 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Country Specific / Australian Group / April 2004Housing Boom - Few Winners
There are few people who have benefited from the recent housing boom. Mums and dads who's family home has doubled in price may think they are better off, but... 1. When they want to 'upgrade' houses, they will find that the house they want to buy has also doubled in price, so they don't benefit. 2. Because mums and dads houses have doubled in price, they pay more in council rates, water rates, etc... 3. First home buyers are now burdened with larger mortgages. The 'Australian dream' for these people is further away. The people to gain are people in the property industry - developers, real estate people, etc. Of course, the government gains with massive stamp duties, land tax, etc. The mums and dads have not gained. The first home buyers for the next 15(?) years are the losers. I blame the government for this. They introduced a 14k first home owners grant at a time when interest rates were so low. Of course this was going to cause a massive housing boom. They then reduce this first home owners grant at a time when first home owners need it the most. The government has failed us again, this time, it is Howard. Give us a break, Howard. > There are few people who have benefited from the recent housing boom. Mums > and dads who's family home has doubled in price may think they are better [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 2. Because mums and dads houses have doubled in price, they pay more in > council rates, water rates, etc... An extra $300 in rates a year is no issue when your house has risen in value by $100k in 5 years >> There are few people who have benefited from the recent >> housing boom. Mums and dads who's family home has >> doubled in price may think they are better off, but... >> 1. When they want to 'upgrade' houses, they will find that the house >> they want to buy has also doubled in price, so they don't benefit. >> 2. Because mums and dads houses have doubled in price, >> they pay more in council rates, water rates, etc... > An extra $300 in rates a year is no issue when > your house has risen in value by $100k in 5 years It can be for some, most obviously those on a pension with their house fully paid off. The increase in value is no use to them and they just have to pay more in rates for nothing extra. In practice its nothing like as simple as he claims because the rates dont depend on the total property value anyway. > >> There are few people who have benefited from the recent > >> housing boom. Mums and dads who's family home has [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > their house fully paid off. The increase in value is no use to > them and they just have to pay more in rates for nothing extra. Why would someone who has a fully paid off home, be bludging on the taxpayers when they can clearly pay their own way? That is what is wrong with our system. > > >> There are few people who have benefited from the recent > > >> housing boom. Mums and dads who's family home has [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > their house fully paid off. The increase in value is no use to > > them and they just have to pay more in rates for nothing extra. > Why would someone who has a fully paid off home, be bludging > on the taxpayers when they can clearly pay their own way? Some choose to do it like that, with some wooly minded line that they have paid taxes all their life and so they are 'entitled' to a pension. Others do manage to pay their house off while working but dont have enough to 'live' off when they stop working and so bludge on a pension. > That is what is wrong with our system. Sure, its always punished those who do make their own provision for retirement over those who choose to piss that money against the wall and then put their hand out for a pension after that. No govt has worked out any way to stop people doing that. I'm not convinced that there is any way to do that. > > > >> There are few people who have benefited from the recent > > > >> housing boom. Mums and dads who's family home has [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I'm not convinced that there is any way to do that. Including the family home in the means test would be a good place to start. Either that, or start a facility where someone with their own house can sell it, but live in it rent free until they die, and use the money to fund their own retirement. Once they die, the house goes to the facility. It's ridiculous that some people are sitting on multi-million dollar properties on the beach at the gold coast, yet still get the pension. > > > > >> There are few people who have benefited from the recent > > > > >> housing boom. Mums and dads who's family home has [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > > > No govt has worked out any way to stop people doing that. Thats not strictly true. One obvious approach is no pensions at all, if you're stupid enough to not make provision for your retirement and cant bludge off the relos etc, you die or are welcome to kill yourself etc. Not politically marketable in the first world now tho. >> I'm not convinced that there is any way to do that. > Including the family home in the means > test would be a good place to start. Nope, thats a lousy place to start, essentially because its political poison in this country