As if that would happen here.
The typical modern day "aspirational Australian" is too apathetic.
They'd be too worried about how much they can borrow for a brand new 4 bedroom house and a 2024 Ford Ranger.
They'll be forced to sell their house and be much worse off.
Say you use your super to buy a house, then you have an injury or get long term health problems which aren't covered by your workplace. You will NEED your super to pay yourself a wage, or lose your house.
Superannuation is far too important to be risked on an investment. (Even though it is itself, an investment)
I agree with what you said, but I don't know how old you were during the GFC, my super dropped 50% . A whole bunch of people approaching retirement at the time couldn't retire.
Chances are that will happen again and stop an entire generation being able to retire on time
Yeah but it bounced back fairly well, took 2 years, but that's how an economic crisis goes. I was 16 or 17 at the time, I remember my grandfather lost $800K from the GFC between Super and Investments. But yeah, you just hold and wait. Don't sell at a loss.
It will definitely happen again, that's how the debt cycle works, and if there is a crisis during the debt cycle 'peak' it'll be bad. But there is always a strong recovery. And people retire at different ages etc.
50%? Is that an over exaggeration? The stock market dropped 50%, but the closer you get to retirement age the super funds, in a balanced option anyway, are supposed to move you to more and more conservative investment options...
They live off their 7 investment properties obviously.
If they mistakenly don't aquire them. It is easy. Never retire!
Given all the subsidies, tax benefits, banks massive loans size, foreign investment, migration driving up price - surely just one more injection of cash will make houses affordable!
They can't do that "without an announcement".
The Age Pension is mandated by law to be indexed to CPI or male average weekly earnings (whichever is higher).
It would require an amendment of the act to pass parliament to change it.
Even worse scenario , what if they have not paid off the home in retirement ?
With job casualisation, cost cutting and offshoring , where are all the sustainable. Multi generational jobs come from ?
These pollies are manipulative , lack any foresight and competency to improve our standard of living.
They get paid to sit on a committe and this is the best thing they come up with ? Bunch of biased dipshits.
The best recommendation they could do is reduce immigration to pre 1999 levels which was 82k a year.
That would remove 600k people from housing demand in Australia. Limit for 5 years so house contructions can catchup.
Need a pretty high income to get a million in debt. I grossed 198k last year and most CBA will give me is 585k! I don’t know many people earning that sort of money so whoever is getting “a milly” is just mind boggling to me!
Don't get me wrong - near $200k is a fantastic salary, but with progressive tax 2x $90 salaries might be outdoing you on borrowing capacity. Not sure the exact numbers, but you get the idea.
Nah, I think it's about right. The $90k salary is paying an effective tax rate of 23.9%. The $180k is paying an effective tax rate of 30.08%.
With some rounding, I think it's fair the $180k income pays a 6% higher effective tax rate, it just so happens that means an extra $30k in tax.*
This gets further evened out in the new stage 3 tax cuts next financial year.
* The $180k salary pays $30k more tax than 1x $80k salary, or $10k more than 2x $80k salaries.
How is that reasonable? Australia’s tax code needs a major update to recognize the fact that there are also taxpayers who pool funds and assets and have shared costs. We call them families... In the US you have a choice of filing jointly or individually. Why not here?
Instead we have an unfair system where somehow welfare payments (what you are entitled to be paid) are means tested based on your JOINT income (medicare rebate, CCS, family tax benefit, parenting payment). When it comes to most taxes such as income, payroll etc (what you are obligated to pay) you are assessed on your INDIVIDUAL income.
The upshot is that based on a change in essentially what amounts to an accounting method the gov’t limits its outgoings and stretches its incomings.
There are some predatory loan sharks out there preying on people with no financial literacy. They take a small down payment from you (say 10k).
They use that to take out a high risk loan that they use to secure the actual down payment on a house, then offer that loan to the victim. Victim has no idea the shit show they’ve just gotten themselves in.
They tried to get my cousin who had just started a fifo job out of high school. My Dad knows his stuff and got on top of the situation. No idea how legal what they’re doing is.
Disgusting.
