Gazza wants to buy ever more expensive houses for doctor’s wives.

johnboy 14 February 2007 51

Our Liberal Senator Gary Humphries thinks young people are frittering away their vast earnings because it is “unfashionable” to save money according to the ABC.

Taking his logic a bit further; because of this slavish devotion to fashion they are unable to buy a house, get married and start squirting out children like decent Australians should.

He has a great solution to the problem though! He wants the Government to co-contribute taxpayer dollars to those young people who are wealthy enough to put money into savings accounts rather than spending it all on food, rent, and a skerrig of happiness! (He specifically cites as a *good thing* the superannuation co-contribution scheme whereby the spouses of the wealthy who can make voluntary super contributions get a bite out our hard earned cash)

Helping the wealthy young and the children of the wealthy into the last few rungs on on the property ladder and squeezing out the rest, bloody great policy Gary!

UPDATED: Gary’s media release is now online for those who wish to see his thoughts unadulterated by the peanut gallery.

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
51 Responses to Gazza wants to buy ever more expensive houses for doctor’s wives.
Maelinar Maelinar 4:41 pm 15 Feb 07

Or even, your tax contribution was used by the Government for them to put you in a government supplied house if you so chose to take up that accommodation option.

Kind of like Matrix, only a little roomier.

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt 4:26 pm 15 Feb 07

Maybe federal govco could set up provisions for ‘house savings accounts’, where the $$ go in pre-tax, like superannuation. Allow only for first home, make people pay the tax if they change their mind, etc….

You’d see some deposits appear then, methinks…

West_Kambah_4eva West_Kambah_4eva 3:56 pm 15 Feb 07

link to Age blog

“In 1960 it required 3.5 years income to buy the average Australian house. Currently it takes 8.5 years as indicated by the housing affordability index.”

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt 3:45 pm 15 Feb 07

I think you’ll find rental prices have a fair bit to do with investors. With everyone saying that housing is waaaaaay too expensive, everyone wants to rent. And what do you know, demand goes up and price follows. The solution? Find a way for more people to buy houses.

(Or don’t – as a property investor I am happy to keep taking your money)

bored bored 3:36 pm 15 Feb 07

Maybe if instead the government readjusted investment incentives so that residential property wasn’t as effective (vs. commercial property, shares etc.) then we wouldn’t have as many asshat investors jacking up the price of housing and rental.

I’m still at a complete loss to see how large scale investment in residential housing is supposed to be good for the economy.

Mr_Shab Mr_Shab 2:58 pm 15 Feb 07

The 1st home buyers grant jacked up prices alright – but not to the extent that the 7K could not help to pay for a deposit/stamp duty/legal fees/etc. It pushed prices up, but it put much needed cash in the hands of first-time buyers – like me, who would have had a much harder time buying without that little push along.

The problem is, VY, that house prices are so high that saving a reasonable deposit has become so onerous that people look at the years of penury they’ll have to endure (often after the penury of study/apprenticeship) and say “Nah, stuff it”.

I don’t think it’s prudent – but I can see why they do; especially when the culture of the day is “Have it now! Don’t think! Buy on 87 years interest free!”

VY – No investor in their right mind is going to bid up the price on a property deliberately, but they simply have more finanical grunt than a first home buyer. It has an overall effect on the market – not an immediately obvious one, but a significant one nonetheless.

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt 2:55 pm 15 Feb 07

MOst investors I know don’t try to outbid each other – they would rather pick up the properties that for whatever other reason don’t sell easily, so they can secure the property for the least possible price.

footyboy footyboy 2:03 pm 15 Feb 07

50 Years ago a new migrant who secured an ordinary job on ordinary pay could soon hope to buy an ordinary house and then upgrade but those days are long gone.
The deregulated banking industry has flooded Australia with cheap cash, 100 billion plus, a very high portion which property investors have at their disposal (as well as property tax concessions) to outbid the rest of the interested onlookers.
Watch the prices reach astronomical figures when two or more investors fight on.
The home owners grant just made prices increase by more than 7 thousand dollars overnight.

Thumper Thumper 1:19 pm 15 Feb 07

I was hoping not to point out the bleeding obvious in this must have now society.

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt 1:10 pm 15 Feb 07

And….DING! Mr Shab hits the nail on the head.

Mr_Shab Mr_Shab 1:06 pm 15 Feb 07

In other words, consumer items are cheap (so people can afford and will buy them) and houses are expensive; so no-one could be arsed saving because there are more gratifying things within easy reach.

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt 1:02 pm 15 Feb 07

Housing, like everything, is cyclic. There are times when it seems cheap, times when it seems expensive. Doesn’t matter when you buy if you hang onto it for a while.

In all the noise of house prices, we forget that some other things are very cheap by historical standards. Like cars, electronics, flights, …

West_Kambah_4eva West_Kambah_4eva 11:46 am 15 Feb 07

Saving, shmaving. Saving is meaningless next to the real point: the average property price in relation to the average wage. It used to be that you could buy a 4 bedroom house for 2 months pay, now its, like, a billion months. Plus university and healthcare should be free. And bacon.

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt 11:16 am 15 Feb 07

Thumper is spot on about the saving thing. The reality is that most people spend what they earn. Earn more and the lifestyle expands accordingly, earn less and the lifestyle contracts.

Our parents advice was to “live within your means”. Better advice is to “live below your means, and save or invest the difference”.

Some of the very wealthy (and conveniently anonymous) who live in this country used some very creative saving methods when they were younger. Personally I think “not being able to save” has more to do with justifying lifestyle to oneself, rather than reality. Look at many of the migrants who came to Australia in the last 50 years – they get crap jobs and crap pay, and yet many of them seem to be reasonably well off by the time they retire. Interesting.

Ralph Ralph 10:55 am 15 Feb 07

Our unis are moving slowly towards a similar system, however it is being motivated more by the failure of the school system to teach basic reading, writing and maths. So it is moving more towards 1st year of uni being remedial studies – what should’ve been taught in high school.

Yes Shab, there is merit in the US model of vertically integrated health care as well.

Maelinar Maelinar 10:40 am 15 Feb 07

No, only your ID card.

Badda boom.

Unless you’re MacGyver, not especially.

Thumper Thumper 10:38 am 15 Feb 07

I have a spoon?

Is that considered a weapon?

Maelinar Maelinar 10:36 am 15 Feb 07

Higher education will not save you, unless you can alchemetically produce biofuel for use in the Thunderdome.

Also, find yourself a nice bladed weapon and put it somewhere you can find it later – high powered weaponry will only last so long.

Mr_Shab Mr_Shab 10:29 am 15 Feb 07

Agree, JB. I like the US system of undergrad generalisation and postgrad specialisation. I find their system of student loans disturbing from a social cohesion standpoint, not to mention an individual one.

Fewer young lawyers is also a laudable idea (I just hope Mrs Shab isn’t reading this…)

johnboy johnboy 10:01 am 15 Feb 07

Actually in the USA the profit motivated unis require a generalist undergrad degree before they allow students into the money courses.

This gives them a much more broadly educated professional class AND less young lawyers.

Two top outcomes there…

the accessibility of decent student financing to do the degrees is the tricky bit.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site