You've started to hurl veiled insults at almost everyone. You've lost control. Probably a symptom of your failure. One more and you join Blondie in the sisters of perpetual insults.
"A less radical option, such as the National Commission of Audit’s proposal that homes above $750,000 be included in the asset test for couples and $500,000 for singles, would raise about $3bn to $4bn from reduced pension payments. "
"A less radical option, such as the National Commission of Audit’s proposal that homes above $750,000 be included in the asset test for couples and $500,000 for singles, would raise about $3bn to $4bn from reduced pension payments. "
Hi immigration sounds good to me - Was talking to my local fish 'n chips shop lady just last week who is keen to get her Mum and sister out of a Syrian village - We get to be heroes by doing the right thing now; And get some payback long term for doing so ... But even if we don't, no grizzles about doing so from Yours Truly here ...
The Grattan Institute want to compel people to reverse mortgage their home to pay their own pension as well as that of the non-homeowners if the joint is valued at over $200K.
And some chicky babe from some other mob reckoned Well, we might let them keep something - But haven't decided how much - If anything.
But anyway Peter, do you reckon the banks would be seriously interested in funding reverse mortgages on that sort of scale?
Maybe I'm off on the wrong track here, but if the Grattan Institute was to get its way, it sounds to me like home ownership would go from being something that's desirable in Joe Average's mind to something that's actually extremely undesirable.
With consequences like:
* The banks would struggle to flog traditional buyer type mortgages (which are very much their bread and butter), and
* The prices of traditional homes (pretty much any homes even actually) could very well fall.
With me asking myself in relation to the second point in particular, why exactly would the banks set themselves up to become the almost monopoly owners of an asset class where by their own actions, they'd effectively 'crashed' prices - Unless maybe they had some cunning long term plan to drive rents sky high on the asset class that they did see themselves becoming pretty much the monopoly owners of? And thereby effectively manipulate the prices back up anyway???
And why would govs want to see falling home prices either - With it being very much something they (and their central banks) seem very determined to 'mitigate against'.
Dunno - It's all just a bit hard for my head - Definitely haven't come to grips with it at all.
You are spot on herbie. Houses would no longer be desirable and the whole economy would suffer very badly. Think of all the jobs in construction and retail that would be lost. There is no chance of any sane government choosing to fund anything using reverse mortgages. You and I haven't discovered some unknown secret here. The RBA, treasury, all economist know what we know.
I don't know much about the Grattan Institute but they must be either fruitcakes or have a serious hidden political agenda, or maybe they just want to get some notoriety and attention and making stupid suggestions is one way of achieving that. Really I think they are just political nutcases.
I can't think of one suggestion that they have ever made that was adopted by either party when they are in power.
I doubt that banks want to be the owners of millions of reverse mortgages. They would need to wait until the owner dies or sells to fund a place in a retirement home. They need cashflow just like every other business. They could cope with a portion of their mortgage on a long term maturity, but not all of it. The suggestion that Paul keeps making is to use the government to fund that, so the government would still be funding the pensions, but getting a share of the estate. I can't see any responsible government wanting to put themselves in a position where they would be so hated by one and all.
I have no idea why Macrobusiness bang on about this as a possible outcome. It just ain't gonna happen.
You are spot on herbie. Houses would no longer be desirable and the whole economy would suffer very badly. Great, that would be a good outcome. Think of all the jobs in construction and retail that would be lost. Think of all the jobs that would be created when capital is put to productive use. There is no chance of any sane government choosing to fund anything using reverse mortgages. You and I haven't discovered some unknown secret here. The RBA, treasury, all economist know what we know. But they do now through the Pension Loan Scheme.
I don't know much about the Grattan Institute but they must be either fruitcakes or have a serious hidden political agenda, or maybe they just want to get some notoriety and attention and making stupid suggestions is one way of achieving that. Really I think they are just political nutcases. Noted, you do not know much.
I can't think of one suggestion that they have ever made that was adopted by either party when they are in power. Noted, that you can not think.
I doubt that banks want to be the owners of millions of reverse mortgages. Noted that you doubt. RM are the fastest growing section in the USA. They would need to wait until the owner dies or sells to fund a place in a retirement home. They need cashflow just like every other business. They could cope with a portion of their mortgage on a long term maturity, but not all of it. The suggestion that Paul keeps making is to use the government to fund that, so the government would still be funding the pensions, but getting a share of the estate. I can't see any responsible government wanting to put themselves in a position where they would be so hated by one and all. No, the govt would not be funding the pensions as a RM. You really are quite thick at times Peter.
I have no idea why Macrobusiness bang on about this as a possible outcome. It just ain't gonna happen. Noted, once again that you have no idea.
You are spot on herbie. Houses would no longer be desirable and the whole economy would suffer very badly. Think of all the jobs in construction and retail that would be lost. There is no chance of any sane government choosing to fund anything using reverse mortgages. You and I haven't discovered some unknown secret here. The RBA, treasury, all economist know what we know.
I don't know much about the Grattan Institute but they must be either fruitcakes or have a serious hidden political agenda, or maybe they just want to get some notoriety and attention and making stupid suggestions is one way of achieving that. Really I think they are just political nutcases.
I can't think of one suggestion that they have ever made that was adopted by either party when they are in power.
I doubt that banks want to be the owners of millions of reverse mortgages. They would need to wait until the owner dies or sells to fund a place in a retirement home. They need cashflow just like every other business. They could cope with a portion of their mortgage on a long term maturity, but not all of it. The suggestion that Paul keeps making is to use the government to fund that, so the government would still be funding the pensions, but getting a share of the estate. I can't see any responsible government wanting to put themselves in a position where they would be so hated by one and all.
I have no idea why Macrobusiness bang on about this as a possible outcome. It just ain't gonna happen.
It just doesn't gel with me Peter.
It's one thing to hold the opinion that housing prices seem to have gotten a bit unhealthily high (with me personally being on record a while back as guesstimating they might be out of whack by 25% - Though potentially a tad more in some areas now I'd also guess? And to question the ever lower interest rates that seem to be necessary to keep it going - Which I also have), but those things in and of themselves, don't just necessarily get me all fired up to respond by totally restructuring our society.
Label housing as 'unproductive'? Dis-incentivise home ownership. Dis-incentivise saving. Incentivise consumption??? - Because consumption is somehow or other now being seen as driving productivity? (Talk about the god damn cart now somehow or other dragging the donkey ) - While home ownership doesn't? Jeez, view trading shares as productive - When in this country at least, the great bulk of the shares that get traded are either somehow or other tied to our own home ownership or the home ownership of people OS?
Yep, I suspect we've got some pretty full-on fruitcakes making some pretty strange sounding claims right about now as well.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer:"negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy