Talking Politics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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

+1 Baloo

If Hockey really wants to make housing more affordable to young people he should to (1) limit negative gearing to new homes, (2) limit OS investment to new homes (currently that's the rules but it is not actually policed) or (3) disallow people from using their super to buy established housing. Any of these changes would make a huge difference. Hockey wouldn't consider these changes though because they would undo some of the recent price inflation And he want house prices to be high.


At the end of the day, both major parties want short term popularity among the huge numbers of property investors. They make policies that increase the values of existing stock but do so in the name of improving housing affordability. But someone has to pay for the current wealth of property investors and by continuing to change policies to boost prices and therefore alleviate investors of any natural risk of asset deflation, the person paying for it automatically becones today's/tomorrow's young ppl; the ppl being pressured into borrowing way more money than they should.
 
martyshire said:
+1 Baloo

If Hockey really wants to make housing more affordable to young people he should to (1) limit negative gearing to new homes, (2) limit OS investment to new homes (currently that's the rules but it is not actually policed) or (3) disallow people from using their super to buy established housing. Any of these changes would make a huge difference. Hockey wouldn't consider these changes though because they would undo some of the recent price inflation And he want house prices to be high.


At the end of the day, both major parties want short term popularity among the huge numbers of property investors. They make policies that increase the values of existing stock but do so in the name of improving housing affordability. But someone has to pay for the current wealth of property investors and by continuing to change policies to boost prices and therefore alleviate investors of any natural risk of asset deflation, the person paying for it automatically becones today's/tomorrow's young ppl; the ppl being pressured into borrowing way more money than they should.
Click to expand...

Well I beg to differ. I think access to super for first home buyers has some merit.
I do agree with your thoughts on housing affordability. Too many investors pushing prices up. Country living has some advantages ie cheaper housing, but that doesn't help much if you're working in the city. It's been a bugbear of mine that when travelling to visit family (outer Perth/Mackay) the cost of land to build is ridiculous. I know developers/councils have to recoup their costs, but surely there is something that can be done to make it more affordable for first home buyers
 
Too many politicians have property portfolios to protect. They don't care about ordinary Australians. I don't think that our politicians even want us to work anymore. I think they'd prefer us all to become property investors. Nothing is going to change here.

And no, I don't think super should be used for buying houses. Superannuation is supposed to be for your retirement, remember that? Then again, you'll probably die at your desk at work so maybe that isn't relevant anymore.
 
willo said:
Well I beg to differ. I think access to super for first home buyers has some merit.
I do agree with your thoughts on housing affordability. Too many investors pushing prices up.
Click to expand...
But it won't help any more than first home buyers grants, which just pushed prices up. The only difference between this and the FHB grants is now they wont have any super.

If politicians really wanted to help FHBs they would reduce some of the incentives that 'investors' are given to buy established housing. New housing is different because it increases the housing stock and (like actually investing in businesses) increases employment.
 
Think that Hockey is trying is trying to keep House prices moving because any day now the stockmarket will correct. Rarely does a Bull market run as long as the current Australian run. Take some profits now people.

Once this corrects itself, the government can't have the housing marketing correcting itself as well. Would be horrible look politically.

Negative gearing will never be reversed, the core of the Liberal party won't allow it. Too many of them have built themselves off the back of it.
 
I guess we're well past the days when we could hope politicians did what was best for the country, rather than themselves and the people to whom they're beholden. Bunch of gutless, compromised, corrupt, cynical, hypocritical pigs at the trough.

Where are the Keatings of yesteryear?
 
spook said:
I guess we're well past the days when we could hope politicians did what was best for the country
Click to expand...

Have to laugh as 'Expect' was a firm belief my parents had many years before 'Hope' died a cynical death.
 
martyshire said:
But it won't help any more than first home buyers grants, which just pushed prices up. The only difference between this and the FHB grants is now they wont have any super.

If politicians really wanted to help FHBs they would reduce some of the incentives that 'investors' are given to buy established housing. New housing is different because it increases the housing stock and (like actually investing in businesses) increases employment.
Click to expand...