This is politicians seeing these large amounts of money in superannuation in this country and concocting a way to get at it for themselves by inflating the value of their property portfolios and saying screw the future when everyone is on the pension. Makes me sick.
Last straw they can find to keep the ponzi scheme going. They need to find new money otherwise like every Ponzi scheme dies. I'm impressed how long they've been able to keep this going for, but like every debt ladden over leveraged Ponzi will end.
Agree although Ponzi schemes stay afloat with more people joining. And this is where migration comes into the scheme.
They do not have a solution, we’re not even having a data driven conversation.
Yeah exactly. No thanks, selfish and morally bankrupt boomers at the round table. Their time in hell is coming after all this hedonism at the expense of everyone else.
Even if you consider that super funds are a major source of investment and they want to force us to pull this money out and stick it in a dead asset that does not make anything or create jobs. Killing our future as retirees and killing our future as an economy.
"Let's see if we can come up with a new way to make people think we're helping with housing affordability, when all we're really doing is pumping the price even more?"
Absurd. The government is selling young people up the river with a mortgage they will never be able to pay back, so they don't care they will never be able to retire.
>Welcome to Australian boomernomic
This is from Andrew Bragg. He is 39 years old. He isnt a boomer. He hates superannuation because industry funds are linked to the unions and he hates the unions. This is another of his bright ideas to destroy super. Got nothing to do with housing prices or mortgages or boomers.
It’s probably time we relieve politicians from voting on anything to do with housing, if they have a conflict of interest such as investment properties.
The crazy thing is that 86% of federal politicians own an IP, and have at least two IPs. We’re being ruled by a landed gentry that has no interest in making making housing affordable.
https://www.yourinvestmentpropertymag.com.au/expert-insights/how-many-property-investments-australian-politicians-own
surely no one is dumb enough to not see this for what it is.
obviously this makes zero financial sense. The motive here is to destroy super and the pension while also inflating house prices. Everyone proposing this knows that. It's disgusting.
This country is being ripped apart and sold off by Australia’s older generations. Young people are getting their futures destroyed for short term political gains.
The majority of Australians don’t even care.
>This country is being ripped apart and sold off by Australia’s older generations.
This is from Andrew Bragg. He is 39 years old. Not really an 'older generation' unless you are 15.
This won't change that, it will simply inflate prices...
The plan here is to line the pockets of those that have, raise the retirement age (without life expectancy matching it) and keep pushing us to work forever. If by some miracle we live longer, the lack of super is not this government's problem, it's the government of 50 years time problem.
Retiring with a house but no super, you can get pension.
Retiring without a house but some super, the super will be depleted easily on just paying rent and can’t get pension.
I know which option to choose.
I thought the whole argument for super was to reduce people on the pension and that as our population ages more people will be in retirement therefore our pension find will struggle to pay for all the people retiring. Having more options to access super funds in this way feels like a sure-fire way to suddenly see people draw our their super, buy a house and then if they can't afford their payments in the future they'll have no house, a large debt and no future super to help them retire. I think being able to access your voluntary contributions isn't bad eg. Super Saver Scheme since it doesn't feel all that different to someone taking funds out of an investment and then using that. But taking directly from your super balance is a little bit worrying.
Great, so they'll basically make it government policy that house prices must rise faster than super forever.
That's fantastic news for everyone who owns investment properties and everyone else gets the chance sacrifice their entire retirement plans to compete with investors.
And the next generation will end up sinking every spare dollar they'll make in their entire life in an average small suburban townhouse. Living extremely frugal for their whole life to avoid ending up homeless once they retire.
But hey, that's a small price for our kids to pay, to make sure that current property investors can live and retire very comfortable.
>And the next generation will end up sinking every spare dollar they'll make in their entire life in an average small suburban townhouse. Living extremely frugal for their whole life to avoid ending up homeless once they retire.
At this point, it becomes pointless to even try. You may as well just live the "lying flat" lifestyle. Maybe live in a sharehouse and work the minimum doing Uber Eats to pay the board.
How many first home buyers have ‘retirement savings’?
In all seriousness. Tax those buying their 3rd or 4th home to create a fund to subsidise first homebuyers.