and only the terminally wooly minded w.nkers would even be silly enough to try it. > Either that, or start a facility where someone with their > own house can sell it, but live in it rent free until they > die, and use the money to fund their own retirement. > Once they die, the house goes to the facility. Thats available now. But thats politically unsellable instead of the pension too. > It's ridiculous that some people are sitting > on multi-million dollar properties on the beach > at the gold coast, yet still get the pension. Sure, but you're never gunna sell that to the voters. > > > > > >> There are few people who have benefited from the recent > > > > > >> housing boom. Mums and dads who's family home has [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > its political poison in this country and only the terminally > wooly minded w.nkers would even be silly enough to try it. But if all the political parties got together on this one. It's the only way to save this country and give it back to the workers. Of course, it will never happen. > > Either that, or start a facility where someone with their > > own house can sell it, but live in it rent free until they [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Sure, but you're never gunna sell that to the voters. No, you are right. But if it keeps going the way it's going, good honest people will just give up and join the welfare line. Then where would we be? It needs a bipartisan approach. > > > > > > >> There are few people who have benefited from the recent > > > > > > >> housing boom. Mums and dads who's family home has [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > > Including the family home in the means > > > test would be a good place to start. >> Nope, thats a lousy place to start, essentially because >> its political poison in this country and only the terminally >> wooly minded w.nkers would even be silly enough to try it. > But if all the political parties got together on this one. Thats never gunna happen. > It's the only way to save this country > and give it back to the workers. Bullshit. And there are no 'workers' anyway. > Of course, it will never happen. Yep, the voters here put too much of a value on their houses for that to ever fly politically here. It is actually what many do use to provide for themselves in retirement. Flogging the house thats fully owned, moving into something smaller and more appropriate and living off the difference in price, usually invested. The tax and pension system does handle that more common approach pretty adequately. > > > Either that, or start a facility where someone with their > > > own house can sell it, but live in it rent free until they [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > Sure, but you're never gunna sell that to the voters. > No, you are right. But if it keeps going the way it's going, > good honest people will just give up and join the welfare line. Nope, because most consider that the welfare line doesnt pay well enough. They're wrong if you do fully own your own house, but most dont realise that. And plenty wont just put their hand out for welfare anyway. > Then where would we be? It aint gunna happen. > It needs a bipartisan approach. Nope, it actually needs compulsory super and thats what there is a bipartisan approach on. Makes it impossible to piss all income against the wall and then put your hand out for the pension. > > > > > > > >> There are few people who have benefited from the recent > > > > > > > >> housing boom. Mums and dads who's family home has [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > is a bipartisan approach on. Makes it impossible to piss all income > against the wall and then put your hand out for the pension. 'Super' the most stupid idea ever bowled over the australian people.... hey morons....this nation has such a shitload of resources it can pay off a billion people on a pension for over a millenium... why pay taxes and look after the nation when when you get old...the nation shafts you.... think about it ya simpletons.... Im not even a geriatric and even I know that makes sense, stupid half-apes... u stupid morons, a pension is the reward you get for paying taxes all your years.... for a nation as rich as Australia to be bitching it cant take care of its own kind.... means stupid monkeys propogate....in the land down-under stop blaming welfare because your too stupid to control the mechanisms of society... welfare is needed ya dumbwit morons....thousands of years of mankind figuring that out and ya too stupid to remember it.... cheers ;) heres a tip ya hairless apes...go read some history.... > > > > > > >> There are few people who have benefited from the recent > > > > > > >> housing boom. Mums and dads who's family home has [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > honest people will just give up and join the welfare line. Then where > would we be? It needs a bipartisan approach. > u stupid morons, a pension is the reward you get for paying taxes all > your years.... Which is the mistake many peopel make and one fraught with danger if replied upon for the future. > for a nation as rich as Australia to be bitching it cant take care of > its own kind.... Think of the movie "The Matrix", we will need a direct line into the wallet of the taxpayer and suck more and more from their wallet Mr. Anderson, if the social security budget continues to increase at current rates.  SignatureTrevor S "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." -Albert Einstein The funny thing is, 1/3 of my taxes go to pension (wellfare). When I retire, I bet the governement wont give me a pension. > u stupid morons, a pension is the reward you get for paying taxes all your > years.... [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > > honest people will just give up and join the welfare line. Then where > > would we be? It needs a bipartisan approach. > The funny thing is, Not very funny at all, actually. > 1/3 of my taxes go to pension (wellfare). In fact most welfare goes to non pensions. A hell of a lot of it goes on stupid 'child' benefits to the vast bulk of taxpayers. > When I retire, I bet the governement wont give me a pension. Depends on how much provision you make for your dotage. I doubt we will ever see a situation where the worst of the bludgers get told that if they didnt make any provision for their retirement, they're welcome to just die. > > u stupid morons, a pension is the reward you get for paying taxes all your > > years.... [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > > > honest people will just give up and join the welfare line. Then where > > > would we be? It needs a bipartisan approach. "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> said >> The funny thing is, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > A hell of a lot of it goes on stupid 'child' > benefits to the vast bulk of taxpayers. That's one (of many) things that really irks me. Why the f.ck should people get *payed* to have babies or to stay home and look after them? If people make the decision not to have children, why should they be slugged nearly 50% of what they earn to support someone who decides to stay home and wipe snot off their kids? SignatureKwyj. "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce (Remove your panties to reply by email) > That's one (of many) things that really irks me. > Why the f.ck should people get *payed* to have babies or to stay home and > look after them? That's something that hasn't gone away from the 50's, the government was very pro-population development then, that should be abolished in this day and age IMO. But then, there's tons of Draconian laws in this country that haven't been revoked despite times changing. Albinus. Albinus said.... > That's something that hasn't gone away from the 50's, the government was > very pro-population development then, that should be abolished in this Most of today's welfare policies were put in place by the Whitlam government. The biggest one that has caused untold damage is the no fault divorce system. > Most of today's welfare policies were put in place by the Whitlam > government. The biggest one that has caused untold damage is the no > fault divorce system. Yes - the Whitlam era (amongst other things) was responsible for the sole parent pension, radical overhaul of the divorce law etc, but the actual child allowance was back in the 50's when we "needed to build our population". Can't do that too much these days with limited water and some other resources in Australia. Albinus. > population". Can't do that too much these days with limited water and some > other resources in Australia. thats cuz we're too stupid to harness those resources....its not limited... cheers ;) Kwyjibo. said.... > That's one (of many) things that really irks me. > Why the f.ck should people get *payed* to have babies or to stay home > and look after them? They're arguing that we breed or die. Trouble is, a lot of these breeders that we're paying for, are breeding little more than more breeders, who we'll also have to pay for. Not really productive in the overall scheme of things. Say what you will about how the US handles welfare. At least when it comes to sole parent welfare, they give you one shot at it. The next one, particularly if you're currently on child support welfare, you get zip for. > If people make the decision not to have children, why should they be > slugged nearly 50% of what they earn to support someone who decides to > stay home and wipe snot off their kids? Then there are those who can't have kids, and who are refused IVF due to whatever reasons. > Kwyjibo. said.... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > one, particularly if you're currently on child support welfare, you get > zip for. Bullshit. You've never had a clue about how the yank system works. The foodstamp system particularly is nothing like that. > > If people make the decision not to have children, why should they be > > slugged nearly 50% of what they earn to support someone who decides to > > stay home and wipe snot off their kids? > Then there are those who can't have kids, and who are refused IVF due to > whatever reasons. Kwyjibo <KwyjiboYourPanties@ozdebate.com> wrote in message news:Xns94CEC951E5A68ssss@130.133.1.4... >> Marc <sam@everlast.net.au> wrote >>> The funny thing is, >> Not very funny at all, actually. >>> 1/3 of my taxes go to pension (wellfare). >> In fact most welfare goes to non pensions. >> A hell of a lot of it goes on stupid 'child' >> benefits to the vast bulk of taxpayers. > That's one (of many) things that really irks me. Yeah, its the main stupidity that I have never agreed with. What the f.ck is the point in taxing average taxpayers heavily, pumping that money thru the shinybum system, and straight back to the same people it was collected from in the first place ? Its basically one of the very real downsides of a democratic system. That sort of bribe to the voters who are mostly so stupid that they demand that sort of thing, and are so stupid they cant see the stupidity of it. > Why the f.ck should people get *payed* to have > babies or to stay home and look after them? One argument is that if you dont watch out, you can end up with fewer and fewer kids, and that can end up with a significant problem eventually with a very large part of the population no longer working, with a lot fewer working and paying taxes. Our welfare system is basically funded annually from the current taxpayers. BUT I havent seen much evidence that too many actually change the number of brats they choose to have to get the handouts for them. Some do, the absolute dregs of the welfare market do have significantly more kids than say double income professional wage earners, but the last thing we want is more of those useless dregs, they mostly turn into welfare bludgers themselves, generation after generation. f.ck that. > If people make the decision not to have children, why should they > be slugged nearly 50% of what they earn to support someone > who decides to stay home and wipe snot off their kids? Most of the 'child' payments dont depend on you staying home except in the sense that there is a bit of a means test so that you get less of that money if the total family income is quite high. The other terminal stupidity with the current system is that there are massive subsidys for 'child care' and you STILL end up with the stupid situation where its distinctly arguable whether one of the parents working makes any sense while the kids arent going to school. > The other terminal stupidity with the current system is that there are > massive subsidys for 'child care' and you STILL end up with the stupid > situation where its distinctly arguable whether one of the parents > working makes any sense while the kids arent going to school. You'll get no arguments from me on this subject, Roddles. Roddles for PM! SignatureWhen in doubt, duck. - Malcolm Forbes I'll vote for you too. Just do a major overhaul on welfare, then minimise the way the Governement 'toys' with us. > > The other terminal stupidity with the current system is that there are > > massive subsidys for 'child care' and you STILL end up with the stupid [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > When in doubt, duck. - Malcolm Forbes <snip> > Why would someone who has a fully paid off home, be bludging on the > taxpayers when they can clearly pay their own way? because they VOTE and there are a lot of them... the taxpayer is becoming the minority. SignatureTrevor S "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." -Albert Einstein > > >> There are few people who have benefited from the recent > > >> housing boom. Mums and dads who's family home has [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > taxpayers when they can clearly pay their own way? That is what is > wrong with our system. Its called "liquidity of an asset" - moron > > > >> There are few people who have benefited from the recent > > > >> housing boom. Mums and dads who's family home has [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > taxpayers when they can clearly pay their own way? That is what is > > wrong with our system. > Its called "liquidity of an asset" Nope. > >> There are few people who have benefited from the recent > >> housing boom. Mums and dads who's family home has [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > their house fully paid off. The increase in value is no use to > them and they just have to pay more in rates for nothing extra. You can take out mortgages to cover this, they are repayed automatically when you die and your house is sold. No payments required while you are alive > > >> There are few people who have benefited from the recent > > >> housing boom. Mums and dads who's family home has [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > their house fully paid off. The increase in value is no use to > > them and they just have to pay more in rates for nothing extra. > You can take out mortgages to cover this, They'd rather not have to, fool. > they are repayed automatically when you die and your > house is sold. No payments required while you are alive No news to me, dunnychild. Thats my point exactly. Your house may of risen in price by $100k, but so has the house you want to 'upgrade' too. So, you have not really gained by the increase in house value. However you still have to pay more for council rates, water rates, etc... > > There are few people who have benefited from the recent housing boom. Mums > > and dads who's family home has doubled in price may think they are better [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > An extra $300 in rates a year is no issue when your house has risen in value > by $100k in 5 years You posted over at aus.dvd and now here too...go to the politics newsgroup dhead! > There are few people who have benefited from the recent housing boom. Mums > and dads who's family home has doubled in price may think they are better [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > The government has failed us again, this time, it is Howard. Give us a > break, Howard. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.