Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Opinion

Expert strata, facilities & building management services

The savings challenge for Canberra first home buyers

By Serina Bird Huang (aka Ms Frugal Ears) - 18 June 2017 28

First home buyers

All young people need to do is to stop brunching on smashed avocados, and then put that money into the new First Home Buyer Scheme, and they will be set, right?  I decided to do some investigation to find out a little bit more about first home buyers in Canberra.

How much does it cost to buy a house in Canberra?

In Australia, the average house price is now at least $656,800. Canberra has the third most expensive average house prices, with the median price $642,000. Now of course not all first home buyers will buy a house – some will look to buy an apartment or a cheaper property, but even then there is a lack of low-cost options.

To buy a home, you need at least a 5 per cent deposit, plus you need to factor in costs like stamp duty, legal fees, removal costs and then future costs like renovations, rates, insurance and strata fees (if a unit).  So realistically to buy a house at the medium range you are going to need $32,840 at a minimum with a more likely figure of around $60,000 or more.

And ideally, a first home buyer needs at least a 20% deposit to avoid lender’s mortgage insurance. If you are wondering what this is, this is something levelled to protect the lender against potential defaults – it does not ensure the borrower if he/she is unable to pay a mortgage, but it is the borrower – not the lender – who has to pay it.

In the May Federal Budget, the Treasurer announced a new First Home Super Saving Scheme to encourage young people to buy into the market. He also announced a scheme to encourage older people to downsize.

I personally dislike any policy that tries to pit one generation against another. An older person (or couple) could just as easily be a first home buyer. He/she/they might be migrants, for instance, or maybe lower income and it has taken them a long time to save. Or maybe they invested in the stock market instead before deciding to invest in home ownership. The point is, not all first home buyers are young people. Further, not all first home buyers will buy the properties that older people are being encouraged to sell to downsize. But this scheme is a good start.

The new savings scheme put forward by the Treasurer is a result of the intense public debate about the housing crisis and, in particular, the disadvantage that many young people face in entering the market. One suggestion to improve affordability was to allow young people to access their superannuation to make a deposit. The scheme that was announced is in response to this debate. I asked Michael Miller from MLC Advice Canberra how it works.

According to Michael, details of the scheme are yet to be finalised. That said key details have been released by the Government:

  • Starting from 1 July this year, first home buyers who have made voluntary contributions to their super will be able to withdraw their voluntary contributions to put towards a home deposit. The key point here is ‘voluntary’. This means first home buyers can’t touch any ‘compulsory’ contributions, but only anything additional they have contributed.
  • You can salary sacrifice into the first home buyers scheme. Contributions are taxed at 15%, unless you have earnings higher than $250,000. This is a tax effective way to make contributions, because otherwise your earnings would be taxed at a much higher rate. According to Michael, for many first home savers this would offer good tax incentives such as in this example:

    If your salary is $60,000 a year, and you salary sacrifice $10,000 of that into a super account, it will be taxed at 15% and you’ll have $8,500 saved in the account. If you receive it as salary, that $10,000 will be taxed at 34.5% (including Medicare levy at the current level), leaving you with $6,550 to add to your savings. That’s an extra $1,950 saved under the super contribution option.

  • A first home buyer can only add up to $15,000 in a financial year, and cannot add more than $30,000 in total to the first home buyer scheme.  The real amount a first home buyer can contribute is actually less – this is because contributions are also subject to a concessional contribution cap of $25,000 per financial year, which includes both compulsory employer contributions and any voluntary contributions. So a first home buyer in a high paying job could be limited in the amount he/she could contribute.
  • Got your eye on a property that you want?  You’d better slow down because you are not able to withdraw any money from the account until 1 July 2018. When you do withdraw the money, it will be subject to income tax but will have a 30% tax offset.

According to Michael, for most first home buyers, superannuation will become the most tax effective place to start saving for a home deposit. There is a calculator on the Budget website that provides an indication of whether the scheme might work for you or not.

The big question is will first home owners use the scheme?  The Government’s previous attempt to encourage savings via the First Home Saver Accounts were unsuccessful, and they were abolished effective 1 July 2015. Under the scheme the government provided 17% for donations up to $60,000 – but first home buyers could not use the funds for four years, which obligated them to a long-term and inflexible savings regime. Most first home buyers I spoke with felt that the restrictions were not worth it for them.

