Bill Shorten to address housing affordability at ALP national conference

Shorten to pitch multi-billion-dollar housing plan to ALP conference

Interesting...Under the 10-year, $6.6-billion scheme, investors who build new properties would get a subsidy of $8,500 a year, on the condition they keep the rent at 20 per cent below market rates.

If you have Foxtel, the ALP National Conference is on channel 604 Sunday

 

not sure if any Labour MP's did basic math at school.
What developer will lower their property price by 20% for $8500.
Just goes to show how out of touch governments are.

 

What they need to do to improve affordability is force the states to get rid of stamp duty for properties under the medium price.

A FHB has to save an extra $10-20,000 just to pay the stamp duty.

 

In the article, it states the following about the original NRAS:

“the $620 million NRAS saw 37,000 affordable homes built over a decade, well below the intended figure of 50,000 dwellings in four years”​

and this about the new NRAS:

“Labor estimates its new multi-billion-dollar plan would see an additional 250,000 houses built over the next 10 years for low- and middle-income earners”​

Experience shows 3,700 homes built per year.

New policy is for 25,000 homes to be built per year.

That is a 675% improvement .

More BS from the ALP !!!!

 

Can I build and rent out a bunch of really small properties?

And put pink batts in them too?

 

I don’t think it’s a buying scheme. It’s a rental scheme that has not been thought through.
New “for rental” properties only
You rent for 20% below market value.
You receive $8500 cash back pa.
Ie build a property 20% cheaper than neighbours. Rent 20% cheaper. Plus get the double bonus of negative gearing and an extra $160 on top of your rental income.
The bad. It will hurt the price of other investment properties.

 

Terrible idea. Just let the market run as is. It will balance out.

 

Can you describe how rental properties will become more affordable for renters by taking this approach!

 

Those that can't afford to rent will live on the streets thereby reducing demand.

 

The answer to housing and rental affordability is simple.....just live in the cheapest suburbs like Mt Druitt whao!

 

The market will reach a proper balance when we stop artificially boosting prices.

Get rid of everything that impacts the market. Negative gearing. First home buyers grants. All that stuff. This mixed with low rates and global money printing created the mixture for a one off bubble.

Government policy should be about regulating real estate lending to make sure we don’t over extend, and encouraging investment in business.

Also take a longer term view. Houses have only been unaffordable for a short period of Melbourne and Sydney’s history. They could come back to being affordable again soon. Our whole housing conversation is built off 1 cycle.

If there has to be government intervention. I would suggest we remove grants and negative gearing. For those who own 1 house and live in it, I would consider a tax break on that that PPOR. But I’m not really even into that.

I’d much prefer to redirect all this energy into investing into tier 2 cities like Adelaide. Give business a tax break to move industry there. Encourage innovation by reducing tax on r and d businesses there.

 

Whoo hoo, house prices going up. He will have union run superannuation funds using inefficient greedy unions pushing up construction cost. Every time builders start to reduce their prices to more avoidable levels to stay in business, the government throws a pile of money at them and create such demand that they have more work than they can do and put up prices, and those willing to pay the most get their house built. The 40k in incentives 10 years ago only put 40+k in builders pockets and a reduction in house builds because they only worked half of the year, or else they paid half their earnings in tax. Then they wonder why houses are so dear !

 

Hmmm. How do superannuation funds ‘push up construction costs’?

And why blame the industry funds (which are doing pretty well by their union and non union members from what I’ve heard).

 

My prediction is that, if this new policy has the impact that ALP is hoping for, then these new housing estates will become the slums of tomorrow .

BS’s legacy to our kids and grandkids .

 

Can’t see why you would think this. These rentals would be aimed at working people, I believe.

Ideally, they would be located in areas from which jobs are easily accessible (not on the fringes) where people like nurses, cleaners etc have been priced out of the rental market.

 

No...but you see...the Labor Party are all about helping the common man...unless it involves actually taxing them less. That's just a bridge too far!

 

What!!!

Knock down prefectly good inner and middle ring houses to build BS houses.

Nope. Not going to happen. People will buy these inner and middle properties to live in themselves or rent them to people who can afford the market rate (eg young professionals).

These BS houses will be built on the outer fringe, rented by lower income people and will become slums of the future.

History repeating itself .

I know where my IPs will be and who my target tenants are. No interest at all in BS’s scheme.

 

When does one pay half their earnings in tax? The highest tax bracket is 45% for anything over $180k.

Unless the incentives provide for densification to offset the 20% drop in rent, it's bit worth it on inner Sydney properties - a 20% cut in rent exceeds the $8k on offer.

 

In Melbourne’s middle and inner ring, there are lots of development sites that could be used for this purpose.

It doesn’t even have to be a whole building - I imagine they are wanting to encourage one or two apartments in a block to be affordable rentals.

Something similar was done in Moorabbin around 5 years ago and it is definitely not a slum!