Now that you've made sure your enrolment is up-to-date, you might start to wonder what each of the parties have to say about housing. Indeed, if you're anything like us here at the Brown Couch, you'll be ravenous for details about how our next Australian Government will make sure good quality rental housing is available - and affordable - to everyone who needs it.
The sad news is, there's not a lot to report. So far, neither of the major parties has released a policy on housing.
That's not to say there aren't a few clues about what we might expect...
If you look very closely at the Liberal Party's document Our Plan For Real Action you'll see a paragraph (at the bottom of page 42) about improving housing affordability and supporting housing development. It says:
We will improve housing affordability and encourage high levels of home ownership. We will work closely with the States and Territories who have primary responsibility for housing to reduce red tape holding up the supply of housing and construction and to increase land release for new homes.
The Australian Labor Party, for its part, has a few words under the Labor is for Fairness page of the ALP website:
Labor has always had a proud record of helping to deliver affordable housing for Australians and their families. The goal of ensuring all Australians have access to affordable housing has continued with a massive increase in housing supply through both social housing and incentives for the private sector to keep building through the financial crisis.
(It then goes on to talk about all the things Labor is doing, or has done a few years ago, to increase the supply of housing during the crisis, and also makes a couple of points about homelessness)...
Of course, while the likelihood of the Australian Greens forming government is almost as remote as Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott simultaneously quitting politics, signing on for the NewStart allowance and taking up residence in an inner-Sydney share-house for the next parliamentary term, it's worth noting the Greens' somewhat ambitious policy designed to cut housing waiting lists in half.
We sincerely hope that both Labor and the Liberals announce new housing policies over the course of the election campaign. If and when they do, we'll have a look at how they might affect the significant rental markets in Sydney and New South Wales, and what they could mean for tenants. [/b]
We observed last week that neither of the major parties has put forward a housing policy in the present federal election campaign.
Or have they? Maybe, just maybe, if you squint hard, read between the lines, and guess a bit, you can make out a housing policy.
First we take a hard squint at the Liberals.
In their 'Plan for Real Action', the Liberals state that:
We will improve housing affordability and encourage high levels of home ownership.
'High levels of home ownership' necessarily means 'low levels of rental property ownership' (there's no value judgement in that: these things are just the two sides of the one coin).
So what would the Liberals do to encourage low levels of rental property ownership, and at the same time improve affordability?
In looking for an answer, we should also note the Liberals' statement on fiscal policy, that 'we must start addressing the unsustainable structural imbalances in our Budget and get the Budget back on track to strong and sustainable surpluses' (p 7 of the Plan).
Having committed to a very expensive paid parental leave scheme, and to revenue-reducing cuts to company tax and the carbon pricing scheme, we must assume that the Liberals propose to encourage low levels of rental property ownership and improved affordability through means that would increase government revenues.
Thus, the answer becomes clear – or at least as clear as possible whilst squinting between lines. They must mean to reform Australia's tax treatment of negative gearing.
We've discussed negative gearing before. Briefly, 'negative gearing' is where a person borrows to buy an asset – for example, a rental property – and the cost of the debt is greater than the revenue generated by the asset. In other words, owning the thing is losing the gearer money.
The gearer gets into this situation because they figure that the asset will eventually pay off in one way or other: in particular, that the revenue will exceed the costs, and thus produce a net income (ie 'positive gearing'); or that someone will buy the thing and pay more than what the gearer paid and lost along the way, thus producing a capital gain (ie 'speculation').
Australia's present tax arrangements are unique in the world for their generosity to negative gearers, by allowing them to deduct their losses from their other sources of income, thereby reducing the amount of income tax they pay.
So, while the gearer waits for their pay-off, their losses are effectively subsidised by other taxpayers. For those gearers waiting for a speculative pay-off, it's even more generous: capital gains are taxed at half the rate of other forms of income (from work, or rent for that matter).
As a result of this policy, over a million Australians own negatively geared rental properties, particularly for speculation. That's a lot of people borrowing and spending up big – which is bad for affordability for would-be homeowners. By pursuing speculative gains, they've also changed the shape of the rental market, by favouring established, high-value, high-rent properties – which is bad for affordability for tenants. And they keep declaring losses against their income to the tax office: $12 billion in 2010-11, or about $4 billion in income tax forgone – which is bad for the Budget.
