Australia

3611 readers

133 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
Politics, post it to Australian Politics
World News/Events, post it to World News
A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

Fluid@aussie.zone

bestusername@aussie.zone

eatham@aussie.zone

Why Super for Housing is a Bad Idea - Purplepingers (youtu.be)

submitted 6 months ago by zero_gravitas@aussie.zone to c/australia@aussie.zone

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

NOTE: Video sponsored by the ACTU

Key points

It would make house prices increase by more than the maximum amount people could withdraw
It would cost the government $1 trillion in the long run
It would leave people with $200k less in retirement savings
It would significantly affect the returns on all superannuation as funds would need to keep more cash reserves uninvested so it is available for withdrawal

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au 35 points 6 months ago (2 children)

How about we ban owning multiple properties, remove any incentives for property as an investment, enforce quality building standards, and use government funds to build affordable housing.

[–] alansuspect@aussie.zone 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think politicians should be banned from owning multiple properties. It's a huge conflict of interest.

[–] kerr@aussie.zone 3 points 6 months ago

Absolutely. Great idea.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Having multiple is fine, just remove negative gearing and investment incentives along with actually enforced building standards

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

People will just go back to what they did before negative gearing: Make businesses and move their properties into that. "Oh, your business made a loss paying more interest than it brought in as rent, I guess you can write that off as a loss and not pay tax on your income".

The result is the same, but it's more work for the ATO.
My old boss still had his holiday home under the business, because it's how he did it before Negative Gearing was a thing.

[–] ephemeral_gibbon@aussie.zone 7 points 6 months ago

Make it so that interest on money borrowed against residential real estate can't be declared as a business loss then. That'll also make speculating housing investment funds a bad idea

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 3 points 6 months ago

If that were the case we wouldn't have aeen a sharp uptick in investment at the same time NG was introduced.

You're always gonna have people finding ways around things, the point is to make it hard enough your average schmoe bails on the attempt

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago

Same thing would probably happen with property limits then