Public Housing gets a hurry up

How do you make it through life being an arsehole? Do you get a great view from your ivory castle?

VY offered miz great advice, as did seepi.

Build a bridge and get over it.

How do you people connect to the internet ?

If that was any kind of revelation to you, you really need to go back to school and say you want to have another go at the whole process.

VY excellent advice.

Miz – I know that feeling of never wanting to move again.

After 3 moves due to the house being sold I bought a house and it was the best thing
I ever did. It was really hard at first, but then the mortgage did start to seem low next to rents as they started to go up.

As the owner you have total security of tenure. I would plan towards buying one day. Otherwise you may be kicked out of your house as an old person, because the govt change the rules, or because your kids have moved out.

Good luck!

Good call Snahon – there’s really no reason that Govco shouldn’t take advantage of rising property values, especially if the crystallising of additional value is used to improve the service.

I would think that to ensure maximum value with this type of assistance, that properties owned by housing that are deemed ‘highly valuable’ (ie inner suburbs right now) are sold off so that the money can then be used to purchase other properties in ‘lower valuable’ areas ie outer suburbs.

Sure it may mean that those people who once lived in a ‘highly valuable’ asset have to move but over time housing gets the ability to offer a larger number of houses withouth having to find a larger amount of money.

Hey VY, kris and simbo, lots of food for thought there. Thanks.
Especially appreciative of your concrete practical advice VY. Intend to action! Cheers

“Hey VY, thanks for the sound advice. What you suggest may be do-ablefor me in a year or two, I am still on approx $50K at the mo and they just keep in subtracting HECS! But given an increment or two, a promotion and if my eldest gets a crappy $20K job (too low-paid to be independent) I expect to be pushing the 80K in a couple of years. I will make some inquiries, as you suggest.
It’s pretty galling though that this policy seems to penalise people for being resilient and overcoming stuff. Just when you think you’re getting somewhere, bang. Who’d have thunk the Labor mob would do this? “

Hey Miz,

Given the situation you have described, I would do the following:
1) Set the expectation with your children that when they start working (ie that crappy $20k per year job) that you will need them to help out with rent. It doesn’t have to be huge, but there’s nothing wrong with getting your kid to kick in 30 or 40 bucks a week when they are earning full time. If you hit them up right from the start, it will become habit and they won’t miss it. SAVE THIS MONEY.
2) When you get that next increment or promotion, put aside the extra take home $$ ON PAY DAY into a separate account. You’ve survived without it before, you’ll continue ok. This (together with the $$ your kid will pay in rent to you) is the start of your house deposit.
3) Start chatting to one or more mortgage brokers. Tell them how much per week or month you want to spend on your mortgage (ignore the max borrowing figure they will give you), and get them to work out a total figure based on that. Then go shopping, aiming to spend up to 90% of that figure. You may be surprised what you can find.

Although this is a big hill to climb, once you get started, things won’t seem so bad. Don’t forget that rents will always rise, but once you have a mortgage that figure doesn’t change much, despite everything else (including income) increasing over time.

Miz – I think you can still get a great social mix of public and private housing in areas where land values are lower (there’s lots of private housing in the suburbs). Especially when holding onto very valuable real estate comes at the expense of being unable to provide housing for people who really need it. Just don’t bunch all the public housing up in one giant suburb….

I’m happy to apply manners. However, you have to understand – nobody forced you to have three children. That was a choice you, yes, you made.

Given that public housing stock is a limited asset, it has to go to people who are most deserving. And people earning more than $80,000 a year (which counts as a HIGH income) are not deserving. And if you are just making ends meet on that amount of money, there absolutely has to be some form of slack in your income. I can’t possibly believe that you really have no variable expenditure left – I know when I was earning a fair chunk less than that,

Does that necessarily make you a parisite? Well, I don’t know, what term would you prefer we use for people who refuse to stop using a public asset when there are people with far greater demonstrable need for it?

Now, I’ll admit, changing the rules on security of tenure is a bit of a stretch – BUT at the same time, you’ve been getting a fairly long term of secure tenure for much less than most people would pay for it. So you’ve been doing fairly well out of the deal for a while now.

Maybe, just maybe, you need to think about giving something back to the community which has treated you pretty darn well for a while now?

Why be polite to a parasite?

I see no reason.

Manners wouldn’t go astray either.

Because it’s a freaking huge dollar figure you vampire.

Kris while I see your point about selling off gov houses in wealthier areas, a. I’d like to see the evidence that Housing did in fact re-direct the money to supply extra housing – and b. to be honest I think policy such as that would mean enclaves of govie housing in the fringes of Canberra instead of the terrific ‘social mix’ policy w ehave now – and given the new policy of ‘welfare housing only’, those enclaves could end up being Macquarie Fields.

el, your post gets back to my earlier point – who is to judge when someone no longer ‘needs’ a govie? Why is there an arbitrary $ figure? Even dreaded ole Centrelink factor in the number of dependants. There is no way a I, for instance, could afford the private rental market, which is cut-throat (and the reason I am in a govvie actually – owner wanted to sell, and there was no affordable rental ANYWHERE – there’s more to it that I would rather not go into here). In ten years of marriage we moved seven times, only one at our own instigation because the shower leaked through the children’s bedroom wall and my daughter got pneumonia, and they still wouldn’t fix it. It costs a packet to move and you have to find a bond each time. It is bad for children and their educational stability if nothing else, as I am sure defence personnel can attest. You do it, but you would rather not.

I was assured that security of tenure meant that I could rest assured the house I was allocated was my HOME for LIFE. Under the new scheme they are proposing, I am still safe and sound in my home – but there are now a number of factors outside my control that will now be factored into this formula, which to me seems most inequitable. I have outlined a few of these above, as has Nyssa.

Nor would I be successful in applying for a mortgage as I have little savings. I am already (just) paying ‘market rent’. If you read above, I have been candid about my income, and I have three dependent children. Not that it’s any of your business but I have no vices as I can’t afford them. I have not bought clothes for myself for over a year. We only just make ends meet, given that my one ‘luxury’ is an internet connection and a flexirent computer. My car needs a service and I have no money for it as I have just had to spend $230 on my son’s chipped tooth. I am still paying off one of my daughters’ sport trips (ACT rep). There is only so much in the kitty for these things.

I hope this clarifies things for you. You know, the one thing that has most startled me about this thread is how quick to judge of lot of contributors are. It’s easy to judge from a comfy place – I suggest the moccasin thing wouldn’t go astray.

Mael, here’s a picture.

Try 2005. I was not working for 6 months. Hubby wasn’t at sea (so you can imagine the “normal pay”). Our combine income then was less than my druggie sister’s Centrelink payments and less than $60K before tax.

We survived without ANY handouts.

I stated my income only. You didn’t ask for both – perhaps you need to be a little more clear with your questions.

I don’t have a sob story – learn to read. As I have said before, I live within my means.

I’ve started looking into the housing situation for my mother’s needs and have spoken to the relevant people should she need to move, such as our family doctor and my cousin who is a lawyer.

Again, I didn’t say anyone under $80K were in dire straits. You seriously need to re-read a post you are responding to.

I only brought it up re: my mother as she had received a letter from ACT Housing, as I am sure many people did.

I am aware of a 2 bed govvy house being handed back to the Govt in the very near future, located in an extremely desirable inner north location. Probably worth around 7-800K for land alone.

Are there any insiders who can give an opinion on the future of this property? Certainly saleable, but are the proceeds turned over into another couple of Govt properties?

Frankly, I don’t care about the money, I value the security and never, ever want to move ever, ever ever again!

Yeah, me either. The fact is though, I’m sure I’ll have to at some stage due to being in a private rental. And too bad for those folks that actually NEED public housing eh Miz? As long as you’re comfortable.

And as for anyone under $80k per year being in ‘dire straits’ – WTF is the matter with you? Really? I’m generally interested.

I only make just a touch over *HALF* of that and consider myself to be doing pretty well. I go halves in a place that costs $1300 a month to rent. Oh, and my car is an expensive to run V8 too.

Perhaps you need to have a look at your spending habits? Sounds like you’ve got large amounts of money ‘disappearing’ on something….

Play the pokies often?

Nyssa, I’ve done plenty. Then again, since I’ve never applied for a public house, I’ve never needed to undergo scrutiny about my assets or work history.

And I’m a veteran.

