So.. you too fuck head. Where are your ideas then? May I suggest that you have nothing to contribute as this would also go against what your vested interest.
vested interest? everyone has a vested interest it's not even an insult.
there is no way to "fix" housing (i don't believe there is a problem to start with) so everyone wins. the only decision you have to make is who is going to lose.
when you work out who you think the loser should be i'll tell you how to get there.
Nothing but opinionated crap on other peoples posts!!
Vested interest wolf trying to dress himself up as lamb.
Almost everyone knows that to correct house prices all that is needed is to take off the developer contributions, take GST off housing, and reduce stamp duty to a modest fee.
But that's how our state governments raise taxes, and they won't say goodbye to their income stream.
Even if they changed their income to a land tax, that is collected retrospectively whilst the current taxes are collected in advance, so the income shock to states would be immense.
It probably could be done, but it probably won't be done.
So.. you too fuck head. Where are your ideas then? May I suggest that you have nothing to contribute as this would also go against what your vested interest.
Come on guys lets keep this one clean, we need ideas. We could effect some change. Peter
The housing situation in Australia does not have a political solution because it is a cultural problem. The cultural problem is that most people in the developed world cannot face the simple truth that in any post-agricultural society, housing is a cost of living. It is not an asset, it does not appreciate in value for any productive reason (but does through pecking order behaviour).
A modern residential house consumes resources and produces waste. In a pre-industrial society, the wealth of the nation comes out of the soil, so land has value, but in a post-agricultural society, housing is simply a cost of living, that we pay so we can go out into the industrial or technological economy and create and produce value and wealth. In a pre-industrial society, more than 90% of the population work the land, in a post-agricultural society, less than 2% work the land. Land ownership is a status symbol and an indulgence in a post-agricultural society.
Until the belief system changes, politicians will continue to distort the market by constricting supply or access to land to fulfil this belief system in order to buy votes. And real estate agents and other various spruikers will continue to tout nonsense about 'dead money' because it is in their financial interest to do so.
Because housing is a cost in a post-agricultural society, somebody has to bear that cost. The arguments over housing boils down to who is going to bear the cost, and who benefits most from that. If we want a more egalitarian society, then we will agree that each person of means should bear their own housing costs, but we will also, as a society, pool our resources to cover that cost for those without means. If we want a pure capitalist society, then each person or family will be expected to cover their own costs, and if some end up sleeping in a cage, and some in a mansion, then we will accept that.
The only way is for people that can't or won't buy in their desired location is for them to look for another location. It's as simple as that.
Promotion of a new city on the Eastern seaboard would also help. New house and land with a short commute $300-400k. Put government departments there first and professional services and banks will follow.
“You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” - Inigo Montoya
So.. you too fuck head. Where are your ideas then? May I suggest that you have nothing to contribute as this would also go against what your vested interest.
Come on guys lets keep this one clean, we need ideas. We could effect some change. Peter
Ha Ha Ha, don't expect any civility from the Bull camp. It's ok for you, from your posts you own outright but most bulls here are drowning in debts and the IO mortgage deals they signed up for all those years ago are turning into a swindle for many of them. All they want to see is a doubling in house prices like they were promised at the seminars, they couldn't care less about affordable housing.
The only way housing can become affordable in their business model is for wages to double, and I think we can all agree that is not going to happen for a while now. Manipulated statistics like household income may look good on paper but wage earners need actual increases in their pockets to afford higher home prices and nothing can make houses more affordable now except a decline in prices.
Your opening statement "Can we start a thread that promotes a better housing solution " is really just a plea to solve a problem created by speculators driving prices beyond the reach of those who want to buy an affordable home to live in close to where they work. You are asking how can we saddle the horse after the horse has bolted and the gate has been shut. The obvious solution, the only solution in fact, is a long painful slow reduction in home prices. A transmutation of residential real-estate from it's current commercialized footing to a mostly private dwelling one. The market has always been able to accommodate a few land lords, but not the massive influx we have seen over the past 15 years or so. It was so obviously a market distortion it's not funny.