So what might the Liberals do? They could do as most other countries do: allow losses from a class of assets to be deducted only from income from that class of assets. Other forms of income would get taxed appropriately, regardless of how much of it was spent on a loss-making property.
Or they could do as the Henry Review recommended: apply a discount to net income from assets, whether positive or negative. This would mean losses could still be set against other taxable income, but the losses would be smaller, and would not reduce taxable income quite so much; it would also remove the preference given to speculative gain-seeking over income generation.
Or they could limit the generous treatment of negative gearing to new-built rental properties only... or limit it to five years of losses... or any number of things to improve what is currently an insane policy for making housing less affordable and homeownership less accessible, at public expense.
But at this point our reading between the lines becomes hazy. We await the Liberals' real housing policy with interest.
Last week, after much squinting and reading between the lines, we convinced ourselves that we could see the outlines of the Liberal Party's housing policy (reforming negative gearing – it only makes sense).
Faced with a similar absence of an express housing policy from Labor, we now apply to them the same line of inquiry and deduction.
Upon returning to the Labor leadership, Kevin Rudd outlined a new narrative for the national economy, the Federal Government and the Australian public. Breaking from the previous leadership team's tendency to cozy buttering-up, Rudd presented a more challenging narrative: that the mining boom and associated windfall gains to the national income were passing, and that if we're to enjoy increased incomes in the future, we're going to have to earn them.
In other words, the Australian economy will have to become more competitive.
Rudd's 'new national competitiveness agenda' encompasses a wide range of issues, but we can reduce these to a couple of broad themes. First, there's the problem of those factors of production that are too costly, and that may cause Australia to 'price itself out of international business'. In particular, Rudd highlights the high cost of electricity, and the cost of government regulation. He also mentions, more obliquely, the high cost of the Australian dollar.
He might also have mentioned the high cost of land.
The second broad theme is the problem of those parts of the economy that promise great enhancements in productivity – but are starved of funds for investment. Rudd identifies the areas in need of investment as education, skills and training; infrastructure – roads, rail, ports, urban transport and the NBN; and small business, which might produce eggs in a diversity of baskets other than mining but which need greater access to capital.
He might have mentioned the flip-side of this problem: the huge over-allocation of capital in land, particularly housing, which is reflected not just in its high price but in the lack of access to capital and credit for really productive activities.
True, some of the investment in land and housing markets has actually produced wealth, in the form of new dwellings, and higher quality shelter – but not that much. Rather, most of the shedload of money that's been borrowed and sunk into these markets has done nothing more productive than shuffle the title certificates around, as speculators position themselves to capture wealth from others – whether that's the life-time of future earnings pledged by the individual mortgaged purchaser, or the gains in value created by the whole of the community through its investment in infrastructure or simply through its numerical growth and hence more intense demand for land.
In policy terms, what Rudd's competitiveness agenda is driving at is obvious, if unstated: Labor must mean to implement a reformed, broad-based land tax.
A reformed land tax would be a tax on the value of on all land, including owner-occupied housing, and not merely the narrow range of commercial and rental properties that our present land taxes apply to.
Land tax reform would capture for the benefit of the community those unearned gains currently captured by speculators – and thereby chase off speculative investment in land and housing, and reduce prices. It would also allow for the lessening of the tax burden on labour and enterprise, reducing costs and freeing up their productive energies, so that they might take on the markets of the world.
Yes, that must be what Labor has mind.
And between Labor's land tax reforms, and the Liberal's negative gearing reforms, the Australian public surely has an embarrassment of housing policy riches to choose from on election day.
While we were making up housing policies for Labor and the Liberals, because neither had announced their own, another political party launched not just a housing policy, but also a 'Better Deal for Renters' too.
Here we take a look at the housing policy of The Greens.
Social housing
The Greens propose substantial new investment in social housing, to arrest the vicious circle of its present decline, and build 122 000 new dwellings over the new 10 years – equivalent to half the number of households currently on waiting lists around the country.
Because – let's face it – the Greens won't be forming government next week, one might object that the Greens can promise new housing as much as they like, because they'll not have to find the money for it. But what makes this promise worthy of attention is the innovative financing mechanism proposed: a suite of Affordable Housing Supply Bonds that would appeal variously to institutional investors – notoriously absent from rental housing investment in Australia – and 'retail' investors – the so-called 'mums and dads' who have run rampant over the rental market, leaving inflation, debt and insecurity in their wake. Any means of turning their resources instead to the production of new, affordable, secure social housing deserves consideration.
Affordable rental
To support other forms of affordable rental, the Greens are proposing an extension of the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS), and some specific-purpose programs: a special Uni-NRAS for affordable student accommodation, and grants to enable vacant buildings – the real problem under-occupancy problem – to be converted to affordable rental housing.
Tax reform
The Greens propose cutting the capital gains tax discount rate from 50 per cent to 40 cent, as recommended by the Henry Review. This is one way of reducing the fatal attractiveness of negative gearing, so would not just increase government revenue, but also reduce distortion in the rental market too. We suggest that while they're at it, the Greens should consider land tax reform too – also recommended by the Henry Review.
The 'Better Deal for Renters'
In addition to their proposals for social housing and affordable housing, the Greens' 'Better Deal for Renters' comprises three elements.
The first is the establishment of a new national body to implement a new National Standard for Rental Housing. Matters for consideration in the Standard would include:
improved security of tenure; stability and fairness of rents; a new efficiency standard for rental dwellings; standards as to the state of repair and physical security (ie locks, etc) of a dwelling; and better legislative protection of vulnerable marginal renters.
The Greens don't go as far as specifying exactly what needs to be done in each in relation to each of these matters – that would be for the national body to advise, and it might itself come up with some other matters to advise on. As for the nature of the national body, the Greens indicate that it might be constituted like the National Dialogue on Universal Housing Design. This sort of industry and consumer stakeholder forum would be a welcome development, and probably be especially useful in advising on the efficiency standard, but we wonder how it would deal with the more contentious matters, particularly legal security of tenure and rents – it may be necessary for legislators to take the lead here. As for how the National Standard could be implemented – that is, by the Federal Government in areas that are usually the responsibility of States – the Greens propose using the processes of COAG and attaching some strings to Commonwealth funds. Fair enough.
The second element is actually a better deal for landlords too: a grant to help cover the cost of efficiency improvements required by the anticipated National Standard.
And the third element is additional funding for tenants' advocacy services. Declaration of interest: the Tenants' Union of NSW is, of course, one of those advocacy services. But the case for increased funding is strong, especially in Queensland, where the State Government still refuses to fund tenants advice and advocacy services there, and in New South Wales too, where TAASs do an extraordinary job on a budget that still set as if we're working in the rental market circa 2002.
Well done to the Greens. We'd congratulate them for no other reason than their effort to get the hugely important matter of housing on the campaign agenda – but more than that, many of the measures they propose stack up as sound policy too. These are policies worth your consideration on election day – and worth consideration by whichever party forms government thereafter.
It is increasingly clear that both parties have decided that they will make NO comment on housing policy whatsoever beyond some general fuzzy comments about how much they ‘feel our pain’ re the cost of housing.
I can understand why they would not want to say they will try to reduce house prices (eg NG or the treatment of capital gains or MP) but it is harder to explain why they are also steering clear of ANY policies that are only likely to affect existing house prices indirectly (ie via lower prices for new houses) and in the medium term (eg funding of services for new land releases and other financial inducements to the states to speed up the release and sale of land directly to home buyers).
It is possible that both parties have been given fairly grim advice regarding the prospects for house prices and fear that any policy of any description might be characterised, at some point, as the ‘trigger’ or tipping point for the Australian housing market.
Vampires are less repelled by garlic than the major parties are by housing policies.
