided to bite the bullet just as interest rates go up. Time will tell if that’s the right decision
@@dama301 Yeah. We did the responsible thing by working hard and saving money, only to get shot in the back. I should have just lived like my friends did. They had fun , a good 20's. Sure they are in debt now but who cares, housing isn't affordable anyway.
I feel the same as you!
yep same plan to destination overseas
Same my friend. I'm there with you. I buy 1 $30 cigarette pouch a week and that's all I buy that is not a necessity and all my family and friends are just like see that's whats holding you back. I'm like that's all that I get. This is not living, we are just slaves.
I tell you what, as someone who works in the insurance industry, the amount of people I come into contact with that own 5-10 properties both interstate and within their current state is baffling. There needs to be a limit to the amount of investment properties a person/family can own. You can release as much land from local governments as you want, but what good will that do when it's the same investors picking up the houses that come up for sale because they can outbid and over pay to no end compared to those in the lower-middle class. The greed of people already well off is the problem. Pure, unadulterated greed. Any increase to their expenditure is recouped by unregulated increases to the rent they'll charge their tenants, and in the current state of housing, you either pay what you're told in rent, or go homeless. My rent has gone up $100 a week after being in the same property for 2 years, every payment made on time, the same time every week, perfect inspections, and yet not one iota of this money has been put towards any kind of improvements to the property. We went 6 months without any heating due to the air conditioning unit breaking and it took a threat of a complaint to the ombudsman before action was taken. The way this country is going, I swear we will start to see millennial suicide rates increasing because at this point, what is the point when every step forward, the greedy push you 10 steps back.
We are in a situation where through hard work and temperance we have managed to get 2 more properties. By temperance I mean no smoking, gambling or drinking etc. There is no negative gearing because there are no mortgages. There are no rents because these properties house families who cannot afford to pay. Not all properties are investments as you describe. Many house family members who through no fault of their own are shut out of the market.
Just like in China. You know it's a good idea when the CCP came up with it first.
@@geoffreystone1598 hard work dose not always mean Paid well. Fyi alot of people don't drink, smoke or gamble and they will never afford even 1 home. I hope u enjoy the rent from your 2 new property's.
We actually need investors. Not everyone will ever be able or want to but a home
@@glambycheryl212 One or two investment properties? Sure. 5-10+? Hell no, that's pure greed.
It's easy to solve this. Finish up negative gearing immediately and watch all the investors who are hording 2, 5, 10 or so properties put them on the market. Prices will tumble. Finally our young people will be able to afford a home!
Just make it illegal to have more than two kids
Frankly, I just want to see the news stories where some yuppie investor is whining about not being able to pay off their $20m debt because the housing market crashed.
And get rid of the capital gains tax breaks as well. And probably put some sane lending rules on the banks too ... And hey, to be really crazy, we could even bring in those international anti-money laundering laws the government's been ignoring for the better part of a decade ...
@@abc-ke2yq Fertility rate of 2.1 is the goal.
I couldn't agree with you more. It's the biggest scam going, and the social cost is hideous. No more BS, just crash the ship into the rocks.
Step one, Ban air bnb. People buying houses to rent out on the weekends is hurting communities.
My parents are utterly convinced that I could buy a house tomorrow, and I rent an apartment just to spite them.
Of course, they bought their house in 1986 for $70,000, so clearly I can too, because nothing has changed in 36 years...
36 years
@@myoldvhstapes Damn it, my finger slipped. Thanks for the heads up.
Hahaha. Honestly the older generation have no idea what house prices are like these days.
Funny that mentality.
Our parents are really special people that lived in a bygone era with minds to suit.
@@time2kickarse Their perspective is: "If it doesn't happen to me, it doesn't happen at all."
I do own a home and if my home went down in value it wouldn't really matter. I need a place to live. If I need to upgrade then if all property is falling at about the same % then I'll still have the same purchasing power.
I agree. It only really becomes a problem if you want to move out of ownership or it falls below your mortgage value.
Same here...I want it to crash. The home still stands, the rest is just numbers on a screen. I see so many young ppl and families suffering due to the unchecked greed in this country. It has to stop.
Unfortunately you are may be disappointed. Upgrading is always going to cost more. Even downsizing old for new within the same area may not bring you much change after costs. That's why I have decided to stay as is.
In reality, property prices had not doubled every 7 years as was the rule of thumb in the 80's due to the reducing interest rate and lower inflation environment over the past 3 decades.
I hypothesise that property prices rose above the inflation rate over the past 3 decades due to 3 main factors, rising population (more demand), lower interest rates (cheaper debt) and lower income tax (higher net income). It is unrealistic to expect property prices to fall over the long term as long as there is inflation and population growth.
It’s easy to fix but it’s against the interest of property investors, and that includes many of the politicians
and existing home owners who will never elect a political party promising lower property values - which is the only solution to affordability.
@@InnuendoXP I’m an existing homeowner and I don’t care if my house value goes down. As long as I’ve got a job to pay the mortgage it’s a non issue. The important part of the equation is job security not housing values, too bad most people don’t see it this way.
@@InnuendoXP I’m also an existing home owner but I don’t think high property price is good for the whole economy. Houses should not be a tool for financial speculation or a way to accumulate wealth. It would discourage economic growth
The majority of the population DO own their own homes. People don’t want their asset to decrease in value. It may be a serious problem, but it’s not a problem that affects the majority and in a democracy, it’s the majority that matters.
@@Zei33 the tyranny of-
1. Abolish negative gearing
2. Rezone to allow more infill development and mixed zoning
3. Treat housing as a necessity not as an investment
4. wait until prices drop
4 still waiting
@@holyman4027 1, 2, 3 haven't happened yet
It’s an absolutely awful idea to let them buy their house with super. The point of super is to take pressure off the next generation to support people when they’re too old to work.
Our population IS going to start DECREASING when this generation retires. These kinds of policies are guaranteeing that Australia will decline and be pushed into a corner when that time comes.
Completely shortsighted.
And people already forgot what happened last time the government gave everyone early access to super. The used car/motorcycle market pretty much doubled over night. What do they think will happen to the housing market? This is straight up the most bonkers idea Slomo has come up with.
Welcome to Australia where any economic problem just gets put in a pile and then dumped on the next generation along. BTW, I'm gen x.
