Punch on: Open thread 28/11/2011

old fart says:

06:29am | 28/11/11

That is a really sad situation,  Biologically, they are not related, but no doubt that there is a relationship there ,so yes it’s unfortunate that the child “is not his” in the biological sense, but hopefully they have not been deprived of a “father” or “son” emaotionally, rather important to, taking into account the boys age.  The father may represent the only bit of stability in his life. I hope the three of them can work something out.

The righteous one says:

06:33am | 28/11/11

Erick, you have absolutely no idea of what awaits you. I paid my home off last year and my wife and I have still not fully come to terms with it. The weight just falls away and your disposable income rise is hard to come to terms with.  We still pinch ourselves to make sure it’s real on occasion
I hope you enjoy the feeling

marley says:

07:38am | 28/11/11

@Erick - that’s an ugly little story - and not just because the mother cheated on the ex-husband.  The father raised that boy as his own for 14 years - and then when he found out the kid was biologically not his, he walked away from him entirely.  I don’t get how anyone could do that to a child with whom you’d formed a real parent-child relationship.

I’m not excusing the mother for having an affair or for keeping the secret all those years.  But I can’t excuse the father either.  Regardless of what his ex-wife did to him, it wasn’t the boy’s fault. The dad was a victim, sure - but did he have to make the boy one too?

neo says:

10:15am | 28/11/11

Unfortunate for the kid. Not everyone can be mature about a situation like that, and I am sure the man’s world got turned upside down by this, so I can understand his reaction.

marley says:

10:40am | 28/11/11

@neo - oh, I understand the divorce, and demanding that his ex repay the child support payments.  I understand why he’s bitter towards her, and I don’t blame him.  But I have real trouble understanding how anyone can simply walk away from a child he’s been a parent to for 14 years.  That’s really cold, man.

dancan says:

11:41am | 28/11/11

I can only imagine that it must feel like the ultimate betrayal by his wife.  After catching his wife shagging the next-door neighbour I’m sure this guy would have had his doubts about the paternity of the child, but he put it to the back of his mind for 15 years. 15 years of time, money and emotional investment before finally his suspicions became great enough to get the test done then it turns out the kid isn’t even his.  Every time he sees that poor kid it must be like a slap in the face from his wife.

I hope one day the relationship can be repaired after what the mother did, but I wouldn’t blame the guy if he couldn’t get past it.

S.L says:

12:22pm | 28/11/11

I had a woman chase me for 8 years over the son she claimed was mine. Her father was a local top cop and I was getting a fair bit of heat for about 12 months before I fronted up and told them I’ll pay for a DNA test. I was one of the first to use a DNA test for a paternity issue and when results came up negative and I wasn’t the father all of a sudden I could drive my car without fear of being pulled over and my car searched for alledged illegal substances and being left to repack it after the constabulary left the scene. Best $700 I’d ever spent….....

neo says:

12:46pm | 28/11/11

When it comes to lil Johnnie here, you are NOT the father!

Yeah, marley, agreed. I am hoping that maybe once the initial shock wears off, the guy will do what’s right and reconsider cutting all contact with the kid. What a bitch of a mum though, she has ruined the happiness of two innocent fellas.

Macca says:

01:07pm | 28/11/11

Check this out - woman stabs her boyfriend in the chest and gets no jail time - because the Judge ‘acknowledged her anger and feelings of betrayal’...

Imagine if a male did this to a female….

Tim says:

01:10pm | 28/11/11

How could anyone possibly blame the father?
I know if it was me I would find it extremely difficult to look the kid in the face. Everytime this guy looks at the kid he would be reminded of his wife’s ultimate betrayal.
My Solution:
DNA test to establish paternity for every newborn.
My guess is there would be a lot of unhappy women if it came about.

neo says:

02:18pm | 28/11/11

Good idea though Tim, add it to the list of standard checks they do on all babies. Avoid confusion, doubt, and promiscuous women.

Markus says:

03:38pm | 28/11/11

“My Solution:
DNA test to establish paternity for every newborn.”

So long as men have no input into the decision to keep a child, and Child Support Agencies have the right to shake down men for money, I think that this solution is only fair.

JS says:

03:44pm | 28/11/11

@Markus, men have as much “right” and access to contraception as women do, most are just too lazy to use it.

If you really dont want kids heres a thought. Abstain.

nossy says:

05:56am | 28/11/11

@TimB   well done Tim - as a young man you are on the right track 100%.

Mahhrat says:

06:53am | 28/11/11

@TimB:  Nice work.  I’m in a similar boat, though in Tassie that isn’t particularly hard to do.

I just wish I wasn’t fully capitalised - I’d love to get the place clad (damn weatherboard).

TimB says:

07:29am | 28/11/11

Thanks Nossy . It’s a nice feeling to know your cash is going towards something longterm and tangible as opposed to throwing money away on rent. It’s kind of a savings plan in its way.

@ Mahhrat, I know what you mean. I’d love a new kitchen & bathroom. So i’m trying to put the cash together for that. In the meantime I’m just upgrading appliances like my oven and fridge, & replacing fixtures like taps and whatnot.

I’ve currently got about 7K in extra repayments that I can draw on if I really want to start planning some major renovations, but I’d rather not touch that if I can help it. It’s keeping my interest payments down .

Just have to keep socking away the cash I guess.

Mahhrat says:

08:53am | 28/11/11

@TimB - I could do well better in terms of quality of house by paying market rent, but it’s dead money.

This is incredible though - I’m in a similar financial boat, though I’m saving hard because the girl and I want to go to England & Scotland next year.  First time o/s for either of us.

I’m maxed out because we just blew $25k on the wet areas.  My kitchen used to be yellow, red and had fake bricks on the wall above the oven.

Now I have a good if basic black, white and “mushroom” kitchen perfect for the renter I’m hoping this place will be in a couple years.

neo says:

10:22am | 28/11/11

Currently tossing up between using my savings for the first deposit or to pour them into a business venture. Property is a sure thing, but the business could lead to being able to buy property outright and saving a lot of interest…

Cynicised says:

12:56pm | 28/11/11

Yes, it’s an ugly story, but I’m sorry, that ” father” is a prick. No- one seems to be considering the child in all of this. I get how he’s upset his wife hid it from him, but maybe she regretted it and didn’t want to break up her marriage? A s Marley says, he was the boy’s Dad, just like any adopted child and then just walked, only considering himself and not his son. That poor kid probably hates BOTH of his parents right now, after this being dragged through the courts and the court of public opinion. They should both be ashamed of themselves.

Cynicised says:

02:51pm | 28/11/11

Oops.wrong reply box.obviously this was meant for Erick’s post. Blame haste.

Knemon says:

03:18pm | 28/11/11

@ neo - A business can buy a house but a house can’t buy a business! Go with your gut.

Markus says:

03:47pm | 28/11/11

“but maybe she regretted it and didn’t want to break up her marriage?”
Given that she is the one who committed adultery, that decision is not hers to make, it is his.
Plus, if breaking up her marriage was such a concern for her then she wouldn’t have cheated in the first place.

“he was the boy’s Dad, just like any adopted child”
This is nothing like adopting a child, as in that scenario he would have actually been a willing parent.

brosco says:

12:41pm | 28/11/11

But did you catch any burgers? “Took junior burger fishing ”

S.L says:

03:19pm | 28/11/11

very good brosco I missed that…........

Damian Parkhill says:

08:17am | 28/11/11

*facepalm* yeah I read that as well, stupid do-gooder brigade….....

Maybe we should define incompetent parenting as a disorder along with everything else - that way we can all be insane!

KH says:

06:37am | 28/11/11

During the course of my family history search, I found two adults and seven children (yes, SEVEN children) living in a 3 bedroom house with an outdoor toilet in Randwick.  Seriously, people today are just too precious.  Having two or even three kids share a room is not the end of the world - it might teach them how to share and respect someone elses space - it occurred to me that this is one of those thing that has contributed to the ‘me me me’ generations Y and Z.  But I agree - its your own damn fault if you over stretch yourself on a giant mortgage for a mcmansion - stop whingeing and expecting ‘the government’ to pay for the shortfall.

ts says:

07:11am | 28/11/11

mark g

In regards to the cars. People give me the weirdest looks when I tell them we only have one car. Never mind when I explain to them I work in the city and a car is not an option and I use public transport.