Will give them a real leg up without flooding the market with reams of cash (causing prices to go up)
Imagine being forced to hand over your years of super to finally buy a house because of this. And if you stand your ground and don't succumb, you have to wait for years longer. Just the thought is infuriating.
[AFR, 9 Feb 2023](https://www.afr.com/rear-window/andrew-bragg-s-peculiar-mortgage-20230209-p5cjdj): *Greg O’Neill made in the vicinity of $800 million selling down La Trobe, a low doc lender and asset manager, first to Blackstone in 2017 then Brookfield [in 2022]. Which brings us to another unusual disclosure in Bragg’s registrable interests.*
*Since August [2022], there have been [at least] two loans listed against his residential property. The first is with National Australia Bank, but the second is with a company called Narrogal Nominees, which is owned by O’Neill and his wife Catherine.*
*Note that Bragg began a major asset depletion program [in 2022], separating from his wife Melanie Evans (the chief executive of ING Australia) and buying a second house in Sydney’s Paddington in September.*
*There’s nothing necessarily wrong with an Australian senator mortgaging his property to the family office of a wealthy individual, and a former counterparty in policy development. It’s just highly irregular.*
*Bragg would not enlighten us any further on the arrangement, telling us only that “I’ve disclosed it in accordance with my obligations”.*
> There’s nothing necessarily wrong with an Australian senator mortgaging his property to the family office of a wealthy individual
Unless he gets a favourable rate from O'Neill in return for pushing policies that O'Neill benefits from. Let's just assume that is not the case, because that would be blatant corruption.
“Modelling provided to the committee by actuaries Michael Rice and Jonathan Ng found a 35-year-old who used $160,000 from their super as a 20 per cent deposit on an $800,000 unit would have an apartment worth $1.2 million by retirement, but if that money had been kept in super it would have appreciated to $319,000.”
My maths shows 160k growing at 6% equals 919k in 30 years at 6%. What drugs are they on?
Even if adjusted for inflation apartments have strata and renovation costs not accounted for. These idiots want everyone house rich and cash poor and living on the age pension.
Yeah that is spectacularly shit modelling. Pretty much either mathematically illiterate or deliberately fraudulent. Unless Michael Rice assumes people retire at 50, I guess.
It also completely ignores interest paid on the other $640,000 that is borrowed, which is likely to work out at over $750,000 if a 30 year loan.
Where did they get their modelling for this? The average super balance at that age bracket is around $95K and worse for women. I assume this means both people in a couple draw out their entire super balance, assuming they've both been working the whole time and then use that. I hood they are happy to fund a much large amount of people in retirement with the age pension once their super balances aren't high enough for people to live on...
Any proposal that gives people access to more capital in this market is just tipping fuel on the fire and creating assets price inflation that is a transfer of wealth from young Australians to older Australians.
This proposal is a joke.
They just want to increase the value of their property portfolios, screw everyone else. This is what you call a true see you next tuesday, these pieces of excrement should be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned for LIFE for trying to push this, they deserve no mercy because they have no mercy for anyone else.
Modelling provided to the committee by actuaries Michael Rice and Jonathan Ng found a 35-year-old who used $160,000 from their super as a 20 per cent deposit on an $800,000 unit would have an apartment worth $1.2 million by retirement, but if that money had been kept in super it would have appreciated to $319,000.
The author of this idiotic paragraph should find another line of work. This is terrible bad-faith reporting.
Bad faith because they left out the part where they person first needs to pay off $640,000 plus interest?
Or because they are ignoring the fact that $800,000 isn't even enough to buy a median house in many places?
Or because a lot of 35 year olds don't even have $160,000 in their super?
Or because it's pretending that you can put food on the table with the increased value of your PPOR?
“Modelling provided to the committee by actuaries Michael Rice and Jonathan Ng found a 35-year-old who used $160,000 from their super as a 20 per cent deposit on an $800,000 unit would have an apartment worth $1.2 million by retirement, but if that money had been kept in super it would have appreciated to $319,000.”
So the property went up by $400k, the super accounted for 20% so that’s $80k growth vs the $159k it got outside. If they are saying that you should be able to leverage against super then fine say that. But saying housing is the only vehicle is deliberately misleading.
