When culture war games trend lethal

The right-wing ecosphere throws an idiot ball into the civic discourse with…

The year ahead

Most people turn away from politics over the holiday period when the…

Cutting Your Power Bills In Half And Other…

A few years ago there was a scam where people were promised…

Values Based Capitalism: The Imperative of Defining Commitment…

By Denis Bright Editorial insiders at The Weekend Australian (28-29 January 2023)…

A walk in the forest

Bayerischer Wald can be just as hard to get to than it…

An Emergent Premier Chris Minns - Uniting Sydney…

By Denis Bright After more than a decade in Opposition, NSW Labor is…

Forget Australia Day And Celebrate: Rum Rebellion Day…

After pointing out for a number of years that January 26th isn't…

Whither Constitutional Change?

Within a very short space of time, we are going to be…

«
»
Facebook

Aaand it’s sold

By 2353NM

Housing affordability is perceived to be an issue in Australia. In some areas of Australia, the median price of a house is in excess of $1million and there is some justification in the common questions around how on earth can a young couple ever be able to afford a house in that market. There are a number of answers to the question and there are also a number of inequities that are assisting to take house prices in ‘desirable’ areas out the reach of those who are not on a well above average income.

Most would attest that the choosing of a home either to rent or buy is not the stress-free experience that is portrayed in advertising for various real estate agents. For a variety of reasons, I have recently sold and purchased a home, which apart from the angst over someone paying me as much as possible and my payment of as little as possible, gave me a few insights into the current state of play in the residential real estate market.

In short, it is easy to believe that the real estate market is loaded against those who are younger, not earning that much (when compared to those who have been in the workforce for a while), with little or no deposit to contribute to the purchase of a house to call ‘their home’.

Generally, in Australia, the suburbs closer to the CBD in each capital city receive better services. There is a better variety of shopping centres, the public transport is usually better and more frequent, healthcare and education facilities are closer and accordingly easier to get to and so on. On the downside, there is a higher chance of living in a noisier environment with closer neighbours, more traffic and congestion.

Each member of the finance industry collectively spends a lot convincing you to borrow money from them rather than the mob down the road. What they don’t tell you in the glossy advertising is that if you have less than 20% of the purchase price of your future home, you will be required to pay mortgage insurance.

Normally an insurance policy paid for by a particular person will benefit that person. Mortgage insurance doesn’t. The ‘logic’ behind mortgage insurance is to pay out the financier of the home loan should the loan default. While the lender may get all their money back, the mortgage insurer is then out of pocket and chases the borrower. The insurance premium is frequently in the tens of thousands.

While there is probably some statistical reason for the requirement for loan insurance for those with what the finance industry considers to be a low deposit, it effectively penalises those who can’t for some reason save the ‘reasonable’ deposit for the area where they would like to live. The purchaser is then forced to live further away from the CBD, in an area with less services. Sooner or later pressure is applied to all levels of government for the services to improve further out from the CBD, applying upward pressure to taxes and charges so the improvements can be funded.

According to Realesate.com.au, the time it takes to save a deposit to purchase a ‘median priced’ house in each capital city varies according to the city, number of incomes and the earnings capability of the people involved. It could take in excess of eight years to save the 20% deposit to avoid the mortgage insurance. Don’t forget that while you are saving for the eight years, the house prices will go up as will your income. However, with housing prices in some areas rising faster than salaries and wages, is it any wonder that people decide that the occasional $22 smashed avo on bruschetta is more attainable? If you follow the advice in this ABC website article, you might actually have your avo while saving for the home of your own, but it isn’t guaranteed.

A considerable number of people saving for a house are renting somewhere while they ‘save the deposit’. Realestate.com.au listed the ‘cheapest five’ rental suburbs within 10km of the respective capital city CBD during October. Looking at the Brisbane suburbs listed on the website, the latter three generally have much better access to services than the first two, which probably accounts for the difference in price. So while paying generally in excess of $300 a week to rent a place to live, people have to find a way to put a similar or greater amount away to eventually buy a house.

Unfortunately the area with the cheapest rentals is not necessarily one of the cheaper areas to purchase in, leading to people either having to save a higher deposit or accept a reduction in nearby services when they choose to commence the process of buying a house.

That’s when you meet the real estate agents and the house sellers (better known as vendors). Real estate agents generally are paid on a commission basis. The seller of the property generally pays a certain percentage of the eventual purchase price to the real estate agent for the work they have put into introducing the purchaser to the property. In the past few months I have met some really nice people working as real estate agents and some that would sell their mother for five cents.

Observation would tell you that most real estate agents work out of offices with a number of other agents. As a result, you would think that if a customer of real estate agent ‘A’ is looking for a particular type of house that real estate agent ‘B’, who works in the same office had just been employed to sell, ‘A’ and ‘B’ would talk to ensure that the property owner and potential purchaser would be given an opportunity to sign a contract of sale. You might think it, but there is no guarantee of it happening as the usual arrangement would be that real estate agent ‘B’ would have to share his commission and may not want to do so.

Vendors have expectations of the price they want for their properties. These expectations could be related to what is needed to ‘move on’, what they have seen the house next door sell for, what the estate agent tells the seller the place is worth or some other completely rational (to the vendor anyway) process. It stands to reason that vendors want the highest price they can get as do the real estate agents (to maximise their commission payment). The next group don’t.

Purchasers are the people who drive around the area they intend to live in, traditionally on a Saturday morning, looking at houses that they can ‘live with’. Purchasers are usually limited by some financial impost, either the deposit they have available, ability to make the repayments on a loan or the need to keep some money aside to pursue some other goal.

The vendors employ the real estate agents to sell their property with the expectation that the agent has the requisite skills to achieve the highest price. The agent also wants to achieve the highest price, as it maximises the commission paid. Unfortunately, the purchaser wants to find a house for the lowest price. In an economic sense, the real estate market cannot be a completely transparent market as the agent and vendor are both attempting to achieve the highest price — only limited by the purchaser’s negotiation skills or the need of other vendors with similar homes who also want to sell their house at the same time.

The purchaser who is attempting to buy their first home is also up against the investor. Peter Martin, the Economics Editor for Fairfax’s The Age recently looked at what could be considered to be the constant battle between owner-occupiers and investors, noting the Reserve Bank’s comment in evidence to a recent enquiry: ‘It is a truism that if an investor is buying a property, an owner-occupier is not.’

According to Martin:

What matters for a tolerable retirement (far more than superannuation) is owning the home in which you live. If you do, the age pension is enough to get by on. If you don’t, you have to pay rent. Morrison’s own figures show we are condemning more and more Australians to retirements burdened by rent.

Liberal MP John Alexander started an enquiry into housing prices back in the day when Abbott was the prime minister and Hockey was the treasurer. The enquiry was allowed to lapse after the recent election but Alexander was moved on about a year prior to that.

Hockey’s Treasury Department made a submission to Alexander’s enquiry. In the words of Peter Martin:

Graph 13 in its submission shows that up until the end of the 1990s the median dwelling price stayed in a tight band of 2.5 to 3 times household after-tax income. Then in the space of three years it shot up to near four times after-tax income and has stayed there ever since.

dwellings

What happened at the end of the 1990s? In September 1999, the government halved the headline rate of capital gains tax, making negative gearing suddenly an essential tax strategy. Whereas before, renting out a house at a loss for tax purposes had been mainly an exercise in delaying tax because the eventual profit made selling the property would be taxed at close to the seller’s marginal rate, afterwards, with the profit taxed at only half the marginal rate, it became an exercise in cutting tax.

So those with a desire to cut their tax took the opportunity given to them on a plate by the Howard government and negatively geared a house. Howard used to claim that rising housing prices were a sign of a good economy. The problem is that the investors (and more recently those from overseas) are in a position to squeeze owner-occupiers out of the market by bidding up house prices. The vendors and agents are happy — they are getting more money at the time of sale; the investors are effectively and legally writing off tax they would otherwise have to pay; and those who are trying to get their foot in the door are priced out of the market. After all the areas that are attractive to owner-occupiers because of features such as services or the natural surroundings are also attractive to investors, as the same attractions are also valuable to renters.