That then only leaves the need for my wife using the one car to drop the kids off at school and get to her work.

But for some reason its expected that since there are two adults there must be two cars.

And two regos, and two insurances, and two service schedules ........

Tubesteak says:

07:38am | 28/11/11

I totally agree with you, Mark G.

Even if they want a room for each kid they can move further out west.

Dash says:

08:18am | 28/11/11

What’s worse, is when you do live within your means and then the government comes along with a policy that deliberately targets you and reduces your standard of living and those means. Discriminates against you on the basis of income and takes $1,200 a year away from your family to give to someone else who’s paying less tax and already on welfare!

Perhaps it’s fair for families to whinge about the cost of living when the government is actively making it more and more expensive for people to live. It’s fine to say people should live within there means, but then the ALP comes along and hits you with a flood levy, a carbon tax, forces you to pay more of your package into superannuation, and looks to means test the private health tax rebate.

Suddenly with power prices up, all goods and services dependent on electricity to rise in price, removal of family welfare payments and zero compensation for the carbon tax, I can understand why some people are complaining. Just as I can understand those on the ALP gravy train telling us we shouldn’t complain!

The ALPs legacy so far is two new taxes and $150billion of debt. Way to go!

So whilst its hard to disagree with both of you about making sure you live within your means. You can’t plan for government policy that deliberately reduces your living standards. Those people in the community who are suddenly being asked to pay for the ALPs flood levy and their carbon tax, are rightfully ticked off! A family of five, faced with the prospect of their disposable income being reduced by over $1,200 (with that set to rise by 5% in each of the next two years) deserve to be upset!

Tubesteak says:

08:56am | 28/11/11

Dash
You got $3,000 for popping out each kid plus FTB plus school offsets plus etc etc etc. You shouldn’t be whining about $1,200.

I’m a single white male aged 18-49. I get nothing from welfare or social policy and have to fund the entirety of my existence from my 6 figure salary. I don’t whine about the gubbermint not giving me stuff or taking away stuff they had already given me.

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:17am | 28/11/11

@Dash- At least you get middle class family welfare courtesy of John Howard (a thousand curses on him). Singles and childless couples get nothing, regardless of income.

Dash says:

10:20am | 28/11/11

@Tubesteak, I pay too much tax to be eligible for anything! I got/get nothing but that’s not the point I’m making anyway. I’m not asking for anything but for the system to be equitable!

The point is, people live within their means (without wanting or getting a cent from the government) and then the government moves the goal posts by targetting the people that already pay all the tax! Reward the wealth destroyers and punish the wealth creators. That’s not equitable. And to make matters worse they have increased the tax free threshhold putting even more onus on the people paying the most tax. It’s not sustainable. The carbon policy is not about making big polluters pay, it’s about making big tax payers pay more.

With the aging population, for the ALP to continually go to the same people time and time again when that’s a diminishing tax base, it’s not sensible or equitable. They have reduced the tax base at a time when they should be broadening it. There’s no point being a PAYG taxpayer these days. More and more people will opt out.

The other point Tube is why should that family be discriminated against on the bais of income? Not on how they pollute, not on their carbon footprint but what they earn? Unless of course it’s all just a socialist exercise in wealth redistribution. And if that’s what it is, then my point holds true. People who have their means reduced as a debliberate government policy deserve to be upset.

My post is not a whinge about getting welfare from the government. It’s a whinge about the government punishing the people that are already contributing the most financially to this country and rewarding the people who are a financial burden on the country. That’s stupidity if you ask me.

It’s good that you don’t whine about the gubbermint not giving you stuff or taking away stuff they had already given you. Neither do I! But people do complain about the government taking away what they have worked hard for under a deceitful socialist policy parading as environmentalism!

Why should any individual in this country pay an effective tax rate higher than the corporate rate? Why are there people here paying 32%, 36%, 40% of their total income in tax when multinationals who distribute their profits overseas will soon be paying 28%.

Let there be a flat tax rate. Let everyone pay 28% of their income in tax. The more you earn the more you pay. Seems fair to me.

neo says:

10:32am | 28/11/11

There isn’t a thing in the world any one person can do to deserve a 6 figures salary.

Dash says:

10:40am | 28/11/11

@Shane - nup - pay too much tax to be eligible for anything. Please read my post properly. It’s not a whinge about getting or losing welfare!

You got Howard’s PAYG tax cuts! 5 years of consecutive cuts plus the LNP ones the ALP me too’d. Give em back if you’re not happy! At least the LNP were able to pay off the ALPs debt, balance the budget and still give something back to taxpayers. Unlike this pack of incompetent fools who have given us two new taxes and $150billion in debt!

Welfare state and debt - hmm sounds like Greece!

Tim says:

10:42am | 28/11/11

Dash,
I don’t know how you can make this an ALP thing.
John Howard was the master of middle class welfare and the ALP have continued in the same way.

I would agree that we give far too much welfare to people but the solution to this would not be to give more welfare to people but rather to means test all welfare payments at say $75K household income.
Unfortunately there’s too many families with their mouths in the trough and it would cost too many votes.

Tubesteak says:

11:00am | 28/11/11

Dash
Are you sure you weren’t eligible for the Baby Bonus? I didn’t think it was means tested. Never looked into whether it was considering I’m not planning on having children for another 10-15 years.
Since when has the tax system been equitable? Since when has the tax burden not been on the PAYG earners at the top end of the scale?
I can’t think of any such time
You can discriminate on any basis. Income seems the most reliable to be able to ascertain.
I’m discriminated against because I haven’t spat out crotch-fruit and have to support myself.
But I also do benefit from a higher tax free threshold. I remember the $10 per week tax custs under Howard. We all get them.
I’ve often argued for a flat tax and a large GST. I don’t see it happening any time soon, though.

Neo
You clearly have no idea about labour markets. I’ll leave it at that.

neo says:

12:07pm | 28/11/11

Short of preventing a world war or ending world hunger, I really can’t think of anything that would deserve the money. I’ll leave it at that.

Elphaba says:

12:07pm | 28/11/11

“There isn’t a thing in the world any one person can do to deserve a 6 figures salary.”

Bullshit.  Aside from the usual suspects like doctors and researchers and people who make a difference in the world, who the f*ck do you think you are to dictate what people can earn?

And jealousy is a curse, neo.  Grow up.

Tigger says:

12:20pm | 28/11/11

@Dash

Welcome to Labor.

neo says:

12:41pm | 28/11/11

I’m not even jealous, I earn enough to sustain myself and keep myself happy. Whether my bank account has a lot of money in it or not upon my death is a non concern for me, I’d rather enjoy my time instead of slaving my youth away.

Oh yeah, I misread btw, I was thinking of 7 figures (6 zeros, rather) when I was typing my comment Yeah, yeah, over 100k is alright, I think if wealth was evenly distributed, every person in the world would be on that kind of money. Doctors deffo deserve that kind of money, it’s a damn shame many of them earn well below that figure, while debt salesmen consider it a norm.

Elphaba says:

12:59pm | 28/11/11

@neo - no they wouldn’t.  because no matter how much money you throw at people who waste it, they will continue to waste it.

The poor are poor for many more reasons than just someone making more money.  Yoiu act like money comes from a communal pot and the millionaires are taking it out of the mouths of the hungry.  That’s simply not true.

There will always be rich and poor.  Give 100 people a million dollars each and in 24 hours, someone will have $2million and someone will have none.  That’s because most people, when given money, don’t have the first clue on how to manage it.  And throwing money at a problem doesn’t solve it.  Never has, never will.

But philosophy aside - the idea that some socialist movement telling me what I can and can’t earn makes my skin crawl.  Just because people earn a f*ckton of money doesn’t mean they don’t help people with it. 

