it is the collective failure of our two major parties Labor and Liberals (over the past 20 years), yet neither party is offering much to fix it. Only way we can fix this is to stop voting for the two parties responsible for this crisis. Please vote for anyone but them, they will soon realise young ausies are becoming the majority.
You are very right. This is had been a problem in the making for decades. Thankfully, our voice has begun breaking through. Check out our recent event with NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey. ruclips.net/video/5FY8zVPj6kE/видео.html
Here’s a simple thought experiment. Everyone’s house deflates in value by half overnight. Who would suffer? Banks and governments. Less profit with lending and less stamp duty in revenue. Rising house prices are good for both of them.
Building guidelines are over the top. We end up with land at $150,000 and house at $350,000. Young australians can hardly afford such prices. Meanwhile we could have some decent basic good 2 bedrooms built for $150,000. And a block for $50,000. $200,000 is far more attainable for your average young couple rather than $500,000. Make your 2 bedroom house able to have added in the future a third or fourth bedroom.
Or, how about we stop pretending that the main issue isn't that immigration rates are too high? With our birth rate at or below replacement, the demand from the next generation would not exceed the supply.
If demand creates a shortage of supply, economics says more houses would be built to meet the increased demand- is that happening? Have rates of home construction seen an increase due to immigration? Entire industries exist that make profits by building and selling houses- aren't they meeting demand? If not, why not?
The IMF has said that housing costs relative to the median wage would need to be cut by 50% to be affordable. Building more homes of all types is great but they must be affordable by those on median wages. Reducing migration and taxation concessions are essential as well. Just building more homes solves nothing if people can’t afford them or they are still slaves to mortgage payments.
We need to let the market decide what kind of homes are needed. But fully in support of building homes of all kinds and in particular increasing density. Apartments are more accessible than detached dwellings with yards and pools.
Major sweeping generalisation to suit the mindset. Pools and Backyards, in particular pools, nothing to do with it. Lacking on these matters is talk of infrusture needed for cramming people into spaces. Plenty of increased cramming all over the place in inner Melbourne, outer suburbs, In long established suburbs, just resulting in nasty increased traffic on same long establshed roads with lots of increased air and light pollution. Many issues are involved in the 'housing crisis', increasing immigration just one of them, environmentally inefficient buildings to live in another. The migration makes Australia stronger, more economically 'good' should not mean Australia merely needs more and more and more people, it doesn't. Sweden does fine with a population of 10,606,999 (2024), etc.
Too simplistic as an explanation and I expected better from the CIS. The supply and demand issue is obvious but reducing building restrictions would open the market up to unscrupulous developers even more than it is now, you only need to look at the stories of housing developments in Sydney that are structurally unsound. The reason why "NIMBY" is a thing is due to the lack of infrastructure to support an increase in population. That infrastructure should be in place prior to the developments and not the other way around (as is currently mostly the case). Supply is the issue because our population wants to stick to the capital cities. Maybe if there were better incentives to live in the country areas, people would be more inclined to move out of the cities. One example is the aging population not wanting (afraid) to retire out of the cities due to lack of medical support in the country areas, I'm sure others could think of more examples. Streamlining building application processes would lower waiting times and cost, but reducing building restrictions would introduce more problems that may not be reflected in the simple graphs you present.
Amazing the tax incentives aren't mentioned here, it's almost like the CIS is trying to divert attention away from it. When the straight 50% discount on capital gains was brought in in the late 90's house prices that used to track along with growth in median income exploded to higher multiples. Fix this along with negative gearing.
@@CISAus if you came to that conclusion using sound methodology then I’m sure that’s explained in the report. I’ll give it a read and match it up against other research
Here you are: www.cis.org.au/publication/housing-affordability-and-supply-restrictions/ There is a table in section 6 of the paper you will find useful.
Cutting immigration will only make us poorer and won't solve the broader problem. Our cities are some of the least dense in the world for their size. We have space. We just need to build.
@@CISAuswitch is to his point, shut the door until we get the housing. Men, women and children are being forced onto the streets. Mass immigration needs to stop now
So we have a property too small to run as commercial farm, across the road is a highly sort after housing a estate. Average time on Market here is half the national average. The zoning here is part of an archaic state government concept.
Tell me you don't know anything about civil engineering without telling me you don't know anything about civil engineering. Also, councils are corrupt.