Take it from me, buying and selling houses is not the easy process that is commonly suggested in the advertising from real estate agencies and financial institutions. It is apparently worse for someone who is buying a house for the first time — as discussed by Erin Munro on the Domain website.

Current treasurer Scott Morrison made a speech to the Urban Development Institute recently where he called on state governments to reduce artificial constraints on housing supply. While there are probably some constraints that do require attention, maybe Morrison should take care of his own backyard first. The ALP had a policy at the last federal election to reduce the benefits of negative gearing and capital gains tax for those who invest in residential housing — maybe they were on to something.

Peter Martin suggests:

Reinstating capital gains tax and imposing a land tax would help, as would building more houses. But there is something in our psychology that’s doing it as well. We seem to want to push up the prices we complain about. Adding “supply” might do no more than give us something else to bid up.

Until some rationality is restored, if someone in your family wants to buy a first house, best of luck.

This article was originally published on The Political Sword

For Facebook users, The Political Sword has a Facebook page:
Putting politicians and commentators to the verbal sword

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 390 total views,  2 views today

16 comments

Login here Register here
  1. Carol Taylor

    On housing supply, just where does Morrison think that this land exists? Sure we can rezone remnant viable farmland and remnant protected bush habitat, but then what are we left with? Will it make housing more affordable, it never has before.

  2. Peter F

    When I built a house in 1974 the total value of house and land was three times my salary as a professional. When it was sold about ten years ago it was valued at nine times my son’s professional income. He is in a better profession than I am. Howard boasted that Australians would thank him for making them all millionaires. No, he merely devalued the purchasing power of our dollar ( and I am talking about within this country)

  3. Andreas Bimba

    The root cause is the corporate takeover of our democracies that began in the mid to late 70’s. The mass media more and more became the propaganda arm of the corporate elite, think tanks like the IPA defined the agenda, lobbying of politicians greatly increased, the bureaucracy and academia were infiltrated, vast sums of money were made available for political campaigns, the ideology of Monetarism took over from Keynesian economics, the neoliberal agenda of privatisation, balanced budgets or surpluses, government austerity, deregulation was adopted by the duopoly and basically the political class talked and talked but implemented the agenda of corporate elite in the important areas.

    The banks and the property developers and agents lobbied for negative gearing, the 50% CGT concession and allowing ‘business migration’ or foreign investment directly and through proxies into Australian property. These lobbyists have benefited greatly from this crony capitalist ponzy scheme of speculation in a commodity called property.

    The banks currently receive a windfall of about $50 billion p.a. in mortgage repayments from owner occupied and investment property buyers due to the property price bubble. This is a guesstimate based on the assumption that current property prices would be half what they currently are without the concessions that are inflating the bubble. Total mortgage payments are about $100 billion p.a.

    If you voted for either the Coalition or Labor in the last 40 years then you only have yourself to blame.

  4. Michael Taylor

    Peter F, I think it’s the mantra the government is still peddling. If the value of your house goes down then you won’t be a millionaire anymore. Damn. Gosh. The horror of it.

    But of course, if the value of houses go down then they become ‘more’ affordable to young people hoping to enter the market.

  5. jimhaz

    [What they don’t tell you in the glossy advertising is that if you have less than 20% of the purchase price of your future home, you will be required to pay mortgage insurance]

    i wonder if they own the mortgage insurers?

    Such insurance should only relate to a loss of main income – unexpected unemployment or illness. it would thus appear that the banks are forcing this insurance due to lending practices that are far, far too loose.

    I would regulate to prevent them from making such insurance mandatory.

    I’m going to be one of the renting pensioners, so will need to move to some boring country town with no services for lower rent. Aside from that though, I find the lack of responsible government management of this issue to be astounding – economically the cost to Australia is enormous – 100 billion per annum at least (if the money was invested in productive areas).

    If ever there was a reason to believe in conspiracy theories by a banking cabal this is it – virtually all western countries are complicit in doing nothing to prevent housing inflation, but many of the others don’t have the tax incentives Howard and co created. I devalue the ALP by at least 25% due to their demonstrated corruption on this issue – putting their own vested property interests ahead of any form of effort to resolve the issue (and at the state level having policies that promote inflation). The LNP have no positive values, so I can’t devalue them any further.

  6. Harquebus

    Carol Taylor is the one who gets it best.
    More destruction, energy consuming construction, the even more energy consuming services and subsequent waste and pollution are not what we need.
    Cheers.

  7. Michael Taylor

    “Carol Taylor is the one who gets it best”.

    She’s a wise lady, that one.

  8. Carol Taylor

    In spite of what the RE agents might like to spruik, young people’s preference isn’t a desirable latte and high rise living with associated swim spa, it’s being within reasonable commuting distance from employment. More greenfields mass developments aka “affordable housing” benefits few except the developers. Councils are then left to pick up the pieces as lack of amenities, schools and recreation facilities exacerbate social problems.

    Governments are looking at two options only, either overdevelopment (social problems associated with over-crowding), gussied up as young urbanite living or “affordable housing” (with associated social problems). A solution seldom mentioned is decentralisation, business encouraged to re-establish in population-denuded regional areas whereby young people can access affordable housing within easy commuting distance. And why is this seldom mentioned? Because there isn’t enough BLANKETY-BLANK money in it for the BLANKETY-BLANK developers and real estate agents. Is it any wonder that Morrison’s sole push would put yet more profit into the pockets of developers?

  9. Carol Taylor

    Thank you kind sirs. 🙂

  10. Harquebus

    Michael Taylor
    One is in need of some brownie points is one?
    I am sure that she is.
    Cheers.

  11. Kaye Lee

    My girlfriend lives in a north western suburb of Sydney. Her 19 year old son has a building apprenticeship – their current job (ever since he was employed 18 months ago) is a build in the Eastern suburbs of Sydney. His workplace will move around to whatever construction his boss has taken. He has to drive because he has tools and PT isn’t an option (plus would take forever even if you had a different type of job). The tolls for this apprentice to drive to work are over $100 a week. How much will the tolls be if they sprawl even further away from the work? The cost of travelling to where the work is is already prohibitive for those who can least afford it.

    Build high speed rail and a proper NBN and revitalise our regional centres.

  12. king1394

    My carpenter son-in-law left his trade for the Police Force a few years ago, when he realised that he would never be able to afford to buy one of the houses he was building. Yet our much loved Liberal Government is trying to tell us that house prices are high due to wages.
    Property speculation is rife, and even showing up in country towns quite distant from the city, where in places like Goulburn and Cowra, house prices are jumping by some $50,000 per year. People trying to save are seeing the percentage amount for their deposit increasing faster than their wages and savings can keep up with, and rents and living costs are also rising very quickly.
    When interest rates start to rise there will be a terrible falling out mainly among those people who have fully extended themselves.

  13. Anomander

    I recently read an article about the government in British Columbia imposing a 15% tax on foreign investors, as a way to reduce the demand on Vancouver’s housing market. which largely mirrors Sydney/Melbourne prices.

    Also faced with a huge rental shortfall due to the number of vacant investment properties, the Vancouver council have introduced a “vacancy tax”, to be paid if the house is vacant for more than 6 months of the year.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/vancouver/vancouver-council-approves-canadas-first-ever-vacant-housing-tax/article32882347/

  14. kerri

    I still reckon negative gearing needs to be linked to rental affordabilty.
    You should only be able to negatively gear a property (and thus gain a tax bonus which all of help fund) if that property provides housing in the area of greatest need.
    In my area many reasonable houses lie vacant whilst people struggle living in their cars or with family. I would lay money these homes are negatively geared or foreign invested.

  15. kerri

    @Anomander
    Love the idea of a vacancy tax!
    Discourages those buying for investment alone.

  16. Kaye Lee

    More than 100,000 are homeless and I am surrounded by holiday homes which are occupied for a tiny fraction of the year. If they changed the rules about capital gains tax and negative gearing, I wonder how many of them would go up for sale?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: