Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Defying Empire commemorates the 50th anniversary of 1967 Referendum

Greens plan to help the renters

By johnboy - 30 April 2012 16

Following on from this morning’s story on the woeful state of housing affordability (as opposed to house affordability) in Canberra the Greens have announced how they’d help low income renters, who surely should be the focus of policy making rather than giving a discount house to a handful of lottery winners.

“The ACT Government is due to release the next Affordable Housing Action Plan, which must focus on those in the most long term housing stress – private rental low income households.

“The Action Plan needs to use the 30/40 rule to measure the state of housing affordability in the ACT – measuring how many people spend more than 30% of their income on housing while earning in the bottom 40% income range.

“I expect part of the Action Plan will require the ACT Government to commit to ongoing investment in public housing. It is crucial that we maintain public housing so that people who can’t afford private rentals are able to access housing.

“If we don’t maintain public housing, there will be increased pressure on the already limited number of affordable properties for people on low incomes.

“The Government must also look to amend minimum requirements for new housing, in particular by decreasing the minimum size of an apartment or the number of car spaces required. Car spaces can add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of new constructions.

“We need policies that ensure the basics are provided and encouraging developers to build affordable properties for people in housing stress,” said Ms Bresnan.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
16 Responses to
Greens plan to help the renters
dvaey 12:43 pm 01 May 12

Bramina said :

Whatever the Greens do, it won’t affect the real causes of housing unaffordaility, namely:

Negative gearing

Maybe you dont quite understand what negative gearing is. Say your property costs $10k/pa, in interest, land rates, maintanance, etc. Negative gearing means that you only receive $9k/pa in rent and can claim the $1000 difference as a tax deduction. So, in other-words, negative gearing gives you a tax-time benefit by renting below the actual costs of providing the property.

How does renting below the actual cost of the property cause housing affordability? Would you prefer if negative gearing didnt exist, and the landlord instead upped the rent to $10k or $11k?

Endrey 12:03 pm 01 May 12

Short term, Libs on the Hill will drive half the town away and free up some real estate.
Long term, it’ll even out when baby boomers have to compete to offload their second, third, ninth properties to those who live on. Hey, shunting negative gearing might even become popular.

Mysteryman 11:54 am 01 May 12

LadyxBec said :

“The Government must also look to amend minimum requirements for new housing, in particular by decreasing the minimum size of an apartment or the number of car spaces required. Car spaces can add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of new constructions.”

One of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Apartments are already tiny, I looked at one recently that apparently had two bedrooms – one of them didn’t have an actual door. Builders will just save a few $$ while charging renters the same insane prices.
I’m suprised that forcing people to live in ever more cramped spaces is the best they can come up with.

+1. I’ve read RiotAct for quite some time – I know a stupid idea when I see it. That is a stupid idea.

LadyxBec 10:35 am 01 May 12

“The Government must also look to amend minimum requirements for new housing, in particular by decreasing the minimum size of an apartment or the number of car spaces required. Car spaces can add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of new constructions.”

One of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Apartments are already tiny, I looked at one recently that apparently had two bedrooms – one of them didn’t have an actual door. Builders will just save a few $$ while charging renters the same insane prices.
I’m suprised that forcing people to live in ever more cramped spaces is the best they can come up with.

nice_enough 9:24 am 01 May 12

^ What he said!

Shinigami_Josh 7:14 pm 30 Apr 12

Bramina said :

Whatever the Greens do, it won’t affect the real causes of housing unaffordaility, namely:

Negative gearing
First home owners and other grants
Stamp duty
Restrictions on development (both land releases and building construction.

These things have caused massive distortions in the housing market, and unless they are fixed, the problem won’t go away.

federal greens want to get rid of negative gearing; i would settle for it to be reduced to being only able to negative gear against a property you build (hence encouraging you to build houses). or some other way to regulate it more

milkman 6:51 pm 30 Apr 12

Bramina said :

Whatever the Greens do, it won’t affect the real causes of housing unaffordaility, namely:

Negative gearing
First home owners and other grants
Stamp duty
Restrictions on development (both land releases and building construction.

These things have caused massive distortions in the housing market, and unless they are fixed, the problem won’t go away.

The problem won’t go away until real incomes reduce and credit is harder and more expensive to obtain, as these are the largest factors supporting the increases in property prices that we have seen over the last 15 years.

Bramina 5:51 pm 30 Apr 12

Whatever the Greens do, it won’t affect the real causes of housing unaffordaility, namely:

Negative gearing
First home owners and other grants
Stamp duty
Restrictions on development (both land releases and building construction.

These things have caused massive distortions in the housing market, and unless they are fixed, the problem won’t go away.

Diggety 5:36 pm 30 Apr 12

Tetranitrate said :

I’m so sick of this rubbish about providing X number of ‘affordable properties’ and subsidizing special low cost housing for a lucky few.
What’s necessary is more stock on the market, more physical houses and apartments. The market will do the rest as far as pricing is concerned.

Too right. All the politicians know this, but are unwilling to do anything about it.

I get the feeling they are all lookng out for baby-boomer housing investments, and no-one else. They need to release land.

devils_advocate 5:15 pm 30 Apr 12

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

No mention of environmental requirements which also add to the cost…

LOL yeah I spotted that one. Push the green agenda by removing car spaces from apartments. At the same time, argue that social inclusion dictates these affordable homes be on prime real estate in the centre of the city (because there’s no public transport). Have seen these shenanigans before.

Tetranitrate 5:00 pm 30 Apr 12

I’m so sick of this rubbish about providing X number of ‘affordable properties’ and subsidizing special low cost housing for a lucky few.
What’s necessary is more stock on the market, more physical houses and apartments. The market will do the rest as far as pricing is concerned.

Public housing does play a role as part of the welfare system, but in the present climate it’s also giving a massive, arbitrary financial boon to the few who get into it while doing absolutely nothing for the working poor paying up to half their after-tax income as rent.

I’d love to see the greens propose something truly radical – like the government itself plan and build several new suburbs and just rent or sell the houses at whatever price they can get from the market.

Tetranitrate 4:39 pm 30 Apr 12

basketcase said :

–private rental low income households.

For those that don’t know, the government charges land tax on rental properties, so if the tax is $3000 pa, that is $60 per week passed on for the “low income” people to pay.

And if the renter lives in the inner suburbs, I read that there will be a new (Quinlan) tax soon to further impoverish their position.

In general land tax can’t be passed on to renters, the landlord is already charging as much as the market will bear. There’s nearly 250 years of literature on this subject, and it’s worth observing that in cases where significant land taxes have been repealed or heavily reduced, ie California and prop 13, the result was not affordable housing but rampant speculation, increased volatility and general run-ups in prices.
In the short term there may be some possibility of it, particularly in Canberra but in the longer term (of the course of business cycles) higher land taxes simply mean less income to be pledged against a mortgage.
Cutting land tax won’t make renting cheaper, and will actually make housing more expensive.

basketcase 1:38 pm 30 Apr 12

–private rental low income households.

For those that don’t know, the government charges land tax on rental properties, so if the tax is $3000 pa, that is $60 per week passed on for the “low income” people to pay.

And if the renter lives in the inner suburbs, I read that there will be a new (Quinlan) tax soon to further impoverish their position.

Another example of how government conspires with big business to exploit the disadvantage. And you thought the republicans only existed in the grand old US of A.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back 1:37 pm 30 Apr 12

No mention of environmental requirements which also add to the cost…

basketcase 1:30 pm 30 Apr 12

private rental low income households.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site