Since I already have my own bachelorette + kidlets pad, I approached a friend, who is a competent, upwardly mobile student at ANU, to ask her views about the new scheme. She had made some online comments about it being increasingly difficult for young people to break into the housing market, so I knew she would have strong views.

“Well, I think $30,000 is not enough when you consider the median house prices in Canberra,” she said. “I guess I could combine with a guy, but I have enough trouble dating as it is – no men want to talk about settling down and buying a house. I want to follow your example and be independent and a boss at financial management. At the moment, I am working two jobs and studying full time. It’s hard to even think about saving money when up to two-thirds of my income goes on rent. But when I get to that stage, I think this scheme is something I would use.”

Now that she mentions it, anecdotally I have noticed that my younger girlfriends have tended to be more savvy with getting into the property market as opposed to my male friends – a new trend or just representative of the fiscally aware company that I keep?  How does that impact on the more traditional view of a couple buying their first home as they get married?  I don’t think this has been fully thought of with this model.

I think there are some good features about the First Home Buyers Scheme and it a good start. But with rising property prices and a declining job market, it will probably fall short for many Canberra first time home buyers.

Do you think it is easy for first home buyers to break into the Canberra property scheme?  Do you think the First Home Super Saving Scheme will be useful to help first home buyers achieve their dream of home ownership?

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
28 Responses to
The savings challenge for Canberra first home buyers
1
Garfield 8:25 am
18 Jun 17
#

Why is median house price even mentioned in an article about purchasing a first home and why doesn’t the ACT government stamp duty concession for first home buyers get a mention?

First home buyers who are struggling to come up with a deposit should be looking at the lower end of the market rather than the middle, just as previous generations did. You start with something small and cheap in an outer suburb to get into the property market, and then work on paying the mortgage down as fast as possible so that you can upgrade to something bigger when its affordable. Younger people complaining about not being able to afford a median property as their first home just fuels the view that Gen Y is massively self entitled.

I had a quick look at some of the cheaper suburbs in Tuggeranong and there are a fair number of properties listed with 2 or even 3 bedrooms in the price range $350,000 – 400,000. If you’re buying a first home for less than $470,000 then stamp duty is only $20. That means people can get into the property market in Canberra with savings of $20,000.

Having said that, if anyone, Gen Y included, wants to say that property prices overall are far too high, I’d agree with them.

2
K_c24 9:24 am
18 Jun 17
#

Canberrans, statistically shouldn’t find it that difficult to crack the property Market (despite the 3rd highest average house price) when taking into consideration the above average wages and disposable income of the Capital off the back of 3 tiers of government and the economic flow on effect of these, operating in and around the region. Another impact of this is also the high standard of living that people are accustomed and demand which I think is part of the issue for first home buyers.

However, I mainly came here to comment on the scam that is mortgage insurance. I cannot rationalise in my mind how forcing people to borrow more money to finance something they are already struggling to afford is in any way, financially responsible, or a solution. Makes my brain hurt.

In response the question at hand, I don’t think singles have an easy time getting into the property Market anywhere. Couples, should have no reason to complain, especially if they are unwilling to forgo lifestyle aspects to achieve the goal. As an original partaker in the FHSS, it wasn’t that great but I got some free money out of it, so, bonus. The answer lies in wide ranging tax reform where people aren’t expected to front huge quantities of cash. Stamp duty needs to go, credit and repayment history needs more weight in application assessment and the ACT Gov needs to pick either landtax or stamp duty and get on with it. Unless the feds and the states/territories start to play ball with each other, everyone will continue to lose out.

3
dungfungus 10:55 am
18 Jun 17
#

It is no more difficult to buy the first home today than what is was 50 years ago.
In fact, it is easier given that 50 years ago housing finance was regulated and one third deposit (verified by a record of regular savings) was required to secure the balance of the purchase price with a Savings Bank mortgage at the lowest rates.

I bought my first home 45 years ago for $31,500 when my salary was $6,250. I borrowed two thirds of that and there were no taxpayer funded “leg-ups” like the first home buyers grant. To get the required deposit I went without a car, had one full time job plus two part time ones. no social life, eating out, takeaways etc. for 3 years. It wasn’t really that hard considering the goal.

Ask young people today would they be prepared to do that and they say “no way”. They won’t even consider abstaining from the $5 takeaway coffee or the $20 smashed eggs.