If ACT Housing aren’t compassionate about peoples disabilities when making placements, there are appropriate avenues to getting that addressed. This thread is about moving people out of housing when they top $80k a year, so you are a little off course. Given you have just given me a very good picture of your life history, I’d say your combined income would be income + $75k over the top of what your hubby normally earns due to his overseas allowances as well, so don’t give me what you earn alone and expect me to believe your false income. Last time I was a Corporal I earned about $45k, so quick math (65+45+75) = $185k.

I won’t even get into Defence Homeowners (-x%) and Defence First Homebuyers (~$7-$11k) grant with you. Save your sob story for somebody who cares.

But I tell you what is real. My wife has been off work raising our child for the last year, so our combined income is my wage plus hers at half wages, which falls somewhat short of $80k.

Am I entitled to public housing ?

In your answer to me, you will find mine to yours.

Miz – it would seem to make sense to me to sell government housing worth a fortune in high priced areas if it means that the money can be used to build/buy housing for 2-3 families in cheaper areas.

One of the aforementioned type of indulged teenagers mentioned so sympathetically by Miz was actually allocated a separate flat (on the grounds that he and his mum ‘don’t get on’ ) from his single guvvie-tenant mother – who was then occupying the valuable, inner-south three-beddie on her own, on disability paying $50 a week for a $700,000 house. He has moved back home – and kept the flat, which he has sublet to a friend. Oh, did I mention? she’s been shacked up with her boyfriend at the coast for over a year, so the teenager and dealer pals have the house to themselves. ACT Housing don’t know – but that’s because they don’t care!

Oops, forgot to take off the bold.

Apologies.

Mael, when you realise that I don’t live in Govvie housing and earn less than $65K maybe you’ll slap yourself.

I posted on here originally about my disabled mother being told she will have to move. She will need to stay in a place without steps as she is going blind in one eye and has osteoarthritis. Housing are not known for looking at a person’s disability when housing them (or re-housing them in this case).

As for what I have done for society – I teach children – which is a disrespected profession. Hubby defends the country with the ADF. He has been to the Gulf and Timor. What he is doing atm I can’t tell you.

What have you done?

I believe that there should be a standard for the disabled and the elderly.

If you are neither and still can’t find accommodation e.g. JB’s battered wife story, then by all means apply.

If you are selling drugs out of your Govvie house or destroy Govvie housing you should be evicted rather than be allowed to continue on your merry way and denying those who need the housing because you’re a selfish SOB.

Nyssa and Miz, indulge me.

What right do you have, when you earn over $80k, to remain in a public house, when anybody else earning over $80k is not allowed to ?

What have you ever done for society ?

Example; Have you fought in a war or something ?

Please explain why there should be one standard for you, and nobody else.

When you realise the cold hard face of the reality slap I just gave you, although I think you wont, you may recognise the truth of the policy.

Nyssa, you forgot “we do have a house, except it’s been looked after really well and is located in an area where it is now worth a fortune, so we’ll sell it instead’. (Case in point Deb Foskey’s place).

It really is amazing what some people expect from the govt. I have a friend that lives in a govt house. He’s married with 4 young kids. Now the only reason he’s got a govt house is because of the 4 young kids and single income. It amazes me that people expect the govt to help them out just because they have all these kids. FFS just don’t have kids until you can afford them.

privately (fat fingers)

JB did I say she had a big house? No. So you’re wrong there.

FYI JB there are several organisations that assist with housing.

Here’s a better conversation:

Oh I’m sorry young lady, you might be the victim of domestic violence with three young children but we don’t have a house for you and you’re just going to have to keep living in your car.

Well we do have a house, but it’s only two bedroom so your family doesn’t fit our guidelines.

We do have other houses but they are being used as drug dens and are being repeatedly damaged on a daily basis.

We know you would look after the house but we cannot evict these tenants as they aren’t breaking the law, rather they are providing a service to the community – through selling drugs – and also by allowing drunken individuals to crash at their house for free. The latter is against ACT Housing policy but we let it slide as there aren’t enough workers in ACT Housing to adequately deal with it.

So sorry about that, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Hey, here are the phone numbers of several of the afore mentioned. Perhaps they will put you up for the night.