And you are jealous.  You’d whistle a different tune if you made millions and someone with a case of the high and mighty’s lectured you on how you could spend it.

jay-ded says:

01:05pm | 28/11/11

I agree 100% with you Dash.  All of my children were born prior to the cash hand out so we never received anything.  My husband and I together earn more than 6 figures so we receive NO family tax benefits or school benefits or anything else from the government for that matter.  We don’t complain about this, because we can afford it.  Or could afford it.  We are currently 7 years into a 25 year housing loan paying over $2500 per month.  The house is quite small in a nice suburban area and we are just managing to survive.  Our electricity bills have skyrocketed to over $700 /  quarter even though we don’t own a dishwasher or clothes dryer.  Gillards carbon tax will effect us.  Sure my kids live better than some of the lower class families, but hell, both my husband and I have worked for it.  Since we’ve worked for it, shouldn’t we have the right to buy nice things for our kids, put our kids through college if we can afford it?  Gillards tax is just another way of ripping off the middle class families like myself and giving it to people who don’t work for it and looking around me at the dropdead layabouts, don’t deserve MY cash.

<End of rant>

Tim says:

01:13pm | 28/11/11

” Give 100 people a million dollars each and in 24 hours, someone will have $2million and someone will have none.”

Big win at the casino?

Elphaba says:

01:28pm | 28/11/11

@Tim, the originals of the millions are up to you.

The basic idea being, that seeing a situation of ‘oh, that has less money’ and putting money towards it, does not necessarily mean the problem will be fixed.  It’s way more complicated than simply redistributing wealth.  Attitudes towards that wealth need to be changed, and that takes much longer - if it can be done at all.

neo says:

01:37pm | 28/11/11

If I was making millions a year in passive income, I could afford to not work and spend my time organising my own charity, which I may do one day if things turn out well. I think a 100k a year is more than enough for one person, and I would probably put the rest of the money towards helping people most in need overseas. Laziness or inability to manage money only accounts for a small fraction of world’s poverty.

Elphaba says:

02:08pm | 28/11/11

“Laziness or inability to manage money only accounts for a small fraction of world’s poverty”

Oh, neo.  You’re living in a fantasy.  The inability to manage money is widespread and endemic.  A few years ago (and probably still is), credit card debt in Australia was in the billions.  The average was approx $3K per person in debt.

To assume that those who make millions of dollars do not support philanthropic causes is disingenuous.  You don’t know what goes on behind closed doors.  But more to the point, they don’t have to donate if they don’t want to.  And no one should be forced.  That’s the price of living in a free society.  The flipside is too horrible to comtemplate - people with no knowledge of my living circumstances telling me what to spend my money on.  You’re a fool if you think you’d agree to this system.

I’m not talking about what YOU would spend your money on.  That’s irrelevant.  What’s relevant is that you have the CHOICE to set up your own charity with your millions of dollars.  Or you can choose to piss it into the wind.  But this redistributing of money you cling to will never work.  That’s because they tried it, and human beings are inherently corrupt.  We are inherently selfish.  And once we see an opportunity, we’ll exploit it. 

You will never solve the world’s problems.  You’ll just fix one, and another will make itself known.  Ad whilst I think giving to charity is a noble thing and I would encourage everyone to give whatever they can afford, I will be damned if I’m going to work hard just to cough it up to someone who is less fortunate than me.  I want the choice.  Capitalism and democracy, for all its faults, gives me that choice.

neo says:

02:45pm | 28/11/11

Any system is only as corrupt as the people looking after it. Proper socialism has not been tried anywhere, the dictatorships that resulted were poor examples of the ideology.

Plenty of wealthy people are doing great with funding things that benefit the society, like Bill Gates. But then you have people like Steve Jobs who just sit on their money without helping anyone, to then die a very wealthy person, but not any less dead than a common street beggar who froze to death.

As for pissing the money away, we definitely need to stop people from doing that. If someone is wasting money, clearly they should not have control of that money. Greed is not an excuse, and should not be encouraged. Socialism will happen by choice, not by force, for now we can only spread the good word and hope that people can see past their own egos.

I am glad I live in Australia though, one of the most socialistic countries in the world, and it’s working great.

Elphaba says:

02:57pm | 28/11/11

Neo, people are corrupt.  The few who are truly altruistic are as rare as hen’s teeth.

No society you are proposing will ever survive.  But, continue to dream.  I sleep just fine, so… that’s all that matters to me.

Dash says:

03:06pm | 28/11/11

jay-ded - Yep that’s me. People like us have a huge ALP target on our backs! They continually hit us up for more and more and more. And you’re right, they give it to people already on welfare or 20-somethings still living at home who have paid hardly any tax. The sooner I pay my mortgage off and stop being a PAYG taxpayer, the better!

This system is not sustainable! Trust me. Something has to give. And if the ALP has it’s way, they will take more from people like you and me. I bet now with the extra number in the lower house, the means test for the private health care rebate is introduced yet again. That will be next.

If they do that, I might consider moving to NZ where the top margin tax rate is only 33% and their government is going to abolish their carbon tax. Which I might add, was half what the ALP are going to inflict on us.

I’m sick of these muppets and those that keep voting for them.

Budz says:

03:19pm | 28/11/11

@Elphaba, I love you…......

Dash says:

03:22pm | 28/11/11

neo - what about the ALPs waste? Yet people still vote for them.

Insulation fiasco cost the Australian taxpayer $4billion
Second stimulus which economists say should have been about half its size cost the taxpayer $23billion
NBN is costing the taxpayer $40billion
Fuelwatch delivered nothing - cost $21m
Grocery choice delivered nothing - cost $13m
Malaysian solution - taxpayer cost $200m
$13m on carbon tax propaganda mail out
$10m to set up the climate institute to tell us what the ALP wants us to hear.

Who keeps voting for this crap? Yes we need to stop people pissing it away!

Socialism is a failed exercise. We are not created equal, we are not all clones. It doesn’t work! Go and ask the people of Greece what they think of socialism. The latest in a long line of failed socialism experiments since Marx.

Elphaba says:

03:40pm | 28/11/11

@Budz, lol, thanks.   I think there’s a long line of people who love me, hehehe

neo says:

04:00pm | 28/11/11

I can be altruistic

Labor, I gotta say, have proved themselves to be not only capable of running government, but also of sticking to their core values. They are far from perfect, but they are doing some great things, and atm, are much of a lesser evil than the Libs. I hope they continue down the same path and forget about some of their bad ideas. More welfare, less internet censorship.

Eva says:

06:01pm | 28/11/11

I wanted to live in a very specific part of Melbourne….that meant I had to compromise on bedrooms and get a 2 bedroom house for a family. Will never regret it even though my bedroom is off the living room in the space which was the dining room.

In addition it is wonderful having just a small house to keep clean. Although I have just begun to paint the weatherboards and that is a more than big enough job, would certainly dislike the maintenance on a bigger property.

Budz says:

07:14pm | 28/11/11

@Elphaba - How could they not when you make so much logical sense? It’s a massively attractive trait!

Mark G says:

06:55am | 28/11/11

Oh god nossy. Stop playing up to the tin hat brigade. I like your comment.

‘I call upon any Martians reading this blog to ‘

Wait they have internet on Mars and that internet is connected to ours?

If there is life on Mars, I would be surprised (actually stunned would be a better expression) if it was more advanced than us given that there are zero cities or civilisations on the surface. Yes zero. The face on mars has been debunked. If fact even finding bacterial life on mars would be a marvel. These explorations are more to see if it is suitable for humans; not if someone already lives there.

iansand says:

07:49am | 28/11/11

Of course they have the Internet on Mars.  Remember Independence Day?  The aliens being defeated by infecting their ship with a computer virus?  Bill Gates is pan galactic.

TimB says:

08:28am | 28/11/11

1) The aliens in Independence day weren’t Martians.

2) The computer used to upload the virus was a Macintosh. Bill Gates had nothing to do with it.

Just thought I’d point that out.

nossy says:

08:49am | 28/11/11

@Mark G   I think the Martians have Wireless or Sattelite Mark? They were going to get the NBN in 1990 - thats where Gillard got the idea - but the new Martian PM Antonious Rabbottus swept to power and swept the NBN away.  hahha

iansand says:

08:54am | 28/11/11

Well that gives the whole thing so much more cred.