4
Lord Fenwick 12:40 pm
18 Jun 17
#

@Garfield, I bought a house as a first home owner six months ago, for less than $470,000, and paid $11,500 in stamp duty. Your information is incorrect.

5
Gin02 1:44 pm
18 Jun 17
#

The stamp duty concession for 1st home buyers only applies to new properties. If you’ve bought something someone has previously lived in, no concession for you – you can defer payment but then there’s the whole having to pay interest thing.

6
Garfield 2:11 pm
18 Jun 17
#

Lord Fenwick said :

@Garfield, I bought a house as a first home owner six months ago, for less than $470,000, and paid $11,500 in stamp duty. Your information is incorrect.

The threshold as of 6th June 2017 is $470,000, but the tragic bit I forgot is that the concession only applies to newly constructed homes, so anyone looking to buy those cheap properties in Tuggeranong I mentioned would have to pay stamp duty of around $7-9,000.

How ridiculous is it that first home owners are being forced by the government to buy new homes, which by virtue of being new are usually more expensive than comparable older properties?

7
Maya123 4:19 pm
18 Jun 17
#

dungfungus said :

It is no more difficult to buy the first home today than what is was 50 years ago.
In fact, it is easier given that 50 years ago housing finance was regulated and one third deposit (verified by a record of regular savings) was required to secure the balance of the purchase price with a Savings Bank mortgage at the lowest rates.
I bought my first home 45 years ago for $31,500 when my salary was $6,250. I borrowed two thirds of that and there were no taxpayer funded “leg-ups” like the first home buyers grant. To get the required deposit I went without a car, had one full time job plus two part time ones. no social life, eating out, takeaways etc. for 3 years. It wasn’t really that hard considering the goal.
Ask young people today would they be prepared to do that and they say “no way”. They won’t even consider abstaining from the $5 takeaway coffee or the $20 smashed eggs.

That appears a ‘healthy’ salary in 1971. The average wage in 1971 was about $4,400. This is male only. Females weren’t ‘important’ enough (didn’t exist) for the following link.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/743DBDA3F3F797D0CA25751600108605/$File/63020_JUN1971.pdf

It is a fair comment about needing to give up things to buy a first home for most people. I paid off my first 3 bedroom house (92 sq mtrs) in 5 years, because I rented out two bedrooms (and continued to rent the rooms long after paying off the house), grew my own vegetables, took no expensive holidays, didn’t eat out or buy takeaways (I cooked my own food, much of which I had grown myself), picked ‘feral’ fruit in season. Although I had a car, I rode my bike to work and other places to save money. For five years I bought almost no new clothes. I got the needle and thread out and mended them. I put a jumper on and used blankets when watching TV, rather then turn the heater up. Luckily those renting (most stayed for years, so I must have been easy to live with) were also of my generation and so saw nothing unusual about living like this. In fact, more than one of the tenants lived a more frugal lifestyle than I did. I would have paid off my house in 3.5 years if I hadn’t bought a new car during that time (17% interest from memory). The car I paid off in two years. My income was not high (lower than dungfungus’ example). It helped that compared to income, house prices in those days were more favourable. But that must also take into consideration the high interest rates of the time against the very low rates of today. I bought the cheapest house on the Canberra market at the time.

8
dungfungus 6:52 pm
18 Jun 17
#

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

It is no more difficult to buy the first home today than what is was 50 years ago.
In fact, it is easier given that 50 years ago housing finance was regulated and one third deposit (verified by a record of regular savings) was required to secure the balance of the purchase price with a Savings Bank mortgage at the lowest rates.
I bought my first home 45 years ago for $31,500 when my salary was $6,250. I borrowed two thirds of that and there were no taxpayer funded “leg-ups” like the first home buyers grant. To get the required deposit I went without a car, had one full time job plus two part time ones. no social life, eating out, takeaways etc. for 3 years. It wasn’t really that hard considering the goal.
Ask young people today would they be prepared to do that and they say “no way”. They won’t even consider abstaining from the $5 takeaway coffee or the $20 smashed eggs.

That appears a ‘healthy’ salary in 1971. The average wage in 1971 was about $4,400. This is male only. Females weren’t ‘important’ enough (didn’t exist) for the following link.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/743DBDA3F3F797D0CA25751600108605/$File/63020_JUN1971.pdf

It is a fair comment about needing to give up things to buy a first home for most people. I paid off my first 3 bedroom house (92 sq mtrs) in 5 years, because I rented out two bedrooms (and continued to rent the rooms long after paying off the house), grew my own vegetables, took no expensive holidays, didn’t eat out or buy takeaways (I cooked my own food, much of which I had grown myself), picked ‘feral’ fruit in season. Although I had a car, I rode my bike to work and other places to save money. For five years I bought almost no new clothes. I got the needle and thread out and mended them. I put a jumper on and used blankets when watching TV, rather then turn the heater up. Luckily those renting (most stayed for years, so I must have been easy to live with) were also of my generation and so saw nothing unusual about living like this. In fact, more than one of the tenants lived a more frugal lifestyle than I did. I would have paid off my house in 3.5 years if I hadn’t bought a new car during that time (17% interest from memory). The car I paid off in two years. My income was not high (lower than dungfungus’ example). It helped that compared to income, house prices in those days were more favourable. But that must also take into consideration the high interest rates of the time against the very low rates of today. I bought the cheapest house on the Canberra market at the time.

Why is that you must doubt everything I say? My salary at the time I took out the home loan was as I stated – it was a managerial position and my new employer was impressed with my work ethic. This is how people were rewarded for effort in those days. Nowadays, it seems people who work hard are pariahs and those who bludge are rewarded.

9
Maya123 12:30 am
19 Jun 17
#

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

It is no more difficult to buy the first home today than what is was 50 years ago.
In fact, it is easier given that 50 years ago housing finance was regulated and one third deposit (verified by a record of regular savings) was required to secure the balance of the purchase price with a Savings Bank mortgage at the lowest rates.
I bought my first home 45 years ago for $31,500 when my salary was $6,250. I borrowed two thirds of that and there were no taxpayer funded “leg-ups” like the first home buyers grant. To get the required deposit I went without a car, had one full time job plus two part time ones. no social life, eating out, takeaways etc. for 3 years. It wasn’t really that hard considering the goal.
Ask young people today would they be prepared to do that and they say “no way”. They won’t even consider abstaining from the $5 takeaway coffee or the $20 smashed eggs.

That appears a ‘healthy’ salary in 1971. The average wage in 1971 was about $4,400. This is male only. Females weren’t ‘important’ enough (didn’t exist) for the following link.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/743DBDA3F3F797D0CA25751600108605/$File/63020_JUN1971.pdf

It is a fair comment about needing to give up things to buy a first home for most people. I paid off my first 3 bedroom house (92 sq mtrs) in 5 years, because I rented out two bedrooms (and continued to rent the rooms long after paying off the house), grew my own vegetables, took no expensive holidays, didn’t eat out or buy takeaways (I cooked my own food, much of which I had grown myself), picked ‘feral’ fruit in season. Although I had a car, I rode my bike to work and other places to save money. For five years I bought almost no new clothes. I got the needle and thread out and mended them. I put a jumper on and used blankets when watching TV, rather then turn the heater up. Luckily those renting (most stayed for years, so I must have been easy to live with) were also of my generation and so saw nothing unusual about living like this. In fact, more than one of the tenants lived a more frugal lifestyle than I did. I would have paid off my house in 3.5 years if I hadn’t bought a new car during that time (17% interest from memory). The car I paid off in two years. My income was not high (lower than dungfungus’ example). It helped that compared to income, house prices in those days were more favourable. But that must also take into consideration the high interest rates of the time against the very low rates of today. I bought the cheapest house on the Canberra market at the time.

Why is that you must doubt everything I say? My salary at the time I took out the home loan was as I stated – it was a managerial position and my new emplo yer was impressed with my work ethic. This is how people were rewarded for effort in those days. Nowadays, it seems people who work hard are pariahs and those who bludge are rewarded.

I never said there was anything wrong with your salary. Well done for having a good wage. I was commenting on it in comparison to the average wage of the time. Therefore you would have found it easier to buy a house than the average wage earner of the day.
I find it interesting that the average salary now is almost $80,000 a year. That’s much higher than I expected. Two people on average wages should be living very comfortably. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0
A single person would too, if they didn’t have a mortgage.