The Coalition's policy for Resources and Energy The Coalition's policy to deliver lower prices by scrapping the carbon tax The Coalition’s plan for the digital economy & e-Government The Coalition's policy for Veterans and their families The Coalition's policy for Stronger Defence The Coalition's policy to improve mental health The Coalition's Plan for Aviation National Stronger Regions Fund The Coalition's policy for Agriculture The Coalition's policy for schools: Putting students first The Coalition's growth plan for the Central Coast The Coalition's plan to increase employment participation The Coalition's policy for a more competitive and sustainable fisheries sector The Coalition's Policy to Boost Dementia Research The Coalition's Policy to Index the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card The Coalition’s Policy for Better Support for Australian Apprentices Upgrade to Adelaide's North-South Road Corridor A regional deterrence framework to combat people smuggling The Coalition’s Policy to Improve Road Safety The Coalition's policy to support Australia's health system The Coalition's policy to boost manufacturing The Coalition’s Policy for Disability and Carers The Coalition's commitment to upgrade the Great Ocean Road The Coalition's policy to tackle crime The Coalition's policy for jobs and growth in small business The Coalition's Policy for Paid Parental Leave Boosting employment for Indigenous Australians The Coalition's Policy to Build the Swan Valley Bypass and Perth Gateway The Coalition's Rigorous Policy Costings Process The Coalition's Policy to Clear Labor's 30,000 Border Failure Backlog The Coalition's Economic Growth Plan for Tasmania Mobile Black Spot Programme Building Melbourne's East West Link Reducing Drownings Helping Problem Gamblers Boosting Employment in Tasmania Lowering Company Tax Scrapping the Carbon Tax and Reducing the Cost of Living Fair indexation of military service pensions Better Transparency and Accountability of Registered Organisation Operation Sovereign Borders Fixing the Bruce Highway Fast Broadband and an Affordable NBN Boosting Productivity and Reducing Regulation Improving the Fair Work Laws Creating a Green Army Protect and Streamline Health and Medical Research Funding 2030 Vision for Developing Northern Australia Building a Strong, Prosperous Tasmania Respite and Hospice Care for Children in Brisbane
Housing doesn't even warrant a mention. They could care less about housing! Bullshit like 'Helping Problem Gamblers' and 'Creating a Green Army' whatever the fuck that means are deemed more important than ensuring affordable shelter is available to Australians.
Compare this to NZ where housing is the No1. public policy issue.
The vested interests in Australia are simply desperate to prop up the the bubble, and they control the Coalition. Disgraceful!
Housing affordability has been a sleeper issue in this election when it should be a key issue, writes Nick Xenophon.
There’s been a lot of talk during this election campaign about what’s important, but precious little about what really matters most—the basics of life, such as housing affordability. Despite the political silence, a recent Auspoll showed 84% of us thought it was more important than education, border security and 'fast, affordable broadband'.
Having a roof of your head is something many of us take for granted. But if you are a young person who’s sick of moving from rented house, flat or unit to rented house, flat or unit the idea of a permanent home can be at once appealing and seemingly out of reach. And if you’re the parent of a young person who’s saving for their own home, and it can come as a shock to realise how much difficult that is.
One possible cause can been seen in figures released by the Centre for International Economics which show the average purchase price of a house in Adelaide is around $415,648—but around $160,709 of that is made up of taxes and imposts such as stamp duty, GST and others.
That means around 40% of the average cost of a new home in Adelaide is actually tax.
That’s a huge amount, but it’s also smack on the national average. While the amount of direct tax can be staggering, there are also hidden taxes. I believe governments have a responsibility to ease the burden and consumers have a right to know how big that burden is.
So let’s talk figures. According to the Housing Industry Association, a $450,000 house is subject to tax from all three levels of government, including around $20,000 in stamp duty, $33,000 GST and other fees such as infrastructure charges, payroll tax, land tax, planning fees, carbon tax and council rates. The Urban Development Institute estimates the proportion of tax on a new home doubles once indirect taxes and charges are taken into account.
And if you’re one of the “lucky ones” already in the housing market, staying “lucky” can also be a massive challenge. It’s estimated that more than a third of households where the homeowner is under 35 are paying more than 30 per cent of their income on their mortgage.
Despite low interest rates and subdued housing markets across the country, the latest HIA-Commonwealth Bank Affordability Report for June 2013 shows housing affordability in Australia is now 16.7 per cent higher than it was 12 months ago. Not surprisingly, the proportion of family income required to meet loan repayments has increased significantly over the past 30 years. In March 1980 the proportion was 17.4 per cent, compared to 29.9 per cent in March this year. At the same time, yet another report shows in 1991 the median house price was five times the average income, but in 2011 it had swelled to seven times the average income.