We build more houses per capita than anywhere else in the world, minus Switzerland I think? I agree with the red tape cutting etc, but it’s obvious that we’re growing the population too aggressively and need to slow migration down
There are quite a few countries building more homes per capita than use. However, one of the things we argue for is building homes where people actually want to live. The demand is for homes around transport and the inner city.
Or on existing residential property you could reduce CGT discount to 25% and remove negative gearing plus cap immigration at 100k per year from all sources.
Tax concessions only at 1-4% to the cost of housing. Immigration increase demand but cutting immigration won't fix the problem. It will just make us poorer.
You have no chance selling it. Even if you do alterations to a house (depending on the type) you need to get council approval. The first thing a prospective buyer needs to do is check that it was approved.
The IPA light once again missing the whole point. Ignore capital gains which is driving up speculative values.... the IPA once again furnishing the rich by skinning the backs of the poor.
Try reading the excellent QE on this problem. Howard government lowered capital gains tax and entrenched negative gearing. Coupled with low interest rates until 2023, and there's been a massive shift of lazy capital into unproductive house flipping. Leading to huge intergenerational transfer of wealth to propertied class. Which includes people of all political stripes.
Tax concessions are whole other can of worms...but unfortunately cutting Capital Gains and Negative Gearing would only reduce prices by 1-4%. We want to have a bigger impact.
Relax zoning restrictions ,and let people build smaller ,more compact houses in creative ways .Se veral smaller houses can be built ,as you need them and build in walkways them ..A.s the kids leave home ,rent out the out houses as tiny homes or put them on a truck and sell them Allow for much more community living situations
In the UK, the main issue is most definitely mass immigration - both legal and illegal. The UK government encourages mass immigration because they can say "the economy is increasing". Without mass immigration, all the government's expensive mistakes, like 'net zero' targets, would be on display for all the world to see.
Disagree. The UKs problem is NIMBYism and excessive regulation. Immigration just excacerbates it. There's no reason why London, a city of 8mil people, should be housed in 3 story terraces. New York ain't like that. Paris aint like that. London basically looks like 100s of villages strung together rather than a proper city. So does Manchester and Birmigham. The UK just hasn't built the required number of houses or the right type of housing.
@@adtastic1533 I think the flaw in your argument is that you assume people want to live forever in a block of flats. At some point - especially when they are considering having children - they want a dwelling with their own garden. You’re looking at the world from the perspective of numbers on an Excel spreadsheet. However, people are humans - not robots who only need a box to live in. Modern flats are often inhumanly designed. They’re made in the cheapest way. No love goes into it.
@@Design_no negative gearing allows people to reduce their taxable income. I don't have any statistics, but there would be less real estate investors if it did not exist
Removing negative gearing and capital gains concessions would only reduce housing prices by 1-4%. It's a conversation would having but not before addressing the bigger issue, supply restrictions.
We don't oppose heritage listings being used as they are intended. We oppose turning whole neighbourhoods into time capsules and the bequest of interest groups.
@@CISAus Many of the houses under heritage designation or overlay are works of art. A time when people put skill into building. To replace them with hi-rise flats for students/migrants, is an injustice to Settler Australians.
Again, we aren't calling for truly historic homes to be removed. Heritage listings are the reason so much of the Rocks has been preserved. However, many heritage listings don't fall into that category.
The NIMBY phenomenon is hardly limited to the well-off. Renters demand rent control and zoning restrictions so that their neighborhoods and rents stay the way they like them (changes that get me into the house/apartment I like are good, then once I am in those changes should stop). They want their purchasing power to be exempt from market forces, and to the extent they are successful, the actual cost is passed to others in the form of low supply and higher prices.
What? I come from Auckland and nothing any government has done has decreased rent or purchase price. The Auckland market has been out or control. The only squeeze it has felt in recent years has been because of less immigration after covid and higher interest rates. Our planning is atrocious and we are still one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in. Please don't use Auckland as an example of better planning. Our new govt coalition is only addressing the Resource Management act now and this will take years to remedy the prices to affordable levels for median wage earners.
reduce population growth remove tax on the domestic building industry and remove interest rates and investors then people will have homes again but that will never happen
@@CISAus Cutting migration would not make us poorer. The only example in recent memory we have of housing actually getting cheaper was during the pandemic when the borders were closed. Rents fell massively and many renters were able to increase their level of savings (yes prices went up but that was more to do with changes in monetary policy and fearful sellers, prices would have fallen by now if migration was not massively accelerated). Also, high levels of low skilled migration put substantial downward pressure on wages - that's partly why the BCA the like advocate so strongly for it. You can't possibly actually believe that cutting migration in our current context would actually make the average Aussie poorer, the elites would probably loose some net worth, but why does the average punter care about that??
Government production of 3D kit set houses ,self build interest free govt compulsory purchase order of land to give to the 1st time home buyers . .. This will lead to devaluation of greedy land owners ,housing portfolios reducing housing costs ... Banks will get less profits through high interest rates allowing better flow of money in all other industry ,allowing for a truly free economy
This year might be even worse than the last. Last year, I lost a lot of money on bad investments that I never would have made if I hadn't been so worried about my portfolio. I didn't know if I should continue to invest or pay my mortgage off. After selling my investments, I discovered that the house needed more work than I thought it would. I don't know how long I can keep doing this.
I'm not sure if I should combine all of my investment accounts into one. If so, what should I know and how should I respond? In addition, I want to sell my property, which could eventually fetch an additional $200,000. Is it best to put everything into one account or divide it among several investments?
These are key questions for a financial planner. I connected with mine at a summit, and with her help, my wife and I reallocated our 1.7M portfolio between a traditional IRA and brokerage account. She’s been managing the investment with our approval and has helped us recover twice our losses. Currently hodl’ing steady and cautiously navigating the market
Stop making houses an investment class ! And lower the mortages rates to 1 % borrow and then gain equity in your property for every dollar you put in ! Not paying interest !
@CISAus Immigration numbers are too high. You have to look at Supply and DEMAND. Looking at supply is only half the equation. And yes, there is a SUPPLY problem and a DEMAND problem. It is like looking at a coin - there are two sides, not one.
Why do you scoff at reducing the demand aspect as well? since the housing crisis is getting worse by the day why would you put all your eggs in one basket and solely rely on supply? building homes takes time, time in which this crisis gets worse. Many Australians are struggling right now, and the best solution you're presenting is to just rely on supply which will get better in a few years, maybe?? You say reforms to negative gearing and capital gains would only remove 1-4% to the cost of housing like its a bad thing?. Any reduction in prices right now would be seen as great progress. 4% on a 700k house is a reduction of 28k. I don't think you'd see many Aussies complain about that immediate decrease in house prices. Tag that along with incentives aimed at helping boomers downsize and reducing immigration rates until supply can catch up and you're fighting this problem on both fronts rather than just one.
We'll have to make another video to explain why cutting immigration won't help but will instead make us all poorer. When it comes to negative gearing and tax concessions, they aren't the core driver of housing affordability. We want to have the most impact and that is through opening up supply.
I don't think this is the issue at all, given we have a shortage of housing materials in Australia right now. You also don't mention Australian housing tax laws, you've oversimplified supply vs demand and the reasons you've given for councils "acting like a cartel" is a blanket statement. Of course council attitudes will vary from council to council. This is grade A bullshit. Also, your video looks like a cheap, company funded propaganda machine.
Tax concession only impact the prices by 1-4%. If you'd like a more in depth analysis head to our website. Peter Tulip has written on this topic extensively. www.cis.org.au/research/economic-policy/housing/
This seems pretty bias. I agree restrictions should be eased, we should have larger areas of mediumn density living. Barcelona done a good job in the 80s with its redevelopment. But pouring in 100k, mostly useless immigants and students a minth is the huge problem.
Cutting immigration will only make us poorer and won't solve the broader problem. Our cities are some of the least dense in the world for their size. We have space. We need to build. Medium density in particular could make a massive difference to the housing crisis.
@@CISAus If we could build new cities it would work, but Melbourne/Sydney are full. Now they are pouring into Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth. Significantly reducing our quality of life. In what way will we be poorer? Muh GDP? Less dense in the world? compared to what? New York/LA (shitholes?), Moscow, Cairo, Mexico city? I'd much prefer Switzerland style of life than New York. None of the benefits of economy of scale seem to be working, we are just worse off. Apologies for the language.
it is the collective failure of our two major parties Labor and Liberals (over the past 20 years), yet neither party is offering much to fix it. Only way we can fix this is to stop voting for the two parties responsible for this crisis. Please vote for anyone but them, they will soon realise young ausies are becoming the majority.