But the housing market will sort itself out in the long run, and some of the suggestions raised here may even be instituted then. These bubbles have happened before and they will happen again and again. Every time people try to get something for nothing out of a finite world and the government and banks create the lax environment that allows it to happen.
Shadow was hopelessly wrong about the Gold Bull Market. What else is he wrong about?
The housing situation in Australia does not have a political solution because it is a cultural problem. The cultural problem is that most people in the developed world cannot face the simple truth that in any post-agricultural society, housing is a cost of living. It is not an asset, it does not appreciate in value for any productive reason (but does through pecking order behaviour).
A modern residential house consumes resources and produces waste. In a pre-industrial society, the wealth of the nation comes out of the soil, so land has value, but in a post-agricultural society, housing is simply a cost of living, that we pay so we can go out into the industrial or technological economy and create and produce value and wealth. In a pre-industrial society, more than 90% of the population work the land, in a post-agricultural society, less than 2% work the land. Land ownership is a status symbol and an indulgence in a post-agricultural society.
Until the belief system changes, politicians will continue to distort the market by constricting supply or access to land to fulfil this belief system in order to buy votes. And real estate agents and other various spruikers will continue to tout nonsense about 'dead money' because it is in their financial interest to do so.
Because housing is a cost in a post-agricultural society, somebody has to bear that cost. The arguments over housing boils down to who is going to bear the cost, and who benefits most from that. If we want a more egalitarian society, then we will agree that each person of means should bear their own housing costs, but we will also, as a society, pool our resources to cover that cost for those without means. If we want a pure capitalist society, then each person or family will be expected to cover their own costs, and if some end up sleeping in a cage, and some in a mansion, then we will accept that.
yeah right, housing is all pecking order and totally unproductive, that's why you are so desperate for a crash so you can buy one.
land appreciates in value because popular locations are rare and becoming rarer. houses are more expensive because they are built better and have gotten much much bigger than they were even 30 years ago with more features.
" Land ownership is a status symbol and an indulgence in a post-agricultural society." - this because in agrarian societies people worked as (in some cases literal) slaves in the fields. so you can't put forward in all seriousness that people should just stop wanting to own land.
"If we want a more egalitarian society, then we will agree that each person of means should bear their own housing costs, but we will also, as a society, pool our resources to cover that cost for those without means" - what this really means is that people with "means" whatever that is, will end up paying for 2 or more houses which they don't get to own/profit from. queue flight of all capital. won't work even if the government tries to enforce it and our tax base isn't large enough to support it via taxation, even if the government doing the tax raising survives.
but enough tearing you down.
the real challenge is not affordable housing, that can be done by building large mass housing complexes for those "without means". the challenge would be doing it in a way that stops them becoming centers for crimes and drug abuse, a virtual prison for the children that grow up in them.
goldbug
29 Sep 2013, 08:34 AM
Ha Ha Ha, don't expect any civility from the Bull camp. It's ok for you, from your posts you own outright but most bulls here are drowning in debts and the IO mortgage deals they signed up for all those years ago are turning into a swindle for many of them. All they want to see is a doubling in house prices like they were promised at the seminars, they couldn't care less about affordable housing.
maybe you're a timo sock? ted would have made a typo by now.
I've only seen little bits here and there, but the jist seems to be building out of scrap. This show is a bit stupid, but having watched a new diy store go up around the corner in no time using steel and corrugated aluminium, you do have to wonder at how cheap we could build a dwelling. Most of these types of things are looking at re cycling. Fuct recycling unless it's cheaper. How much could you build a good fully insulated house for?
I bought my old house in the UK for around £130,000 back in 2005, fairly large and with decent sized gardens. They were still building the street at the time and the average house was being thrown up in a matter of WEEKS.
Australia still has to go through a big culture change in terms of the following
1. Using different building materials, timber and gyproc as opposed to brick etc 2. Smaller houses 3. Smaller land areas 4. Performance related pay, ie bonuses for trades who complete their work quicker
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