this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
48 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

3582 readers
43 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

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:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] 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:

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: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

NOTE: Video sponsored by the ACTU

Key points

  • It would make house prices increase by more than the maximum amount people could withdraw
  • It would cost the government $1 trillion in the long run
  • It would leave people with $200k less in retirement savings
  • It would significantly affect the returns on all superannuation as funds would need to keep more cash reserves uninvested so it is available for withdrawal
all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 37 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think politicians should be banned from owning multiple properties. It's a huge conflict of interest.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Absolutely. Great idea.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Having multiple is fine, just remove negative gearing and investment incentives along with actually enforced building standards

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Same thing would probably happen with property limits then

[–] macrocephalic 1 points 5 months ago

You can't do that with a business though - and that's why negative gearing on investments is so strange. If you have a day job, and a side business, you can't claim losses in the side business against your main employment income. But if you have a day job and own an investment property then you can claim the "losses" on the property against your income (and then get a 50% tax reduction on the capital gains when you sell it).

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] macrocephalic 1 points 5 months ago

I think you're giving most Australians too much credit. The other thing is that, if you actually want to own a home, in isolation this might be a good thing - as house prices have been rising faster than super for most of the last 20 years. The problem is that, as a whole, this will cause house prices to increase even more - which only helps people with more than just their PPOR.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

So people remain excluded from property ownership, but hey, at least the economy will be ok

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the economy going to even more shit than it is be worse for property ownership?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[–] macrocephalic 0 points 5 months ago

I'm confused, property investment is our economy, so how can it go to shit if house prices are going up?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Oh wow I haven't seen this dude in a good few years. He made the new south wales song about new south wales

https://spotify.link/fBZQJiX7EJb