A lot of people have a lot of double standards about these sorts of issues

As in when the house is supplied by the Govt then simbo, it’s ACT Housing policy re: 5yrs apart and male/female – they can’t share a room.

but when its privatly owned its no problem to fit a family of 6 into a ex-govt 3 beddie, with kids of different sexes with an 8 year difference in age sharing a room, as we do.

Simbo hit the nail on the head with You should be actually, I dunno, living within your means.
I know that seems to have become an awfully unfashionable concept nowadays, but there it goes….

Also if you can easily get a job elsewhere people should not discount the option of moving out of Canberra to a place with cheaper rent.

Great Conversations Of The Welfare State:

Oh I’m sorry young lady, you might be the victim of domestic violence with three young children but we don’t have a house for you and you’re just going to have to keep living in your car.

Well we do have a house, but it’s only two bedroom so your family doesn’t fit our guidelines.

Nyssa’s mum has a big house but she doesn’t want to move and anyway her junkie daughter might want to move back in.

Miz has got a big place, but she and her adult children are only on a combined income of $70,000 and well, they’re happy where they are.

So sorry about that, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Hey, here’s the number of the Smith Family, maybe they’ve got some blankets?

Genie, you said ‘A lot of people actually pay higher rent costs, than what it would cost to pay off a mortgage. They just struggle saving for a down payment – which is why they rent.’ This also applies to those renting from the government! How are they supposed to get their downpayment?

If the govt was smart, they would re-introduce the Housing Trust loans they used to have. I would love to buy my place, but no bank would look at me.

simbo, it’s ACT Housing policy re: 5yrs apart and male/female – they can’t share a room. (This is information from 2003 and miz may know of an updated policy on this matter)

Then you have care and protection who can and do question you for putting them in the same room.

This is not my personal experience but the experience from work (I won’t say anymore on that).

FYI, I have 3 kids and live well within my means.

And how many dependants do you have simbo? It really depends, is my point.

If you read my posts, above, you will see that the entire household’s income is added up to make a total, not just the primary householder’s. This means that how your household is comprised has a bearing on this policy. Eg, I am not that close to the 80K but decisions of other household members (eg my teenagers) may bring me close, and therefore affect my security under this policy. Frankly, I don’t care about the money, I value the security and never, ever want to move ever, ever ever again!

If anyone is familiar with contract law, I would be interested if there is any possible legal implications/comeback for those who may have had their security of tenure (possibly) removed by this new policy.

PS I have two chn sharing a bedroom in my govie. I’m not complaining – in fact it’s ACT Housing policy. But it is stressful now they are teenagers. A lot of people have a lot of double standards about these sorts of issues – it’s OK for ‘poor people’ but they would never put up with it! In principle, community standards are the usual measure for these things.

Even if they’re 5 years apart and opposite sexes, you CAN have them in the same room. No, it’s not the ideal situation, but, if you’re in dire need, then why should you be seeking ideal situations? You should be actually, I dunno, living within your means.

I know that seems to have become an awfully unfashionable concept nowadays, but there it goes….

simbo, yes you can unless they’re 5yrs apart and opposite sexes.

Genie, I have seen the rental prices – $400pw for a shit box.

That’s $1200 a month.

New mortgages (depending on the price) are $1200-$1600.

Oh, and Miz, I earn less than $80,000 a year. And I don’t think I’m in particular dire need. I find it difficult to imagine how anybody could be in “dire need” on that kind of income.

Please enlighten me!

As was discussed previously – no, kids DON’T actually need separate rooms for each of them. You can get by with a two bedroom place – you really can!

Sure i’ve seen the price of housing in Canberra at the moment.. But have you seen the price of rent lately ???

Alot of people actually pay higher rent costs, than what it would cost to pay off a mortgage. They just struggle saving for a down payment – which is why they rent.

I think this new policy is great – Any family earning over $80k can easily afford to rent out privately or buy their own home.

Yes to rent but NO to buying.

Have you actually seen the prices of 3br and 4br houses in Canberra?

ACT Public Housing is there for people who NEED it. They are obviously desperate for houses since they are trying to downsize everyone. My aunt moved only a week or 2 ago because she no longer needed her 3 bedroom house. She now lives in a small one bedroom unit – perfect for her. Some families on Public housing are squeezing into 2 bedroom units, while old pensioners are living on their own in 3-4 bedroom houses. fair enough they have lived there for decades – but it doesn’t mean they are still entitled to a large house.