Is it any wonder, then, that according to that same report Adelaide has gone from being one of the country’s most affordable cities in 2001 to one of the least, behind Melbourne and Sydney. Housing affordability has been a sleeper issue in this election campaign, when it should be a key issue. So many people I’ve spoken to are worried that they—or their kids—won’t be able to afford to buy a home.
This country needs informed discussion and public debate about housing policy. That’s we need to have an urgent summit to find out exactly what’s causing the Great Australian Dream of owning your own home to be so out of reach for so many.
Nick Xenophon is the independent Senator for South Australia.
This time next week, barring another hung Parliament, the outcome of the Federal Election will be known. Whatever political party has its mitts on the reins, property should be a primary focus. After all, it is a major economic linchpin.
From time to time, governments around the country are reminded of the importance of the housing sector and roll out new initiatives in a bid to drive activity. We’ve had the first homebuyer grants, building boosts, stamp duty concessions and land release increases.
In the 2007 election, the idea of savings accounts for first-time property purchasers was floated with much gusto. Basically, young people could deposit their savings and have a certain amount matched by the government. It sounded great, but the take-up wasn’t great.
The National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) is another program that aimed to tackle rent affordability issues in major centres. Basically, investors who signed up to the scheme bought newly built properties that were to be rented below market value to low-income key workers.
It was sluggish when it kicked off and few investors were interested in $100,000 worth of cash and taxation incentives. But then it went nuts and property marketers cottoned on to the opportunities on offer. Some were offering good deals, others weren’t, but all in all it was a pretty successful scheme.
Perhaps the most well publicised adjustment of housing policy relates to successive state and territory governments scrapping or significantly scaling back their first homebuyer grants. Some replaced their cash handouts with programs designed to ignite activity in the construction sector, giving grants for buyers of newly built homes. Others left the gaping void wide open with no alternative.
Issues surrounding the benefit of the grant aside, most experts agree it had a detrimental impact on sentiment, buyer willingness and ability. In most states, first homebuyer numbers are at their lowest levels in years.
Polling tells us we’ll almost certainly have a new, Tony Abbott-led government when the dust has settled after Saturday. Here are a couple of ideas to support the vital property industry in the next term and beyond.
Rents
In the years following the GFC, buyer activity was very low. Jitters across world financial markets and in the banking sector, coupled with most lenders drastically tightening their lending criteria, saw most people delay the decision to buy a home to live in.
As a result, more people stayed renting a property. Throw into the mix a very flat construction sector and a growing population and you’ve got soaring demand from tenants. Vacancy rates are low and rents are rising in most capital cities. It’s placing pressure on people and no doubt eating away at their savings potential, which could see them locked off the property ladder for longer.
The NRAS scheme has worked in many ways. It has seen thousands of affordable rental properties built, and many of them are in locations people actually want to live. The government should look at ways of extending it. The incentives on offer are very good, but many mum and dad investors – for whom this sort of vehicle could be perfect – don’t know about it.
Promote the scheme, extend its reach, work with developers to roll out stock faster and get better at letting would-be tenants in target groups know it’s there.
Construction sector
Despite renewed confidence in the established housing markets of most cities, construction is yet to really come back. Melbourne boomed from 2010 but most of those projects are now coming to a close and loud talk of a potential oversupply saw new starts fall. Sydney is only just starting to come to life and Brisbane and Adelaide are pretty much dead.
For one, the next government should boost its support for infrastructure in the middle and outer suburbs of our capital cities where new housing estates are being built or planned to be built.
People wonder with concern why people aren’t buying these types of properties at the moment. I dare say the two-hour drive in peak hour to work is one reason. Plan and accelerate the construction of reliable transport or explore the viability of establishing employment hubs so it’s realistic for families to settle there.
The success of the Springfield region between Brisbane and Ipswich in Queensland’s southeast is a great case study. There are schools, shopping, employment facilities, a university, an improved motorway, bus services and a train line on the way. Many residents have everything they need on their doorstop. For those who want to head into the CBD, it’s not a major hassle.
