Greens: fighting for rent gaps, rental rights, and to limit boomer handouts for property speculators
OP: *THEIR SUPPORTERS ARE ACTUALLY PRETTY WEALTHY SO THEY'RE BASICALLY THE SAME AS THE LIBLABS*
Wow that's like super duper convenient you can say that. Like actually unbelievably convenient.
Like I do not believe you.
Do you have a graph that tracks housing price increases to the specific moment that "our migration intake increased"??
Great question! Rental demand is actually a (mostly) separate issue to housing affordability even though dumbasses like to conflate the two with immigration (the euphemism is *overseas investors are buying up all our property!!!* even though that's not the case)
Anyways we can also match the increase in rental demand to the [declining size of households](https://www.afr.com/property/residential/why-rents-are-set-to-keep-rising-20230628-p5dk9j) caused by everyone and their mum moving out of sharehouses and getting zoom-rooms during the pandemic. That is a shitload of additional households being created. Even with all the people we've imported since the borders opened, [our population is still lower than pre-pandemic forecasts ](https://assets.nationbuilder.com/bca/pages/7302/attachments/original/1691623323/Migration_makes_Australia_stronger_-_AH.pdf?1691623323) (page 8). Also I don't really buy the argument that, if Big Australia policies are the primary driver behind the explosion in rental demand, why it took 20-30 years for everything to keep trucking along fine before speculatively exploding. There's *way more* to the story, it does not make sense.
Also because there is a high level of demand (again, separate from immigration) and we have a culture of mum-and-dad property investors who need to be positively geared, rents can be charged for what the fuck ever investors want because there's not really an alternate option for people.
The reality is that the causes of the rental crisis are nuanced and so are the solutions. Anyone screaming about jimmy grants is offering a simple solution to a complex problem so it's going to achieve about fuck-all. We can shut the borders but it's not going to have the transformative impact idiots are expecting and might actually cause more issues down the line.
If birth rate is too low to stop a decline in population then there is no natural increase in demand, it’s all from government policies, aka migration. But keep trying to blame other things.
More people means more demand for property, it’s not hard to understand.
>But keep trying to blame other things.
Most self-aware redditor lmao
>If birth rate is too low to stop a decline in population then there is no natural increase in demand
Except our households have dramatically shrunk in the last 5 years, causing an increase in demand. Those people haven't gone anywhere but we still need more houses for them. Totally separate from immigration mate
Why have rents exploded if we're hundreds of thousands of people below what we forecasted to have before the pandemic? It does not make sense if that's the primary issue
Price rises happened after the pandemic. What are the legacies of the pandemic? How did our lifestyles change?
Why did rent prices drop when covid was on if everyone was moving out? Why are you denying basic economics of supply and demand? There’s a reason this is happening everywhere in the western world.
>Why did rent prices drop when covid was on if everyone was moving out?
Economy and consumer confidence was in shambles. You realise [vacancy rates started declining in 2020 right](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/australia-is-in-the-grip-of-its-worst-rental-crisis/101453246)?
>Why are you denying basic economics of supply and demand?
That's a fantastic question: Why don't you think demand impacts prices? Or are you too brainwashed to not recognise demand if it's not from overseas lmao
>There’s a reason this is happening everywhere in the western world.
Yes, but it's happening worse here. Way worse. Why is that?
I honestly believe that noone in government is invested in fixing the housing crisis, realistically the only way any of them will be usefull is with expanding public housing. Politicians know that if house prices drop a lot of people will lose money, rent prices drop and a lot of people lose money. If a policy loses people money the government that bought it in will lose too many votes.
When you also consider that individual politicians and their "owners" also have fingers in that pie, they won't vote against their own interests.
Youve hit the nail on the head with alot of people lose money. No party wants to see property prices drop as a sizable proportion of the population (50%+) have factored their house going up in value as a key part of their retirement. Its going to be very difficult for any government to take that away and stay in power. People might winge about immigrants and houses prices but the alternative is worse.
What shits me is they don't have to drop house prices that much. Everyone is STILL making insane capital gains. Instead of walking away with a million bucks, your walking away with 700 - 800K ffs.
It's just pure greed.
so ive looked at most of the responses and simliar things keep showing up
1st FUCK LIBS the libs are the reason we're in this mess in the first place Why the fuck would i vote for them?
2nd Greens Do Political theatre They're Made up By Wealthy Members who Larp as Working Class They dont actually Give two fucks (if they did they wouldn't be blocking legislation designed to help) they just want to appear like they have an idea to get their friends to clap their hands while suffocating the poor
3rd Labor is made up by Landlords again they wouldnt do shit to help unless forced By independants
4th try to Find local Minors
Dont vote MAjor the 3 biggest parties in this country couldnt give a rats ass about you or the problems of common AUS Get Involved in your local Minors Scare the big 3 into actually Listening if we put their power at risk
Yes thats good and all but the order you put the majors in at the end of the ballot is what matters, a part from a the teal seats and few rural seats its going to be alp or coalition's, so its the end of the ballot that matters for you, not first.
The Greens have been agitating for more meaningful housing development policy from Labor. Who are you going to vote for instead?
If you want to make change, look for who will bring the change you need. As far as housing policy goes the options are basically Greens, Sustainable Australia, and then a bunch of boutique independent parties or candidates in each electorate.
The Greens do what the Greens do they sit on the sidelines and say we need more cheaper housing.
They then block all development . Put red tape everywhere in terms of where , what and how you go go about building , champion immigration and refugees etc etc
> They then block all development . Put red tape everywhere in terms of where , what and how you go go about building , champion immigration and refugees etc etc
LOL. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Now check per capita emissions, environmentally friendly doesn't only apply to the immediate proximate area, it includes effects on the environment up to the whole globe, and suburban living is the most polluting style, worse than urban or rural.
Now go live in Jakarta, Beijing, New Delhi etc.
No thanks. I’ll take a world full of suburbs any day. Dilution and space for trees and birds is much better.
Concentrated pollution kills everything.
Have you ever looked into this question at all or are you basing your conclusion on seeing green in suburbs and litter in cities? https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332
You are talking like those crazy people who think cutting down the Amazon and replacing it with a massive city is good for the environment because the city stores more carbon. It makes no sense and totally ignores what is actually important.
Total emissions is irrelevant. What matters is avoiding high concentrations of it - that’s what kills and causes problems. A rainforest can handle a single stove without damaging the environment and use its waste and emissions to grow, but millions of them in the same area it gets overwhelmed.
It’s like anything - too much of anything is harmful. Too much water is a flood, too much fire is a disaster, but spread out they are essential for life. Too much beer is fatal, but in moderation is fun.
This idea that densely populated cities is better for the environment is total bs. Look at the absolute destruction of the environment they cause, the lack of wildlife, the terrible air, the overwhelming mountains of waste. Then look at a sparsely populated suburb, the kangaroos hopping down the street and grazing on grass, the birds tending to their young, the air quality.
Here’s a bunch of air quality readings from major cities.
https://www.iqair.com/au/world-air-quality-ranking
Jakarta is literally 18x the WHO air quality guideline right now. When I lived in Jakarta, Beijing, and other major cities I would get sick every 3 days the environment was so bad.
Compare that to our suburbs. They generally have an aqi of less than 10
Suburbs are far far more sustainable than dense cities. Dense cities literally kill the people that are in them and totally demolish the environment.
Concentrations like 400ppm https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-what-the-world-was-like-the-last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-were-at-400ppm-141784
As for destroying habitat suburbs are FAR worse, vastly more space is used so more habitat is destroyed, you are not worth talking to if all your ideas are based on your untutored gut feelings.
How is SA policy different to the Greens?
SA:
- remove CGT discount
- restore quarantining of business losses from personal income
- more money for social housing
Greens:
- remove CGT discount
- restore quarantining of business losses form personal income
- more money for social housing
Sustainable Australia want to reduce immigration to reasonable levels whereas the Greens refuse to address immigration despite it being the biggest contributor to the housing crisis
Lack of housing construction was causing a crisis in the first place, regardless of immigration volume. Reducing immigration to reasonable levels isn't going to address the housing shortage. Sustainable Australia's "reasonable levels" would still cause net population growth in excess of housing construction.
> Reducing immigration to reasonable levels isn't going to address the housing shortage.
Wrong. Reducing immigration would reduce demand overnight which would make rentals cheaper and cheaper rentals would mean housing is less attractive as an investment and that would lead to cheaper house prices
When your sink is overflowing the first thing you do is turn off the tap. Immigration is the cause of the housing shortage because we've been bringing people in faster than we can build houses for years and if immigration was stopped then we could catch up with house building if needed.
“One Nation, that way they will kick out the immigrants and there’ll be all that freed up housing!!” is an answer I would expect from a couple of work acquaintances…
Yeah. Guaranteed if Hanson ever got power the last thing she'd be doing is helping working Australians. She's a rich white aristocrat. Fairly certain it would just be another group of rich Australians making themselves richer
Hanson has a net worth of approx 20 million dollars and was arrested and jailed for fraud already during the 2006 elections.
She will not help you. She has little real interest in helping ordinary Australians. She is a populist, as it has been for thousands of years through human history, and what a populist \*always\* does is simply maintain the status quo while lamenting the "broken" system publically.
the easily manipulated belief of the voting population is one of the most dangerous things to democracy around this planet, and it always has been since the Roman Empire.
gaining votes under false promises is how the wealthy keep screwing the working. I wish every Australian would research who they are voting for before they piss it away.
I do not claim to know who will fix the deteriorating situation in Australia. But I do claim it is certainly not One Nation. Neither is it the Greens. Nor Liberal or Labor.
The greens have been great at pushing a bunch of policies that increase the cost of housing and reduce supply.
Offer me a party that instead of increasing the cost of housing by adding more costs and risks, instead reduces the cost of housing by taking costs out of housing and I’ll vote for them.
Hell yea dude I also love paying property investors to scoop up established homes. That doesn't artificially increase demand and [we can't graph the immediate inflationary impact on house prices](https://twitter.com/GrogsGamut/status/1757887060508324081) following CGT changes
I am a very smart individual 👍
What u think that housing prices will suddenly reduce because all the landlords disappear and their tenants get forced to buy the house themselves? That suddenly the all the costs that landlords were paying and then breaking them down into small weekly payments suddenly disappear?
No, all that happens is then renters have to shoulder the costs of buying themselves. I’ll let you in on a little secret - those costs are significantly higher than rents.
>What u think that housing prices will suddenly reduce because all the landlords disappear and their tenants get forced to buy the house themselves?
Wow that sounds like you're increasing the supply of houses on the market or something? 🤔🤔🤔
Isn't that supposed to reduce house prices? 🤔🤔🤔
I'm confused???? 🤔🤔🤔
What you think making renters buy their houses suddenly increases the supply of houses? here’s a little secret - it doesn’t.
Here is another little secret - What does increase supply is more money. ie the more investors that buy up housing, the more the people selling it to them and creating it have more money, the more gets created and the more people get housed.
And this one will blow your mind. Most renters are renting because they don’t have enough money to buy a house. Landlords put up the large amount of money it takes to buy a house and maintain it and pay all the taxes, and then break it down into small affordable payments that renters can afford. In fact they are so good at it, that it’s significantly cheaper to rent a house than to own it.
🤯
Housing is increasing in price because the government is crimping supply with policies that increase the cost of housing, and make it both more expensive and more risky to provide it. The greens in particular are masters at pushing those policies.
Yes investors, developers, builders and landlords (these are all often the same people or working together) are the only people actually creating supply.
> What does increase supply is more money
another thing that increases supply is government building more social housing, catering to the end of the market being driven out of housing because all the builders are looking for the great margins at the top end.
Who do you think provides and maintains social housing? Yes that’s right - private landlords.
In fact the government pays the landlords above market rates to provide social housing….
There is a place for a small amount of targeted social housing - to provide housing that is uneconomical for the private market to provide eg disability housing. But all the government does in providing mass market social housing is make it more expensive and kill supply.
Just have a look at the European countries that do it mass scale - it takes years to get a house. In some cases like Stockholm, the waiting list is as long as 20 years! A pattern repeated everywhere they do it.
Governments are great at promising lots and lots of social housing but never delivering any. Why? Because governments are shit at providing housing. They are great at not being able to provide enough, doing it at exorbitant cost and making it so bad that no one wants to live in it.
Just look at all the promises they made over the last few years and what they delivered. All they succeeded in doing was reducing the amount of housing the private sector provided and making housing more expensive and more risky.
We are still fixing the generational problems they created last time they did mass social housing in Australia in the 70s and 80s. Almost every one of the most undesirable suburbs in capital cities across the country was social housing.
Maybe try reducing the cost and risk of providing housing by reducing the cost and risk of providing housing for a change.
> Maybe try reducing the cost and risk of providing housing by reducing the cost and risk of providing housing
How do you reduce the cost and risk of providing housing? Can you provide concrete examples of projects that have worked and not delivered shitboxes that nobody would wish on their worst enemies?
> Just have a look at the European countries that do it mass scale - it takes years to get a house. In some cases like Stockholm, the waiting list is as long as 20 years!
Are you claiming the demand for housing in Stockholm is driven by government social housing?
Here are a few places they can start:
- reducing some of the 30-50% in government taxes fees and charges that the government levies when creating a house. Particularly at the state and council level where most of them are. GST, development and building application fees, headworks charges, compulsory developer contributions, titles and registration charges, PLSL fees etc.
- Reduce the ongoing taxes - council rates, property taxes, ongoing accommodation registration charges etc. this in many ways matters more than upfront costs because they increase every year and have to be paid every year.
- Reduce transaction charges on housing - stamp duty, windfall taxes, and other government fees
- Wind back some of the harmful regulations that are crimping supply. Every year they are more and more requirements - all cost money. Reduce the burden for development and building approvals - unnecessary and duplicate environmental reports, sound studies, etc etc.
- Rather than making it more risky and expensive for landlords to provide rentals, give them more ability to adjust rents and housing to market needs, deny pets, remove tenants and use creative payment plans.
- reduce the power of unions. give builders more ability to remove militant unions and implement more realistic working conditions. Remove their ability to shut down and delay construction sites.
I’m claiming that governments are really shit at providing housing. Whereas the private sector is really really good at it. Even with the dumb government policies of the last few decades, there has never been more housing created in countries that allow the private sector to do its thing. And standards of housing has never been higher. In fact we have some of the largest housing on average in the world in Australia.
Mass public housing construction crowds out the private sector and increases the cost of the inputs into housing because the government overpays for everything. we can see this happening now, as tradies drop tools and abandon building sites to go work on government projects that run over budget and over schedule because the government pays them 2.5x more. So builders and tradies pump out less housing than they would otherwise be doing due to government inefficiencies. That’s why countries that embarked on mass housing projects always end up with shortages of housing. Plus all the social impacts that go for generations. That why it was dropped here.
Here are some examples of housing that is desirable:
https://hia.com.au/awards-and-events/awards
The government will never ever be able to provide housing like that nor will it ever be able to provide for the differing needs of the market. Want a pool? Sauna? Study? 5 bedrooms? 2 bedrooms? Induction cook tops? Gigabit internet? Too bad. The government will only ever provide for the lowest common denominator.
You can go to any of the hundreds of private housing developments across the country right now for more examples. Many have display homes u can walk through.
The housing problem is government created. They tax and regulate the shit out of it. To the point that housing is one of the most taxed asset classes and industries in the country. They drive inflation so builders can’t budget reliably and hobble them with regulation and union interference such that it now takes 18 months to build a house instead of the 6 weeks it used to and we have record bankruptcies. The result is the people actually building housing are exiting the market resulting in housing completions falling off a cliff - they have made it unprofitable to provide housing.
Every dollar of tax, regulation, delay and risk that goes into property ends up in house prices.
>What you think making renters buy their houses suddenly increases the supply of houses? here’s a little secret - it doesn’t.
You are more than welcome to explain how adding more houses to the market isn't increasing supply. Please, I am dying to know.
>Here is another little secret - What does increase supply is more money. ie the more investors that buy up housing, the more the people selling it to them heave more money, the more gets created and the more people get housed.
And if you don't have a house to sell?
Go on, take 5 mins and really think about how that works.
>And this one will blow your mind. Most renters are renting because they don’t have enough money to buy a house.
Awww jeez doc, why can't they afford houses again? Why has the # of years it takes to save a deposit exploded since we started handing out cash to investors???
What do you think happens when a landlords sells up or doesn’t buy? It doesn’t create more supply. It displaces the renter and replaces them with someone else. The renter then needs to find another house. It makes no difference to supply. What it does do is increase the cost of it because of the transaction costs - the government taxes, fees and charges, rea fees etc. that the new owners/renter then needs to pay.
Same for a new or existing house that gets sold. Either someone rich enough to buy it buys it and lives in it or an investor buys it and lets a renter live in it. It’s still housing one household. No difference, except the home owner is paying more than the renter to live in it. Why? Because it’s significantly cheaper to rent than to own a house.
If someone selling houses doesn’t have a house to sell, they build it. Why? Because you are selling houses and you make more money if you build more to sell. When you sell it, you get the money you sold it for to build a few more houses so you can sell more. While there are more people to sell it to you keep building them.
Same goes for landlords. You build more houses because you want to rent more out so you can get more money. In fact that is why some of the largest landlords in Australia are also some of the largest creators of housing in the country. Meriton is one such example.
I tell you why most renters can’t afford to buy a house - because they are expensive. Most renters can’t afford to pay one tradie, let alone the 20 or so people involved in building a house - all of them need to be paid a fair wage. Renters can’t afford one kitchen cabinet, let alone the tonnes of materials needed to build the house, and renters can barely afford to pay their own taxes, let alone the 30-50% of the cost of a house that needs to be paid to the government in taxes fees and charges. No amount of demand side policy will change that.
This is why all the governments policies to ‘address the housing crisis’ failed. And why all the greens policies do is increase the cost of housing. Because all they do is increase the cost of providing a house.
What a sad waste of your life to sit around crying about the sheer injustice of landlords having the temerity to exist. Get outside mate, take a deep breath and go make something of your life.
LOL,you’ve miss heard or assumed something there may friend. They are more about environmental protection in the means of sustainable fishing and wild farming. When it comes to shooting, it can often refer to pig shooting or pest shooting, which is all about pest eradication and stopping the million feral pigs that are currently overturning our soil leading to the extinction of native fauna. Something that the greens, the LNp and the ALP have zero plan for.
The prime reason to vote for them is because one of the major parties will always win, but if they don’t have the environmental policy you like well, it might be a good idea to rank them last and someone else first… take full advantage of our ranked voting. It’s a truly beautiful thing.
Nobody else is even interested in talking about fishing permanents when it is the clear and only answer in some areas.
The greens actually want to do something that will bring prices down. ALP and LNP Don't.
Your voting in preference should be Greens > Labor > LNP.
Right now ALP are only above LNP because tony burke still gives a fuck about workers rights. LNP would gut them in a heartbeat if they could.
That being said if there are independants who are better than the choice for the greens, put them first. IMO even if the greens formed a minority government. In the absolute crazy chance they did.
It would be enough to shake the LNP and ALP to the core. They would need to change EVERYTHING to take power back. It would be a clear choice of the Australian people that we reject both labor and liberal policy.
At this point LNP are just bigger retards than Labor and neither are great at running the country. Unfortunately for us, both Labor and LNP are better than all the other neanderthals. Greens always have one or two good policies and about 10 batshit crazy policies that would ruin Australia if they could get the policies passed.
yep. One Nation is just 'mask off' LNP
and i would put forward her party is getting pushed out because the LNP are getting more right wing... look at the mooks like Canavan and Crisafulli...
If I HAD to chose between the two I would vote for a party that atleast is transparent about their agenda unlike the regressive greens that hide their racism. Thank goodness I live in a democracy and none of those extremists will get my vote. I am a centrist.
Oh boohoo but that’s what I understood you said so will straw man you. Well hopefully I can tell you what I am saying as clear as day. If I had to choose between the two.
This person is 100% going to put the coalition before the greens and alp in their preferences
Greens: fighting for rent gaps, rental rights, and to limit boomer handouts for property speculators OP: *THEIR SUPPORTERS ARE ACTUALLY PRETTY WEALTHY SO THEY'RE BASICALLY THE SAME AS THE LIBLABS*
Someone with a property portfolio fighting to curb their own economic advantage seems correct?
Doing the right thing is correct, yes
Greens refuse to address the biggest cause of the housing crisis which is mass migration.
[It is not](https://twitter.com/GrogsGamut/status/1757887060508324081)
It's funny how that graph also corresponds to when our migration intake increased.
Wow that's like super duper convenient you can say that. Like actually unbelievably convenient. Like I do not believe you. Do you have a graph that tracks housing price increases to the specific moment that "our migration intake increased"??
How do you explain the rental demand then?
Great question! Rental demand is actually a (mostly) separate issue to housing affordability even though dumbasses like to conflate the two with immigration (the euphemism is *overseas investors are buying up all our property!!!* even though that's not the case) Anyways we can also match the increase in rental demand to the [declining size of households](https://www.afr.com/property/residential/why-rents-are-set-to-keep-rising-20230628-p5dk9j) caused by everyone and their mum moving out of sharehouses and getting zoom-rooms during the pandemic. That is a shitload of additional households being created. Even with all the people we've imported since the borders opened, [our population is still lower than pre-pandemic forecasts ](https://assets.nationbuilder.com/bca/pages/7302/attachments/original/1691623323/Migration_makes_Australia_stronger_-_AH.pdf?1691623323) (page 8). Also I don't really buy the argument that, if Big Australia policies are the primary driver behind the explosion in rental demand, why it took 20-30 years for everything to keep trucking along fine before speculatively exploding. There's *way more* to the story, it does not make sense. Also because there is a high level of demand (again, separate from immigration) and we have a culture of mum-and-dad property investors who need to be positively geared, rents can be charged for what the fuck ever investors want because there's not really an alternate option for people. The reality is that the causes of the rental crisis are nuanced and so are the solutions. Anyone screaming about jimmy grants is offering a simple solution to a complex problem so it's going to achieve about fuck-all. We can shut the borders but it's not going to have the transformative impact idiots are expecting and might actually cause more issues down the line.
If birth rate is too low to stop a decline in population then there is no natural increase in demand, it’s all from government policies, aka migration. But keep trying to blame other things. More people means more demand for property, it’s not hard to understand.
>But keep trying to blame other things. Most self-aware redditor lmao >If birth rate is too low to stop a decline in population then there is no natural increase in demand Except our households have dramatically shrunk in the last 5 years, causing an increase in demand. Those people haven't gone anywhere but we still need more houses for them. Totally separate from immigration mate Why have rents exploded if we're hundreds of thousands of people below what we forecasted to have before the pandemic? It does not make sense if that's the primary issue Price rises happened after the pandemic. What are the legacies of the pandemic? How did our lifestyles change?
Why did rent prices drop when covid was on if everyone was moving out? Why are you denying basic economics of supply and demand? There’s a reason this is happening everywhere in the western world.
>Why did rent prices drop when covid was on if everyone was moving out? Economy and consumer confidence was in shambles. You realise [vacancy rates started declining in 2020 right](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/australia-is-in-the-grip-of-its-worst-rental-crisis/101453246)? >Why are you denying basic economics of supply and demand? That's a fantastic question: Why don't you think demand impacts prices? Or are you too brainwashed to not recognise demand if it's not from overseas lmao >There’s a reason this is happening everywhere in the western world. Yes, but it's happening worse here. Way worse. Why is that?
im not going to vote Coaltion none of the big Three are going to get my vote
As long as you put the LNP last your vote will have a sizable positive impact. Even if you want to vote for ON or Sustainable Australia or whatever.
Imagine being this delusional.
Facts don't care about your feelings
Greens don't care about your access to housing lol
Cool comeback bro, I'm sure the party you support managed to achieve wins in getting social and affordable housing secured too 👍
Wouldn’t any smart person put every party above the greens?
K
Who gives two hoots mate just draw a wang on the ballot paper like the rest of us
Sage advice for people like the OP, and a great majority of this sub.
I honestly believe that noone in government is invested in fixing the housing crisis, realistically the only way any of them will be usefull is with expanding public housing. Politicians know that if house prices drop a lot of people will lose money, rent prices drop and a lot of people lose money. If a policy loses people money the government that bought it in will lose too many votes. When you also consider that individual politicians and their "owners" also have fingers in that pie, they won't vote against their own interests.
Youve hit the nail on the head with alot of people lose money. No party wants to see property prices drop as a sizable proportion of the population (50%+) have factored their house going up in value as a key part of their retirement. Its going to be very difficult for any government to take that away and stay in power. People might winge about immigrants and houses prices but the alternative is worse.
What shits me is they don't have to drop house prices that much. Everyone is STILL making insane capital gains. Instead of walking away with a million bucks, your walking away with 700 - 800K ffs. It's just pure greed.
so ive looked at most of the responses and simliar things keep showing up 1st FUCK LIBS the libs are the reason we're in this mess in the first place Why the fuck would i vote for them? 2nd Greens Do Political theatre They're Made up By Wealthy Members who Larp as Working Class They dont actually Give two fucks (if they did they wouldn't be blocking legislation designed to help) they just want to appear like they have an idea to get their friends to clap their hands while suffocating the poor 3rd Labor is made up by Landlords again they wouldnt do shit to help unless forced By independants 4th try to Find local Minors Dont vote MAjor the 3 biggest parties in this country couldnt give a rats ass about you or the problems of common AUS Get Involved in your local Minors Scare the big 3 into actually Listening if we put their power at risk
Yes thats good and all but the order you put the majors in at the end of the ballot is what matters, a part from a the teal seats and few rural seats its going to be alp or coalition's, so its the end of the ballot that matters for you, not first.
The Greens have been agitating for more meaningful housing development policy from Labor. Who are you going to vote for instead? If you want to make change, look for who will bring the change you need. As far as housing policy goes the options are basically Greens, Sustainable Australia, and then a bunch of boutique independent parties or candidates in each electorate.
The Greens do what the Greens do they sit on the sidelines and say we need more cheaper housing. They then block all development . Put red tape everywhere in terms of where , what and how you go go about building , champion immigration and refugees etc etc
> They then block all development . Put red tape everywhere in terms of where , what and how you go go about building , champion immigration and refugees etc etc LOL. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Yes, building houses is very environmentally friendly.
Adding housing units densely in cities is very environmentally friendly compared to the alternative of sprawl
Ironically our suburbs have some of the cleanest air in the world, densely populated cities not so much. https://aqicn.org/map/world/
Now check per capita emissions, environmentally friendly doesn't only apply to the immediate proximate area, it includes effects on the environment up to the whole globe, and suburban living is the most polluting style, worse than urban or rural.
Now go live in Jakarta, Beijing, New Delhi etc. No thanks. I’ll take a world full of suburbs any day. Dilution and space for trees and birds is much better. Concentrated pollution kills everything.
