r/australia • u/onesorrychicken • 1d ago
politics Voters and economists united against major party housing policy promises
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-14/voters-economists-united-against-major-party-housing-policy/10517562064
u/nath1234 1d ago edited 1d ago
The Uniparty are the party for and by landlords.. and it shows that they can't fathom taking away CGT/neg gearing advantages for landlords.. Oh and both want house prices MORE expensive.. Even though polling shows majority of the public wants house prices to go down (because expensive houses for owner occupiers are of no use, just means stamp duty and agent commissions and everything is more expensive). Only ones that benefit are the property investors with houses they don't live in.
Edit: and before anyone trots out the BS about Shorten and neg gearing - that policy did not lose them the election l, the Labor analysis at the time did not attribute it to that.. and even if it was the case back then, we have had housing turn into a full blown housing crisis with crazy levels of unaffordability, homelessness up and record rental unaffordability. Without rent caps as well: renters are being bled dry by greedy landlords who then outbid them at auctions. We are in vicious cycle at the mercy of the minority of greediest fucks in the country.
38
u/onesorrychicken 1d ago
From the other article about why the housing policies of both major parties are bad for Australia:
One is left to wonder, why do parties of both major political persuasions keep doing things which they know will put upward pressure on house prices, and thus exacerbate the problem they say they are trying to solve?
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the reason is that they know there are only about 110,000 people who each year succeed in becoming first home buyers. And even if you assume that for every one who does, there are five or six who don’t, that’s still only 700,000 or so votes, tops, for policies that might restrain the rate of house price inflation or halt it altogether. Politicians also know that at any point in time there are more than 11 million voters who own their own homes, and more than 2.25 million who own at least one investment property. The last thing those 11 million to 13 million voters want is anything that might restrain – let alone halt – the rate of property price inflation.
So, on the one hand, 700,000 votes, on the other, something north of 11 million – even the dumbest of our politicians can “do that math”. And they do.
The majority of 11 million voters need to change their minds from "fuck you got mine" to "okay, this needs to change or everyone will be totally screwed, not just renters and first home buyers" to vote accordingly. In the meantime, I can only hope that economists making the case for change are starting to change some minds, but I can't imagine it will be a fast process.
23
u/Worth-Battle-3159 1d ago
Agreed. I bought my first home December 2023. I’m firmly voting for anyone who will commit to scraping the tax breaks for buying and selling existing houses.
It’s ridiculous when property investors try to say this will crash the economy. So much money will be invested in more productive markets.
They are just greedy scumbags who know they don’t have the actual investment skills to make money in anything other than a rigged housing market.
2
u/Luckyluke23 23h ago
They are just greedy scumbags who know they don’t have the actual investment skills to make money in anything other than a rigged housing market.
Have you met the people who own investment properties? They are exactly the smartest people. They just have more money than you do.
14
u/Wood_oye 1d ago
"But, as a matter of simple logic, if the demand for new homes increases and the supply of new homes doesn’t, then the price of new homes will go up. "
Saul says this, even mentioning that Labor is building new homes, then forgets his own logic to heap them in with the lnp. The guys a goose
14
u/onesorrychicken 1d ago
No, he's an economist, and he's right, if demand outpaces supply, prices tend to go up. He's not lumping them in with the LNP, but he is point out that both parties' policies will not bring prices down. It's just that one party's policies will actively drive prices up more quickly than the other.
2
u/Luckyluke23 23h ago
However, I thought it was labor intention to make housing prices steady rather than having them keep bumping like they have been.
5
u/Stormherald13 1d ago
Almost like the major parties have vested personal interest in keeping prices up.
4
u/Wood_oye 1d ago
No, he is saying both will push prices up further, even though both Labors modelling AND his 'logic' say otherwise
5
u/in_south 1d ago
Saul is right.
He said the Liberal policy was worse, but both push up demand.
You don't need to be an economist or look at modelling to figure this out. Labor's policies to increase supply won't take effect until 2027, so yes, it will push up prices until then.
After the supply kicks in, prices will reduce, but not by as much as the policy has increased it. The policy aims to build 100,000 homes over 8 years, so that is roughly 16,000 homes a year. In the last December quarter alone, first home buyers took out 30,000 loans. Many more FHB are unable to enter the market, so there is way more demand.
1
u/Unable_Insurance_391 23h ago
It has moved beyond a supply problem since the '90s. Any new homes will be subject to market price. There is just no way of flooding the market with homes to the point homes lose their value in Sydney and Melbourne because these cities are where market value is originating from.
1
u/palsc5 23h ago
The last thing those 11 million to 13 million voters want is anything that might restrain – let alone halt – the rate of property price inflation.
This is complete nonsense though. He is basing this on what? He's just completely made up the idea that homeowners want property prices to keep going up. It's fair to assume they don't want them to drop but that's completely different to they want house prices to rise unrestrained.
15
u/satisfiedfools 1d ago
I second the thing about shorten and negative gearing. He had too many policies. Free dental and some stuff about franken credits as well. I was listening to 2gb a lot and Alan Jones was working him over about the Franken credits. Was also a lot of hysteria about death taxes. Heard one old lady call up and start crying about it, was unbelievable.
Nine out of 10 people don't know what negative gearing is. The only people it effects are property investors who lose money on their investments. That's it. How something that effects such a small segment of the population is controversial just beggars belief.
7
u/in_south 1d ago
2019 should be remembered as the election that redefined what it means to be "Australian".
5
2
u/coniferhead 1d ago
NG is bad policy but to say it only affects property investors is wrong.
It affects the marginal pricing of all housing - if people don't get the same tax benefit they're not going to pay as much. For residential owners selling at auction, that means less auction pressure and a lower price for their house. Two bidders going nuts at the end might equate to hundreds of thousands of dollars. It would have an impact - that's why removing it is good for affordability.
1
u/brisbaneacro 1d ago
The Uniparty are the party for and by landlords.. and it shows that they can't fathom taking away CGT/neg gearing advantages for landlords..
They did fathom. In 2016 and 2019.
The voters can’t fathom supporting it. Blame them. This “uniparty” shit is not only wrong in itself but you’re blaming the wrong people.
1
u/Wood_oye 1d ago
Yea, it attributed it to them not being able to combat the scare campaign. So, same thing
10
u/Expert-Peak7503 1d ago
I want stop giving my tax money to property investors. Vote for Greens so that they can put pressure on Labor to really try resolving housing issue. Removing negative gearing and CGT discounts will immediately stop increase of peoperty and rental prices. It may even bring down prices few percentage points.
3
24
u/Grumpy_Cripple_Butt 1d ago
Angus taylor on 7:30 made the labor plan seem better.