On top of that, governments of all levels should work together to coordinate planning and land release strategies. More flexible planning should be encouraged in inner-city locations for infill development. You only need to see what’s happening with laneway housing in Melbourne – the clever and efficient renewal of land with access from a lane – to see the opportunities on offer.
First homebuyers
I was part of an interesting debate with a couple of people on Twitter a few weeks ago. It was during one of the leaders forum debates on television and the topic of housing was briefly raised.
I responded to a few misconceptions that people tweeted out – housing has never been less affordable, for example. Well, it’s actually the most affordable it has been in some time. Another related to how little our parents and their parents had to fork out for a mortgage, even though the percentage of household income required to service the debt on a principal place of residence has barely changed in four or five decades.
There’s no denying that housing is expensive, but it’s not entirely unaffordable. However there are numerous barriers that first-time buyers face, and helping them jump the hurdles should be the focus.
Let first-time buyers access some of their superannuation savings for a deposit on a home. Not an investment property, but a house to live in. Cap the age up to which they can draw out, so there’s sufficient time to continue accumulating super. Put a limit on how much they can take out, so they’re not overextending themselves. And regulate the heck out of it, so if they rent it out a year later and rort the system, they’re penalised.
Alternatively, a government backed deposit loan would be a good way to help. Recipients could use it to buy their first home and then pay it back at a low interest rate over a period of time. If they sell or rent out their home, it should be paid back.
For other buyers and again for those up to a certain age, consider the idea of allowing them to buy a home in a self-managed superannuation fund. One guy who tweeted me last week lamented that he’s got a decent retirement kitty but hasn’t built up enough of a deposit. Such a scheme, again heavily regulated, would help.
And across the board, it’s time to seriously discuss getting rid of stamp duty. It’s a big income earner for states, but at the cost of getting people into a home sooner. It should go.
What’s your big policy idea for supporting the housing sector?
I called both the parties the day after the election date was announced, to ask them about their housing policies.
After speaking with about fourteen different people, I was finally put in touch with the actual person who was actually working on housing policy for the Liberal Party.
She sounded despondent; she sounded dismayed. She said that she felt like a bit of an afterthought and wasn’t holding her breath for an announcement. But she seemed happy that somebody at least cared enough to call her and ask about it. She promised to email it to me the day it is released.
And that was the last I ever heard of it…
The ALP, on the other hand… Well, I never actually managed to find the person working on the policy. Nobody had a clue.
To fix the [housing affordability] problem for good and ensure that future generations do not suffer the same fate, Family First proposes five key policy initiatives:
1) Where they have been applied, urban growth boundaries or zoning restrictions on the urban fringes of our cities need to be removed. Residential development on the urban fringe needs to be made a “permitted use.” In other words, there should be no zoning restrictions in turning rural fringe land into residential land.
2) Small players need to be encouraged back into the market by abolishing compulsory ‘Master Planning.’ If large developers wish to initiate Master Planned Communities, that’s fine, but don’t make them compulsory.
3) Allow the development of basic serviced allotments ie water, sewer, electricity, stormwater, bitumen road, street lighting and street signage. Additional services and amenities (lakes, entrance walls, childcare centres, bike trails, etc can be optional extras if the developer wishes to provide them and the buyers are willing to pay for them).
4) Privatise planning approvals. Any qualified Town Planner should be able to certify that a development application complies with a Local Government’s Development Plan.
5) No up-front infrastructure charges. All services should be allowed to be paid for through the rates system ie pay ‘as’ you use , not ‘before’ you use.
Given the vast social and economic benefits that flow from homeownership, Family First believes restoring housing affordability should once again become one of our nation’s most important priorities.
Democrats Policy
1) We will ensure land taxes are extended to certain owner-occupier properties at the top end of the market and reduced for multiple investments in low cost rental housing.
2) We will work towards the abolition of stamp duty on homes that are bought as a principal place of residence.
3) We will legislate so that there is increased funding for public and community housing of an adequate standard, and that this funding is indexed and cannot be used for any other purpose.
4) We will work to ensure that the Commonwealth and States governments support investment in affordable rental housing through a variety of taxation and other incentives.
5) Support the use of independent organisations to provide low cost land and housing infrastructure, and to encourage innovative planning to meet community needs.
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
