fword,Singapore has something related to housing requirements that Australia does not – an actual land shortage.Oh, Canberra has the 99 year lease thing also. Being landlocked, ACT can argue it has land shortages.And ultimately, re the FHB strike, what does it matter? If the property market is so stable – what difference will it make if a majority…[Read more]

fWord wrote:
I've said this before and the information comes from a book I read at the library:Negative gearing was once abolished back in 1985, only to be reinstated two years later. The attempt to remove negative gearing actually led to a rise in house prices and rent. When negative gearing was restored in 1987, house prices and rent increased…[Read more]

xdrew,you suggest that 30 years ago the government did provide a reasonable level of public housing. I agree they haven't in a long time, not sure if it has been a full 30 years but definately more than 15. Why is it not possible that they cannot provide a reasonable standard of public housing again?It doesn't have to end up like NY – it can…[Read more]

cuteyoungchic,It's possible I was confused:) You didn't mention rental increases. Only that the government didn't want to provide extra public housing. Not sure if that was true in the 80s but I agree that it would definately be something government would take into consideration now.Don't you think, however, that providing public housing for down…[Read more]

luke86,It just depends what you think is the lesser of 2 evils.Current affordability is unsustainable. A bubble exists. That much seems obvious. A correction is required for sustainable economic growth in Australia's future.Without a crash, there will be stagantion – aka Japan. The country will take years to recovery this way but overleveraged…[Read more]

SmartGenY,As far as I know the only other place that has similar NG benifits to Australia is Canada and, not surprisingly, it is the only other bubble that hasn't popped yet.cuteyoungchic,It is a commonly held misbelief that removing NG in the 80s caused rents to rise. It only happened in Sydney and not the rest of the country. It was reinstated…[Read more]

devo76 wrote:
To me a correction of 10% or so is to be expected after a good run.I just don't buy into the crash . My backyard is still relatively affordable having had minimal growth since 2003( you could say a long slow hiss instead of a pop).and where you invest is where it matters. Actually I would be quite happy with a slight correction as…[Read more]

It's the psychology of this that is interesting, I think. It's like Steve was getting at in his thread on what buffet had to say.If the idea that owning a house isn't the be all end all of Australian life takes hold, the bottom will fall out of the market. The market needs the leverage generated by entry level demand to flow through it.Doesn't…[Read more]

devo76 wrote:
First of all. 56% blah blah. That would place many properties across Australia at below their replacement cost. Secondly why must there be a crash from here. I agree that values are way high. But i also believe that a few years of flat growth will sort this out. yes we are pricey compared to many countries. many of these countries…[Read more]

QLD Buyers Agent wrote:
I would say it is the difference between property Investors and property Traders. Investors have a long term focus and traders try to 'pick the market'.One thing for sure is that the availability of credit will be a big factor in the performance of the property market in the next 36 – 60 months.

Yes. Which leads…[Read more]

xdrew wrote:
When people start talking about costs and pricing structures i like delving back into reality rather than realty. At the moment the rough building cost per square metre piles out at about $8500 per square and goes upward from there for premium finishes .. or down from there for wholesale costings. So thats your calculation you use…[Read more]

grimnar wrote:
For us, it has been this way since we settled this country. Home ownership can only occur as the result of sacrificing something for your future security or lifestyle benefits, whether that be location (decentralising and even family ties), convenience, choice of employment, or any number of other lifestyle and other needs.…[Read more]

maz,does you agent collect fees from you even if the place doesn't rent?

Some of the property shown is just within 4x av wage, granted. Though averge earings in this country may be a little lower than that. Av full time wages are around 67k but overall av earnings are harder to judge and haven't been listed accurately since the 80s. I do agree that around 55k is a reasonable assumption though.However, less than 20…[Read more]

1. Some cities – Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra – do not have 200k units, your pushing to find them at 300k.2. Affordable has been factually qualified outside Australia as being 4x the average income or less. Of course, we are different, so our affordability levels must also be:)grimnar – 5x income is not affordable by global standards. Not to…[Read more]

Dan42 wrote:

ummester wrote:
say a 500k car = a 10mil house, where are the houses that equal 5k and under cars?Oh, and BTW, the difference between a 500k and 5k is proved by the qulaity of the vehicle. How does that work with housing? You can get a 5k car within 30km of a city:) And cars depreciate with age – as houses should.I agree that land…[Read more]

Dan42 wrote:

ummester wrote:
The difference is there are no houses down under that have prices equating to budget cars.

Really?? None at all? I'd beg to differ.

say a 500k car = a 10mil house, where are the houses that equal 5k and under cars?Oh, and BTW, the difference between a 500k and 5k is proved by the qulaity of the vehicle. How does…[Read more]

Dan42 wrote:

fWord wrote:
The result: masses of people who cannot afford a house. This does not mean that all houses are unaffordable. It merely means that property that is located in a desirable location become too expensive for most to be able to buy.

But isn't this the same for any consumer item? I'd like to buy a Ferrari 458, but  I…[Read more]

Scott No Mates wrote:
Hmmm…..simple, let's increase rents by 56% to bring the ratio back into balance.

Good luck:)Wages can't support it – why do you think rents are so low compared to houses as it is?

DWolfe wrote:
Hi all,I'm intrigued. I want to know where the money is, and where it is coming from.

equity mate… or what's left of it.