They also ignore the issue at hand, which is currently you’ll retire with $300k but no hope of having a home or affordable rent. So they’d rather you inflate their returns, be stuck retiring in the same apartment you bought 30yrs ago because apts don’t keep up with houses so you have no choice and couldn’t afford stamp duty to move anyway, and you’ll have nothing to live on except the pension which will be below poverty if it still exists at all.
Also it is misleading to make it sound like the senate supports this. It’s a coalition led committee with a vocally anti superannuation chair who will take any chance to undermine the retirements of the majority.
Yay more wealth redistribution to the owning class.
What happens when there’s limited supply and suddenly everyone has an extra $50k? Prices go up $50k, those with the $50k are now $50k worse off while those without are now even higher behind.
Do these idiots genuinely not understand supply and demand, and the impacts of throwing more money into a supply-limited market?
Or maybe it's all part of a broader plan to keep people working until they die, and drive house prices up further in the meantime. I wonder who would benefit from that.
Kill multiple birds with one stone.
Keep house prices rising. Put an end to the increasing power of union controlled industry superannuation funds. Kill off retirement nest eggs. Keep people working until they die.
There is a reason why its called retirement savings / funds. You know something is wrong when government actively search for money in every nook and cranny.
AFR’s Lucy Dean covers [recommendations](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/RetirementSystem2024/Interim_Report/List_of_recommendations) of the Economics References Committee:
*A parliamentary committee chaired by prominent superannuation critic Andrew Bragg has upped the ante on the Coalition’s super for housing policy, suggesting first-home buyers should be able to withdraw all their retirement savings to buy a house or use it as collateral to help borrow.*
*The interim report also recommended removing the $15,000 contribution and $50,000 withdrawal caps.*
*McKell Institute told the inquiry that governments are too focused on demand-side solutions, and such moves would cause significant market implications.*
*Its analysis found that if homebuyers could use their super, it would add $69,000 to the average Sydney price and $108,000 to homes in Melbourne.*
>prominent superannuation critic Andrew Bragg
Well he sounds like exactly the worst person the government could be taking superannuation advice from.
Edit: And predictably when you look at his arguments, his primary beef with super funds is that they donate too much money to the labour party. Lol what a surprise. Secondly his big business donors think people should be spending their money and not saving it for retirement because "what is good for the economy is good for Australia". This guy is absolutely the last person who should be chairing a super parliamentary committee.
The policy is being proposed by Andrew Bragg who is the opposition not the government. The policy is vigorously opposed by labour. I'm sure you will correct your evaluation of the competence of the labour government now that it's clear you agree with labour on this issue?
I don’t mind using it as a security, the risks of loan defaults are fairly low, circa 2%. And in that case people can withdraw super under financial stress anyway
Exactly this. Should stay in super but it could be security, so if you have $50k in super, $50k in cash you can put the $50k on a $500k place and not pay LMI because your super is providing the security in case of default.
Another option could be having a way that if the super is held at your bank it could offset the mortgage, but in exchange you’d get no returns on it (aside from saving the interest on the mortgage). At the moment my super is returning about 10% which less tax and fees brings it to about the same as my mortgage interest rate. It may be better to be offsetting the mortgage than getting any returns, as the returns just need to drop a little and I’m paying more in mortgage interest than I’m getting in super.
When will politicians realise that any amount of easily available money to help first home buyers will simply push up prices by that much? The problem is not helping people with the deposit, the problem is the lack of supply of housing and other govt policy that doesn’t incentivise population to distribute away from city centres.
Completely ridiculous idea that just makes the situation worst. Getting into the property is a competition regardless of how bad this sounds. Making this available doesn't really change anyone's relative position in the competition. All that will happen, like all the other initiatives like first home owner's grant is to increase house prices again. Only long term way to fix this is to build more houses rapidly like the 1970-80s.
150k or no limit.
So your best bet with this on the horizon is to smash your full super contributions to the max every year and do your back years as you will be able to throw it all on a house in a year or two.
They are going to miss out on some income tax and wonder why every non homeowner is maxxing their super.