Don’t worry we’ll just import more Indians and Chinese if our population decreases.
@@australienski6687 The LNP only care about rich old people. If you aren’t that and you vote for them, I’m sorry but you’re just a complete dummy. LNP voters were born rich, likely think money is easy to come by. That’s why they let people raid their super. To them money falls from the sky and magically appears. They are a bunch of weak people, which is why they’ve made times in Australia very hard. Weak men create bad times.
I can't think of anything more terrifying than using super to buy a house. Sure, I *may* need to throw a few dollars in at the end of my working life to pay my home off, but I'm already in a very comfortable position in that my mortgage is no more than 1/4 of my take home pay, and I already throw a few dollars extra in here & there when I can (like when doing OT). But I bought a very shabby barebones but solid 2 bed unit, need a little work which I'm doing now but the stupid homes these 1st home buyers go for in new estates.......bloody hell!!!!
It's almost like the market is incapable of self-management and neoliberal theory is absolutely worthless if you want a functioning economy that serves the citizens rather than a few big investors.
Its not the market, its australias socialist leaning government that dont allow people to buy available land and build what they want on it. No one is entitled to the labor of others to build a house and the labor of those it takes to make prebuilt construction materials.
@Zakeriya Mohamed lmao okay Ayn Rand the housing crisis is exactly because people are allowed to buy up whole blocks of houses, jack the price of the neighbourhood through the roof and then get into government to prevent more houses being built. It's not government involvement, it's private investor control of government.
@Zakeriya Mohamed stupid socialists should listen to you bro. 100% correct.
you realise that the reason housing is unaffordable right now is because its illegal to build more houses right?
Think about it if you were a housing builder you would want to build as much housing as possible right now with the prices being so high you would turn a massive profit.
But they cant build that housing right now, the amount of housing built has shrunk despite our cities growing massively.
Zoning restrictions are preventing people from building higher density homes and forcing them to only build extremally low density single family housing on the very edge of the massive urban sprawl surrounding our cities.
Australia's relationship with housing has changed.... Yeah it's an investment not the thing that keeps rain off your head at night. Completely broken understanding
This piece was written by a rich dude. Rich people think not able to afford a decent house makes you poor.
I'd say the biggest issue is the changed mindset of housing from being a necessity to an investment. This has probably been enabled through gung-ho policies and tax breaks (Capital Gains tax and Negative Gearing). Removing those tax breaks for properties that are not your main residence will go a long way.
Also stronger rental rights should be probably be a consideration.
Well you can thank Paul Keating for that. An honorable mention should go to John Howard for his role in propping up Paul's good work with a first home buyers grant. And now again, Both the LNP and Labor are doing their best to prop up the market so people will borrow and spend against their equity and prop up the GDP.
@@davidbrayshaw3529 Wrong. It’s Howard who made property into an investment class. You’re just another Liberal shill.
Couldn't agree more!
@@davidbrayshaw3529
Nothing more bipartisan than propping up the realestate bubble.
If pollies were really interested in addressing housing affordability, the tax breaks you mention would be a thing of the past.
Current stratospheric house prices are not a function of people competing for a home but rather a function of lazy money looking for a return.
Spot On
American here. It would be positively disastrous if the federal government gave people early access to their social security.
I hope Australians know better than to abuse what could be their only source of funds in their old age.
It is all printed money that has already depreciated 99%. How long this will last is anyone's guess.
It’s only 30% up to 50k and the way people see it is you’re gonna be paying that off your mortgage anyway with interest too, still a terrible idea though and I wouldn’t even call it a Band-Aid solution.
Agree with you totally. A temporary relief but the effect is driving property prices higher causing greater hardship to our younger generation and many generations to come and destroy the competitiveness of our country at the same time.
Not saying that SS money will be there when I am old enough to collect. Most likely it all will be gone and I will have spent my whole life paying into a system that I will not get a chance to use or collect. That’s the reality.
💯
This is total bullcrap. The problem with US / AU /CA housing is UNIT SIZE. I live in EU. When I was at a start of my career I lived in a 40 sqm apartment which I bought. As our paychecks grew we sold the 40 sqm and moved to a 3 BR 90 sqm apartment. I see ppl here at entry level jobs living in what looks like 200+ sqm single family housing units. Thats just ridiculous.
I have a friend in USA who several years ago cried to me about how they paid massive amount of money for their 6 BR 300 sqm house in suburban Virginia. There is 2 of them and they arent planning children. When I asked "what the hell are you using extra 4 bedrooms for" - they said they have a cinema room, xbox room, ps room and a snooker room. Crazy.
Stop AirBnB.
12:00 "people might become life-long renters"
Mate, current renters will be left homeless if those who currently own houses are going to start renting instead. I don't care if Karen can't own her home. I care that I and everyone I know is on the brink of homelessness because of the rental crisis.
You shouldn't be able to own like 5 houses all negative geared as rentals and if you have to get them on a mortgage then it's not yours and you shouldn't be able to rely on renters for your "income"
There's way to much reliance on property as income
thats because people are to STOOPID to invest in SHARE or START business as that requires brains! PROPERTY INVESTORS ARE LAZY!!
So if you had your way and I evicted those 5 groups from my homes where do they go? They can't offord to buy them or they probably would have.
You've just made a lot of people homeless.
Maybe you don't understand that negative gearing means that I can count the interest (and only the interest) on a loan as an expenditure. So if I have a $500 000 loan at 2% I'm paying $10 000 in interest per annum and can subtract that from the tax I have already paid from my real job. I have to have a job paying well over $10 000 in tax before this even starts to work.
@@dilligafwoftam985 negative gearing doesn't help renters turn into home owners it doesn't help first home buyers either all it helps is to people buy things they can't afford and put that cost onto others while getting benefits for owning things that wouldn't be affordable to them otherwise
International negative gearing needs to stop immediately and people like you buying up property and putting people into rent traps can stop also
If your not making income on your investment that's your problem nobody else's don't buy things you can't afford on a mortgage then complain you have to pay for it
Negative gearing favours the wealthy and increases home prices
" they can't afford to buy them" yeah maybe because people like you are buying them up on mortgages and expecting other to pay for it
You are the problem
@@chrizzle6222 You still don't understand. 1) Neg gearing does help renters, it provides a place to rent. It was introduced because there weren't enough places to rent.