As I said, maybe using super for the deposit alleviates the mortgage protection insurance.
I'm not suggesting they use all their super. Ie if a FHB was 25-30 years old and had $40k to $50k super, that could save around $10k mortgage insurance.( My daughter is going through the process of buying her first home, so I'm only going on the approx.figures in her case.)
A 25/30 year old has still got 30+ years to sock some super away. It's not like they use it all and it's never replaced.
But that's only my opinion. I can see some merit in it.
Another point is most FHB a grants are now for newly built homes ,or old homes undergoing major renovations I believe may be an exception.? Unsure if that's the case in all states though.
If there was an increased demand for new homes (FHB) maybe it would lead to a glut or more reasonabley priced rentals to may be less attractive to investors. If there were ever to be a glut/surplus maybe the prices would come down. (I guess this is what Scoop is referring to when he says "corrects itself")
But there's a hell of a long way to go for that to happen
 
willo said:
As I said, maybe using super for the deposit alleviates the mortgage protection insurance.
I'm not suggesting they use all their super. Ie if a FHB was 25-30 years old and had $40k to $50k super, that could save around $10k mortgage insurance.( My daughter is going through the process of buying her first home, so I'm only going on the approx.figures in her case.)
A 25/30 year old has still got 30+ years to sock some super away. It's not like they use it all and it's never replaced.
But that's only my opinion. I can see some merit in it.
Another point is most FHB a grants are now for newly built homes ,or old homes undergoing major renovations I believe may be an exception.? Unsure if that's the case in all states though.
If there was an increased demand for new homes (FHB) maybe it would lead to a glut or more reasonabley priced rentals to may be less attractive to investors. If there were ever to be a glut/surplus maybe the prices would come down. (I guess this is what Scoop is referring to when he says "corrects itself")
But there's a hell of a long way to go for that to happen
Click to expand...

In vic, there's one FHB grant for any house and a second one for new homes. I've got no problen with the latter.

Re your main point, I agree that this will allow some young ppl to avoid mortgage insurance; unless of course the cut off for compulsory mortgage insurance increases to account for the rise in ppl borrowing with less savings. Also, the house will go up by a lot more than the $10k saving. It might be good for the first few people to take advantage of it but what then? People will have to use their super just to compete.
 
martyshire said:
In vic, there's one FHB grant for any house and a second one for new homes. I've got no problen with the latter.

Re your main point, I agree that this will allow some young ppl to avoid mortgage insurance; unless of course the cut off for compulsory mortgage insurance increases to account for the rise in ppl borrowing with less savings. Also, the house will go up by a lot more than the $10k saving. It might be good for the first few people to take advantage of it but what then? People will have to use their super just to compete.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what would happen in the long run. I feel a bit pissed off with a few bits and pieces though.
I thought the FHG was supposed to compensate for state taxes, stamp duty, levies and the like. But when the gst came in, I was under the belief that all those state taxes and duties were to be eliminated.
I know the gst carve up is not done on a proportional basis as some states have kept or eliminated different taxes and duties, but I believe it's still us, who bear the burden. It's somewhat fraudulent. But that's a another topic I guess.
 
I am just running out of new adjectives to use on this current Govt we have in Oz... I think I'd just about prefer the Greens to be in power *shuts mouth quickly!*


Asylum seeker torture report: United Nations special rapporteur Juan Mendez responds to Tony Abbott criticism
Date March 10, 2015 - 12:12PM
Lisa Cox
National political reporter

Comment: Abbott bullying doesn't change facts
Australians 'sick of being lectured to' by United Nation': Abbott

The United Nations special rapporteur on torture has hit back at Tony Abbott's claim Australians are "tired of being lectured to by the United Nations", saying his organisation deserves respect.

I think we in the United Nations also deserve respect and I wish the Prime Minister had taken my views on this more seriously and engaged with my rapporteurship more constructively

"I'm sorry that the Prime Minister believes that we lecture," Juan Mendez told Fairfax Media on Tuesday.

"We don't believe so. We try to treat all governments the same way and deal with specific obligations and standards in international law as objectively as we can."

Mr Mendez is a human rights lawyer who survived torture under Argentina's military junta in the 1970s.

In 1975 he was blindfolded and shoved in a car and taken for nearly three days of questioning by Argentinian intelligence officials. Interrogators gave him electric shocks and at one point put a gun in his mouth to try to force him to reveal information about his work and associates.

He presented his report examining cases of torture and mistreatment by governments to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on Monday.

Of the 200 cases in the report involving 68 different countries, four refer to Australia and each of those examines claims of torture or cruel or degrading treatment in immigration detention.

Mr Abbott triggered a widespread outcry after he dismissed the report on Monday and attacked the UN for not giving his government credit for stopping boat arrivals.

"I think the UN's representatives would have a lot more credibility if they were to give some credit to the Australian government for what we've been able to achieve in this area," the Prime Minister said.

Among the concerns raised by the report was that escalating violence on Manus Island, and the "intimidation and ill-treatment of two asylum seekers" who gave statements about last year's violent clashes at the centre was in breach of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The report also found that recent changes to the Maritime Powers Act to give the government the power to detain asylum seekers at sea and return them violated the convention.

"I think people who are detained in the high seas and subject to prolonged detention on the basis of their status and not given a fair opportunity to make their case that they should not be sent back to a country where they might face torture," Mr Mendez said on Tuesday.

"I think it is my duty to tell Australia that, at least in that respect and in respect of keeping children in detention, that policy needs to be corrected."

He added that the government's response to concerns he had raised about the alleged mistreatment of two asylum seekers on Manus Island had been "insufficient".

"I called on the authorities to investigate and see if someone is being mistreated," Mr Mendez said.

"The government just said it's going through the courts. I think that is insufficient. What I want to know is if the investigation has singled anybody out for investigation or prosecution for torture."

Mr Mendez said the UN and the Abbott government disagreed about the extent to which Australia's asylum seeker policies complied with international law.

He described Mr Abbott's response as combative and invited Mr Abbott to have a constructive conversation.

"I appreciate the government has responded to the four cases I submitted, I just disagree that we are lecturing," Mr Mendez said.

"We are treating every government with a lot of respect.

"I think we in the United Nations also deserve respect and I wish the Prime Minister had taken my views on this more seriously and engaged with my rapporteurship more constructively.

"That is what I have always tried to do and I am still available for a constructive conversation."

Mr Mendez was appointed the UN special rapporteur on torture in 2010.

Prior to his appointment, he was a special advisor on crime prevention to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and co-chair of the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asylum-seeker-torture-report-united-nations-special-rapporteur-juan-mendez-responds-to-tony-abbott-criticism-20150310-13zrwz.html
 
Baloo said:
Is there any doubt that Abbott was a schoolyard bully back in the day?
Click to expand...

He certainly isn't too flash at... ummm... how can I put it...? Diplomacy. Yeah, that would be the word.
 
K3 said:
Mr Abbott triggered a widespread outcry after he dismissed the report on Monday and attacked the UN for not giving his government credit for stopping boat arrivals.

"I think the UN's representatives would have a lot more credibility if they were to give some credit to the Australian government for what we've been able to achieve in this area," the Prime Minister said.
Click to expand...

So Abbott wants the UN to give him praise for preventing genuine refugees from legally seeking asylum in Australia?
 
willo said:
I'm not sure what would happen in the long run. I feel a bit p!ssed off with a few bits and pieces though.
I thought the FHG was supposed to compensate for state taxes, stamp duty, levies and the like. But when the gst came in, I was under the belief that all those state taxes and duties were to be eliminated.
I know the gst carve up is not done on a proportional basis as some states have kept or eliminated different taxes and duties, but I believe it's still us, who bear the burden. It's somewhat fraudulent. But that's a another topic I guess.
Click to expand...
It's just more fuel on the unaffordability fire IMO and young people as a whole will be a lot worse off (unless their parents own a lot of property and decide to pass it on).

To correct my earlier point, apparently the rules re FHB grants now only applies to new builds, so you are right. What we really need though is for this to apply to negative gearing, SMS Funds etc. LNP/ALP philosophy is the opposite though, so I agree with the other comments; it won't happen any time soon.

I don't really mind the taxes etc. At least then the money goes to the government and not people who are already rich. What really p1sses me off is a system that is engineered to inflate house prices. A system set up to scare young people into taking on ridiculous amounts of debt just to make today's wealthy people more wealthy.
 
Chiang Mai Tiger said:
Australia offers to fund life in prison for Bali pair
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-31843887
Might sound heartless (don't particularly care) but I reckon it would be nice if Bishop and all her fellow parliamentary colleagues offer to fund this life-long expense instead of volunteering us to do it.
Click to expand...

This is worse than Hockey's hallucination on super. Watch out Jules. One more word from you or Tuff Man Tone and then will see 10,000 asylum seekers transferred to our land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
State Government >
Top Bottom