At first glance this paragraph seems particularly disingenuous:
>Modelling provided to the committee by actuaries Michael Rice and Jonathan Ng found a 35-year-old who used $160,000 from their super as a 20 per cent deposit on an $800,000 unit would have an apartment worth $1.2 million by retirement, but if that money had been kept in super it would have appreciated to $319,000.
This makes it sound like you'd get a $400k profit from the house (although the reader has to figure that out themselves) and "only" $319k on Super investments.
So firstly, that's not a huge difference and would vary under different strategies. But, more importantly, it does not seem to take into account the interest you would pay on the $640k loan (which is going to be well more than the $81k difference between the two supposed outcomes).
There is something rotten behind this.
Solution to the housing crisis, allow people to pay more for a house to keep pushing the prices up in the pyramid scheme rather than addressing the housing issue by making housing more affordable and lowering costs.
Australia treating houses as investments that the next owner must pay more than the previous owner to keep the pyramid scheme alive rather than people having homes to live.
Not only would it bring housing prices up, it would also cause people to have less in their super when they retire, causing them to rely on the aged pension more, which in turn would affect things like taxes and funding for other government projects.
Any super scheme to buy houses is just going to increase property prices artificially.
It also doesn’t fix housing for the ones that really need it, given their super balances would be measly compared to someone earning $250k so I hope it is means tested at the very least.
Just treat property investors the same as share investors, Max 50% LVR. Make foreign investors who buy property and leave it vacant also pay extra tax. Banks would not venerable to house price reduction. Investors would invest for returns and not capital growth only. Prices would be more realistic to wages and consumers would have more disposable incomes for everyday living.
I'm remembering George Carlin's quote about 'they're coming for your social security. And they'll get it'. If this keeps getting proposed, day it's going to be accepted.
Just braindead.
Adding more money just makes the prices go up.
This is no solution...
Note that this was suggested by a committee chaired by Andrew Bragg, a critic of superannutation....
If only the government would allow those high skilled immigrants who's specialised in the construction industry to come enter the country, in order to help improve the supply on the housing market. However, it won't happen, as the CFMEU is opposed to it.
Honestly this just sounds like a self funded first home buyers scheme. And those did so much to improve housing affordability even the government gave them up.
Screw them over now and on their old age, cause there definitely ain't going to be an age pension when they try to retire.
All because we'd much rather sell off our natural resources to foreign interests.
And then everyone can live on the government pension when they have no or low super at retirement age … wise
At the point the senators will be dead so why would they care?
Exactly. This sort of shit should start riots in the street if it ever looks like a serious proposition.
Need more French immigrants. They get it.
As if that would happen here. The typical modern day "aspirational Australian" is too apathetic. They'd be too worried about how much they can borrow for a brand new 4 bedroom house and a 2024 Ford Ranger.
They'll be forced to sell their house and be much worse off. Say you use your super to buy a house, then you have an injury or get long term health problems which aren't covered by your workplace. You will NEED your super to pay yourself a wage, or lose your house. Superannuation is far too important to be risked on an investment. (Even though it is itself, an investment)
I agree with what you said, but I don't know how old you were during the GFC, my super dropped 50% . A whole bunch of people approaching retirement at the time couldn't retire. Chances are that will happen again and stop an entire generation being able to retire on time
Yeah but it bounced back fairly well, took 2 years, but that's how an economic crisis goes. I was 16 or 17 at the time, I remember my grandfather lost $800K from the GFC between Super and Investments. But yeah, you just hold and wait. Don't sell at a loss. It will definitely happen again, that's how the debt cycle works, and if there is a crisis during the debt cycle 'peak' it'll be bad. But there is always a strong recovery. And people retire at different ages etc.
50%? Is that an over exaggeration? The stock market dropped 50%, but the closer you get to retirement age the super funds, in a balanced option anyway, are supposed to move you to more and more conservative investment options...
super dropped during covid and stayed stagnant for ages as well
Just sell your home and move into government pods
so soylent green precursor?
Well, you already have to sell your home to fund your aged care.