I did back up your comments about needing to be willing for a few years to adopt a more frugal lifestyle, if buying a home is difficult. From comments I hear from some first home buyers today, many simply aren’t willing to, or to buy a base level home as their starter home. They appear to want what their parents have now and the standard of living they are used to; not what their parents started out with. I now don’t live in my first house. I moved on, as today’s buyers in a few years can too, if they use their money wisely. The paid off first home is a good deposit on the next home. Sadly I think too many people think in the short term. Not about the improved lifestyle and better financial position they will be in by saving money now, to have more in the future. When the house is paid off, that money can be invested elsewhere, or spent on an improved lifestyle if that is what you want.

10
spades 4:50 pm
19 Jun 17
#

Maya123 said :

I find it interesting that the average salary now is almost $80,000 a year. That’s much higher than I expected. Two people on average wages should be living very comfortably. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0
A single person would too, if they didn’t have a mortgage.

I did back up your comments about needing to be willing for a few years to adopt a more frugal lifestyle, if buying a home is difficult. From comments I hear from some first home buyers today, many simply aren’t willing to, or to buy a base level home as their starter home. They appear to want what their parents have now and the standard of living they are used to; not what their parents started out with. I now don’t live in my first house. I moved on, as today’s buyers in a few years can too, if they use their money wisely. The paid off first home is a good deposit on the next home. Sadly I think too many people think in the short term. Not about the improved lifestyle and better financial position they will be in by saving money now, to have more in the future. When the house is paid off, that money can be invested elsewhere, or spent on an improved lifestyle if that is what you want.

You never mentioned whether you had a partner when paying off your mortgage, so I assume you were single then. Assuming you had an average salary, how were you able to pay off a mortgage in 5 years? That’s virtually impossible today. I am gen X and after doing calculations just then, I would have spent approximate all of my salary (after taxes) to pay the mortgage of my first property off in 5 years.

Let’s break down your example. $80k after taxes is $60k. That’s a weekly salary of $1500. Multiply that by 260 weeks (5 years) is $390k. So someone on an $80k salary who doesn’t spend on anything at all will earn $390k after tax in 5 years. No amount of being frugal is going to allow an individual with $80k salary to pay off a decent property in 5 years, even employing all the tips you have suggested.

Nothing wrong with any of your other suggestions and I totally agree, but I think it’s unfair to blame unaffordability squarely on not being frugal.

My take on this affordability discussion is that it’s the type of property affordable to FHB’s that has changed drastically. In your generation it was common to buy detached properties on a single average salary and live an “average” life. There is no way that anyone with an average salary can afford to buy a detached house. An apartment, yes, but not a house on a land you call your own.

11
wildturkeycanoe 7:04 pm
19 Jun 17
#

When my family came to Canberra in the early 70s, a block of land could be bought for $50. My Dad told me how in hindsight he could have made it rich had he known what they go for today. Try getting land even remotely that affordable with similar wage comparisons. The trouble with saving for deposit today is getting a job that pays enough to support you AND with enough extra to save. With the continually risings costs of everything but lack of wage growth, that extra is being eaten away, from anybody lucky enough not to be near or below the poverty line. After you get your home, if you start a family or have a decline in income due to job changes, good luck trying to refinance. We can’t renegotiate our home loan as our living costs are deemed too high to service a loan, despite us still barely maintaining payments. So once you are locked in to the housing market, you can end up really locked in. No option to change loan rates and if you sell, no chance of buying another house. You live on the government’s and banks’ terms.

12
Maya123 9:28 pm
19 Jun 17
#

spades said :

Maya123 said :

I find it interesting that the average salary now is almost $80,000 a year. That’s much higher than I expected. Two people on average wages should be living very comfortably. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0
A single person would too, if they didn’t have a mortgage.

I did back up your comments about needing to be willing for a few years to adopt a more frugal lifestyle, if buying a home is difficult. From comments I hear from some first home buyers today, many simply aren’t willing to, or to buy a base level home as their starter home. They appear to want what their parents have now and the standard of living they are used to; not what their parents started out with. I now don’t live in my first house. I moved on, as today’s buyers in a few years can too, if they use their money wisely. The paid off first home is a good deposit on the next home. Sadly I think too many people think in the short term. Not about the improved lifestyle and better financial position they will be in by saving money now, to have more in the future. When the house is paid off, that money can be invested elsewhere, or spent on an improved lifestyle if that is what you want.

