I feel this forum has a real us vs them attitude. "Us" the financially responsible, hard working property investors vs "Them" the lazy, free loading, whining have nots.
The point I was trying to make is maybe a lot of the "Them" are hard working and financially responsible but choose to invest elsewhere.
Of course property is a solid investment for any diverse portfolio, but I am at a strong disagreement that it is currently the place to start. (I am not saying its unatainable by any means, and there is no doubt overtime other currently attractive options will become not so attractive in future, that's when you sell
).Interestingly the private ownership of property has been brought up in relation to common land. Property at the moment is currently a stock, sold to the highest bidder. Food is another stock that has resulted in famines due to misappropriation when food has been abundant in the local region.
Now I am sure that we would all agree that the avarice storage of food by the wealthy during these times, is not a humane notion.
If home ownership is such an ingrained right in the human psyche, would not the above pertain to this stock aswell?
I am putting forth the challenge that home ownership is not necessary, just as much as I am putting forth that a neo-liberalism mindset if unchecked is unhumane.
Cheers,
SmartGenYummester wrote:did you have to save a deposit for your first place cutyoungchic?Yes ummester, I had to save a set amount over a 6 month period. Unfortunately I don't remember the amount to be able to share the info with you. I do remember going into complete shock though when told the figure
For my second property, and also these units I'm about to have built, I haven't needed to have a deposit.
As I said earlier, I've often worked a second job. I've also never bought a brand new car, always waited til I found a 1 – 2 year old model. Last one I bought had been driven by the local Catholic bishop – they only keep them for 12 months before trading them on a new model.Why I think NG will not be abolished right away.
– House prices will drop, meaning less tax for government and councils
– Bank will not lend up money when the market is dropping, making it extra hard for finance
– Rent will rise and less property for rent
– Less disposible income for investors, means less spending and that would mean no mangers will hire staff if they can't do business = higher unemployment rate
– Builders / developers will not construct new houses, why should they? if they aren't making any money… Which will make the supply much worst off in the long run, especially with our insane population growth (whcih we must have to replace the baby boomers retiring)The only way the government can remove NG is to VERY SLOWLY phase it out, say over 15 – 20 years… NG is like an addiction, you can't go cold turkey after 20 years of habbit… hahaha!
Regards,
Zeableummester wrote:fWord wrote:Maybe so. But perhaps they'd prefer to bad-mouth something that they cannot afford, rather than to put in the hard yards and work towards it.This is an interesting comment.
I agree that people should work towards the things they want but they should do that first buy saving a reasonable percentage of the purchase cost first. There is too much easy debt extended nowadays for anyone to have to truly work towards anything.
Lets say it isn't houses. Let's say its big TVs. If you save your 3k to buy your massive tele – good on you, you deserve to sit back and enjoy it. I can't shake the feeling that getting extended the entire purchase cost of the tele with no money down somehow undermines the 'hard work' involved in purchasing one with savings.
Of course most people can't save the 300-400k required to purchase a first home (should cost 250-300k to be inline with wages IMO). But they should be required to save 20-25% of that purchase price. That is the hard work.
100k of savings for the average working Aussie is hard to achieve. 50-70k is a bit more reasonable – it's a years average earnings (which means you should be able to knuckle down and put it away in 4 to 5 years if you budget correctly). It would alos bring stability to the housing market and disable much of the speculation.
Then the problem is with the banks, is it not? It is the banks that choose to loan 100% of the value of the home. We need to stop the banks from providing 100% loans to people. But how?
I personally did save 20% of the purchase price for my home, but then again, I was investing in the stock market for over 12 years and working full time for nearly 3 years in order to get that kind of savings. If anything, this proves the benefit of starting early, and becoming financially savvy early in life.
Nevertheless, if people can get loaned 100% the value of their first home, then they really don't need to save anything at all. They can just go out and buy tomorrow. All they need is money for their closing costs, which should be no more than $30K for a home selling at $450K or so.
What 'housing affordability' problem is there if people can simply borrow all that money and pay later? In any case, 100% loans have existed for ages on things such as televisions. Buy now, pay later…or 13 months interest-free…or something to that effect.
SmartGenY wrote:I feel this forum has a real us vs them attitude. "Us" the financially responsible, hard working property investors vs "Them" the lazy, free loading, whining have nots.Absolutely spot-on. On the other hand, the FHB have the same attitude: 'us' the struggling, cheated and frustrated FHB who cannot afford a thing, vs 'them' the greedy speculators in a Ponzi scheme who rob the poor of their wealth.
Resentment begets more of the same. Unfortunately, the government and all their 'red tape' is probably their true enemy.
SmartGenY wrote:Interestingly the private ownership of property has been brought up in relation to common land. Property at the moment is currently a stock, sold to the highest bidder. Food is another stock that has resulted in famines due to misappropriation when food has been abundant in the local region.Now I am sure that we would all agree that the avarice storage of food by the wealthy during these times, is not a humane notion.
If home ownership is such an ingrained right in the human psyche, would not the above pertain to this stock aswell?
I am putting forth the challenge that home ownership is not necessary, just as much as I am putting forth that a neo-liberalism mindset if unchecked is unhumane.
Nicely said. Unfortunately I did waste a few years of my life being concerned about what things 'should be' instead of looking at what things 'are'. These days, I prefer to focus on the latter and find a way to deal with them. Just because I think something is 'wrong' doesn't mean it has to change so that I can be comfortable with it. However, each of us has our own moral standards to help navigate us through the way things 'are', rather than simply hoping things will return to what they 'should be'.
SmartGenY wrote:I signed up specifically just to comment on this after perusing these forums off and on over the past years.I don't think a lot of you bulls understand the current mindset of the Professional Gen Y, I'm 23 recent graduate engineer and between me and my partner we net about 80k pa and that could easily double over the next 5 years if the hard yards are put in.
We currently pay $11,180 pa in rent and have no problems living off 30k pa (after rent). Buying a nice house or rather a innercity flat is definitely an option.
From our point of view however its just not a good investment. Look at the stockmarket in the past 3 years, I can look at that market and feel fairly confident that a bubble is not currently present and stocks are correctly priced. Look at our housing market over the past 8 years, increased 77% according to that article, do you really expect that to happen over the next 8 years? LVRs cant get any higher (comparatively to good ol 70%).
Add that to the burden of a mortgage in comparison to the freedom of stocks or bonds, look at the AUD and the IP opportunities overseas.
We (or at least my piers) are not whining about prices, We are saying the world is our oyster and house prices stink. The way things are going, by the time I want to settle down and make a home and family all the Boomers IPs will be flooding the market
From my point of view negative gearing needs to be removed in the future to up rent prices and force some of the Gen Y into the market, cause at the moment I would rather get my taxes back by taking a 3month holiday to the ski fields then paying interest to a bank for an overvalued asset.
Just an insight to a commonly held view amongst my piers, granted the viewpoint of a recent finance graduate may be a bit different.
<br /:)” title=”>:)” class=”bbcode_smiley” />Interesting. 10 years ago I used to think like you. Now I earn 3 times as much and have 3 kids. I promise your perspective, priorities, planning and level of action as a result will change. Just like mine will 10 years from now. Good news is, renters like you are paying for my financial freedom strategy. Just like I did, for too long, for someone elses. That was until the "lightbulb went on". I am a bit of an idiot, it took about 4 years of contemplation and consideration for that lightbulb to switch on.
emptyvessel wrote:Interesting. 10 years ago I used to think like you. Now I earn 3 times as much and have 3 kids. I promise your perspective, priorities, planning and level of action as a result will change. Just like mine will 10 years from now. Good news is, renters like you are paying for my financial freedom strategy. Just like I did, for too long, for someone elses. That was until the "lightbulb went on". I am a bit of an idiot, it took about 4 years of contemplation and consideration for that lightbulb to switch on.What year did you buy in?
If someone changes to your mindset now, they will be buying at the peak of a market that has just began to fall – surely not a wise move.
).
:)” title=”>:)” class=”bbcode_smiley” />
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
