Demand for Housing in Australia, an Article in The Conversation

30 Sep

https://theconversation.com/five-reasons-the-turnbull-government-shouldnt-let-us-spend-super-on-a-home-48306?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+September+30+2015+-+3512&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+September+30+2015+-+3512+CID_91ef742d7e0f59bcb338c2d333e3e147&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Five%20reasons%20the%20Turnbull%20government%20shouldnt%20let%20us%20spend%20super%20on%20a%20home

I would recommend that people who have any thoughts on the subject of housing affordability, go to the above article. I copy here the first few sentences which might make you curious to read on.

“Five reasons the Turnbull government shouldn’t let us spend super on a home
September 30, 2015 6.10am AEST

Allowing first homebuyers to cash out their super to buy a home is a seductive idea with a long history. Like the nine-headed Hydra, which replaced each severed head with two more, each time the idea is cut down it seems to return even stronger.

. . . . ”

4 Responses to “Demand for Housing in Australia, an Article in The Conversation”

  1. gerard oosterman October 1, 2015 at 9:07 am #

    Whatever happened to renting? There ought to be a choice for people to rent instead of buying. It is not for everyone to live a life where paying the mortgage is all important. Of course, a six month lease is hardly the way to rent. What happened to housing commission and affordable rents?
    Why do we have to ‘own’ everything? You can’t eat a house.

    • auntyuta October 1, 2015 at 5:09 pm #

      Thanks for commenting, Gerard. I’d like to ask the same questions.
      It would be great if some more affordable housing could be made available.
      That goes for renting a place as well as for buying a place.

  2. stuartbramhall October 2, 2015 at 9:23 am #

    The article makes the assumption that it’s okay to force people to “save” for retirement while requiring them to remain in rental housing (which is always far more expensive than purchasing a home). There used to be an expectation that superannuation would be publicly funded as Social Security is in the US – this is one government that Americans across the political spectrum universally approve of.

    • auntyuta October 2, 2015 at 1:21 pm #

      I lived in Germany till 1959. .At the time most people in Germany were happy to just be renting an apartment. I think there was something like ‘Mieterschutz’, meaning an owner had to give notice in plenty of time before the people that were renting had to move. Most flats were social housing flats. Government did not own the flats, but the rental (Miete) was controlled by the government, meaning the owners had to keep the rent at a reasonable price.

      When Peter and I were married in Germany in 1956 we were not able to rent a flat. At the time the housing stock in Germany was still very low due to the destruction of homes during WW II and the great influx of refugees from the East. A lot of sub-letting was done in those days.

      In Germany the ‘Sozialabgaben’ including taxes were pretty high. You had to pay in for your pension a certain percentage of your earnings. For that you were guarantied a certain amount of pension once you reached pension age. If you paid in very little in ‘Sozialabgaben’ you could expect only a ‘minimum’ pension, but the pension was set according to what you paid it over your working life. A higher income earner would always have to pay in a certain percentage of his income, accordingly he would at pension age get a very good pension.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: