Spiralling rental market forces 'hundreds of thousands' into social housing

The Singaporean govt generally only intervenes when there is a market failure

They tax cars heavily, because they want less of them (they have no land) and want to incentivize their (brilliant) public transport

They supply housing rented/leased from the govt because again - they have no land.

Australia is 10,000x bigger than singpore. There is no market failure with regards to a land shortgage. There is only government failure.

 

No but the argument has been widely held for many years that NG influences investors at the point of purchase (the only time they get to pick the location) and is one of the reasons they chase high growth areas / accepting lower yields - the presence of many investors in a certain suburb increases rental stock which puts downward pressure on rents in that suburb.

 

Because if you can deduct losses on your investment properties, it creates incentives (or removes disincentives) for the private sector to become net buyers of real estate. Making buyers relatively immune to losses keeps prices high, creates more investors, and investors produce housing supply. Higher prices reduces yields, and higher supply keeps a relative lid on rents.

 

All resources are scarce, having limited land isn't a market failure. The whole point of a free market is to allocate limited resources. If you believe in government intervention when there are limited resources, then you are advocating for government intervention in almost every sector of the economy. The actual reason Singapore intervenes in the housing market is a historical one: slums once produced negative externalities such as pollution and health problems including contagious diseases. The Singapore government used the Housing Development Board to build cheap flats to fix this 'market failure'. It was social housing for social reasons. As always, once a government organization exists it morphs and expands. The difference is that Singaporean government bodies aim to produce economic growth and even give civil servants bonuses for this. In the West it is only barbarians like me that still care about economic growth and the expense of fairness.

 

Most on the ground research into 'slums' finds that the people who live there derive more social benefits from it than I would have thought. They just look unpleasant to those on the outside because they make it hard for us to stick our heads in the sand to social problems that are usually less obvious when they are diluted.

 

So,
NG encourages speculators to enter market for growth as it numbs the holding-period pain,
entry of speculators increases the rental supply
increased rental supply put a lid on rent increase (assuming lots of speculators n same area)
entry of speculators also increases the house prices
higher house price reduces the relative rental yield
rinse repeat

in short NG increases the house price, but reduces the rent yield relative to increased house price?

 

Not saying it should be free. I don't think free housing works. Also, paying someone to do the responsibilities of government for them is bound to be exploited eg NDIS and childcare have been targeted by organised crime. It's a quick fix and I do understand how things are currently done but they don't work. Like it or not it is, in the end, the commonwealth's responsibility. They are the ones with the power to tax, unless they take the responsibility to fund States taking action in this issue, then it won't happen. Legally it's the states responsibility but I remember from high school that in practice our vertical fiscal imbalance means the federal government has to get it's hands dirty.

 

This is no worse than the uni halls that have shared bathrooms. I think a lot of 18 year olds would rather this than living at home.

 

Singaporean gov had (and have) a long term vision for the country (relative prosperity for everyone, decent housing etc.) and means to execute. They didn't care about political donors, winning the next election. And still don't care. It is not possible in our current system.

 

Frat parties dorm rooms.
Bring on the good times.

 

Yeah, you probably have more insight into their housing intervention than I do

it is true all resources are scarce, but, land in singapore is significantly more scarce than its other resources

 

Renters are facing eviction as the National Rental Affordability Scheme winds up

• Tanya Bluett is about to be evicted from her home of nine years
• The end of the National Rental Affordability Scheme is leaving her with few options and she is preparing to live in a tent
• University of New South Wales senior research fellow Chris Martin says the wind up of NRAS has exposed a massive shortage of affordable homes across the country

 

She's 62 years old and has to leave due to NRAS ending, but she was planning to live there until she dies. Surely, she knew that the low rent was temporary?

 

To me, the whole issue with social housing is that it is seen as a house for life regardless of circumstances. Once in, you stay in.

There was an attempt to move people into more suitable housing for their current situation in Qld a few years ago to make room for more people, especially families.

There were howls of outrage from widows being asked to move from their 3/4 bedroom homes into smaller units because “I need the extra rooms for my grandchildren to stay at Christmas”. The media jumped in to vilify “tossing the elderley out of their homes”.

Similar outrage when social housing with Sydney harbour views was sold and residents relocated.

No tenant in private rental enjoys the lifetime same privilege.

 

You are absolutely right. I'd suggest that those in social housing should be relocated as their situation changes, and if they don't want to move, the rent will revert to market rent for the type of property it is.....but government is reluctant to make that move.

I know a lady in her 60's. She's in a housing department three bedroom home. She's been there ever since she had her kids as a single mother. Fair enough, she needed that size home for the kids, but once the kids left home, they should have moved her out. She's now in negotiation with the department to get a smaller unit, but insists it's two bedroom, near to her current location and modern, and won't accept anything less. She's on a waiting list, because what she wants doesn't exist at this point in time.

 

She probably can't afford anything else. What would you suggest she does?

These are people, not cattle. What about their social networks? Are they expected to uproot their kids from school on a regular basis and move wherever they're directed to? Sounds like a great way to entrench disadvantage.

 

No one has suggested that.

But once those kids leave home, then the parent/s (IF they still qualify) should be rehoused into something smaller to make way for a homeless family with kids sleeping in a car.

Social housing should not be just for those who qualified decades ago.

Homeless people don’t have social networks and their kids often have nothing to be uprooted from. What about them?

 

The people I'm referring to are usually older people living in a 3-4 bedroom home long after the children have left home. If they were renting privately, they'd have no choice other than move into more affordable housing or pay for the privilege of the larger home. What makes those relying on Social Housing think they have the right to take up a home that a family could use?

 

Sure, agree with most of that. Downsizing makes sense if no longer needed. I think I misread the tone of @skater post.

 

It's so easy to misread a person on here when all you have is words to read. Plus the vast majority of communication is non verbal.

Some people think I'm an A hole from just reading my words but when meet me think differently. Unless they lying to me