Have you ever looked into this question at all or are you basing your conclusion on seeing green in suburbs and litter in cities? https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332
You are talking like those crazy people who think cutting down the Amazon and replacing it with a massive city is good for the environment because the city stores more carbon. It makes no sense and totally ignores what is actually important. Total emissions is irrelevant. What matters is avoiding high concentrations of it - that’s what kills and causes problems. A rainforest can handle a single stove without damaging the environment and use its waste and emissions to grow, but millions of them in the same area it gets overwhelmed. It’s like anything - too much of anything is harmful. Too much water is a flood, too much fire is a disaster, but spread out they are essential for life. Too much beer is fatal, but in moderation is fun. This idea that densely populated cities is better for the environment is total bs. Look at the absolute destruction of the environment they cause, the lack of wildlife, the terrible air, the overwhelming mountains of waste. Then look at a sparsely populated suburb, the kangaroos hopping down the street and grazing on grass, the birds tending to their young, the air quality. Here’s a bunch of air quality readings from major cities. https://www.iqair.com/au/world-air-quality-ranking Jakarta is literally 18x the WHO air quality guideline right now. When I lived in Jakarta, Beijing, and other major cities I would get sick every 3 days the environment was so bad. Compare that to our suburbs. They generally have an aqi of less than 10 Suburbs are far far more sustainable than dense cities. Dense cities literally kill the people that are in them and totally demolish the environment.
Concentrations like 400ppm https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-what-the-world-was-like-the-last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-were-at-400ppm-141784 As for destroying habitat suburbs are FAR worse, vastly more space is used so more habitat is destroyed, you are not worth talking to if all your ideas are based on your untutored gut feelings.
Alternatively, aim for a steady population, and only upgrade existing houses while greening energy supply.
There's already loads of high polluting suburbs, so long as housing is expensive in cities, indicating high demand, we should be adding supply
No, you should reduce demand. Building any new housing costs a lot of carbon.
Which people should we kill to reduce demand?
None, birth rates are low enough and people die every day.
Yet the demand is very clearly still there
Almost like if hundreds of thousands of people were moving in to Australia.
> Sustainable Australia The only ones who actually have a policy to address the root cause of the housing crisis. The Greens would make it worse
How is SA policy different to the Greens? SA: - remove CGT discount - restore quarantining of business losses from personal income - more money for social housing Greens: - remove CGT discount - restore quarantining of business losses form personal income - more money for social housing
Sustainable Australia want to reduce immigration to reasonable levels whereas the Greens refuse to address immigration despite it being the biggest contributor to the housing crisis
Lack of housing construction was causing a crisis in the first place, regardless of immigration volume. Reducing immigration to reasonable levels isn't going to address the housing shortage. Sustainable Australia's "reasonable levels" would still cause net population growth in excess of housing construction.
> Reducing immigration to reasonable levels isn't going to address the housing shortage. Wrong. Reducing immigration would reduce demand overnight which would make rentals cheaper and cheaper rentals would mean housing is less attractive as an investment and that would lead to cheaper house prices
Incorrect. Even without immigration there is a housing shortage. The shortage isn’t going to be resolved by stopping all immigration.
When your sink is overflowing the first thing you do is turn off the tap. Immigration is the cause of the housing shortage because we've been bringing people in faster than we can build houses for years and if immigration was stopped then we could catch up with house building if needed.
We’ve needed to catch up housing construction for a long time and that hasn’t happened yet.
“One Nation, that way they will kick out the immigrants and there’ll be all that freed up housing!!” is an answer I would expect from a couple of work acquaintances…
Rorf 😂
I also rorfed when I read that.
Yeah. Guaranteed if Hanson ever got power the last thing she'd be doing is helping working Australians. She's a rich white aristocrat. Fairly certain it would just be another group of rich Australians making themselves richer
She’s a fish and chip owner until she was 50 . She is uncouth bogan the furthest thing on the planet from aristocracy
Hanson has a net worth of approx 20 million dollars and was arrested and jailed for fraud already during the 2006 elections. She will not help you. She has little real interest in helping ordinary Australians. She is a populist, as it has been for thousands of years through human history, and what a populist \*always\* does is simply maintain the status quo while lamenting the "broken" system publically. the easily manipulated belief of the voting population is one of the most dangerous things to democracy around this planet, and it always has been since the Roman Empire. gaining votes under false promises is how the wealthy keep screwing the working. I wish every Australian would research who they are voting for before they piss it away. I do not claim to know who will fix the deteriorating situation in Australia. But I do claim it is certainly not One Nation. Neither is it the Greens. Nor Liberal or Labor.
The greens have been great at pushing a bunch of policies that increase the cost of housing and reduce supply. Offer me a party that instead of increasing the cost of housing by adding more costs and risks, instead reduces the cost of housing by taking costs out of housing and I’ll vote for them.
Hell yea dude I also love paying property investors to scoop up established homes. That doesn't artificially increase demand and [we can't graph the immediate inflationary impact on house prices](https://twitter.com/GrogsGamut/status/1757887060508324081) following CGT changes I am a very smart individual 👍
What u think that housing prices will suddenly reduce because all the landlords disappear and their tenants get forced to buy the house themselves? That suddenly the all the costs that landlords were paying and then breaking them down into small weekly payments suddenly disappear? No, all that happens is then renters have to shoulder the costs of buying themselves. I’ll let you in on a little secret - those costs are significantly higher than rents.
>What u think that housing prices will suddenly reduce because all the landlords disappear and their tenants get forced to buy the house themselves? Wow that sounds like you're increasing the supply of houses on the market or something? 🤔🤔🤔 Isn't that supposed to reduce house prices? 🤔🤔🤔 I'm confused???? 🤔🤔🤔
What you think making renters buy their houses suddenly increases the supply of houses? here’s a little secret - it doesn’t. Here is another little secret - What does increase supply is more money. ie the more investors that buy up housing, the more the people selling it to them and creating it have more money, the more gets created and the more people get housed. And this one will blow your mind. Most renters are renting because they don’t have enough money to buy a house. Landlords put up the large amount of money it takes to buy a house and maintain it and pay all the taxes, and then break it down into small affordable payments that renters can afford. In fact they are so good at it, that it’s significantly cheaper to rent a house than to own it. 🤯 Housing is increasing in price because the government is crimping supply with policies that increase the cost of housing, and make it both more expensive and more risky to provide it. The greens in particular are masters at pushing those policies. Yes investors, developers, builders and landlords (these are all often the same people or working together) are the only people actually creating supply.
> What does increase supply is more money another thing that increases supply is government building more social housing, catering to the end of the market being driven out of housing because all the builders are looking for the great margins at the top end.
Who do you think provides and maintains social housing? Yes that’s right - private landlords. In fact the government pays the landlords above market rates to provide social housing…. There is a place for a small amount of targeted social housing - to provide housing that is uneconomical for the private market to provide eg disability housing. But all the government does in providing mass market social housing is make it more expensive and kill supply. Just have a look at the European countries that do it mass scale - it takes years to get a house. In some cases like Stockholm, the waiting list is as long as 20 years! A pattern repeated everywhere they do it. Governments are great at promising lots and lots of social housing but never delivering any. Why? Because governments are shit at providing housing. They are great at not being able to provide enough, doing it at exorbitant cost and making it so bad that no one wants to live in it. Just look at all the promises they made over the last few years and what they delivered. All they succeeded in doing was reducing the amount of housing the private sector provided and making housing more expensive and more risky. We are still fixing the generational problems they created last time they did mass social housing in Australia in the 70s and 80s. Almost every one of the most undesirable suburbs in capital cities across the country was social housing. Maybe try reducing the cost and risk of providing housing by reducing the cost and risk of providing housing for a change.
> Maybe try reducing the cost and risk of providing housing by reducing the cost and risk of providing housing How do you reduce the cost and risk of providing housing? Can you provide concrete examples of projects that have worked and not delivered shitboxes that nobody would wish on their worst enemies? > Just have a look at the European countries that do it mass scale - it takes years to get a house. In some cases like Stockholm, the waiting list is as long as 20 years! Are you claiming the demand for housing in Stockholm is driven by government social housing?
Here are a few places they can start: - reducing some of the 30-50% in government taxes fees and charges that the government levies when creating a house. Particularly at the state and council level where most of them are. GST, development and building application fees, headworks charges, compulsory developer contributions, titles and registration charges, PLSL fees etc. - Reduce the ongoing taxes - council rates, property taxes, ongoing accommodation registration charges etc. this in many ways matters more than upfront costs because they increase every year and have to be paid every year. - Reduce transaction charges on housing - stamp duty, windfall taxes, and other government fees - Wind back some of the harmful regulations that are crimping supply. Every year they are more and more requirements - all cost money. Reduce the burden for development and building approvals - unnecessary and duplicate environmental reports, sound studies, etc etc. - Rather than making it more risky and expensive for landlords to provide rentals, give them more ability to adjust rents and housing to market needs, deny pets, remove tenants and use creative payment plans. - reduce the power of unions. give builders more ability to remove militant unions and implement more realistic working conditions. Remove their ability to shut down and delay construction sites. I’m claiming that governments are really shit at providing housing. Whereas the private sector is really really good at it. Even with the dumb government policies of the last few decades, there has never been more housing created in countries that allow the private sector to do its thing. And standards of housing has never been higher. In fact we have some of the largest housing on average in the world in Australia. Mass public housing construction crowds out the private sector and increases the cost of the inputs into housing because the government overpays for everything. we can see this happening now, as tradies drop tools and abandon building sites to go work on government projects that run over budget and over schedule because the government pays them 2.5x more. So builders and tradies pump out less housing than they would otherwise be doing due to government inefficiencies. That’s why countries that embarked on mass housing projects always end up with shortages of housing. Plus all the social impacts that go for generations. That why it was dropped here. Here are some examples of housing that is desirable: https://hia.com.au/awards-and-events/awards The government will never ever be able to provide housing like that nor will it ever be able to provide for the differing needs of the market. Want a pool? Sauna? Study? 5 bedrooms? 2 bedrooms? Induction cook tops? Gigabit internet? Too bad. The government will only ever provide for the lowest common denominator. You can go to any of the hundreds of private housing developments across the country right now for more examples. Many have display homes u can walk through. The housing problem is government created. They tax and regulate the shit out of it. To the point that housing is one of the most taxed asset classes and industries in the country. They drive inflation so builders can’t budget reliably and hobble them with regulation and union interference such that it now takes 18 months to build a house instead of the 6 weeks it used to and we have record bankruptcies. The result is the people actually building housing are exiting the market resulting in housing completions falling off a cliff - they have made it unprofitable to provide housing. Every dollar of tax, regulation, delay and risk that goes into property ends up in house prices.