I think this new policy is great – Any family earning over $80k can easily afford to rent out privately or buy their own home. And thats what it sounds like the government is trying to encourage these families to do.. finally own their own home.

I dont think the Government is going to throw people out on their arses just coz they earnt a few cents over the $80k – they just obviously feel these people need a push to get out into the real world of home owning. Afterall they are offering people to BUY the house they are living in – not forcing them to relocate and find somewhere new.

And if your living in a Govie house and dont want that promotion or pay rise for fear of earning too much… You dont deserve the help out the Government has given you in the first place. There are plenty of needy people out there who are pushed away by the system, constantly waiting for help – and all because others are abusing it.

Hey VY, thanks for the sound advice. What you suggest may be do-ablefor me in a year or two, I am still on approx $50K at the mo and they just keep in subtracting HECS! But given an increment or two, a promotion and if my eldest gets a crappy $20K job (too low-paid to be independent) I expect to be pushing the 80K in a couple of years. I will make some inquiries, as you suggest.
It’s pretty galling though that this policy seems to penalise people for being resilient and overcoming stuff. Just when you think you’re getting somewhere, bang. Who’d have thunk the Labor mob would do this?

“JB, I never made mention of the $80,000 re: disability. People who are disabled etc are getting letters also. “

I’m a big supporter of getting people onto their own two feet, but I think as a civilised society we really are obligated to support the disabled.

Given that someone earning say, $78,000 per year, would probably be paying market rent anyway, doesn’t this mean that the transition from public to private housing shouldn’t be that earth shattering.

Perhaps we could implement a system whereby $80,000 per year is judged the point where public housing rent = market rent. Given that below that figure rent is under market, why not increase the rent to OVER market above that person. So if you make $150k per year, and are happy to pay $800 per week for a 3 bedroom guvvy house, then good on ya.

Miz – I know it’s hard when you don’t feel like you have many choices. I spent time in government housing when I was kid. But if you are seriously looking at bumping up against the 80k per year number, then I would be considering buying a unit or small house. There are lots of financing options, it might pay to do some research or talk to a mortgage broker, just to find out what you can really do.

simbo, my mother also has my nephew – she needs the room – thanks to my druggie sister.

Housing won’t look for a house/apartment etc for her that suits her medical conditions because they’ll want a fast move. Unless her doctor goes into to bat for her – which he will – and thus tie up the process.

JB, I never made mention of the $80,000 re: disability. People who are disabled etc are getting letters also.

What annoys me the most are the serial dole bludgers who are still “entitled” to Housing.

After 10 years on the dole, one would assume (anyone with a brain) that the person/s don’t want to work and are living the life of Riley at the tax payers expense.

I would prefer that housing be given to people who would actually look after the place and be thankful for the roof over their heads.

Unlike my sister, who within a month of getting her 3br house stated “It’s so pov, I can’t live here”. Before that she had been living with my mother as she apparently had no where to go – she’s in her late 20’s and the possiblity of actually working has escaped her.

I would have thought that it would be interesting to explore such topics as the ‘deserving’ and the ‘undeserving’, but as you seem to want everyone to agree with you and resort to name-calling if they don’t, I’ll let you take your bat and ball. However, that doesn’t really encourage free debate.

I reckon $80,000 a year is a bloody generous point at which to stop sucking off the public teat and stop consuming the resources of the needy.

You really are the most selfish person I’ve ever encountered here.

No offence, but boy do you have a lot to learn! You’ve raised one of the problems – at what point is it, and who should judge, that ‘they’ have not ‘done enough’?

I’m, saying if you don’t like your circumstances and do nothing to change them over time I don’t see why anyone else should.

So it’s always the individual’s fault for their circumstances, according to the gospel of Johnboy?

It beats the hell out of the alternative.

Spoken like a true economic rationalist.

Dire straits are for a couple of months, after that it’s a lifestyle.

Kris thanks for clarification on tax.

As for 3 beddies versus flats, I understand that in the recent past in Canberra, the 3 bedroom house is the majority stock. 1 bedrooms are most in demand, primarily for single males.

I expect they are trying to get people out of 4 beddies which are rare yet in high demand. Perhaps someone has more recent
info.

What this whole policy boils down to is that they have not invested in housing. They are trying to simultaneously look ‘tough’ and ‘fiscally responsible’ while weaseling out of the problems they face with lengthy waiting lists ( because of their own poor planning and their funding backflip).

Simbo as for your last comments, just remember them when you are in dire straits yourself. Then you will rue your judgemental attitude.

I’d also point out, Miz, if you’re the kind of person who complains “I don’t want a pay raise because it’d mean I’d get kicked off benefits”, then you’re a freaking moron, and probably don’t deserve to be promoted in the first place.

JB, I’m assuming Nyssa is referring to a downssizing letter, not to a “earns more than $80,000” letter.

And if your mum lives alone occupying a house that could be housing a family, then, yes, she is taking more than she’s really entitled to. Certainly, finding a flat that suits her special medical requirements is something thant needs to be taken into account, and if they don’t, yes, ACT housing are evil bastards, but at the same time, why should your mum have two rooms that she’s not using?

Nyssa – I realise that having to move can be very difficult for some. However if someone is alone in a 3 bedroom house they do need to weigh up the problems that will occur for them against those for say a family of 4 currently having to live in a one or 2 bedroom unit because everything else is being used.

Also the more people who are moved out from public housing, the more flexibility and choice there will be for those who remain who really are in need.

Miz – on 80,0000 the marginal tax rate is 42%, but a person doesn’t actually pay 42% of their income in tax. Have a look at the ato web site:

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/12333.htm&mnu=5053&mfp=001

Someone on 80,000 a year will end up with around 58,000 and thats before any of the rebates for having children.

Nyssa, the disabled earning over $80k are well placed to sort out their own accommodation.

I can’t see anything wrong with the downsizing idea. Why should a single person occupy three bedrooms when there are families on the waiting list? If a single person wants to continue to occupy a three-beddie with a garden, they should do what someone in the private rental market would have to do to be able to keep a house – get someone in to help pay the rent. This new policy is a good start – now let’s see whether ACT Housing can do something about its lax income-checking. There is a tenant clearing on average an extra $500 a week minimum back-pocket via businessses at the markets – and paying concessional rent from their ‘main’ (actually secondary) income. You’d think the ACT Government – which runs both the markets – would have some mechanism to prevent this.

simbo, that’s all well and good but what about people on a pension or disability?

My mother got a letter only the other day about it. She’s on disability for severe osteoarthritis and is going blind in one eye.

She is being asked to relocate – to where is anyone’s guess. At the moment she has no steps in her house. I suppose Housing will move her to a flat on Nortbourne Ave.

By all means kick out the people who are abusing the system but leave the genuine tenants alone.

Miz, newsflash. You don’t have a HOME. A Home is something you own. You don’t own it. It’s the governments. And they can do with it what they like.

If you don’t want to be at their mercy, buy your own damn place.

Here ABC says it starts in 2009, but not sure if it will only affect new tenants? http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1903169.htm

And up till now it WAS, to all intents and purposes, their house under security of tenure. Not sure if this has been jeopardised (depends on whether this policy is retrospective).

That’s partly my point Johnboy. This kind of policy affects people like me that, at this stage is assessed as ‘someone who needs it’ as I earn under the stipulated income. It acts as a massive stressor, and will affect their decisions.

I don’t care.

Give the house to someone who needs it.

And why would I go for a promotion at work? A few dollars extra in the pocket, but no home. You do the math. This is a policy that has built-in economic and social-capital consequences.

Miz, seperate incomes are taxed seperately

AND IT’S NOT THEIR HOUSE.

WARNING – TOME POST!

I should explain that the new policy does not simply impose the $80K thing, it also wants to pressurise people into moving into a smaller place (uprooting them from their community and removing them from their HOME because they now live in a house with a spare bedroom).

Firstly Jemmy, you do realise that they count all income, including that of teenagers working at Maccas or on an apprenticeship wage, Youth Allowance, Centrelink family payments etc? You do realise they calculate on gross income?

$80,000 gross (one earner) is taxed at 42%, leaving $46,400 per annum. While this may be fine if you are the only householder relying on this money, it is a different story for larger households.

If you have a HECS debt and you therefore pay more tax, you are not in a position to go and secure a loan.

