Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
Will Australia become a Capital Exporter?; Mortgage holders have more cash than official figures recognise - money held in offset & redraw not accounted for by ABS
Topic Started: 6 Sep 2013, 08:49 AM (9,750 Views)
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

willy_nilly
6 Sep 2013, 06:24 PM
You've tried to pull this one before, and been called on it every time.

From your own link...

'the rate of outright home ownership fell from 45 per cent in 1947 to 32 per cent in 1976, rising to 43 per cent in 1996 before falling again to 35 per cent in 2006'

So by the mid-late 90s it was pretty much at the same level as in 1947... up at 43%.

Then it fell from the late 90s as people started to use offset accounts and redraw.
willy_nilly
6 Sep 2013, 06:17 PM
Late 1990;s according to wiki for the uptake of offset accounts and when did outright ownership rates start to drop?
Hoisted on your own petard again.
Edited by Shadow, 6 Sep 2013, 06:30 PM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
willy_nilly
Member Avatar
Gold Member
willy_nilly
6 Sep 2013, 06:24 PM
48.2% in 1954 as outright owners.
http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/rp/2008-09/09rp21.pdf
Der! Regardless of how the bank view it, the outright ownership question is a Census question. Those that own says yes and those that have a mortgage say no.
Perhaps a read by the bulls may straighten them out.
Census question!!!!!!
http://www.ahuri.edu.au/themes/home_ownership
willy_nilly
6 Sep 2013, 06:30 PM
Perhaps a read by the bulls may straighten them out.
Census question!!!!!!
http://www.ahuri.edu.au/themes/home_ownership
Lol.
Your avoiding the issue of providing any read evidence or data to support your claim. Typical.

Oh and homes are less affordable now. Here is some facts...

"The decline in house purchase affordability is a structural problem created by house prices growing faster than incomes over the last half century. AHURI research finds that between 1960 and 2006 real house prices increased at an average of 2.7 per cent each year compared to 1.9 per cent growth in real incomes — NRV3 Final Report. - See more at: http://www.ahuri.edu.au/themes/housing_affordability#sthash.wdUwwbBz.dpuf
Edited by willy_nilly, 6 Sep 2013, 06:36 PM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Frank Castle
Member Avatar
Business As Usual

willy_nilly
6 Sep 2013, 06:24 PM
Regardless of how the bank view it, the outright ownership question is a Census question. Those that own says yes and those that have a mortgage say no.
And if you wouldn't answer the question because its none of their fken business
Or if you've never filled out a census form at all?

Am I the only one?
Ignore posts by The Whole Truth · View Post · End Ignoring
The forum fuckwit goes RRRAAARRRGGHHhhh - But not a fuck was given..................by anyone.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
willy_nilly
Member Avatar
Gold Member
Frank Castle
6 Sep 2013, 06:39 PM
And if you wouldn't answer the question because its none of their fken business
Or if you've never filled out a census form at all?

Am I the only one?
Mmmm...sort of glad we do not know more than we need to and lol, your argument is that the majority do not fill out a census is hilarious.

It is a Census question, so all the above bank bs, is just bs.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
skamy
Member Avatar


willy_nilly
6 Sep 2013, 06:17 PM
The fact that more boomers are heading into retirement in debt is the actual issue.
What problem debt? Where do you get these stories from? Boomers will probably sell of a few investment properties and clear their debts no bother.

It is the younger generation that is the worry, they are not building their wealth as quickly as we boomers did.

Posted Image

Definition of a doom and gloomer from 1993
The last camp is made up of the doom-and-gloomers. Their slogan is "it's the end of the world as we know it". Right now they are convinced that debt is the evil responsible for all our economic woes and must be eliminated at all cost. Many doom-and-gloomers believe that unprecedented debt levels mean that we are on the precipice of a worse crisis than the Great Depression. The doom-and-gloomers hang on the latest series of negative economic data.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
willy_nilly
Member Avatar
Gold Member
skamy
6 Sep 2013, 06:45 PM
What problem debt? Where do you get these stories from? Boomers will probably sell of a few investment properties and clear their debts no bother.

It is the younger generation that is the worry, they are not building their wealth as quickly as we boomers did.

Posted Image
From here...