Exactly 💯
You are very right. This is had been a problem in the making for decades.
Thankfully, our voice has begun breaking through. Check out our recent event with NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey. ruclips.net/video/5FY8zVPj6kE/видео.html
Here’s a simple thought experiment. Everyone’s house deflates in value by half overnight. Who would suffer? Banks and governments. Less profit with lending and less stamp duty in revenue. Rising house prices are good for both of them.
We have become over reliant on ever increasing home prices, a dangerous game.
And landlords ..particularly the nasty controllers
Building guidelines are over the top. We end up with land at $150,000 and house at $350,000.
Young australians can hardly afford such prices.
Meanwhile we could have some decent basic good 2 bedrooms built for $150,000. And a block for $50,000. $200,000 is far more attainable for your average young couple rather than $500,000.
Make your 2 bedroom house able to have added in the future a third or fourth bedroom.
Agreed! We are in support of more building across the board and letting the market decide.
Or, how about we stop pretending that the main issue isn't that immigration rates are too high? With our birth rate at or below replacement, the demand from the next generation would not exceed the supply.
It’s because housing and food prices are too high. People are barely getting along and now the government took away the senior heat subsidy 🤢
If demand creates a shortage of supply, economics says more houses would be built to meet the increased demand- is that happening? Have rates of home construction seen an increase due to immigration? Entire industries exist that make profits by building and selling houses- aren't they meeting demand? If not, why not?
Our future shouldn't be sacrificed for someone else's retirement plan.
@@danpatterson8009The people we are importing lack basic skills, and don't want to work in hard labor.
And of course you will not name the responsible for passing the law for zoning restrictions.
You are useless !
The IMF has said that housing costs relative to the median wage would need to be cut by 50% to be affordable. Building more homes of all types is great but they must be affordable by those on median wages. Reducing migration and taxation concessions are essential as well. Just building more homes solves nothing if people can’t afford them or they are still slaves to mortgage payments.
We need to let the market decide what kind of homes are needed. But fully in support of building homes of all kinds and in particular increasing density. Apartments are more accessible than detached dwellings with yards and pools.
Major sweeping generalisation to suit the mindset. Pools and Backyards, in particular pools, nothing to do with it. Lacking on these matters is talk of infrusture needed for cramming people into spaces. Plenty of increased cramming all over the place in inner Melbourne, outer suburbs, In long established suburbs, just resulting in nasty increased traffic on same long establshed roads with lots of increased air and light pollution. Many issues are involved in the 'housing crisis', increasing immigration just one of them, environmentally inefficient buildings to live in another. The migration makes Australia stronger, more economically 'good' should not mean Australia merely needs more and more and more people, it doesn't. Sweden does fine with a population of 10,606,999 (2024), etc.
Too simplistic as an explanation and I expected better from the CIS. The supply and demand issue is obvious but reducing building restrictions would open the market up to unscrupulous developers even more than it is now, you only need to look at the stories of housing developments in Sydney that are structurally unsound. The reason why "NIMBY" is a thing is due to the lack of infrastructure to support an increase in population. That infrastructure should be in place prior to the developments and not the other way around (as is currently mostly the case). Supply is the issue because our population wants to stick to the capital cities. Maybe if there were better incentives to live in the country areas, people would be more inclined to move out of the cities. One example is the aging population not wanting (afraid) to retire out of the cities due to lack of medical support in the country areas, I'm sure others could think of more examples. Streamlining building application processes would lower waiting times and cost, but reducing building restrictions would introduce more problems that may not be reflected in the simple graphs you present.
There is only so much you can say in a 5 min video. For more of our work head to our website: www.cis.org.au/research/economic-policy/housing/
It's always been a part of a much bigger plan which at the end of day is all about money. Developers, Councils and the Government on a gravy train.
:(
Greed, on all levels.
Amazing the tax incentives aren't mentioned here, it's almost like the CIS is trying to divert attention away from it. When the straight 50% discount on capital gains was brought in in the late 90's house prices that used to track along with growth in median income exploded to higher multiples. Fix this along with negative gearing.
Tax concessions aren't mentioned because they aren't the driving factor. They only add 1-4% to the cost of a home.