Do YOU ask your casually employed teenagers to chip in to the rent/house repayments or other bills? You would have to if you were forced into a mortgage or private rental that does not cap on income were your circumstances to change.

Do you want to live next door to govie houses that are increasingly neglected because tenants can’t afford to do more than the basics (as they will no longer be ‘working poor’ but will be benefit recipients)? This policy will devalue your neighbourhood and change the face of Canberra.

The Henderson Poverty Line works on disposable income (after tax) and general standards of living (ie cope with what is considered the basics in Australia). It shows that there clearly needs a consideration of how many people are living on the money, not just a line in the sand.

See here http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/labour/inequality/poverty/default.html

Furthermore, it is good for the Canberra conomy to have a little to spend over and above the basics.

When I was solely on benefits, I could not afford the internet, could hardly run my car, could hardly afford essentials let alone extras with the best budgeting will in the world. I never bought a coffee, never bought new shoes, never smoked or went out for a drink. I do not earn $80K now but I now pay full rent in my govie. I am able to pay my way, look after this house well, and I try to buy local.

This new Housing policy means householders like me are going to have to constantly worry about money, and whether their decisions are going to jeopardise their HOME. Why would any prospective boyfriend move in AND have to take on a mortage (because suddenly you are forced to buy your home)? That’s a whole different level of commitment.

Jemmy, no one is saying the govt has to support adult children, but these are people’s homes, not temporary homeless shelters. It is normal for late-teen early twenties children to go flatting for a bit then move back in a few times. Now people will have to worry about whether the decisions of their TEENAGERS will impact on their home security!

Its

Miz, they’re talking about households earning $80,000 for fark’s sake. Definitely no disadvantaged in that lot.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that a couple earning $80,000 has better life skills than many (most?) and doesn’t need my taxes to support them.

Garden? Buy another one with the $80,000.

If your house is too big for you, they don’t recompense you, instead you say to them “Thank you for helping me when I needed it, and now that I don’t here is the house for someone who needs it more.”

Boomerang kids? Riiiight, I should support your adult children… Chuck the lazy little buggers out on their ears to fend for themselves, it’ll build their characters.

Honestly, I thought the concept of people believing their *entitled* to my taxes was ACA myth, but after this post, I’m not so sure.

And surely they can’t implement this retrospectively?

‘Boomerang’.

Are they asking how many people are living on the $80,000 (gross)? Are they looking at whether the earner has enough earning years to pay off a mortgage? What if the bank won’t lend you the money to buy? What about security of tenure? What about single mums who meet someone – the new boyfriend can’t move in as the woman will get kicked out? What about insecure work that may earn you $80,000 one year but not the next? Then you are back on the Housing List. And where are the private rentals you can move into? what about all the work I have done on my garden – if they decide my house is too big for me, how do they recompense me? What about parents with share care? What about boomerand adult children? These are just some of the questions I have.

I prefer the uncapped rent idea. If those on good incomes are silly enough (either by choice or lack of financial management ability) to live in govco housing, why not make them pay reasonable rent? At least the public purse benfits a bit, and the tenants are encouraged to move on.

it would be interesting to count the cost, over time, of the subsiding of full market renters and where the shortfall of $$ will come from as a result of this lost income

How valuable is an entire house compared to a years rent ?

What is the better comparison, an apple or an orange ?

Housing ACT is a dependency based organisation, by not having to provide an extra house, the market rent piffle they would have earned from that house will save them money.

omg – an act alp policy that makes sense.

i think hell just froze over.

this also comes just a day after they announced the time travelling belco busway was offically dead.

Interesting to see what arrangements are put in place for tenants to buy their properties, especially those in desirable locations.

I’ll take a stab here and say…Dr Foskey must be most upset that she missed out on this program on offer allowing tenants to enter into a Shared Equity loan with Housing ACT that would have helped her secure a piece of prime real estate by Yarralumla Bay.

Logically if you can sell a property to a tenant (who then maintains tenure by purchasing a property from Housing) and then reinvest the proceeds into providing another person with a home then everyone wins…

Good luck to Housing ACT with the long haul to appeasing the ‘softheads’ – it would be interesting to count the cost, over time, of the subsiding of full market renters and where the shortfall of $$ will come from as a result of this lost income – ACT Treasury?

I wonder what sort of prices the public housing will have if people DO want to buy their homes…