You never mentioned whether you had a partner when paying off your mortgage, so I assume you were single then. Assuming you had an average salary, how were you able to pay off a mortgage in 5 years? That’s virtually impossible today. I am gen X and after doing calculations just then, I would have spent approximate all of my salary (after taxes) to pay the mortgage of my first property off in 5 years.

Let’s break down your example. $80k after taxes is $60k. That’s a weekly salary of $1500. Multiply that by 260 weeks (5 years) is $390k. So someone on an $80k salary who doesn’t spend on anything at all will earn $390k after tax in 5 years. No amount of being frugal is going to allow an individual with $80k salary to pay off a decent property in 5 years, even employing all the tips you have suggested.

Nothing wrong with any of your other suggestions and I totally agree, but I think it’s unfair to blame unaffordability squarely on not being frugal.

My take on this affordability discussion is that it’s the type of property affordable to FHB’s that has changed drastically. In your generation it was common to buy detached properties on a single average salary and live an “average” life. There is no way that anyone with an average salary can afford to buy a detached house. An apartment, yes, but not a house on a land you call your own.

For starters I rented out two bedrooms, which allowed me to make at least two mortgage payments a month; sometimes more. The quicker the mortgage is paid, the less interest is paid, so I saved a lot of money that way. At the start I was negatively gearing the house for tax purposes, but by the end it was positive. It’s also cheaper re expenses such as electricity with more people in the house to share the cost. Electricity goes up with more people, but two people don’t use twice one person and so on. Lots of expenses were shared; another saving. I also had saved a deposit.

13
Maya123 9:43 pm
19 Jun 17
#

spades wrote, “No amount of being frugal is going to allow an individual with $80k salary to pay off a decent property in 5 years”
I did also say that the house I bought was the cheapest at the time on the whole Canberra market. I would bet after the comment “decent”, the house I bought, an unrenovated Narrabundah fibro cottage, wouldn’t be considered by you. The area then was also a bit iffy to live in, with drug dealers and the like. It has improved since and the price has gone up to reflect this, but when I bought most people wouldn’t live there. But I was willing to and I never had any troubles from the locals, although my car alarm saved my car one night. Which is one reason some people can’t afford a house. Their standards are set too high for a first home. A first home shouldn’t be considered as forever. It’s a way to get on the property market. “A decent property” can come later.

14
JC 11:06 pm
19 Jun 17
#

Well here is an interesting like for like comparison.

I brought my first home in 2000. I paid $150,000 for it and my income was close to $50,000. So house=3 years wages. House was brand new in outer suburb, 3 bed 110m2. So not lavish etc.

I sold that house 18 months ago for $475,000. Now let’s say I was the buyer of this same entry level house in 2015. My wage based on the same job classification would be about $90,000. So house=5.2 years wages.

So doesn’t matter how much I scrimp and saved simple fact is the same house is about 1.75 more expensive relative to wages, so significantly less affordable to the point where I would probably struggle to buy that house. Wheras in 2000 yeah I lived a bit basic for a year or two but same house significantly cheaper relative to the same wage.

Oh and if I had of brought 2 years earlier rather than wasting money seeing the world I would have paid closer to $120,000 for the same size house in same suburb. Or 2.4 times my wage.

15
chewy14 9:19 am
20 Jun 17
#

JC said :

Well here is an interesting like for like comparison.

I brought my first home in 2000. I paid $150,000 for it and my income was close to $50,000. So house=3 years wages. House was brand new in outer suburb, 3 bed 110m2. So not lavish etc.

I sold that house 18 months ago for $475,000. Now let’s say I was the buyer of this same entry level house in 2015. My wage based on the same job classification would be about $90,000. So house=5.2 years wages.

So doesn’t matter how much I scrimp and saved simple fact is the same house is about 1.75 more expensive relative to wages, so significantly less affordable to the point where I would probably struggle to buy that house. Wheras in 2000 yeah I lived a bit basic for a year or two but same house significantly cheaper relative to the same wage.

Oh and if I had of brought 2 years earlier rather than wasting money seeing the world I would have paid closer to $120,000 for the same size house in same suburb. Or 2.4 times my wage.

No, no, no, you can’t bring factual evidence into a debate like this, everyone knows that young people are just lazy and don’t want to save and sacrifice like back in the good old days when we walked 20km to school in bare feet with bricks in our bags.

Plus smashed avo and iphones everywhere and twice on Sundays.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site