Search results

The Senate Report on Affordable Housing is here. The report has 40 recommendations.... Recommendation 13 is... ...and down on page 421 the response by Govt Senators... Looks like we'll be waiting for another report before any changes will even be considered.....

I too saw those figures, was a little surprised & dug a little deeper..... According to JP Morgan.... I reckon it's those damn broker churning..... :eek:

Dunno. I mostly think about what IS, rather than what SHOULD BE. I'll have a browse through the Senate Report you kindly linked to... I think that most things that may change the balance of OOs/investors in existing suburbs would be tinkering around the edges.. Possibly limit -ve...

You appear to be referring to supply of housing & not supply of rental housing. So just to repeat the issues.... 1) Investors have been supplying the market for rentals of existing houses for decades. Removal (or limiting) of NG would reduce the supply of rentals of existing housing. You...

Over a period of a few years OOs & FHBs are much more likely to buy them than investors. Then when the investors have sold up, the next generation of renters (see vulnerable groups referred to above) are unable to rent in the established areas, because there is no supply of rentals, or of...

I don't understand. Do we agree that popln growth will continue ? I've mentioned 2 supply issues.. 1) Investors have been supplying the market for rentals of existing houses for decades. Removal (or limiting) of NG would reduce the supply of rentals of existing housing. 2) Investors...

Hmmm, so you've told that investors buy established, but you want to keep NG for new homes only. From an investor POV, that's not an attractive proposition & is unlikely to be taken up by many rational investors. And from a renter POV.... it comes across as though you're in favour of removing...

Yep.... supply & demand is the key. If investors are dis-incentivised from providing supply and we know demand is increasing via popln growth..... what do you expect to happen to rents ? The removal of NG will benefit the current crop of FHB, at the expense of future generations of FHB. It's...

So what you're really saying is that the the removal of -ve gearing today will enable the current crop of self interested FHBs to get a foot in the door & thereby deny the next generation of FHBs the same opportunity by inflicting higher rents on them in perpetuity. And we self sacrificing...

You need to read my post carefully.... ... a Ferrari is affordable to some, a 1990 Datsun 180B is affordable to all who put in the hard yards. I agree entirely. That's why I dispute your absolutist definition that it is only affordable when it is 100% risk free. And even the RBA agrees with us...

As houses are changing hands they are clearly affordable for some - mostly those who have done the hard yards, invested wisely, taken reasonable risks, have a good deposit and trusted history. There are some houses that are unaffordable to many, and likewise some are unable to afford any house...

Hmmm.... Your use of this definition appears to be flawed.... The dictionary defines affordability as You appear to have chosen an incorrect usage for the context. By your definition it is impossible to afford anything except risk free treasury bonds. You would have considered a...