@@CISAus if you came to that conclusion using sound methodology then I’m sure that’s explained in the report. I’ll give it a read and match it up against other research
Here you are: www.cis.org.au/publication/housing-affordability-and-supply-restrictions/
There is a table in section 6 of the paper you will find useful.
Supply and demand eh well how about reducing demand for awhile hey like shut the front bloody door for a start
Cutting immigration will only make us poorer and won't solve the broader problem. Our cities are some of the least dense in the world for their size. We have space. We just need to build.
@@CISAuswitch is to his point, shut the door until we get the housing. Men, women and children are being forced onto the streets. Mass immigration needs to stop now
You’re being untruthful, mass immigration is the number 1 cause of the housing crisis, inflation and cost of living crisis
@@CISAuslol the lies
@@CISAus🤥
Come on, this is ridiculous. Zoning / planning restrictions are the solution?
Who is funding this research?
So we have a property too small to run as commercial farm, across the road is a highly sort after housing a estate. Average time on Market here is half the national average. The zoning here is part of an archaic state government concept.
And of course you will not name the responsible for passing the law for zoning restrictions.
You are useless !
Tell me you don't know anything about civil engineering without telling me you don't know anything about civil engineering. Also, councils are corrupt.
Relaxing land use restrictions is the solution. Let supply meet demand.
@@CISAus🤥
We build more houses per capita than anywhere else in the world, minus Switzerland I think? I agree with the red tape cutting etc, but it’s obvious that we’re growing the population too aggressively and need to slow migration down
There are quite a few countries building more homes per capita than use. However, one of the things we argue for is building homes where people actually want to live. The demand is for homes around transport and the inner city.
@@CISAus🤥
Or on existing residential property you could reduce CGT discount to 25% and remove negative gearing plus cap immigration at 100k per year from all sources.
Tax concessions only at 1-4% to the cost of housing.
Immigration increase demand but cutting immigration won't fix the problem. It will just make us poorer.
What if people just built houses illegally?
You have no chance selling it. Even if you do alterations to a house (depending on the type) you need to get council approval. The first thing a prospective buyer needs to do is check that it was approved.
That has its own costs.
@@simonboland Still if you wanted a house to live in and not sell it should be the cheapest option
@@cooledcannon To be honest I have no idea but I don't think it's that simple. You would attract the attention of councils or your neighbours.
The IPA light once again missing the whole point.
Ignore capital gains which is driving up speculative values.... the IPA once again furnishing the rich by skinning the backs of the poor.
Tax concessions only add 1-4% to the cost of housing.
Try reading the excellent QE on this problem. Howard government lowered capital gains tax and entrenched negative gearing. Coupled with low interest rates until 2023, and there's been a massive shift of lazy capital into unproductive house flipping. Leading to huge intergenerational transfer of wealth to propertied class. Which includes people of all political stripes.
Tax concessions are whole other can of worms...but unfortunately cutting Capital Gains and Negative Gearing would only reduce prices by 1-4%. We want to have a bigger impact.
Relax zoning restrictions ,and let people build smaller ,more compact houses in creative ways .Se veral smaller houses can be built ,as you need them and build in walkways them ..A.s the kids leave home ,rent out the out houses as tiny homes or put them on a truck and sell them
Allow for much more community living situations
Yes, granny flats and tiny homes are great.
Intresting vidéo. Also Reading comment section is delight.
Hooray hooray ! Youh got it ! I was correct 40 yrs ago! I could see it coming. ....and ' richdad ,poor dad " didn't help. .
Yup! This has been a very long time in coming.
In the UK, the main issue is most definitely mass immigration - both legal and illegal. The UK government encourages mass immigration because they can say "the economy is increasing". Without mass immigration, all the government's expensive mistakes, like 'net zero' targets, would be on display for all the world to see.
And of course you will not name the responsible for passing the law for zoning restrictions.
You are useless !
Disagree. The UKs problem is NIMBYism and excessive regulation. Immigration just excacerbates it. There's no reason why London, a city of 8mil people, should be housed in 3 story terraces. New York ain't like that. Paris aint like that. London basically looks like 100s of villages strung together rather than a proper city. So does Manchester and Birmigham. The UK just hasn't built the required number of houses or the right type of housing.
@@adtastic1533 I think the flaw in your argument is that you assume people want to live forever in a block of flats. At some point - especially when they are considering having children - they want a dwelling with their own garden. You’re looking at the world from the perspective of numbers on an Excel spreadsheet. However, people are humans - not robots who only need a box to live in. Modern flats are often inhumanly designed. They’re made in the cheapest way. No love goes into it.
ruclips.net/video/VgKb95wcyQQ/видео.html The Issue I've Been Avoiding by Garys Economics
Cutting immigration will only make us poorer. It's much better to get at the root cause. We aren't allowing supply to meet demand.
You didn't mention negative gearing. There needs to be more restrictions on negative gearing
Where is the evidence that ng has a big impact?
@@Design_no negative gearing allows people to reduce their taxable income. I don't have any statistics, but there would be less real estate investors if it did not exist
@@anthonyscully2998but we want more investment into housing. We just don’t want that investment fighting over limited supply.
Removing negative gearing and capital gains concessions would only reduce housing prices by 1-4%. It's a conversation would having but not before addressing the bigger issue, supply restrictions.
Not for heritage protection being lifted, just to ram in more housing for migrants or for A2030.
We don't oppose heritage listings being used as they are intended. We oppose turning whole neighbourhoods into time capsules and the bequest of interest groups.
@@CISAus Many of the houses under heritage designation or overlay are works of art. A time when people put skill into building. To replace them with hi-rise flats for students/migrants, is an injustice to Settler Australians.
Again, we aren't calling for truly historic homes to be removed. Heritage listings are the reason so much of the Rocks has been preserved. However, many heritage listings don't fall into that category.
The NIMBY phenomenon is hardly limited to the well-off. Renters demand rent control and zoning restrictions so that their neighborhoods and rents stay the way they like them (changes that get me into the house/apartment I like are good, then once I am in those changes should stop). They want their purchasing power to be exempt from market forces, and to the extent they are successful, the actual cost is passed to others in the form of low supply and higher prices.
Yup! This is very true.
Just buy a block of land and and just biuld a shed and deck it and go solar and get wood stove and wood heater and grow your own food
Sadly, over priced property is not solely an urban problem.
What? I come from Auckland and nothing any government has done has decreased rent or purchase price. The Auckland market has been out or control. The only squeeze it has felt in recent years has been because of less immigration after covid and higher interest rates. Our planning is atrocious and we are still one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in. Please don't use Auckland as an example of better planning. Our new govt coalition is only addressing the Resource Management act now and this will take years to remedy the prices to affordable levels for median wage earners.
reduce population growth remove tax on the domestic building industry and remove interest rates and investors then people will have homes again but that will never happen
This would have minimal and short term impacts. Cutting migration would only make us poorer.
@@CISAus Cutting migration would not make us poorer. The only example in recent memory we have of housing actually getting cheaper was during the pandemic when the borders were closed. Rents fell massively and many renters were able to increase their level of savings (yes prices went up but that was more to do with changes in monetary policy and fearful sellers, prices would have fallen by now if migration was not massively accelerated).
Also, high levels of low skilled migration put substantial downward pressure on wages - that's partly why the BCA the like advocate so strongly for it. You can't possibly actually believe that cutting migration in our current context would actually make the average Aussie poorer, the elites would probably loose some net worth, but why does the average punter care about that??
@@CISAusDo you even understand what you are saying? Do you know what title Sweden and the UK are currently vying for?
Straight from the Builders Union
Nope. Straight from the data: www.cis.org.au/research/economic-policy/housing/
SHE BEAUTIFUL WOMAN ATTRACTIVE ❤❤❤❤ LIKE MY GIRLFRIEND ❤️ BLONDE WOMAN ❤❤❤❤😮😮❤❤
Thank you for engaging with our content.
Government production of 3D kit set houses ,self build interest free govt compulsory purchase order of land to give to the 1st time home buyers . ..
This will lead to devaluation of greedy land owners ,housing portfolios reducing housing costs ...
Banks will get less profits through high interest rates allowing better flow of money in all other industry ,allowing for a truly free economy
You are correct that the incentives work against supplying more houses.
Don't forget all the bank owned properties they keep off the market.
A symptom more than a cause
*grumbles in agreement*
Haha glad you appreciated this video :)
Absolute nonsense. ZONING is not the problem. The ridiculous price of land and greedy developers is the real issue.
Why do you think land prices are so expensive?
Its not about beauracracy. Its about greedy investors and ludicrous tax laws.