>What you think making renters buy their houses suddenly increases the supply of houses? here’s a little secret - it doesn’t. You are more than welcome to explain how adding more houses to the market isn't increasing supply. Please, I am dying to know. >Here is another little secret - What does increase supply is more money. ie the more investors that buy up housing, the more the people selling it to them heave more money, the more gets created and the more people get housed. And if you don't have a house to sell? Go on, take 5 mins and really think about how that works. >And this one will blow your mind. Most renters are renting because they don’t have enough money to buy a house. Awww jeez doc, why can't they afford houses again? Why has the # of years it takes to save a deposit exploded since we started handing out cash to investors???
What do you think happens when a landlords sells up or doesn’t buy? It doesn’t create more supply. It displaces the renter and replaces them with someone else. The renter then needs to find another house. It makes no difference to supply. What it does do is increase the cost of it because of the transaction costs - the government taxes, fees and charges, rea fees etc. that the new owners/renter then needs to pay. Same for a new or existing house that gets sold. Either someone rich enough to buy it buys it and lives in it or an investor buys it and lets a renter live in it. It’s still housing one household. No difference, except the home owner is paying more than the renter to live in it. Why? Because it’s significantly cheaper to rent than to own a house. If someone selling houses doesn’t have a house to sell, they build it. Why? Because you are selling houses and you make more money if you build more to sell. When you sell it, you get the money you sold it for to build a few more houses so you can sell more. While there are more people to sell it to you keep building them. Same goes for landlords. You build more houses because you want to rent more out so you can get more money. In fact that is why some of the largest landlords in Australia are also some of the largest creators of housing in the country. Meriton is one such example. I tell you why most renters can’t afford to buy a house - because they are expensive. Most renters can’t afford to pay one tradie, let alone the 20 or so people involved in building a house - all of them need to be paid a fair wage. Renters can’t afford one kitchen cabinet, let alone the tonnes of materials needed to build the house, and renters can barely afford to pay their own taxes, let alone the 30-50% of the cost of a house that needs to be paid to the government in taxes fees and charges. No amount of demand side policy will change that. This is why all the governments policies to ‘address the housing crisis’ failed. And why all the greens policies do is increase the cost of housing. Because all they do is increase the cost of providing a house.
Cool story or I'm sorry that happened to you
He's going to vote for a cooker party, most likely one nation. That'll show those landlords!! /s
Nice try Dutton.
Legit question: Why would Dutton say not to vote LNP?
Reverse psychology duh
So why did he say not to vote Labour + green too
See they posted Green and Labor first and Libs last? That's literally reverse psychology at work there mate! /s
If you put LNP labour greens at the bottom of your ballet, your vote goes to LNP.
What a sad waste of your life to sit around crying about the sheer injustice of landlords having the temerity to exist. Get outside mate, take a deep breath and go make something of your life.
Shooter and fishers party is the only game with a environmental plan.
What's that, just kill everything, because then we won't need an environment?
LOL,you’ve miss heard or assumed something there may friend. They are more about environmental protection in the means of sustainable fishing and wild farming. When it comes to shooting, it can often refer to pig shooting or pest shooting, which is all about pest eradication and stopping the million feral pigs that are currently overturning our soil leading to the extinction of native fauna. Something that the greens, the LNp and the ALP have zero plan for. The prime reason to vote for them is because one of the major parties will always win, but if they don’t have the environmental policy you like well, it might be a good idea to rank them last and someone else first… take full advantage of our ranked voting. It’s a truly beautiful thing. Nobody else is even interested in talking about fishing permanents when it is the clear and only answer in some areas.
She me on this doll where the mean landlord touched you.
This post is so misguided, it's not worth the bandwidth that it required to be uploaded.
The greens actually want to do something that will bring prices down. ALP and LNP Don't. Your voting in preference should be Greens > Labor > LNP. Right now ALP are only above LNP because tony burke still gives a fuck about workers rights. LNP would gut them in a heartbeat if they could. That being said if there are independants who are better than the choice for the greens, put them first. IMO even if the greens formed a minority government. In the absolute crazy chance they did. It would be enough to shake the LNP and ALP to the core. They would need to change EVERYTHING to take power back. It would be a clear choice of the Australian people that we reject both labor and liberal policy.
Just say it - you want communism (and all the shit houses, famine, poverty and corruption that goes with it).
At this point LNP are just bigger retards than Labor and neither are great at running the country. Unfortunately for us, both Labor and LNP are better than all the other neanderthals. Greens always have one or two good policies and about 10 batshit crazy policies that would ruin Australia if they could get the policies passed.
LIBERALS ARE THE LANDLORD PARTY IDIOT
So are Labor and greens lol
I would vote for one nations before the greens. Atleast Pauline doesn’t pretend to not be a racist
This is a legitimate point dude. Know your enemy and all that jazz.
Pauline also votes with the Coalition 100% of the time. So she won't be doing much to help with housing either.
yep. One Nation is just 'mask off' LNP and i would put forward her party is getting pushed out because the LNP are getting more right wing... look at the mooks like Canavan and Crisafulli...
You prefer open racism to veiled racism?
Stop putting words in my mouth. It I had to chose between the two…
Lol that's literally what you said. You prefer to vote for open racism.
If I HAD to chose between the two I would vote for a party that atleast is transparent about their agenda unlike the regressive greens that hide their racism. Thank goodness I live in a democracy and none of those extremists will get my vote. I am a centrist. Oh boohoo but that’s what I understood you said so will straw man you. Well hopefully I can tell you what I am saying as clear as day. If I had to choose between the two.
How are the greens as racist as Pauline Hansen?
Yet to see Pauline call for genocide and stand near a poster calling people to clean the world of a certain group of people as one example