This where Labor should turn Morrison's stupid Croods (Plato's cave dumbed-down for children and Coalition voters) COVID analogy back on him.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
I suspect this election will be won by memes.
this is good by labor,
but democracy is almost completely rooted.
not one 20-something I have spoken to (n=15) had heard of Labors housing policy to pay for 40% of a house, interest and rent free
OMG, that is, literally, sooooo amazing
Absolute gun. Future PM. The camera loves him, the sound bites pop, and the captured propagandists shut the *smile* up and listen when he speaks.
Yep. He could be the reason voters will choose Albo. Could be another Labor spill if elected.
"The buck in your pocket"....classic.
I'll give you 100-1 if you promise to put your house on it.
Albo is 59, Clare 50. Albo to serve two terms and retire, Clare to take over and serve three more terms. By that time the flotsam and jetsom of what was once the rabble known as the Liberal Party might have reformed into something electable and not wholly horrible, and 15 years of Labor will hopefully have undone much of the damage these stupid crooks have done to the nation over the past 25.
Its a fairly good policy, but it some of the detail does need to be given. I heard Scomo challenge Albo on this last Sunday and Albo couldn't provide an answer.
The 3 questions I have are below:
1 - Lenders Mortgage Insurance. We probably all know what this is, this is insurance paid for, to protect the bank (not the individual) in the even of a housing price decline. This protects the banks and IMO was a big reason why we in Australia did not suffer the fate of the rest of the world in the housing crash in 2008-9. It either encourages you to raise a 20% deposit, or protects the banks from those declines (insurance companies therefore take the risk). My question here, is labor claim that this would result in home buyers only requiring a 2% deposit, but the facts are that the bank wants a 20% buffer on their investment. So assuming you have a 2% deposit and qualify for the full 40% (only on new homes), then assuming a house price of say $700k, the deposit is $14k, the government take a 40% stake worth $280k, which means the bank has an investment of $406k ($420k, less the $14k deposit) which means on the purchase price (and equity ownership) the bank would be providing a loan to value ratio of about 96.5%, but they want a 20% buffer (hence LMI) so I don't really get how they claim this would avoid LMI, unless the government are saying they will take all the risk on behalf of the homeowner, which is frankly dumb.
Lowering a homebuyers deposit to 20% of the 60% balance makes sense, as you are dropping the required deposit from $140k to $84k for the same $700k home. If the government (and hence the rest of the electorate) are taking the risk on the property valuation (and not providing risk to the bank or the home buyer) then I don't think this has been well thought out.
2 - This paragraph needs a lot more detail (and is the question that Morrison asked to which Albo didn't really answer it).
"If the homebuyer’s income exceeds the Help to Buy gross annual income threshold for two consecutive years, they will be required to repay the Government’s financial contribution in part or whole as their circumstances permit. "
Firstly, what does "as their circumstances permit mean?
Does this mean, that someone who is earning a family income of say $115k right now, and gets a pay rise 3% for3 consecutive years, they would have earned over the family income amount of $120k for 2 years and would be required to repay it in full. So their income has increased only through inflation, yet (using the $700k example above), would now need to obtain an increased mortgage of $280k, which at 3.5% would cost round $10k per year (their entire wage increases over that 3 year period). What occurs if the bank won't offer them the additional mortgage? Are they forced to sell to repay the Help to Buy scheme?
3 - Another paragraph from this policy.
"During the loan period the homebuyer can buy an additional stake in the home when they are able to do so. The minimum stake that a homebuyer can opt to purchase at any one time is 5 per cent."
At what value? Is the home revalued, or based on the purchase cost? If it isn't revalued, then why not. Surely if the taxpayer is taking the risk, they should receive some of the upside in the event of home price increases. On the flip side, if the housing market declines, what incentive is their for the homebuyer to purchase a higher equity portion of their home. There will be a significant amount of money tied up in this (which all Australians will be paying interest on) so it would make sense that this should be treated as an investment from the government (an investment that earns no income, and is only focused on capital gain).
These are things that aren't clear from the policy. I generally support it, but don't feel the taxpayer should foot some of the bills (like removing the risk that LMI protects against), and there should be some protection for the homeowner etc.
I was quite amazed to read Katie Allen, LNP Higgins, arguing that you shouldnt vote for a Teal cos then the LNP will be dominated by the right and Dutton will be the leader. FFS if the Teals get up then the LNP will be in the wilderness for eternity
And Katie, Climate 200 is not some bunch of EV tree huggers, it's your bread and butter. Once upon a time known as Kooyong 200 the strongest fundraising group the Libs ever had
And Katie, Climate 200 is not some bunch of EV tree huggers, it's your bread and butter. Once upon a time known as Kooyong 200 the strongest fundraising group the Libs ever had
Don't be greedy and share that around.
Pretty surprised at how well Albo has gone in this campaign. He's getting better day by day.
Yep, I was worried his lack of charisma would be a millstone. But his authenticity and genuine care have shone through.
"Let Albo be Albo."
Angus Taylor would have been out for 3 years, dutton will be due for parole in a year and Morrison has 5 years left
Oh, man. If that happens, even I might start believing in God again.
all valid questions on details Mr.P
irrespective of the fine print,
the tax payer will certainly benefit from the stability of a society where more members have a home.
LNP will hate the policy for 2 reasons
1. the banks them and their mates own will hold smaller mortgages, and
2. its public money that can't be shovelled to rich people.
3. If poor people own houses, who will pay off Jeff and Karen's fourth investment property?
Yeah I'm ok with the policy but interested to see the fine print. I'm not sure Albo knows on the repayment if your salary goes up as he couldn't respond to Scomo when he was jabbing him about it which was disappointing as this is a bit of a flagship policy around housing for them (and as you say, not something the LNP wpould likely push for).
I like the policy for both the home buyer but also for the taxpayer who if the market follows up, then the taxpayer will make a return on the asset purchase, and it gives a great opportunity for the lower income families / individuals to get onto the property ladder. I'm all for things that protect and grow savings / assets for people and minimise the requirement for the aged pension. The super guarantee is another great example of providing this.
Another day in Goldstein and Phantom Wilson pops another leaflet through our letter box.
I am starting to wonder if this might backfire. I may have never voted for the *smile* but one reaction I had was: where has all this attention been in the previous few elections? We never got anything and now suddenly he wants our attention? It is such a stark contrast to what we have had in the past that it does highlight the way he has just assumed he would win the seat in previous elections.
Still unsure how the election will go but I do wonder about the campaigns. A lot of swinging voters are professional women. But both leaders traipse around in hi vis visiting male dominated workplaces and we don't see any photo opps at female workplaces. Maybe a leader should go and visit a workplace where there are more women.
DS
I am starting to wonder if this might backfire. I may have never voted for the *smile* but one reaction I had was: where has all this attention been in the previous few elections? We never got anything and now suddenly he wants our attention? It is such a stark contrast to what we have had in the past that it does highlight the way he has just assumed he would win the seat in previous elections.
Still unsure how the election will go but I do wonder about the campaigns. A lot of swinging voters are professional women. But both leaders traipse around in hi vis visiting male dominated workplaces and we don't see any photo opps at female workplaces. Maybe a leader should go and visit a workplace where there are more women.
DS