Rowdy says:

09:40am | 28/11/11

I, for one, would welcome our new Martian overlords…..

Mark G says:

11:18am | 28/11/11

Rowdy,

Yeah at least then we would have some leadership in this country.

TJ says:

11:23am | 28/11/11

they’re all underground, has anyone not watched that Arnie movie? sheesh

Jeff Wayne says:

11:49am | 28/11/11

The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one he said…...but still they come…

Mark G says:

12:40pm | 28/11/11

MarkG,

If the Martians are hiding from us, shouldn’t we be hiding from them?

neo says:

02:22pm | 28/11/11

The more I think the more I become sure that if there is life on other planets, we are the most advanced, or one of the most advanced forms of life. Would explain a lot.

TJ says:

03:09pm | 28/11/11

@Neo - there are probably more advanced races than us in the universe, it’s a big place after all, why have we not seen them? they probably avoid us like the plagure or we have some of their citizens locked away in a loony bin, who wouldn’t give us a miss?

Mouse says:

07:22am | 28/11/11

LOL that’s a win! :o)

Andy Mack says:

07:25am | 28/11/11

That’s pretty clever.

Mark G says:

07:18am | 28/11/11

John,

I’ve heard that theory before. Its a typical socialist ‘in theory’ statement. The big problem is that you are making two huge assumptions.

1. That those houses would exist without investors.

2. That houses would be cheaper if it wasn’t for investors.

Who do you think is responsible for the majority of home construction in Australia? The government? no not even close. Investors are what generate the construction and balance the housing prices. Under the system you propose housing would probably be even more expensive. Yes that’s right more expensive because there would be a significant housing shortage cased by the lack of investment in the building industry. Housing estates would be a thing of the past because a person can only invest in their own home. Home owners would be squabbling over the scraps of housing available. In a market system of supply and demand this will push the price up to hyper inflationary levels. There would also be virtually no way to resolve this housing shortage either because nobody is allowed to invest any money that they have saved up on housing. This would not stop the income divide because people would simply invest in other areas of the economy and still get rich. The income divide would still exist; it’s just that the low socio-economic groups would not have houses. The only way that the system that you are suggesting could work is if you fixed housing costs low. The problem with this is that this would make building houses even less profitable and therefore reduce the incentive to build further increasing the housing shortage. The only way to avoid this is with full government control over construction. You only have to look at the Soviet Union or the disasters in government housing management in East Germany to see why that is not a good idea.

As always john, you are identifying problems with our capitalistic economy and suggesting we solve them with mechanisms that would only make the situation worse.

Andy Mack says:

07:22am | 28/11/11

I agree with John.  Negative gearing, the ability to offset the interest expense of an investment property against ALL income, not just the rental revenue from the property, as a tax deduction, has absolutely driven up the prices of houses in Australia.  In the 1990s, all the Baby Boomers went ballistic investing in real estate and this trend continued over the past ten years.

The effect of this explosion in the purchase of houses as investment properties was to dramatically increase the demand for houses since both single-dwelling owners or new home buyers and investors are competing for the available housing stock.  The Baby Boomer generation has selfishly and single-handedly squeezed Generation X and Generation Y out of the housing market.

A recent survey showed that one third of Generation X has no savings and is living paycheck to paycheck.  I suspect that’s because they know that the game is rigged and they can’t be bothered playing it.

Under no circumstances should real estate investors be allowed a tax deduction of their interest expense against ANY other income.  This represents a massive tax subsidy gifted from non-property investors to these investors.  They should ONLY be allowed to deduct their interest expense against the rental revenue from the real estate they are investing in.  Making these change would restore some fairness and sanity to the housing market.  It would certainly result in many property investors selling their investment properties which would increase the supply of housing and drive prices down.

If anybody knows when the blanket deductibility of the interest expense against ANY other income was introduced in Australia, I’d be very interested to know.  I can’t find it.  I know that the Hawke/Keating government made the change I have outlined in 1985, but changed it back in 1987 after INTENSE lobbying from the property industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing_(Australia)

The ability to deduct the interest expense of an investment property against ANY income represents a massive transfer of wealth from renters and people who do not own an investment property to property investors.  It represents a massive tax subsidy provided by the former group to the latter.  It is unjust and immoral.

Generation Y would do well to wake up quickly if they haven’t already (though I suspect the have) and realise that much of the history of the western world, including Australia, involves the older generations (eg. property investors) profiting unscrupulously from the lack of knowledge and lack of life experience of the younger generation in their 20s and early 30s.  This is a contemptible state of affairs and it must not be allowed to continued.  An example of this in the USA is exorbitant college debt that young university graduates are burdened with like a ball and chain.

marley says:

07:26am | 28/11/11

Ban renting.  Right.  So everyone has to own his own house.  How exactly do you figure that’s going to work, John?  Are the taxpayers going to have to give houses to people that can’t afford them?  You turn 18, decide you’re moving out of your parent’s home, so you’re entitled to a house of your own?  How very, very USSR of you.

mick says:

08:19am | 28/11/11

If you didn’t have investors then we’d have a heck of a lot of people living in the streets and in parks.  Private industry does this much more efficiently than government.  The real problem with the cost of a home came when women stopped being mum and went to work.  This meant that a family had more money available and of course, as happens, families bid up the prices of homes.  And then we also ask a lot more in a home then we did in the past and our homes are now officially the largest in the world.

It ain’t that easy John and you need to be careful not to unfairly point the finger at investors who are getting a poor return in the absence of capital gain.  But don’t panic John.  House prices are predicted to crash so maybe investors will sell out at a loss and people can then complain that there are no houses to rent and buy tents to erect in the local park.  As I said never as simple as it looks.

Andy Mack says:

08:27am | 28/11/11

The deduction that I was referring to above is not just the interest expense of the investment property but all other expenses associated with the investment property as well.

Mark G, I can’t find the source, but many people claim that 9 out of 10 investment properties are taken on as existing dwellings rather than being taken on as new construction.  I’ll try to find the source.  If this is correct and I strongly suspect that it is, then the argument that property investors create housing stock through new construction is false.

Tubesteak says:

08:47am | 28/11/11

John
You are such a loon that it is both funny and scary that you are allowed out in public.
If you ban renting then where can you live if you can’t afford to buy. I had about $3,000 in savings when I moved out of my parent’s place so I was hardly in a position to buy back then.
Investors don’t conterfeit money nor do bankers.

Andy Mack
Negative gearing is not a tax term it is an investing term. Under section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 you can deduct all expenses incurred in the process of gaining assessable income. This allows expenses in one area to be offset against expenses in another. There is no specific provision in either tax Act (1936 or 1997) referring to negative gearing. Moreover, it’s not a subsidy as it is available to everyone. You can do it with a negatively geared share portfolio.
BTW I’m Gen X and was able to get into the property market. It’s possible if you do what’s necessary insetad of crying about it.

Tim says:

09:43am | 28/11/11

We just need to ban negative gearing on existing properties as most negatively geared properties are on existing properties and thus don’t add to the housing stock.
Allowing negative gearing on existing housing is completely unproductive and hurts the economy.

Andy Mack says:

10:05am | 28/11/11

Hi Tubesteak

The point is that property investors can deduct their interest expense and other expenses associated with their investment properties (such as maintenance and repairs) against not only the rental income they earn from them but also against other unrelated sources of income such as salaries from employment.

A basic concept throughout Australian taxation law is that a deduction must have a causal nexus to the income it is being deducted against.  There is no causal nexus between the deductions of an investment property and the income of the investor’s salary from unrelated employment against which they are allowed to claim the deduction when it exceeds the rental income from the investment property.

My point is that allowable deductions from an investment property should not be allowed to exceed the rental income from that property as they currently do.  Currently, investors can deduct their property expenses that exceed the rental income from their other sources of income such as salaries from employment.

Your point about “crying about it” is pretty lame.  Nothing is going to improve for the better if we just keep perpetuating the status quo without resolving the issues which are in need of obvious attention.  (Another example of such an issue is progressive income taxation rates which are illogical, immoral and provide a disincentive to work harder.)  I believe that there has been so little positive reform and progress in Australia over the past fifteen years that we are now in the situation of having many issues pile up on top of each other and cry out for our attention.

What is most galling about Australia is that one needs to learn a lot of arcane legislation about real estate, superannuation and taxation to get ahead in this country.  This country doesn’t operate on the basis of simple logical and moral principles.  It operates on the basis of ad hoc rules which are the result of politicians making it up as they go along without any thought about the logical basis for those rules or otherwise.  The Baby Boomer generation are the worst offenders for making up ad hoc rules which are often designed to further their own best interests!

What I said earlier about property investors not creating housing stock is not correct.  If nine out of ten investment properties are existing dwellings, they are still creating one out of ten as new housing stock.  It is just that this is not a very big increase in housing stock and therefore not a very compelling reason to encourage property investment.

Tubesteak says:

11:08am | 28/11/11

Andy Mack
The causal nexus between income and the deduction is to income generally. It does not have to be matched against the income that it is designed to be earned. Have a look at cases like Montgomery v FCT.
I agree with your proposal in your third para and have said the same here on The Punch in the past.
Fiddling with the sacred cow of negative gearing, though, will get any government lynched: Lib, Labor or Green.
As for needing to know about super and taxation that really advantages me because I work in that area! But I never believe we should be wilfully ignorant. We should always educate ourselves.
The main problem with supply really comes from government. They don’t release enough land or put height restrictions on dwellings in established areas. Plus, they don’t provide decent transport which means you’re squeezed into a zone very close to work because it would take too long to commute, otherwise.

Andy Mack says:

11:32am | 28/11/11

Hi Tubesteak

Thanks for your amiable reply.

So you’re probably an accountant, something which is quite challenging.

Mark G says:

12:51pm | 28/11/11

Andy Mack

“Mark G, I can’t find the source, but many people claim that 9 out of 10 investment properties are taken on as existing dwellings rather than being taken on as new construction.”

Even if that is true, it is still the investment dollars that are driving the building. Most people who are building their home are not first home buyers. Where do you think most people get the money to build from? From selling their old house (unless they are a first home buyer). Quite often the person buying their house will be an investor as you said above. If you stopped investment you stagnate the housing market and the effects flow onto the building industry because people cant get rid of their homes as easily in order to build. The pre-existing and building markets dont exist in isolation of each other. If one slumps the other follows. You cant manage industries like this with a microscope. everything has flow-on effects in the market economy.

Tim says:

01:16pm | 28/11/11

MarkG,
it’s not about stopping investment it’s about directing it to productive sources.
An existing house is not a productive asset. The only thing investors are hoping for is capital gain. We should not be encouraging that type of investment.
we need to ban negative gearing on existing housing or at least limit the amount of claimable loss.

Mark G says:

02:16pm | 28/11/11

Tim,

I actually agree with you on negative gearing to a degree but that not what john is suggesting here. Negative gearing gives the investor too much power. That is true. But to eliminate investing in the market all together would be disastrous. It pretty much like an ‘occupy’ style argument. The system is only 90% fair so lets throw it out and take up a system that will destroy the economy. Great solution.

Andy Mack says:

03:30pm | 28/11/11

I really agree with Tim above.  A house is not a productive asset.  The main reason that our economy centres around the housing market is that our economy is run by private banks (ie. owned by shareholders) who are looking to make as much money out of whatever they can make the most money out of.  The bankers have targetted housing because it’s a necessity.  Everybody needs a roof over their head.

As a society, we need to become a bit more mature and recognise that housing is a necessity.  Everybody needs one so its not in everybody’s best interests for the prices to be driven up.  The economy should be about producing things like food, transportation, infrastructure and, yes, housing.  But it shouldn’t be gravitating around housing.  Our current economy seems to be driven by housing and mining.  This is a pale reflection of what our economy could be if housing was not held up by many parties as the holy grail of wealth generation.  Building wealth by charging people rent to live in your houses is not noble.  It’s feudal.  Owning one’s own home should be for everybody and it’s about time we all put our heads together to figure out how to make that happen.

Tim says:

03:45pm | 28/11/11

MarkG,
I think everyone agrees that John’s original statement was ridiculous.
But I definitely think the government could make some changes to the way property investment is treated in this country.

Robert Smissen Of rural SA says:

04:49pm | 28/11/11

John, Your mate Whitlam sold the lie to the public that every working man could own a home (HMMM, a bit like a chicken in every pot promise) of course what he didn’t tell you that the feds would severely cut back on social housing. When I started work, working people lived in commission/trust homes, owned by the state governments but paid for by the feds. Now we don’t have enough government homes & who in their right mind would rent a home when the odds stacked so hard against them? ?

Robert Smissen Of rural SA says:

04:51pm | 28/11/11

So John, when do you & your fellow Fabianist meet? ? ?

John says:

04:54pm | 28/11/11

It’s not crazy.

1. Majority of money coming into Australia to fuel the buying of house’s are coming from the FED in american, an international private bank who create money from thin air.

2. Australia’s four major australian banks are in huge debt! Most likely to these International Bankers. 800 Billion?

3. International Banker money has caused massive housing inflation.

3. The Australia public has 1 trillion dollar debt, most likely again indebted to out local banks, who are intern indebted to Ben Bernanke’s printing press’s Inc.

4. My theory is simply drive people away from renting, push them into buying and creating their own house’s.

5. Cut International Bankers out of the picture. Let Australia create it’s own central bank owned by the Australian Tax payers with the power to create it’s own money instead of allowing Private Profit making International Bankers to manage it.

6. Investors are living off the backs off the lowers class.

7. My idea is to send their weekly pay checks to themselves, rather then in someone’s else pocket

8. I don’t entirely blame the investors as they are the middlemen, the blame lies more with the politicians and the international bankers.

9. If you create a country where everyone owns their own homes, no mortgages, no rent, you can then decrease the dependance of wealth fare and increase spending.

10. Just look at what is happening now, retail is drying up, as the majority of money is flooding back to the international bankers. Via Rents and Mortgages.

11. International Bankers are making profits lending their counterfeit money to Australians, sending Australians broke in the process.

John says:

05:20pm | 28/11/11

What it seems like, is the International Bankers advise our politicians to create investments for “our so called interests”, but in reality it is only for their interests. Our government then creates negative gearing, lowers interests in order to create a stock market bubble rise, luring thousands of existing home owners to come out take out a loans from the international bankers. So when the bubble bursts, the investors will loss their investment and still have a huge debt to pay, in which they might loss their own home also.

So it seems to me renters, lowers class’s are already bled dry, (have no savings) now they have looked at the middle class’s, luring them into risky housing investments in order to catch another fish to loot. 

The International Bankers are into nation looting, individual looting, middle class looting, invasions and occupation oil looting. It’s utterly insane!

Andy Mack says:

05:53pm | 28/11/11

John is right.  It concerns me that some may think that what John is saying is not correct because they don’t teach that at university.  The curriculum at university is controlled just like the mainstream media has been controlled over the past 30 years.

What they teach at Australian universities in the economics courses is the fraud of central bank controlled Keynesian economics complete with fractional reserve banking carried out by the licenced, privately owned banks - exactly the same dysfunctional economic structure we labour under today.  It’s a basket case.

On a different note, I want you all to think about this very carefully.  Why do you think it is in Australia that as your income increases, your marginal tax rate increases?  Generally, the only way to earn more money is to work harder which brings recognition and promotion.  The Australian taxation system penalises people for working harder and getting promoted.  Think about that carefully.  It’s morally bankrupt and obscene.

John says:

05:54pm | 28/11/11

Robert

I’m no commie red marxist. I think i pissed off the head guy of Australian Communist Party on here, because i kept on decimating communist history, it’s leaders, it’s ideology and it’s intellectuals i think he through a fit and lost his mind because his ego caved in by my great superior intellect. The guy most likely use’s his Communist book inspirations as toilet paper now and use’s Che t-shirts as door mats. I’m more of Conservative Nationalist. I don’t like International Banks and NWO agenda’s. The Commie Maggots are just pawns to the International Bankers. Occupy Wall Street is filled with International Banker agents.  Support the Tea Party and the Conservative Christian Nationalist Parties of Europe and bring the down the International Banker NWO commie order! They are the legitimate western political groups, the rest are just pawns.

jf says:

09:05am | 28/11/11

I loved living in the old run-down house close to Uni. My place was much more fun than those of my mates living in schmick apartments paid for by their parents.

