the election, and stuff..

[Goreripper]

And don't get me started on Superannuation. Too late. Super shouldn't be compulsory until you're 30 years old. What I mean is that you should be able to take your super and spend it on important things like a house and education and other things like that. You need that kick-start when you're young to help set you up for retirement.

I agree to an extent, but by 30 most people have already been working in some form or another for 12 - 15 years. If super wasn't compulsory until 30, that's 12 - 15 years worth of super you have to catch up on. The way the average life expectancy continues to increase, people who retire at 55 or even 60 can expect to live up to 20 years or even more on money they've saved in the 40 - 45 years they've been working, and that's pretty much fuck all when you still have to pay bills, shop, run a car or whatever it is retired people spend money on. So if retirement pensions are phased out before I reach retirement age, I'll be quite thankful I've had my super saved up for me since I was 19.

 

[JonBonJovi]

I don't think Sydo will believe anything a non liberal supporter will say.So what's the use of even trying.
If you watch the news regularly Sydo you will see and hear that at every quarter banks etc are waiting on what the Reserve Bank says in regards to interest rates.So how can you say it is bullshit the Reserve Bank makes the decision in regards to interest rates. The Reserve Bank makes their decision based on Wall Street and the current world econmy,inflation etc.

 

[Sydo]

The Reserve Bank makes descions based on our economy. Our economy can be influcence by international factors, but those factors can be controlled.

 

[phlogiston]

Yeah, but if those people could afford a house earlier, then they'd have a house when they were ready to retire. There are lots of people that I know approaching 30 that can't get a house deposit together.

I'm not advocating giving free reign to super, because then a lot of people would piss it up against a wall. But if you need an extra 10 or 15 grand to buy a house then it's silly to have your money tied up in low return super when it could be in property.

 

[Goreripper]

Yeah, but if those people could afford a house earlier, then they'd have a house when they were ready to retire. There are lots of people that I know approaching 30 that can't get a house deposit together.

I'm not advocating giving free reign to super, because then a lot of people would piss it up against a wall. But if you need an extra 10 or 15 grand to buy a house then it's silly to have your money tied up in low return super when it could be in property.

I can't get a house deposit together and I'm over 30. I can see some benefit in freeing up super to a degree, but it would get difficult to police.

 

[Goreripper]

The Reserve Bank makes descions based on our economy. Our economy can be influcence by international factors, but those factors can be controlled.

This is why you need to explain some of your economic learnerings, Sydo.

 

[phlogiston]

I can't get a house deposit together and I'm over 30. I can see some benefit in freeing up super to a degree, but it would get difficult to police.

Do it at the same time you apply for your first home buyers grant. Easy!

But it doesn't matter. It won't happen anyway.

 

[Sydo]

Yeah, but if those people could afford a house earlier, then they'd have a house when they were ready to retire. There are lots of people that I know approaching 30 that can't get a house deposit together.

That's a problem caused by the low interest rates - it has pushed the price of houses much higher than where they should be. Builders couldn't keep up with the demand for new housing, so they increased their prices (which in turn increases the demand for older houses, thus increasing the price). Demand for builders increases, their pay increases, more kids take up the trade. 10 years time, there's enough builders to cope with the demand for new houses. So now that a house can be built on demand, the price falls (or stops increasing). If interest rates don't change in that period, housing will have become more affordable. If they rise; Firstly you'll see the price of houses fall quickly as people start to default on their loans and sell up. Secondly you'll see a bunch of young and unemployed carpenters.

 

[phlogiston]

I don't think Sydo will believe anything a non liberal supporter will say.So what's the use of even trying.
If you watch the news regularly Sydo you will see and hear that at every quarter banks etc are waiting on what the Reserve Bank says in regards to interest rates.So how can you say it is bullshit the Reserve Bank makes the decision in regards to interest rates. The Reserve Bank makes their decision based on Wall Street and the current world econmy,inflation etc.

I think Sydo's doing a fine job of supporting his point of view, now he's started. We all realise that we're probably not going to change each others point of view, but there's always value in having that viewpoint held up for scrutiny.