2) It does help first home buyers, if you are smart enough to use it. My first house was a 3 bedroom apartment in outer Sydney. I lived in one, the smallest, bedroom and rented the other 2 bedrooms out. Because I was providing rental accommodation I could negatively gear 2/3 of the interest costs, repairs etc on the apartment. I could not have afforded that place without negative gearing.
3) I don't know what 'international negative gearing ' is, could you explain it please?
4) Of course you can lose money, who said you can't?
5) A normal, not wealthy, person can negative gear. I was a 2nd year teacher ... hardly 'wealthy'.
6) I'm not 'the problem', you're just looking for someone to blame. If you live in a rental now ask your landlord do they neg. gear the property. If they say 'Yes' move out, don't encourage them ... unless you think they are doing you a favour by providing somewhere for you to live.
Stop trying to blame others for your lot in life. Your life is not my fault.
@@dilligafwoftam985 If you lose those houses they don't just cease to exist. Fewer houses in the hands of investors => more supply for first home buyers. If those homes were instead owned by first home buyers, that's that many people out of the rental market, thus decreasing demand. Negative gearing just artificially increases the cost of owning your first home, and the fewer people who own their first home the higher rental prices will be due to demand.
Labor needs to acknowledge that those people who want to keep negative gearing by and large don't vote Labor anyway.
Labor introduced negative gearing in the first place! Not only that, they were the party that first cut funding to public housing which saw a large number of housing commission homes go into investor's hands. That's not to say that the conservatives have been much better.
Unprecedented immigration and first home buyer's grants just made the situation worse.
Australia has an economic problem. Housing affordability is a symptom.
Abolishing negative gearing when interest rates are at a historical low point is a moot point. I know someone with 6 investment properties, rental income on all is greater than interest paid and outgoings, therefore all 6 properties are positive or neutrally geared. Scrapping negative gearing would make zero difference in current circumstances. When interest rates are >10%, you've got a point!
@@shockcomadeath3525 It's not the 80's and 90's anymore. No, the reduction in tax incidence now makes negative gearing almost a moot point.
Honestly, I think that tenants and prospective first home buyers are being led down the garden path with their calls for measures such as the abolition of negative gearing and an increase in land tax. Ultimately these measures will reduce rental availability and force up rental costs.
Successive governments have engaged policies to increase demand in the housing sector without addressing the issue of supply and they continue to do so.
Australia needs to invest in significant public housing. We also have to be honest about the elephant in the room which is immigration and foreign investment. Touchy subjects, I know, but our growing acceptance of ever increasing housing costs is going to return Australia to colonial times when large numbers of the population lived in swags and tents. You just have to look to the US to see what's coming next.
8:35 I can think of quite a few people who would love and need to see housing prices drop, such as the current generation of first time home owners and all the people younger than them who, by the looks of it, will end up in an even less affordable housing market.
It baffles me that capitalism has gotten to this stage where the basic necessity for shelter is being locked away from people basically because of their date of birth.
There was over 1 million unoccupied dwellings in 2016, there is more than enough to go around for everyone to have fair chance at owning home. We don't need to rip down trees, churn up the earth and more suffocating urban sprawl.
As younger voters enter the political landscape, we will see real change. NG was the biggest mistake for the social capital of this country. I see so many young families suffering, run ragged with no relief in sight. I don't care if my house, (my only property) is worth afterwards. I have kids too after all.
Immigration has taken up a lot of housing. There’s been millions of immigrants and refugees given priority over our own in the last 20 years!! 😏
@@RareGem369 Yet there is still over 1 million vacant dwellings on census night. I don't see how immigration is the problem here, especially when they have to try and afford housing on their less than normal income
Stop mass migration, foreign ownership, and limit negative gearing to one to two properties max.
They stopped migration over the last 2 years and housing prices boomed so I don't think that will help.
@@grimrepper666 Because they still let foreigners own them, and still let people negative gear as many homes as they want. It has to be all three things together.
I had a Chinese owner of a house I was a tenant of in the 2000's kick FIVE Australians out of the home so his son could live there.
Why are foreigners allowed to buy up our real estate???!!!
All non-natives should leave the country. Australia for the aboriginals!
Let's limit negative gearing to 0 properties
We can start with by not taking advice from rich news editors.
I am 50. I have a $60,000 deposit that I was going to use to buy my first home right before covid. Then covid hit and despite an initial slight decline in prices, that quickly changed and prices have continued to boom. The government keeps artificially inflating the market and I have been completely priced out. Ironically, I have now had to move out of my previous home (due to ill health of the owner) and I am currently, technically homeless. I am blessed to have friends and family who have let me housesit etc, but I don’t know how long that will last. I’ve been applying for rentals since August last year and haven’t been able to secure a property. I can tell you I have no idea what the future holds for me, and I’m scared!
Hang in there.
Why weren't you getting your shit together 25 years ago. A house in Bendigo that was a bomb was two years salary.. you've missed your run. Sadly that's life..
You also need to make sure that those who buy a house live in Australia and there enough houses that are affordable for renters
The issue is we have turned property into an investment vehicle... and whilst equity and capital gains are fantastic. Being able to offset losses against your income and being able to leverage your equity to buy more and more property is why we are screwed.
Exactly we've turned buying property into a incredibly risk free and smart investment and then are shocked when housing starts being bought up by investors.
We have to have real supply side solutions to this problem but now its completely politically unfeasible because all the older folks already have homes and don't want their home prices going down, the older generation are robbing their own children of their futures whether they realise it or not.
Cure greed!
Then go be a preacher.
Not rocket science. It’s touted as more complicated than it really is.
Allow the cost (interest rates) and availability (how careful banks are about lending) of debt to normalise to normal historical levels. Remove investor tax breaks. Close loopholes for foreign purchases of real estate (money laundering etc. as well). Real estate would implode.
The problem is that it’s a one way street. Once you allow the above factors to get out of hand over a long period of time, the entire economic and social edifice mutates around it. Now, if we allow it to correct, the entire economy blows up like Ireland/Iceland. Either way it’s unsustainable and there will be blood even if nothing changes. The question simply is how it will break things, will it be sooner or later, and who’ll suffer the most.
It’s a true marvel to watch politicians and elites twist the discussion to avoid acknowledging the obvious to people.
Nail on the head. We need zero foreign ownership, tightly limited immigration, and far less debt. It’s that simple.
House prices need to fall to where they SHOULD be. Why should we perpetually screw every FHB present and future because banks lent out way too much so buyers of the past decade could offer double or triple what their properties are realistically worth.
“Average” rent prices are ridiculous! Stop buying expensive houses and renting them way to high ffs! Investors stop buying the cheaper houses! Unless you can rent them out for reasonable amounts! Who’s regulating reasonable rents? Being stuck in a rent trap is not ok! Why bother working anymore? Is that why the unemployment rate is so low people have given up? Clearly immigration plays a part and I guess rich people/investors/influencers don’t need a job anymore. Are people still sending their kids to private schools? Why? To help them into high paying jobs? Laughable! What high paying job can support them if they choose to have a family.. I hope there are some smart people out there figuring out a solution for this and they’re not just getting into housing development and using gov grants to build housing for everyone that’ll need social housing in the future…
Don't rent then, go make your own house out of mud or whatever. Nobody owes you anything.
@@australienski6687 if only
Good on Jason Claire for doing the interview and answering the questions. I can't remember the last time I heard a politician actually answer usefully lol
Negative Gearing should be abolished regardless of what the opponents think. They look out for themselves, not the country.
Make a 5 year cap on property sales for those who already have and live in their own home.
Investors are just taking up any advantages offered by banks and accumulating more and more of the pie and the people who can't get into the market, even though they have the deposits are going homeless. We need to curb this greedy behaviour of the very wealthy, the workers who need homes will be forced out of all liveable areas. Who will do all the work if there is no middle class living there?
Stop offering incentives only for 1st time home owners or by putting stipulations that it must be a new built home. It is such a narrow scheme. There needs more equality in the offerings. Help anyone who doesn't own their own home.
I have never owned my own home but because I have a partner who did own one with his ex-wife in the 80's (which she of course, took when leaving) I am automatically denied a 1st time home owners grant, as his spouse. Even if the house is 100% in my name. It is penalising people for remarrying people who are on the down and out or people who want an older property. Ridiculous!
Investors aren't even making as much money as you would think. They do get quiet a lot, make no mistake, and so does the "middleman" which are the useless Real-Estate Agents.
Most of the funds actually gets funnelled up back to The Banker. Have a look at the Big Four, together they make up over $300 Billion, which is almost unheard of for a population of merely 9 Million workers (FTE).
💯
Instead of using INTEREST RATES to control house prices why don't we just CONTROL the number of properties than can be SOLD for INVESTMENT PURPOSES.
Meaning when average house prices rise above say 1 percent per year above wages growth, then reduce the number of properties that can be SOLD TO INVESTORS only. and increase the qty to owner occupiers.
WHY are you SHOUTING?
@@Billy-te3mz HUH? I am Emphasising KEY WORDS - its quicker to read
We can, but the number of people that can't afford a house compared to the number of people that have investment properties mean that no government is going to do the unpopular thing and get themselves voted out just because a handful of poors can't afford to buy.
So you want less investors so that the rental market can be more competitive?
Interesting idea👍
The answer to this is simple. APPLY DIMINISHING RETURNS TO INVESTMENT PROPERTY. As investors own more and more properties, tax them MORE. Diminishing returns applies to basically everything, but after 20 years of a majority LNP federal gov, there's no wonder why we are where we are right now. The way this country works is that once you get one property, getting the second, then the third, then the fourth becomes much easier. It's completely backwards.
then what's the incentive to invest in long-term, self reliant wealth that doesn't include government pensions in old age? Handicap those with a long-term outlook to benefit those with a short-term?
@@Owen4368 Property isn’t the only way to invest. For some reason simple Australians seem to think it is (usually people who aren’t very smart).
@@Spacemonkeymojo so what you're saying is, Australia has a bunch of people who aren't very smart (but have the capacity to earn enough to invest in property, and the discipline that goes with it). Property investing isn't the only way to invest, but it is an effective strategy, particularly in Australia for a number reasons you no doubt know and I can't be bothered explaining. Just because the strategy is simple, it doesn't mean the people involved are.
@@Owen4368 Not until recently was it that hard to save up a deposit. You’re completely ignoring the fact that house prices have boomed and people are simply using equity to buy their second, third, fourth etc. IP. That doesn’t take a lot of brains at all. Just because it’s an effective investment doesn’t mean it’s a good idea especially when people want to own a house to simply live in. Women can make hundreds of dollars an hour selling their bodies, that’s an effective way for them to make money so you probably think they should do that to earn money huh(
If ever you wanted evidence of corruption - take a good look at that graph that compares global house prices to Australia house prices.
The solution is so remarkably simple.
Put an end to money laundering through Australian real estate, put an end to foreign ownership, like I don't know, like other countries do. Put an end to negative gearing, stop throwing every last bit of political energy towards inflating house prices.
The solution is as simple as that.
So completely wrong. The banks are responsible for increased house prices not some foreign investors. 97% of our money supply is issued by private banks through the advancement of credit. As long as the banks have this right to run the population into debt then debt and prices will rise.
@@PASKEN458 An that too. I'd be most happy to be completely wrong, most happy indeed.
Stop people from owning multiple properties (find a reasonable number) and put limits on Airbnb rentals. The amount of houses that are empty for long periods is ridiculous when you see the amount of people desperate for long term housing.
That bloke that said no one wants there home price to go down ....
I DO.... People are so blind . If my son cannot afford to buy a home I have failed as a parent.
Homes are your space in this world that is only yours . Every tax incentive for investors needs to be removed . All stimulation of new homes needs to be removed. All overseas ownership gone
Then I can guarantee "poof automatically affordable housing "zero cost to the tax payer . Actually "poof more income for the government from property's"
The only reason why this does not happen is the rich looking after the rich.
Ohh yes I do have a home and investment properties. So I am not a poor lazy person.
I am Australian and want to see home ownership more important than anything
Your son will get your house...
When you have more people looking for homes, than you have homes available, the price will always be high.
The idea that we need to release more lands needs to be held up to scrutiny. It's an easy option, but it is not the only option available to increase supply. The cost of running out infrastructure to these places adds up, and they are often underserved when it comes to public transport and other public services because of this. It's also extremely environmentally detrimental. We need more green spaces if where going to get to net zero, releasing more land for development is counterproductive to that goal. Furthermore, LGA's do tend to release land for development anyway, as the alternative is to increase density with infill and the removal of single family homes - which faces fierce opposition from residential groups which label it as 'over development'. That's the exact opposite of nimbyism. In Victoria, local governments releasing land and opposition to high density housing has actually be quite a problem for the state government. It's planning strategy, which relied on an urban growth boundary and higher density development has been undermined. As a result, progress on tackling the states affordable housing crisis has stalled.
The importance of urban growth boundaries and higher density development can be gathered from evidence from many Suburban cities in the US. Fierce opposition to high density developed resulted in cities just swelling in size. Over decades this has resulted in many cities going bankrupt because of the astronomical cost of maintaining this infrastructure and providing services. The value of homes plummeted, businesses shut, and people lost their livelihoods. Many people in those situations were still paying off mortgages when this happened, and as was predicted in this video, they ended up with an enormous amount of debt paying for a house that was now near worthless. Releasing more land to fix the housing crisis will only lead to a crises is household debt. Thus any solution to fix the housing affordability crises must include urban growth boundaries, infill, and high density development. The construction of social housing can be a part of this.
But as we've seen its just not being adopted because it's politically unpopular. In my opinion, LGAs should have less planning power, or state governments should be able to overrule their decisions to effectively implement their strategies. If this were to happen, house prices could continue to grow, cities won't bankrupt themselves, the environment and climate will be better off. And we built more social housing, and we stop given tax breaks to investors, all Australians will be able to able to access the market and affordable a safe and stable place to live. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk
To add, due to where people settled cities, most of the land to be opened up is prime agricultural land. We're exchanging food production for remote suburban blocks.
Multiple issues with just releasing land;
- the housing construction companies continuously advertise and build ridiculous McMansions in the middle of no where, which then add to urban sprawl and make the areas numbing and repetitive. There should be regulation for mixed housing and varying size.
- Very little govt oversight provided or preparation laid down to the newly released land so no real public transport networks, poorly thought out roads, short-sighted infrastructure. There should be regulation to ensure parklands/transport/schools/high street (not just a cookie cutter big box mall) and no shitty cul-de-sac lay outs that have been proven to be environmentally unfriendly, but clear, direct and sensible roadways.
- Increased negative environmental impact of the above due to poorly thought out fringe city settlements and urban sprawl
Need proper oversight and town planning. We need a modern Robert Hoddle to actually lay out how our cities growth and not just release land on a whim or to the highest bidder.
Spot on, the three of you!
I'll just add. Medium and mixed use density would be the ideal. Think European style cities. Nothing crazy above 6 floors and the ground floor is a shop. That way you have people walking to amenities instead of driving and thus eliminate or reduce cars on the road
It’s rather shameful that a UA-cam commentor gives a better report of the housing crisis than the 730 report
The govt should not solve the wrong problem by making it easy for people to enter the housing market. Govt should rather look towards making housing as an unattractive business/ investment option. One way of doing this is by giving tax cuts to people who are paying EMI for their frist home, and taxing more to people who has 2 or more properties. Another way is for councils to tax more if the owner is not dwelling in the house.
Imagine touching negative gearing to turn home ownership away from being an investment for the very rich an into a right for everyone...oh wait Labor did that last election an the media crucified them an they had to wind it back.
Yes correct, the labor party has to fight two battle fronts constantly, one is the LNP, and the second front is the media, especially news Corp..
you nailed it with the investors..bat sh1t .crazy that we give tax breaks for multiple homes
How to fix housing affordability. 1 Owning property is a right that only citizens and PRs being here and working for over 5 years should have. 2. Super can be used for purchasing/deposit of a house. 3 Foriegn owned assets should be bought by the government for at market valuation and resold in accordance to 1.
4. Individiuals, sole traders and pty/ ltds only can have residential land assets. Restrict ptd ltd to 4 holdings or $10 million total, which ever is greater.
The fact australias housing market can be used in foriegn money laundering schemes/ corporate cashcow is disgraceful. These ideas will tank the market BUT makes ownership possible again, who knows my generation might actually get to start a family.
Has to happen, but nobody mentions it because they are all property developers....
Stop foreign investment for property....
I say NO to #2
@@shiraz1736 hey, if you get 1,3,4. You wont need 2.
NEED TO PUT A HOLD ON IMMIGRATION FOR A FEW YEARS!! HOW CAN WE HOUSE IMMIGRANTS AND REFUGEES IF WE CANT HOUSE OUR OWN PEOPLE WHO WERE BORN HERE??
There needs to be laws around how many properties owners are allowed to rent. Restrict it to a second property only. There are people with 3 and 4 homes as it's easier to get a fifth than it is the first.
so who will own, maintain and supply the additional properties relied upon by the rental market?
@@Owen4368 if you think that then you have kind of missed the point of the whole issue.
@@simont1299 good ideas need to be supported by feasible strategies if they are to go beyond just being good ideas. So who would own the remaining properties without investors?
Fighting 7.9% inflation (more like 15%) with a 1% fed funds interest rate is like stopping a forest fire with a bucket of water. Folks prepare accordingly. Make investment in other not to depend on the government for funds.
I wanted to trade crypto but got confused by the fluctuations in price
Please do you mind sharing any means of reaching out to him easily? I'm really interested in this please.
Wow....Thanks for his contact info, I'll get to him right away
Yeah Trading without a professional like Expert Harrison is like gambling with your money
Expert Harrison has been managing my trades for months and i keep making profits every week.....
Start from the end user’s perspective. 1) People who want a home 2) investors.
Owner/occupiers would be more likely to buy into a community style development where the value of the home is restricted/controlled. This is a good solution for lifestyle/security etc.
Investors are using the property market to create wealth at the expense of low income families and they will always be dominant.
There needs to be a revolution in Australia.
Different social needs need different solutions and the government needs to be more creative.
You can rule out investors ... they are only filling a shortage in the market. If nobody wanted/needed to rent then investors would not make money and so not buy rental properties. You can say 'no investors' but they provide accommodation for prople who don't want to, or can't buy. Without them kids who 'leave home' would have nowhere to live.
The thing is that owner-occupiers and investors are often the same people. By that I mean, property investment has been promoted as a very "middle class" thing. And it's become such a vicious cycle that even many people who own a single home are *betting on* capital growth as well as a place to live.
It's not that it's difficult to solve, it's that it's difficult to solve without pissing off a lot of "mum and dad" home owners in the suburbs.
@@The98597thMark Kind of. You can only be an owner-occupier and negative gear in the same property if you live in, say, 1 bedroom and rent the other 2 or 3 out. Then you can negative gear 2/3 or 3/4 of the interest on the loan. That's how I afforded my first place, although it wasn't called negative gearing then. It still works well and is probably the way I'd go again if I was starting over😱. The thing is most people, esp couples, want their 'own home' and as a first that's very hard, even with both on good wages.
And unless you intend to draw down the value of your home, ie bet it's value won't drop below what you borrow (plus continuous interest) AND that you won't live until 110 it's not really an investment or asset, it's a liability ... even when you own it outright it doesn't make you money, it costs you money. It's a liability.
Capital growth is how you make money on rental properties that are negatively geared. You have to sell to realisethe profit IF you bought wisely (maybe not in Lismore). You really can't do this with your primary residence (home) ... that's what your kids hope THEY can do when you kick the bucket 🤓🇦🇺
@@dilligafwoftam985 Investors don't build, so how are they "providing" anything? Investors are good at outbidding budding owner occupiers for existing homes, i.e. they are useless.
Labor at least attempted to instigate policy’s to destabilise this insanity at the last election and the people spoke, and the madness continues.
Back when our parents and grandparents bought houses, repayments couldn't be higher than 30% of the total income. And they needed a good deposit to go with it. They also didn't get into debt for anything and everything. Paid cash for cars, no credit cards and income could be guaranteed for an employees lifetime. They bought what they could afford and the houses were basic, usually 2-3 brm, 1 bath, one lounge, dining room, kitchen and laundry. And kids shared bedrooms. One TV if you could afford one. Often Mum made our clothes or we had to wear hand me downs, no such things as kids expecting designer labels. Life was different and the great Aussie (British, American) dream was something you worked hard for.
AvOcAdooO
The problems are obvious, it's not a supply issue.
- Regulate the banks to limit their debt to equity ratios
- Remove negative gearing
- Increase the capital gains tax to what it was before it was cut in half by Peter Costello
- Limit the number of residential properties that can be owned by a person and/or company
Housing should not be a commodity, it is a necessary good. No one in government will do this however because homeowners are the main cohort that vote in elections and because everyone in parliament has investment properties themselves.
Amen
Exactly!
Housing shouldn't be an investment when hard-working middle-class people are being forced into homelessness, yet still working.
I understand it is an enticing secure investment, but it shouldn't come at the expense of other people's right to live in their own home. The greed needs to be curtailed.
Before the pandemic we were so close to being able to afford a home and now we will be forever renting and paying off someone else's investment rental property (person has 2 other homes, but I've heard of people having 17 or 18 properties, which is ridiculous).
We just want one home to live in. It is difficult living in the uncertainty of whether we will have a rental for much longer or if the rent will go up so much and we will be made homeless as well.
Removing negative gearing will force investors to raise rent. You haven't thought this through.
@@australienski6687 or get investors out of the market
@@australienski6687 or sell up & move on. Investment is a risk, and if they raise rents to where nobody can reasonably afford it, nobody's buying.
If they can't afford to purchase their own equity, maybe they shouldn't own the property.
The latest Aussie Census shows there is more than 1million homes unoccupied - the question is WHY? Are these investors getting too much of a tax break with these properties that they happily hold on to them even at a loss. Political parties need to look into this.
If companies couldn't buy established dwellings that would be a start. And in japan foreigners cant buy a home. Building more houses might also help
Change negative gearing. Force homes that are not in use beck on the market.
The super scheme is just something that looks good, but doesn't do much. How many first home buyers has $125k in super?! So the actual impact will be way lower. And then they're screwed if they ever want to move.
How does it look good? It will raise the price of houses.
@@australienski6687 When people are desperate, even a bad idea looks good.
@@australienski6687 sorry I mean looks good to the uninformed casual voter
I'm lucky enough to have the $125K in super as a "first home buyer" but I suffer from a condition called INPT aka "I'm Not Paying That". Super is better for long term.
There is a section in tax law called CGT Rollover - that is, if you made a CG in an asset class, but use the proceeds to buy again in the same asset class, you can defer your CGT calc until later on again - therefore FHB's that use the FED to help get their first place, can delay their CGT, not sure on whether the Gov will want their money back earlier
The problem is even if you had $125k you can only use $50k of that, so that's also out of the question.
We should make housing illegal to be turned into investments. You can only buy a house if you plan on living in it. That'll get rid of the prices being jacked up. Which FOREIGN investors are guilty of doing. They just come in, buy a ton of houses, jack the prices up, and they don't even need the houses. They are just using them to make more money. And by doing so making it impossible to get a house unless you are rich. Housing is a human right, not a investment.
Without watching: bet we don’t mention zoning laws…… free standing family homes = sprawl = shortage
The Elephant in the room - Money printing has cause this latest wave of equity market and property market to skyrocket these polies and journos will never admit. Negative gearing is facilitated by this alone. The Cantillien affect
Make it financially unattractive to amass multiple properties to stop people from treating them like highly speculative financial securities.
Tax landlords out of the market or local councils step in with price controls. Price rigging of property prices fuelled huge profits for banks & investors. Now Corporate landlords buying huge swaths of properties to take ownership out of reach of most people in short keep you poor. Homes are for families NOT investors that’s the issue.
Printing money is bad because of inflation, but printing debt which has lead to high house prices isn’t inflation (for some reason).
We’ve undervalued wages and productive work and overvalued assets and investment.
Labor tried to run on making society more fair last election and they lost. Australian is sadly a majority selfish society at this point.
May I ask how Labor, who promises more money printing, will not make this issue worse?
@@Billy-te3mz labor is hoping to offset this by increasing productivity.
@@sarahjulien2831 how? By printing more money?
@@Billy-te3mz they hope to spend money or areas that help the economy grow. For example cheaper childcare will cost the government but more people working means more productivity, more money circulating and a higher GDP, which makes it easier to pay of the debt.
@@sarahjulien2831 your solution to lowering debt is to spend more taxpayer money - harvested from low and middle class taxpayers? And why should people without kids be subsidising those with? Not only this, but subsidised childcare will remove the comparative advantage of stay at home parents, exacerbating inequality. Rich families reap the benefits at the expense of the poor. Might sound like a good policy, but its just going to add to the debt that my generation will be paying off for decades.
Why is it that an Australian cannot buy a house in China As the government doesn't allow you yet Chinese can come here and buy up all the property? why is that?
Foreigners can buy houses in China. Aussie housebuilder Lendlease is expanding its business in China!
As an Aussie who lived in China for 10 years, I assure you, you do NOT want to buy there!
House prices aren’t going up. Fiat currencies are being devalued via money printing. Home loans is the main mechanism of money creation in debt-based economies 🙃
🤡
This makes me so angry. Australia is no longer about "a fair go", it's about who gets in front of who, everywhere. Even in crisis housing they make it difficult to live with people in the hope others will move out and they get the place to themselves. SELFISHNESS AND GREED is the new AUSTRALIA.
We are one of the most urbanised countries in the world, with cities dominated by land hungry single storey suburban slums. To me the answer is to promote regional development, along with increasing housing density (apartments) with excellent amenities around city centres.
I’m not so sure about increased density. It is a pain to have to drive 15 minutes to get to the gym/get food/go grocery shopping. And I live in a suburb packed with housing.
I think the real solution is changing zoning. In Japan, there’s hardly a street you can walk that doesn’t have a little restaurant, takeaway place or convenience store hidden among the homes.
I live in a dense wealthy suburb of about 9000 people. There are no restaurants or stores within 15 minutes. It would be a game changer if there were a few little spots dotted around the suburb. But no, it’s housing only. This fact makes housing near all of these resources far more expensive because nobody wants to live a 15 minute drive away from literally anything but other houses.
@@Zei33 Yes I agree, there’s no point living high density without easy access to cafe, restaurants, gym, parks etc. Developments need to be planned holistically.
Try asking a builder to construct a three bedroom one bathroom house no family room no alfresco area no theatre room or parents retreat or built in robes. No building company would do it and no council would approve it he sent the high price of building
@Michelle also most councils will not approve such a house as it would “bring down” property value in the area
I’m a home owner. My partner and I have agreed that if house prices were to depreciate that would be a good thing. It wouldn’t hugely impact us because our house isn’t an investment - it’s a home. We aren’t looking to sell it to make money, it’s not an investment for us. Depreciation of house prices will more likely impact those who have multiple properties and honestly, that’s part of the problem.
The solution is to stop Chinese buying Australian property and stamp duty
Stop overseas investors owning land here like lots of other countries!
Paying my house off at a young age changed my life and gave me so much freedom. I wish everyone else could do the same. 🏠
Me too...didn’t realize how blessed u was.
When we are old men, and the youth runs the world . Will they let you keep that house? Bad times are comming.
Gov should build heaps of quality higher density housing in areas with good public transport and sell to first home buyers at reasonable prices provided they live there for x amount of time.
Cancel negative gearing. Make foreign investment illegal. Make multiple investment property illegal.
Its not nimbyism by councils. This ignores the reality that councils have been stripped of influence. Greens plan is best way to increase housing without pushing up housing prices.
The politician said it. They don't want to make housing more affordable because it is unpopular with home owners who have probably already seen their property values double or triple. This is the case for both ALP and LNP at this election. If this is the case, both major parties should come to a gentlemen's agreement and promise that no party will introduce policy to prop up the market. Don't give selfish voters a choice to prioritise themselves over the good of the nation. Let the free market punish the people who have over extended themselves. Otherwise we'll be dealing with AVG 5 million homes in Australia and kids who won't be signing up for 20 yr mortgages but mortgages till death.
Correct, but it's a big lie. The value of the house hasn't increased, just the cost. If you sell your house for twice what you paid you now have the problem that the house you now buy, you have to live somewhere, has doubled in cost, too. You gained nothing. The value didn't increase, you can't sell one and buy 2 of the same quality.
Too late Liberals superannuation to buy a house policy will increase prices. Did you forget what happened to the price of cars when the government allowed people to use super during the pandemic? This was long before the chip shortage btw.
@@dilligafwoftam985 True. Only people that seem to be able to benefit are those investors that have more than one house and want to sell to unlock the profits.
I've noticed that some of my workmates who own or have a mortgage have become super smug about their house valuations over the last year. It's a bit creepy.
Yes!!
Negative gearing is the problem. I can't afford to buy land in my area on a single salary, I live in country nsw and atleast half the houses in the small town I live in only have people in the during the 3 warmer school holidays.
Sounds like you refer to holiday houses. You can’t negative gear a holiday house unless it’s rented out.
I’m not an expert by any means - but a huge issue that I have witnessed is WHO is buying the properties. There are land releases happening here in Queensland where investors or ONE couple are buying MULTIPLE properties in land/house releases.
I personally know of one neighbourhood South side of Brisbane where a single couple purchased FOUR houses/blocks of land in a single release. So there were ALLOT of people who had FINALLY saved up enough for a deposit and MISSED OUT on a house. And now the prices have sky rocketed back up, leaving those people that missed out without homes…
Obviously it’s a much bigger issue than this. But it’s crazy how many contributing factors make it so hard for people.
Its not the gov schemes that are the problem , its the outright blatant greed of us all. This is the problem with unrestrained free market capitalism. No im not suggesting socialism or communism. But even capitalism still needs some restraints. Regulate the number of investment properties and regulates rental and housing prices.
With so many people, families in the world and an absolute amount of land...it would seem there'd be a limit on how many homes you might be allowed to own.
Most low cost homes are all snatched up for rental properties by people who already have homes and rentals. So they're essentially locking up the market with their own personal gains.
I love Allen Kohler, he's an awesome journalist!
It should be illegal for people to own more then 3 homes
1 home!
I think negative gearing should be for 1 investment property only....
@@sarahjulien2831 and perhaps only on NEW properties just built!
@@davem3325 it should be illegal for people to have more than two kids
@@abc-ke2yq I agree with the sentiment, but that really didn't work out well for China.
Greed has grown out control just like here in America.
Order a ( Cap ) on Housing prices!
We have seen what developers do when Governments open up land. You only need look at Victoria and their one way suburban gridlocks to recognise that as soon as land opens up, the developers jump in and throw as many houses down with little to no access to any amenities or public transport...
Even here in QLD where you have people moving into outer Logan. No trains near Greenbank means its a 2.5hr one way trip into the city unless you are a trady who works out that way.
The people of Australia have already decided over the past 10 years, on how they wanted this to go and now we are seeing the results of the choices that have been made. No politician will do anything about this, not only because they cannot due to be unpopular, but simply because they do not want to...how many of them do you think own investment property after all?
2.5 hrs to the city is not true. 35 mins from the railway at neighbouring Springfield Lakes, or about 45 minutes by car, depending on traffic.
That's one of the most spot on comments I've seen.
In QLD, I live in a new estate. Not a single grocery/convenience store, no cafes or restaurants, no gyms, not a single place where you can spend money. They've slapped down 10,000 people worth of houses jam packed together 10x25m block at a time with literally nothing within 15 minutes drive.
This is one of the biggest problems. I'm sure it has something to do with zoning. Bring back the corner shops, bring back the local fish and chip shops. Why does it all need to be located in hubs that require a minimum 10 minute drive. Why not dot a few places around to add a bit of convenience. No wonder everyone wants to live close to these services. That can't be helping prices.
@@Owen4368 45min by car with NO TRAFFIC...and mind you, the Mt Lindsey is always being built so there is always traffic.
I used to live just past Greenbank and had to drive in. Unless you left home at 6am, there is no way it was taking 45min and before they built the Springfield Lakes train parking, good luck getting a spot. You could drive to Westpoint in Browns Plains and catch the 140 or 150 bus...if you wanted to risk your car of spend 1.5hrs on a bus each way.
You are also wrong about the Springfield Lakes train. Its a min 50min train ride because the line after 10 years is yet to have an express train. I used to live in Springfield Lakes and traveled into the city for uni. Would be about 1.5hr trip door to door, not including travel to the station and back then, there was no parking at all.
@@Zei33 I now reside in Ipswich, love the local community corner stores in the area and was able to finally buy a modest house with decent sized land...1hr10min door to door to work in the city.
43 minutes from Springfield Lakes to Central, to be precise.
The solution it to lower the price, not give handouts that increase the price.
Tax capital gains like they do in the USA!
Capital gains isn't free money, it's literally just transferring wealth of future earnings of younger generations via cutting interest rates so they can borrow more..
Enforce debt to income ratios / reduce the supply of credit that fuels house prices.
Limit negative gearing to 1 investment property per investor.
Use the extra tax revenue from capital gains and reduced negative gearing incentives to cut income tax of the workers who actually contribute and pay taxes , as opposed to the free ride asset owners have had for the last 40 years
And stop calling it the "housing ladder", it's a "housing pyramid"
Make the RBA take into account house prices when calculating inflation if the government doesn't tax capital gains.
Cut immigration rates instead of increase them.
If housing was affordable, I suspect you'd find population would increase naturally. Aussies would love to start a family, but that's been taken away from many for the benefit of the ones on top of the pyramid scheme that is Australian housing
Plenty of obvious solutions, but both sides of politics are selectively blind on the issue.
Run for office!
What do Renters get? NOTHING!
Social housing has been neglected for at 35yrs. All while land has been locked up so prices go up and bloomers can profit. Now the homeless are increasing. Who knew Australia would become a country where working people live in cars , tents and in garages because they can't even rent a house . Buying is out of the question for many.
Ban foreign investors from buying residential property
restrict negative gearing to only new homes.
I think it would decrease the competition on established homes while at the same time encouraging investors to build new homes.
I hate this world.
Stop foreign ownership.
Land isn't the issue, it's the type of houses. In Europe smaller multistory homes or apartments are everywhere. On top of that houses shouldn't be an investment, multi-home ownership should be discouraged with some form of tax rather than a negative gearing offset.
If cheap rental alternative is available, even of a smaller and lesser quality accommodation, people will have an option and rent may be kept in check without intervention. Public housing is a bigger proportion in Europe then in Australia from what I gather online.
Invest your money in productive assets, invest your time in being valuable to yourself, your loved ones, and then the economy but be prepared to change quickly, don’t gamble what you need for what you want, go where you are treated best.
Buying a house has been turned into a life sentence within a financial prison.
Land was in 2002 inelbourne north
$34,000 for a block ,now is $326,000,+ house goes to $1,200.000 ,+ council rates+bank rates,
Last election labour lost because of a pledge to reduce negative gearing. The choice was between the government managing the housing market or letting the market decide. Guess what, we went with the market - markets crash, bubbles burst and hard landing s are real. You reap what you sow.
Nope, voters want the upside of the market without the risk of the downside - and the politicians are essentially guaranteeing that outcome
@@Gozza0000 I agree but I think that there is only so much the government can do to hold prices up. Eventually the market must level out and potentially go down
My dad is a single parent and didn't own a house, so I guess I'm doomed. Awesome.
Prevent people from owning multiple houses.
Under LNP there will be no superannuation left.
I love these stories. They really affirm my lifelong choice of sterility.
Hear hear- and people are calling me selfish for choosing not to have children- so weird. At least I've set myself up for retirement (still in my 40's though) and not over extended myself. And stayed away from bloody Afterpay!
I haven’t had kids yet and maybe never will but these comments are sad. People with kids are happier and ultimately nothing is more important than family. When you’re 80 years old and forgotten by the world your kids and grandkids will (hopefully) treasure you more than anyone else. Imagine choosing a nice house or a couple of holidays over that
@@dama301 that’s assuming your kids have kids.
@@dama301 People with kids are happier? You really need to see some of the bogan deadbeats shrieking at their swarm in my town.
9:13 that's always been the case, it's just that those who *had* that privilege are starting to lose it and they don't like the reality the rest of us already live with.
Don't forget to cap the amount of investment properties a person can own, at say 1-2.
We can't just keep providing credit, prices will only go up
We learned absolutely nothing from Ireland and the USA's property crashes.
Ban Gov intervention schemes , The Gov should build housing commission houses like 50 years ago again , ban AirBNB for 2 years (let those houses get rented permanently ) to help the rental crisis , only allow one investment property to be negative geared per investor , No Foreign House ownership unless Permanent Resident , Release the Land For new estates , Have i Forgot something ???