Do government workers not own property.
And of course you will not name the responsible for passing the law for zoning restrictions.
You are useless !
Who are these greedy investors? When does a housing investment become greedy?
Tax concessions only add 1-4% to the cost of housing.
This year might be even worse than the last. Last year, I lost a lot of money on bad investments that I never would have made if I hadn't been so worried about my portfolio. I didn't know if I should continue to invest or pay my mortgage off. After selling my investments, I discovered that the house needed more work than I thought it would. I don't know how long I can keep doing this.
Consulting a financial advisor is a logical step at this point, but postponing retirement could be a wiser decision
I'm not sure if I should combine all of my investment accounts into one. If so, what should I know and how should I respond? In addition, I want to sell my property, which could eventually fetch an additional $200,000. Is it best to put everything into one account or divide it among several investments?
These are key questions for a financial planner. I connected with mine at a summit, and with her help, my wife and I reallocated our 1.7M portfolio between a traditional IRA and brokerage account. She’s been managing the investment with our approval and has helped us recover twice our losses. Currently hodl’ing steady and cautiously navigating the market
That’s impressive! My portfolio has been struggling. Who is your advisor?
June Renae Matthysse. Look her up online, she's well-known.
Stop making houses an investment class ! And lower the mortages rates to 1 % borrow and then gain equity in your property for every dollar you put in ! Not paying interest !
@CISAus Immigration numbers are too high. You have to look at Supply and DEMAND. Looking at supply is only half the equation. And yes, there is a SUPPLY problem and a DEMAND problem. It is like looking at a coin - there are two sides, not one.
@@dim2389 Australian Bureau of Statistics has the evidence in their reports.
Why do you scoff at reducing the demand aspect as well? since the housing crisis is getting worse by the day why would you put all your eggs in one basket and solely rely on supply? building homes takes time, time in which this crisis gets worse. Many Australians are struggling right now, and the best solution you're presenting is to just rely on supply which will get better in a few years, maybe?? You say reforms to negative gearing and capital gains would only remove 1-4% to the cost of housing like its a bad thing?. Any reduction in prices right now would be seen as great progress. 4% on a 700k house is a reduction of 28k. I don't think you'd see many Aussies complain about that immediate decrease in house prices. Tag that along with incentives aimed at helping boomers downsize and reducing immigration rates until supply can catch up and you're fighting this problem on both fronts rather than just one.
We'll have to make another video to explain why cutting immigration won't help but will instead make us all poorer.
When it comes to negative gearing and tax concessions, they aren't the core driver of housing affordability. We want to have the most impact and that is through opening up supply.
@@CISAus🤥
The Trudeau years are a lost decade.
Thanks for engaging with our content.
I don't think this is the issue at all, given we have a shortage of housing materials in Australia right now. You also don't mention Australian housing tax laws, you've oversimplified supply vs demand and the reasons you've given for councils "acting like a cartel" is a blanket statement. Of course council attitudes will vary from council to council.
This is grade A bullshit.
Also, your video looks like a cheap, company funded propaganda machine.
Tax concession only impact the prices by 1-4%. If you'd like a more in depth analysis head to our website. Peter Tulip has written on this topic extensively.
www.cis.org.au/research/economic-policy/housing/
Dvo z
CIS has zero credibility.
Read our research: www.cis.org.au/research/economic-policy/housing/
This seems pretty bias. I agree restrictions should be eased, we should have larger areas of mediumn density living. Barcelona done a good job in the 80s with its redevelopment. But pouring in 100k, mostly useless immigants and students a minth is the huge problem.
Cutting immigration will only make us poorer and won't solve the broader problem. Our cities are some of the least dense in the world for their size. We have space. We need to build. Medium density in particular could make a massive difference to the housing crisis.
@@CISAus If we could build new cities it would work, but Melbourne/Sydney are full. Now they are pouring into Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth. Significantly reducing our quality of life.
In what way will we be poorer?
Muh GDP?
Less dense in the world? compared to what? New York/LA (shitholes?), Moscow, Cairo, Mexico city? I'd much prefer Switzerland style of life than New York. None of the benefits of economy of scale seem to be working, we are just worse off.
Apologies for the language.
It’s not like you haven’t got the space here 🙄
We have the most arable land per capita. Needless to say, we can fit a lot more people.