How about we ban owning multiple properties, remove any incentives for property as an investment, enforce quality building standards, and use government funds to build affordable housing.
this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
44 points (100.0% liked)
Australia
3592 readers
216 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think politicians should be banned from owning multiple properties. It's a huge conflict of interest.
Absolutely. Great idea.
Having multiple is fine, just remove negative gearing and investment incentives along with actually enforced building standards
People will just go back to what they did before negative gearing: Make businesses and move their properties into that. "Oh, your business made a loss paying more interest than it brought in as rent, I guess you can write that off as a loss and not pay tax on your income".
The result is the same, but it's more work for the ATO.
My old boss still had his holiday home under the business, because it's how he did it before Negative Gearing was a thing.
Make it so that interest on money borrowed against residential real estate can't be declared as a business loss then. That'll also make speculating housing investment funds a bad idea
If that were the case we wouldn't have aeen a sharp uptick in investment at the same time NG was introduced.
You're always gonna have people finding ways around things, the point is to make it hard enough your average schmoe bails on the attempt
Same thing would probably happen with property limits then
I think we need a video on why it would be a good idea, because I can't think of one (at least for the general public). I mean it is a good idea from the perspective of people with multiple properties and mortgages even on their own home because it will keep prices high
Spud's goal isn't to make life better for the average Australian. All the listed negatives are positives for the LNP - make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. Luckily, he's thick as shit and the average Australian can see what a terrible idea it is to spend your future.
No,no,no,no! You've all got it wrong! You're all looking at it from entirely the wrong objective!
It's a GREAT policy for property investors which will boost capital growth and provide excellent short term returns!
So people remain excluded from property ownership, but hey, at least the economy will be ok
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the economy going to even more shit than it is be worse for property ownership?
Sorry, I was being a bit tongue in cheek there. The economy will continue to be shit for people who struggle to afford home ownership whether or not they can use superannuation to help get their foot in the door.
I think the point is if you are trying to fix housing early withdrawal of super is not the answer for all the reasons given.
There are other solutions and it would take multiple policies working in tandom.
Sure, but by the time those solutions are in place, another generation of people will have been denied the chance to own property, which has generational consequences on economic and educational outcomes for those families.
The answer is short term relief combined with long term change. Denial of short term relief because of hypothetical long term strategies that aren't going to be implemented helps no one.
Super is not the short term relief you are looking for though..... More people floating around with more money would just push up the prices even more, offsetting any benefit from withdrawing super.
Now if we started talking about increasing supply perhaps, that would be a different story.
That's just a stupid comment. You could take the 1 trillion dollars it would cost the Australia government and spend it on any number of things to make ownership easier.
You could take the 1 trillion dollars it would cost the Australia government and spend it on any number of things to make ownership easier.
That's true. The issue is, they're not going to implement any of those ideas...
So people who can't enter the housing market remain fucked over, because the imperfect ideas that might actually get off the ground get set aside in favour of better ideas that will never see the light of day.
Oh wow I haven't seen this dude in a good few years. He made the new south wales song about new south wales