Mark G says:

01:06pm | 28/11/11

There are university campuses that have accommodation if you don’t want to get exploited in the rental market. Most students choose not to live in them because they don’t want to be stuck at uni or don’t like living in mass accommodation. Why do you think government accom will be any better? The government is not going to be able to afford to build a house for every student that decides to go to uni. Therefore mass accom is the only real way to do it. Do you really want mass government accom?

Tubesteak says:

08:27am | 28/11/11

* Great

nossy says:

09:11am | 28/11/11

@Tubesteak brilliant Tubesteak - I always thought Redfern was underpriced myself - a few social problems there I am told but so close to the CBD. Pyrmont area another winner.

Tubesteak says:

11:12am | 28/11/11

nossy
I lived in the Redfern area for 2 years and didn’t see any real social problems. I walked from Darlington past Redfern station to home a few nights per week at about 10pm and always felt safe.

The problem with Redfern is that it’s a place where you don’t *live*. You just keep your stuff there and do your living in Newtown, Moore Park Gardens, Darlinghurst, Kings Cross, Potts Point and Paddington.

This means that not many businesses can get a foothold there and many fail. I saw several businesses start and go under in the 2 years I was there. These were mostly coffee shops. This may change over time as a critical mass of people move in. Excellent transport, though.

neo says:

02:26pm | 28/11/11

I encourage you to explore some other streets of Redfern at night. Real ghetto stuff.

Damian Parkhill says:

09:24am | 28/11/11

Bit of a miss-direction there I think Tim, was following the protests over on the Guardian the other day, many of the pics I saw of camps around the world had quite a few older people in them.

Beginning to think the whole unwashed hippy argument is about marginalizing their efforts and turning them into “evil communists” than observation

Mark G says:

12:59pm | 28/11/11

Damian,

Actually being an unwashed hippy communist is a reason to be there. Being average white middle-class is where the occupy protest becomes hypocritical.

Being categorised as extreme left is kinda their saving grace.

neo says:

03:02pm | 28/11/11

Well, they are not criticising the middle class, they are criticising the mega wealthy, nothing hypocritical about it.

The emergence of the middle class was the first major step towards socialism after the abolishment of slavery.

nossy says:

08:57am | 28/11/11

@Kirsty   saw that on the news Kirsty - dreadful wasnt it. Makes one put things into perspective doesnt it.

TimB says:

09:38am | 28/11/11

I agree. I had this discussion with the other Tim a couple of weeks back. He clung to that 30% figure like it was gospel.

I’m currently dropping around 50% of my pay packet on my mortgage & I’m not struggling either. And that includes a bit of extra cash thrown in on top.

It all comes down to life choices and how one manages the finances I guess. If you’re running two cars, multiple credit cards, a perfectly located giant house with all the all the mod-cons & the huge utility bills that implies, kids, etc, then yeah of course 30% of your paypacket on a mortgage is going to start putting pressure on the budget.

We (as a society) need to move away from this ‘you can have it all’ mentality. Sometimes you have to make some hard decisions before you can have ‘everything’.

Tim says:

09:50am | 28/11/11

I think it’s gross income they’re talking about and if you’re above that figure it doesn’t mean that you are necessarily under stress paying your mortgage.
It all depends on how much you earn and what your particular situation is.
Much easier for a young, single person to afford 30%+ than a family with a couple of kids.

I’d be spewing if I had to pay 37% of take home pay on rent. That’s a massive chunk of your wage.

James1 says:

09:51am | 28/11/11

We rent for similar reasons - at our age and with our income, the only place we could buy and still stay below 30% income going to accommodation is in the suburbs of Charnwood or Kambah (currently we pay 26.8%, and by no means do we struggle).  Fellow Canberrans will understand why we choose to rent in Dickson instead of buy in Belcompton.

Good luck with the interviews - I know the feeling well, there is nothing worse than the wait.

Elphaba says:

09:57am | 28/11/11

@TimB, I think a lot of these notions about property are going to need to be dropped, because things have changed so much.  The ‘30%’ is one. 

Sure, more money would be nice (which is why I’m going for a better job!)  But I’m not crying poor.  If I can’t afford something, I wait.  The money that’s left over after bills is spent carefully.  I don’t have CC debt.  I would like to own property one day, but saving for a deposit would curtail other things I like to do, which is why I’m opting for investments instead.

I don’t believe rent money is dead money, personally.  If it’s a roof over your head, it’s not dead money.  I’m happy to keep doing what I’m doing, and am in no rush to lock myself in a mortgage.The stigmas around renting and percentages need to go away and more people need to actually sit down and make a budget and think about the things they can live without.  Many would be surprised about what can be sacrificed to free up a little cash.

Tim says:

09:58am | 28/11/11

TimB,
as I’ve just said it comes down to your circumstances.
A young single can probably afford that percentage but its a bit harder when you have more responsibilites or a family.

I know you own a unit so you probably don’t want to see the status quo changed but the amount that people are spending on their mortgages is ridiculous. It’s completely unproductive and hurts our economy because there are much better uses for our money.
The government seriously needs to look at the way they treat property investment in Australia.
Unfortunately there’s too many votes to be lost by doing something to fix the currently extremely generous treatment property receives.

Elphaba says:

10:06am | 28/11/11

@Tim, but it’s all relative.  Firstly, a mortgage would be the same.  I still have enough money to travel, buy concert tickets, keep myself clothed and fed.  I can’t see why it’s such a bad thing. 

Do you rent or own?

AdamC says:

10:13am | 28/11/11

I spending 40-50% of my net income on the mortgage, but I have the boyfriend to pay bills, etc. It would be wrong to say I ‘struggle’. Having said that, I live in a unit in Melbourne’s underrated inner-north west, so I based my home purchasing decision on affordability as much as desirability.

Despite the hype, overall home ownership rates have not decreased as a result of the ‘housing affordability crisis’. This suggests to me that, as usual, it is a media beat-up rather than a genuine problem. What has changed in recen times is that the ‘wealth effect’ of rising house prices has encouraged people do draw down on their home equity. I suspect that is the reason for the reductions in outright home ownership.

Tim says:

10:31am | 28/11/11

Elphaba,
I always like thinking long term with things like this and too many people ignore things like how they are going to afford to retire or how they are going to afford to have children.
You may be afford to live comfortably at the moment, but paying that amount in rent is money that you don’t have to invest or save for your future.

James1,
Kambah rules.

James1 says:

10:34am | 28/11/11

Indeed Adam.  Whenever I hear the word “housing affordibility crisis”, my immediate reaction is “what are they trying to afford”?

I think for many in my generation (y), they are trying to afford the same sort of house their parents owned, rather than something affordable and sensible.  Full disclosure: my family are apartment dwelling renters partly by choice, partly necessity.  We had a child very young and prefer to spend less on accommodation so as to save more and still be able to afford all of our little comforts (mostly computer games (me), comics (our daughter) and shoes (my wife)).

As a side note, we are holding off even considering buying until the Coalition is back in government come 2013.  The word in Canberra is that, should Abbott carry out his threatened public service cuts, a lot of people will be leaving town and selling up.  It happened in 1996, and a lot of people are expecting a repeat of that.  Hopefully then we can snap up a bargain in an area we like.

Elphaba says:

10:40am | 28/11/11

@Tim,

Who says I’m not investing in my future?

I pay money after tax into my super (and have, purely by accident, picked a super fund that appears to be bullet-proof despite the current upheaval), and I am building a savings account with some money to start buying packets of shares next year (with the goal of buying at least 1 packet of shares each year from then on).

Some spurious assumptions there by you. Again, I ask if you’re renting or owning?  Or do you live at home?

Elphaba says:

10:41am | 28/11/11

@Tim, oh, and re: kids - not having them.  Not interested.

Shenanigans says:

11:20am | 28/11/11

I live in a group share house with 4 mates, we spend about 20% of our wages collectively to cover rent, we wouldn’t be able to afford the rent on this place if the one of the two girls i live with didn’t have a father who owns the property we live in, so he cut us a bargain as long as we don’t trash the house and we promise to look after it well. so none of us are struggling, we are all living comfortably within our collective means. the house is in a nice suburb plenty of parking for the collective utes and such that appear outside the house, and its close to the city, bit of a pain for me and my mate both being tradies and working on the freaking edges of Canberra (although not me atm ) i guess we are the lucky few who can afford to rent a house at our age because of the people we know, but i understand that isn’t always the case.

but on the wages we earn, we may be living comfortable but not extravagant, of the four of us only 1 earns more then $500 a week. the two of us on 1st and 2nd year apprentice wages struggle a bit.

Tim says:

11:32am | 28/11/11

Elphaba,
can you point out where I said you weren’t investing?
I didn’t make any assumptions about your personal situation, I said that paying higher rents is money that you don’t have to invest.

And I’m also talking in general not about you specifically. There are plenty of people who don’t have kids (I’m in that boat too) or a family but a lot do. I think that it’s simply ridiculous to expect people to have to pay that amount of money for a place to live.
The government gives extremely generous treatment to property investing as well as strangling land releases to keep house prices artificially high. I think this should change because housing is a necessity.

Myself,
I’m renting at the moment, costing about 12% of my take home pay.
I save and invest about 55% of income and am looking to buy a house but don’t think I will with prices as they are.

nossy says:

11:42am | 28/11/11

@@Shenanigans hot tip here Shen - marry the girl whose father owns the house and boot everyone else out and hey presto paridise!  theory sounds good anyway.

Elphaba says:

12:03pm | 28/11/11

@Tim, I also think the government is rather generous with people who decide to have children.  As a single, you get bugger all unless you’re earning below the minimum wage.

I still think TimB basically blows your theory out of the water with his prsonal experience.  I don’t blame the government for my inability to buy a house - I made my choice in a career that won’t pay much but that I love, and using my spare cash to travel and live in the now.  That’s my decision and I don’t expect the government to pick up the tab. 

I definitely think more accommodation should be built - large scale stuff where you have the option to rent for life.  I also think that living in regional areas should be made more attractive and hopefully wiring the nation with the NBN will mean more people can work in regional areas from home and not have to move to the big smoke. 

Life is all about choice.  And I think stores like TimB’s shows that it can be done if you’re willing to buck up and make some sacrifices.  Not sacrifice everything, otherwise life would be no fun.  But I wonder about the people whinging and if they just made some changes, they’d free up some cash that would make all the difference.

I think we’re going to continue to disagree on this topic.

Tim says:

12:27pm | 28/11/11

Elphaba,
as TimB has said previously, he’s a single person living in an apartment.
That may suit his situation perfectly but for most people and definitely families it wouldn’t.
Average house prices in the major capitals are $550K+

Existing housing is not a productive asset. Nothing comes out of it. Having people tie up so much of their wage in it, means they have less money to invest in more productive areas of our economy.

Of course buying a house will take sacrifices but actively having the government work against housing affordability doesn’t help.

Elphaba says:

12:37pm | 28/11/11

@Tim, then perhaps they need to adjust their dream.  If they want kids, they need to get a good job that pays good money.  Not everyone gets what they want.  It’s great to have a dream, but sometimes realiy needs to shape it into something more appropriate.

I know plenty of families my age who have a mortgage they can handle and are productive members of society.  They do it because they looked at what they wanted, and then shaped it into something achievable.  That’s life.

Shenanigans says:

12:44pm | 28/11/11

its all strictly casual nossy

Tim says:

01:29pm | 28/11/11

Elphaba,
housing is a necessity, it’s not a luxury.
Of course there are people out there who’s eyes are too big for their wallets but when crappy houses cost $350K+ then there is a problem beyond people who extend themselves too far.

I know plenty of people who’ve been forced to buy tiny houses on tiny blocks way out from any city centre. These aren’t dream homes, these people haven’t overextended themselves, the locations aren’t great. The houses are shitboxes.

Why?

Because the government and developers have a stranglehold on land releases, only drip feeding a tiny amount of blocks because they underpin their budgets with the sales revenue
Because the government allows investors to speculate on capital gains for houses with favourable tax treatment.
Because so many voters are into property in a big way. They would destroy any government who tried to change things for the better.

I understand that people need to be realistic with their expectations, I simply think that house prices have exceeded what a reasonable person should expect due to the reasons I’ve listed above.

Elphaba says:

01:41pm | 28/11/11

Like I said Tim, we disagree.

Have a great day.

S.L says:

03:25pm | 28/11/11

I pay $255 per week for a 2 bedroom dogbox…........... 10 minutes walk from the beach. 100 yards from a pub, 500 yards from a leagues club and at night with the windows open the surf sings me too sleep. Life isn’t too bad!

neo says:

03:27pm | 28/11/11

Don’t buy a house, buy an apartment!

I’m renting as well, $350 a week for my lower North Shore unit. I only got into it because of an ex, who has now moved out, so I have to shoulder the whole rent :( It’s a great location though, I save tons of time traveling to work. Still, bit pricey for one bedroom and no car space :( :(

SimonfromLakemba says:

03:32pm | 28/11/11

Dickson, the loony left paradise.

Ill take Belcompton or Thuggeranong any day - Grew up in Thuggeranong

Where you live is unfortunately pigeon-holed by peopel who generally dont live there.

Living where I do now, people will say your crazy etc, but I have made very good money over the years Ive been here, more then the solcialite wannabees who buy in the eat or certain inner west areas only to lose their money in the short term.

Budz says:

07:25pm | 28/11/11

@Elphaba - You don’t want kids, sorry but we will never work
And you are putting money into super after tax? I’m assuming then you are either getting the Gov. Co-Cont (taxable income below $62K) or your taxable income is below around $35k? Just check to see if that’s the right type of contribution for yourself. /end attempted financial advice

iansand says:

09:41am | 28/11/11

It is on Epping Rd in Sydney.  It collapsed during construction of the Lane Cove Tunnel.

TimB says:

09:47am | 28/11/11

Yeah Nossy, as I recall, it was in Lane Cove. The construction of the nearby Lane Cove Tunnel caused the sinkhole.

Mark G says:

01:16pm | 28/11/11

“In our daily lives, how much time do we actually spend & dedicate to our home, anyway??  Time is very much of an essence & the most important thing especially right now, in our very busy lives!!  Commuting long hours for most of us, might be a bit of a chore!!  “

Yes and often our commuting time is increased by our quest to find a good affordable large home in the suburbs. So essentially the bigger and better the home is, the less actual time you will spend in it. Its kind of ironic isn’t it.

Jade says:

11:33am | 28/11/11

I hope I never have too, it always worries me though :S

Shenanigans says:

12:46pm | 28/11/11

its freaky going in a straight line at 110, hearing a bang then all of a sudden the car is sliding in the direction of the wrong way

jay-ded says:

01:15pm | 28/11/11

Hope you went out and bought a lottery ticket Shen.  You and your friend are extremley lucky to be alive.  How did the shoulder take the seatbelt pull?

Shenanigans says:

01:32pm | 28/11/11

I should have, I’ve been incredibly lucky the past few weeks, something has gotta give soon i reckon. You know the police said the same thing when they turned up (someone saw it happened and called triple0), i think the police came out expecting another car accident resulting in death, and got a pleasant surprise when we were standing next to a completely fcuked car. Shoulder didn’t take to kindly to it, hurts even more today but the paramedic said i should be right.

Anna C says:

01:27pm | 28/11/11

I know. I totally share your pain. The Government already has a $7 billion black hole caused by the GFC and reduced Capital gains tax revenue and NOW THIS. When will they stop pissing away my hard earned taxpaying dollars?