And in (further) defense of Sydo, I'll probably pay more creedence to someone who's studied economics for 4 years at uni than to someone who gets all of their information via the news.

 

[Goreripper]

I'd assume the land squeeze in the major cities would increase housing prices also, but if interest rates rose, people would still struggle to buy a home because even though they'd be cheaper, they wouldn't be able to afford the interest. Am I correct there?

 

[phlogiston]

That's a problem caused by the low interest rates - it has pushed the price of houses much higher than where they should be. Builders couldn't keep up with the demand for new housing, so they increased their prices (which in turn increases the demand for older houses, thus increasing the price). Demand for builders increases, their pay increases, more kids take up the trade. 10 years time, there's enough builders to cope with the demand for new houses. So now that a house can be built on demand, the price falls (or stops increasing). If interest rates don't change in that period, housing will have become more affordable. If they rise; Firstly you'll see the price of houses fall quickly as people start to default on their loans and sell up. Secondly you'll see a bunch of young and unemployed carpenters.

That's true over the short term (short term being 10 years), but we're talking long term here, remember (40+ years). House prices *always* go up in the long term. Unless you're in one of those towns that are in the middle of now where that are become ghost towns, I guess. But for the majority of people who live in the 'burbs of a major city, land is pretty much a sure thing.

 

[phlogiston]

I'd assume the land squeeze in the major cities would increase housing prices also, but if interest rates rose, people would still struggle to buy a home because even though they'd be cheaper, they wouldn't be able to afford the interest. Am I correct there?

Which would then squeeze the rental market, so they'd be struggling either way. At least if they owned they'd be struggling for something that will bring a return.

 

[Sydo]

if interest rates rose, people would still struggle to buy a home because even though they'd be cheaper, they wouldn't be able to afford the interest. Am I correct there?

It all depends on how much interest rates rise, and how much housing prices fall. House affordability right now is pretty poor, even compared to the days of 15% interest p/a. It's the ratio between interest rate and mean house price which is important.

However I think most people would prefer to have low rates and expensive houses, rather than high rates and low house value. Like Phloggy said before; housing is an investment, so high prices are often desirable.

 

[Sydo]

Howard wants to increase HECS.

This is a really difficult topic. Right now there isn't enough jobs available for graduates anyway, so we should probably be discouraging some people from tertiary education anyway. Yet keeping people in perpetual education leaves them out of the official unemployment figures – so it is also looks good on paper in the short-term.

I’m going to find myself about $20k behind before I start looking for a job.

 

[Sydo]

Prime Ministers aren't supposed to come up with knee-jerk, band-aid solutions to things.

Fucking gun-control.

 

[Spiff]

Gun control rules. No need for the things, except for competing in the Olympics.

 

[Sydo]

It was a knee-jerk reaction though, and hasn't really done much good.

 

[Shannow]

Fucking gun-control.

Does spending $650,000,000 on a system that hasn't acheived a single effective outcome count as wasteful and frivolous expenditure ?

BTW, when I'm King, there will be no negative gearing on houses. Either that, or you can claim the interest on your primary residence (like in the States, to promote home ownership). Prices should come down somewhat when the speculators realise that people can actually afford to buy.

 

[Sydo]

Does spending $650,000,000 on a system that hasn't acheived a single effective outcome count as wasteful and frivolous expenditure ?

Yes, but what are we talking about? Is that how much the gun buy-back was?

 

[JonBonJovi]

I think Sydo's doing a fine job of supporting his point of view, now he's started. We all realise that we're probably not going to change each others point of view, but there's always value in having that viewpoint held up for scrutiny.

And in (further) defense of Sydo, I'll probably pay more creedence to someone who's studied economics for 4 years at uni than to someone who gets all of their information via the news.

I don't get all my info from the fucking news.I used that as an example. My father was an Accountant and financial advisor for over 20yrs, one of my uncles was a manager of a bank for his entire working career. I read the paper, time magazine plus many other forms of print media. Don't put me in a box with an in-appropiate label.