"Some workers have done very well from the super system, but it is increasingly emerging as a case of the haves and have-nots. Simon Kelly, an associate professor at the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, a research centre at the University of Canberra, said the average super account balance for males aged 60 to 64 was just $135,000. For females it is less than half that, $62,000. These are well short of the sums needed to fund a comfortable retirement.
But the ''average'' is skewed by a minority with very large super accounts.
Advertisement
Mr Kelly said the median balance for men - the middle figure when you list all the account balances from top to bottom - is $33,000 and for women it is zero. That's right: at least half the women in this age group have absolutely no super.
Mr Kelly said the median account for men aged 50-59 was $44,000 and $10,000 for women. - and the old assumption that people would retire debt-free will not hold true for the next generation of retirees.
In a 2008 research report for the AMP, the Centre found a growing trend to older generations taking more debt into retirement, with twice as many over 60 paying off a mortgage than 10 years ago.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/baby-boomers-face-going-into-retirement-saddled-with-debt-20100323-qu5n.html#ixzz2e64hGKmh
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Frank Castle
Member Avatar
Business As Usual

willy_nilly
6 Sep 2013, 06:41 PM
your argument is that the majority do not fill out a census is hilarious.

Where did I say that dipshit? :re:

Quote:
 
It is a Census question

So what - anything can be put in there
I could write Pauk has a very small penis and nothing would be said.
Quote:
 
so all the above bank bs, is just bs.

Is it? Is it really?
Can you support that claim with anything - anything at all?
Edited by Frank Castle, 6 Sep 2013, 06:55 PM.
Ignore posts by The Whole Truth · View Post · End Ignoring
The forum fuckwit goes RRRAAARRRGGHHhhh - But not a fuck was given..................by anyone.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Sober
Default APF Avatar


Shadow
6 Sep 2013, 06:30 PM
Then it fell from the late 90s as people started to use offset accounts and redraw.
Priceless!!!

:lol

I can see that offset/redraw is going to function as "Shadow's magic pudding" for the foreseeable future:

- decline in outright ownership --> offset/redraw!!

- high Australian household debt levels --> offset/redraw!!

It's brilliant for you: no authoritative source seems to measure it properly, so you can (and no doubt will) claim anything you want about it, in terms of size or effect.

Mind you, the lack of an authoritative source on the topic will cut both ways: you'll have to use it without a scintilla of supporting evidence, as you have above.

But somewhow, I doubt that will stop you.

:lol :pop:
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
willy_nilly
Member Avatar
Gold Member
skamy
6 Sep 2013, 06:45 PM
What problem debt? Where do you get these stories from? Boomers will probably sell of a few investment properties and clear their debts no bother.

It is the younger generation that is the worry, they are not building their wealth as quickly as we boomers did.

Posted Image
Mmmm and here and here and here...lol

http://australia.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/retiring-deep-in-debt-the-new-norm-for-aussie-baby-boomers-1278.php
"To combat this, many baby boomers are planning to use their super to pay off their mortgage and credit cards, with 54% of retires having already taken all or part of their super as a lump sum pay out, according to the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees."

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/money/boomers-blowing-their-super-to-pay-down-large-debts-20121002-26xek.html
The report, to be published today by CPA Australia, says housing debt among people aged 50 to 64 jumped by 123 per cent between 2002 and 2010, while other debts rose by 43 per cent.

http://www.smsfessentials.com.au/news/2012/boomers-still-short-on-retirement-needs
Not having sufficient funds for retirement is a cause for alarm among baby boomers in Australia, with more than half expecting to run out of money after retiring, according to the latest RaboDirect National Savings and Debt Barometer.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Lef-tee
Default APF Avatar


It certainly is an intruiging topic that deserves further investigation.

I'm a little unsure of some of the claims being made...

Quote:
 
By including the pre-payments in the household debt to income ratio, the numerator falls by $200bn, putting the ratio at 127%, some 20ppts lower than the current level. The cost of debt servicing falls to around 8% of disposable income.


While interest rates are very low, that seems an extrordinarily low figure.

My household is smack on the national median earnings, has a mortgage that is tiny by todays standards and is paying some of the lowest interest rates that have existed since I have been alive. But we still pay substantially more than 8% (though it's still pretty cheap overall). With the typical mortgage of today dwarfing mine (including today's average FHBer mortgage), I find it difficult to accept this figure on face value as being the norm.

I think this might be more of a statistical artefact of some sort rather than you typical on-the-ground reality.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply



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.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

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