Why do they keep propping up families at the expense of everyone else?  When is enough, enough for god’s sakes? What next a $500 cheque to every family whose kids brush their teeth?

subotic says:

11:52am | 28/11/11

@Zeta, may I suggest moving to Memphis? With a 62.2% Black or African-American population, you’d certainly be rid of any sight of those pesky white people. Plus they have unlimited DL with lightening fast connection speed, so you can DL the latest Eddie Murphy movie within seconds.

And Taco Bell is open 24/7 too…

Mark G says:

01:25pm | 28/11/11

Zeta,

“I hate white people”  WTF?????

That was kind of a racist statement there.

“Right now, I pay about $36k per year, if I bought my apartment, I’d pay as much as $120k per year. For the next 30 or so f***ing years.”

Yes but in 30 years you will own the place. 30 years of rent and the landlord still owns your property. This must be white man logic.

Zeta says:

03:39pm | 28/11/11

It’s not racist to hate living around white people.

We’re incredibly annoying.

My neighbourhood is entirely Asian, more specifically, Korean. I love it so much I want to move to Korea. I’m the only white guy in my building.

No one ever talks to me, no one even looks me in the eye. No one ever parks in my car spot, which is great, because I don’t even own a car and I like it being empty all the time. They’re silent, like the grave. You ever hear a Korean student celebrating the school holidays? That’s right, they don’t. This girl left a note in my letter box the other day to say she and exactly 7 other people would be having an end of semester party in her apartment. I couldn’t even hear them over the sound of how silent and Asian my apartment building is.

You know what else? I’m pretty sure Asians can’t swim. Because I sure as hell am the only person who has ever used the swimming pool. Just this big fat white guy flopping around in the pool while everyone else studies. It’s sublime.

And Koreans never have domestic disputes. I bet you have to call the cops around to your crazy white neighbours using their wives as punching bags - not me. When Korean couples have an arguement, they draw a line down the middle of the house and cover it in land mines.

But best of all, and why I’ll never live in a white neighbourhood again - no one ever gets up in your shit. Ever. Which is why I’d be quite happy to spend the next 30 years living in a place owned by a faceless Asian super fund consortium who forget I even exist, rather than some gaijin’s investment property who periodically gets spooked by the market and tries to sell, which leads to endless weekends of even more annoying white people noisely filing through your apartment considering wether or not to spend their negative geared investment dollars raising my rent.

If I bought, I’d be the annoying white person. Also, does anyone know the Korean word for annoying white person? Because I’m pretty sure gaijin is Japanese.

Zeta says:

03:45pm | 28/11/11

...and another thing. Say I did stump up the one and a half or so million dollars to buy my place, or one like it, because God knows I’m not moving to the suburbs. What then? I’ve paid it off by the time I’m what, 60? Let’s say 65, retirement age. Is an inner city apartment really going to grow in value by 6 or 7 per cent per year? Shit no. It’s going to still be around the same value. But I’ll have spent 2 or 3 million in interest, repairs, rates etc. For what? So I can sell it?

Screw that. I’d rather keep paying rent and put the difference between the rent and a mortgage into bonds or something. Safer, easier return, no hassles.

Home ownership is like marriage, never having sex, and voting Labor - something you do because your parents did. I see no reason to do it in the 21st Century when you can’t guarantee it will ever be relevant again.

Tim says:

03:54pm | 28/11/11

Although Zeta’s post is mildly amusing, I think The Punch is kidding themselves for letting that post through.

Who’s moderating?

If Zeta was talking about Aboriginals, Blacks or any other race than Whiteys, ask yourself whether that post would have been allowed?????

Thought not.

subotic says:

12:22pm | 29/11/11

@Tim, yea, it’s ok to beat up on “Asians” but for the love of Elvis don’t ever dare touch the Aussie locals in any way that could be considered even slightly half funny in a stereotypical racist way, coz if you do your comment won’t get thru sunshine…

subotic says:

12:21pm | 28/11/11

No. Some kids cope fine, but the parents don’t.

Guess it depends on the situation really.

Mark G says:

02:03pm | 28/11/11

Xar,

Do you have a rental contract????

A rental contract is your stability. You can lock in the landlord to a set period ie 6 months, 12 month ...... If he/she tries to kick you out early just sue him for the removal costs for breach of contract. There are minimum eviction time frames (except when there is a reason such as property damage).

Same thing with the rental inspections. I would like to see them use ‘dust on the counter’ as a reason to evict you in court. Unless you are putting holes in the walls with sledge hammers, then there is probably little they can actually do. A lot of it is more about intimidation. If they can make you feel bad about dust, then you are unlikely to cause any real damage to the property.

I have dealt with unscrupulous landlords and their intimidation before. You just have to read the fine print in you rental contract. I got a call from a real estate agent one day who actually asked me “Can you put the bins around the back after bin day”. I asked why. She said that the landlord thought it devalued the property to have them out the front. I said to her “How the hell does the landlord know that I leave the bins out?”. She replied “Because he regularly drives past the property”. My responses to this were very colourful but let’s just say that I warned her against allowing the landlord to make unsolicited visits to the property and snooping on what I was doing in it. I also told her in no uncertain terms that I would be putting the bins wherever I felt it appropriate and if they didn’t like it they could try eviction proceedings after which I would sue them for breach of contract given that I maintained the property in an excellent state and had inspection reports to back it up. I didn’t here much more from them after that.

TJ says:

03:21pm | 28/11/11

@Xar - in the same situation as you, 4 moves in 4 years and about to undertake another one as soon as we find a house to accept our application, we have had 12 month leases then the owner decides to sell at the end of it, i would just love to spend more than 1 year in a house.

Eva says:

06:21pm | 28/11/11

How about you buy it? I have sold two homes to the sitting tenants when it has become apparent that it was time to sell. Good for me as no Real estate fees and good for them as the price was not as high as it would have been if I had had to cover those pesky selling fees.

Xar says:

12:51pm | 29/11/11

Mark - yes we have a contract - it is up one the 2nd of January. This particular landlord has done nothing wrong by us at all, it is just unfortunate that we must move. 6 to 12 months is not long term security to me, I have a family which inclused persons with a disability who can’t stand the whole moving process but also - a move means a heck of a lot of expenses, it is thoroughly depressing to have our meagre savings eaten up with moving costs, hard to get in a possition to be doing better when the rug is forever pulled from underneath you. It means I feel less able to be assertive with crappy real estate agents for fear our lease wont be renewed.
TJ - isn’t it awful?
Eva - my goodness Eva - welcome to the real world where not everyone has the money to just buy a property. When your earning capacity and cost of living are impaired by disability and you constantly have savings depleated because of the usual “cycle of poverty” facts of life (like unavoidable moving expenses) and you have to stay in a certain area to have employment and services related to your familie disabilities you don’t get a nice meal out let alone a foot on the property ladder!

John Smythe says:

12:35pm | 28/11/11

Excellent Counterpunch Article!

Wynston Cruso says:

01:42pm | 28/11/11

Very good Anubis. I for one found the White Ribbon Day articles offensive and completely ridiculous, and have wondered at the lack of a Movember piece. Not much excuse in my opinion, the bias is obvious and ugly to say the least. If the message people were trying to send was to boycott WRD every year then mission accomplished - not at all to say that I condone violence, but that’s the point - I seriously couldn’t care less about the cause in particular now. Apparently men don’t have issues to be addressed, because we’re all too busy raping and so on. Any article on Movember now will just be a kick in the balls.

Robert Smissen Of rural SA says:

10:13pm | 28/11/11

Thank-you, as a victim of domestic violence I appreciate your post, even though I’m 183 tall & over 100kg I never hit back because I knew that’s what she was trying to provoke. I finally ended up with my 3 kids as a sole parent. The fact that women called men whingers if they complained is what they call if done to them “emotional violence”, funny that, not! ! My kids are adults now & despite the hell of their early lives are all sucessful in their fields. Female pedophiles are far more prevelant than is admitted. I worked with on young bloke whose mother forced him to service her until he ran away at 16, yet nobody believed him.

nossy says:

06:47pm | 28/11/11

@Rachel Laurel that was a real bad knock on the head you got honey or you commenced afternoon drinkies way too early!  hahahah