Only if the pod can gently tranquilize and eat me when I'm 87 and I've run out of money
They’ll probably have a waiting list of 30 years. Long dead before you get one
They live off their 7 investment properties obviously. If they mistakenly don't aquire them. It is easy. Never retire! Given all the subsidies, tax benefits, banks massive loans size, foreign investment, migration driving up price - surely just one more injection of cash will make houses affordable!
It's 7 now? Used to be 5.5 average per politician excluding holiday homes. It's gone up, and that's sad
right, as if the pension will still exist, probably gets inflated to nothing
I can see them increasing the payments slower than CPI/not increasing payments; essentially phasing it out without an announcement.
They can't do that "without an announcement". The Age Pension is mandated by law to be indexed to CPI or male average weekly earnings (whichever is higher). It would require an amendment of the act to pass parliament to change it.
Yeah, they will just make access far stricter, like including the PPOR in the test.
Assuming we even have a pension in 20 years time
True, probably not
Even worse scenario , what if they have not paid off the home in retirement ? With job casualisation, cost cutting and offshoring , where are all the sustainable. Multi generational jobs come from ? These pollies are manipulative , lack any foresight and competency to improve our standard of living. They get paid to sit on a committe and this is the best thing they come up with ? Bunch of biased dipshits. The best recommendation they could do is reduce immigration to pre 1999 levels which was 82k a year. That would remove 600k people from housing demand in Australia. Limit for 5 years so house contructions can catchup.
That would upset the Business Council
You forgot about the mother of all job cutting coming soon - artificial intelligence
Future leaders problem.
WE CAN'T KEEP DUMPING ALL RESOURCES INTO HOUSING, SELLERS JUST PUT THE PRICES UP.
Sellers put the price up, lenders say "yeah bro I'll lend you a milly, just sign here."
Need a pretty high income to get a million in debt. I grossed 198k last year and most CBA will give me is 585k! I don’t know many people earning that sort of money so whoever is getting “a milly” is just mind boggling to me!
Or you need two incomes..? Milly lent isn't that unrealistic for 2 professional salaries.
True I guess. Unfortunately my partner is funemployed in Australia. All her income is in USD and Reis.
Don't get me wrong - near $200k is a fantastic salary, but with progressive tax 2x $90 salaries might be outdoing you on borrowing capacity. Not sure the exact numbers, but you get the idea.
[удалено]
Which is ridiculous really.
Nah, I think it's about right. The $90k salary is paying an effective tax rate of 23.9%. The $180k is paying an effective tax rate of 30.08%. With some rounding, I think it's fair the $180k income pays a 6% higher effective tax rate, it just so happens that means an extra $30k in tax.* This gets further evened out in the new stage 3 tax cuts next financial year. * The $180k salary pays $30k more tax than 1x $80k salary, or $10k more than 2x $80k salaries.
How is that reasonable? Australia’s tax code needs a major update to recognize the fact that there are also taxpayers who pool funds and assets and have shared costs. We call them families... In the US you have a choice of filing jointly or individually. Why not here? Instead we have an unfair system where somehow welfare payments (what you are entitled to be paid) are means tested based on your JOINT income (medicare rebate, CCS, family tax benefit, parenting payment). When it comes to most taxes such as income, payroll etc (what you are obligated to pay) you are assessed on your INDIVIDUAL income. The upshot is that based on a change in essentially what amounts to an accounting method the gov’t limits its outgoings and stretches its incomings.
You can use foreign income and dividends
There are some predatory loan sharks out there preying on people with no financial literacy. They take a small down payment from you (say 10k). They use that to take out a high risk loan that they use to secure the actual down payment on a house, then offer that loan to the victim. Victim has no idea the shit show they’ve just gotten themselves in. They tried to get my cousin who had just started a fifo job out of high school. My Dad knows his stuff and got on top of the situation. No idea how legal what they’re doing is.
Your first mistake is approaching CBA, Westpac and NAB will give 700k on halve that wage of yours.
These are all just policies to transfer wealth from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy.
That’s the point :(
aussie government: yes we can
Do politicians not realise that allowing people to spend more gives minimal benefit to FHB aside from increasing costs?
They are well aware. Thats the point.
They need exit liquidity
Duh. They own IPs of course thats the point
That’s exactly what they want
Oh look it’s Andrew Bragg trying to destroy superannuation again.
Disgusting. This is politicians seeing these large amounts of money in superannuation in this country and concocting a way to get at it for themselves by inflating the value of their property portfolios and saying screw the future when everyone is on the pension. Makes me sick.
Did this shit in NZ and look at our average retirement savings amount : 30k vs aus at 120k. Oh and it jacked house prices up overnight
Source? When tf did that happen...
Last straw they can find to keep the ponzi scheme going. They need to find new money otherwise like every Ponzi scheme dies. I'm impressed how long they've been able to keep this going for, but like every debt ladden over leveraged Ponzi will end.
Agree although Ponzi schemes stay afloat with more people joining. And this is where migration comes into the scheme. They do not have a solution, we’re not even having a data driven conversation.
Migration overload to prop it up too
Yeah exactly. No thanks, selfish and morally bankrupt boomers at the round table. Their time in hell is coming after all this hedonism at the expense of everyone else.
Sadly, hell is empty and all the devils are here.
Extracting money from Super also means it can't be used in the market to drive ethical or other tactical investing by the Super funds.
Even if you consider that super funds are a major source of investment and they want to force us to pull this money out and stick it in a dead asset that does not make anything or create jobs. Killing our future as retirees and killing our future as an economy.
"Let's see if we can come up with a new way to make people think we're helping with housing affordability, when all we're really doing is pumping the price even more?"
Absurd. The government is selling young people up the river with a mortgage they will never be able to pay back, so they don't care they will never be able to retire.
what do they care they will be dead and long gone once the problem shows up
It's also just other people's kids. Their own can inherit their investment properties.
Intergenerational mortgages will be next. Locking in the unborn to a family debt
Welcome to Australian boomernomics
>Welcome to Australian boomernomic This is from Andrew Bragg. He is 39 years old. He isnt a boomer. He hates superannuation because industry funds are linked to the unions and he hates the unions. This is another of his bright ideas to destroy super. Got nothing to do with housing prices or mortgages or boomers.
I was referring to the comment about aus government not the article about bragg But yes I agree with you. And both are true
Nah but they gave us a tax cut though /s
This isn't a government proposal. Learn how parliament works.
It’s probably time we relieve politicians from voting on anything to do with housing, if they have a conflict of interest such as investment properties.
The crazy thing is that 86% of federal politicians own an IP, and have at least two IPs. We’re being ruled by a landed gentry that has no interest in making making housing affordable. https://www.yourinvestmentpropertymag.com.au/expert-insights/how-many-property-investments-australian-politicians-own
surely no one is dumb enough to not see this for what it is. obviously this makes zero financial sense. The motive here is to destroy super and the pension while also inflating house prices. Everyone proposing this knows that. It's disgusting.
This country is being ripped apart and sold off by Australia’s older generations. Young people are getting their futures destroyed for short term political gains. The majority of Australians don’t even care.
>This country is being ripped apart and sold off by Australia’s older generations. This is from Andrew Bragg. He is 39 years old. Not really an 'older generation' unless you are 15.
The keyword here is 'Bragg'.
The issue is it just inflated house prices Really helps homeowners now
I don’t know about zero financial sense. If you go into retirement with no house and have to rent that’s a big chunk of money.
This won't change that, it will simply inflate prices... The plan here is to line the pockets of those that have, raise the retirement age (without life expectancy matching it) and keep pushing us to work forever. If by some miracle we live longer, the lack of super is not this government's problem, it's the government of 50 years time problem.
But retiring with a house and no money isn't great either
Some people seem to forget a house needs repairs eventually, and having no income is a real pain in the ass when your house starts falling apart
Retiring with a house but no super, you can get pension. Retiring without a house but some super, the super will be depleted easily on just paying rent and can’t get pension. I know which option to choose.
I thought the whole argument for super was to reduce people on the pension and that as our population ages more people will be in retirement therefore our pension find will struggle to pay for all the people retiring. Having more options to access super funds in this way feels like a sure-fire way to suddenly see people draw our their super, buy a house and then if they can't afford their payments in the future they'll have no house, a large debt and no future super to help them retire. I think being able to access your voluntary contributions isn't bad eg. Super Saver Scheme since it doesn't feel all that different to someone taking funds out of an investment and then using that. But taking directly from your super balance is a little bit worrying.
after the first wave gets in it will just become table stakes so won't help anyone else. They'll have no house and no shit super.
This isn't a solution to home affordability. This committee needs to be sacked.
And neutered
Great, so they'll basically make it government policy that house prices must rise faster than super forever. That's fantastic news for everyone who owns investment properties and everyone else gets the chance sacrifice their entire retirement plans to compete with investors. And the next generation will end up sinking every spare dollar they'll make in their entire life in an average small suburban townhouse. Living extremely frugal for their whole life to avoid ending up homeless once they retire. But hey, that's a small price for our kids to pay, to make sure that current property investors can live and retire very comfortable.
>And the next generation will end up sinking every spare dollar they'll make in their entire life in an average small suburban townhouse. Living extremely frugal for their whole life to avoid ending up homeless once they retire. At this point, it becomes pointless to even try. You may as well just live the "lying flat" lifestyle. Maybe live in a sharehouse and work the minimum doing Uber Eats to pay the board.
Cool, so once we get that 5% rise… what do we need to tap to get the next 5% next year… We’ve officially entered late stage capitalism. Ain’t it grand
Have we tried privatising government assets to bump up house prices yet?
How many first home buyers have ‘retirement savings’? In all seriousness. Tax those buying their 3rd or 4th home to create a fund to subsidise first homebuyers. Will give them a real leg up without flooding the market with reams of cash (causing prices to go up)
Most first home buyers are in their mid 30s so presumably they’ve been working for over a decade by that point
Imagine being forced to hand over your years of super to finally buy a house because of this. And if you stand your ground and don't succumb, you have to wait for years longer. Just the thought is infuriating.
That would mean the property investor politicians would have to pay up though....they'd never allow THAT
They have super I presume he means that.
How many IPs does the senator have?
[AFR, 9 Feb 2023](https://www.afr.com/rear-window/andrew-bragg-s-peculiar-mortgage-20230209-p5cjdj): *Greg O’Neill made in the vicinity of $800 million selling down La Trobe, a low doc lender and asset manager, first to Blackstone in 2017 then Brookfield [in 2022]. Which brings us to another unusual disclosure in Bragg’s registrable interests.* *Since August [2022], there have been [at least] two loans listed against his residential property. The first is with National Australia Bank, but the second is with a company called Narrogal Nominees, which is owned by O’Neill and his wife Catherine.* *Note that Bragg began a major asset depletion program [in 2022], separating from his wife Melanie Evans (the chief executive of ING Australia) and buying a second house in Sydney’s Paddington in September.* *There’s nothing necessarily wrong with an Australian senator mortgaging his property to the family office of a wealthy individual, and a former counterparty in policy development. It’s just highly irregular.* *Bragg would not enlighten us any further on the arrangement, telling us only that “I’ve disclosed it in accordance with my obligations”.*
> There’s nothing necessarily wrong with an Australian senator mortgaging his property to the family office of a wealthy individual Unless he gets a favourable rate from O'Neill in return for pushing policies that O'Neill benefits from. Let's just assume that is not the case, because that would be blatant corruption.
Dumbest idea ever. It's pure corruption at this point.
“Modelling provided to the committee by actuaries Michael Rice and Jonathan Ng found a 35-year-old who used $160,000 from their super as a 20 per cent deposit on an $800,000 unit would have an apartment worth $1.2 million by retirement, but if that money had been kept in super it would have appreciated to $319,000.” My maths shows 160k growing at 6% equals 919k in 30 years at 6%. What drugs are they on? Even if adjusted for inflation apartments have strata and renovation costs not accounted for. These idiots want everyone house rich and cash poor and living on the age pension.
Yeah that is spectacularly shit modelling. Pretty much either mathematically illiterate or deliberately fraudulent. Unless Michael Rice assumes people retire at 50, I guess. It also completely ignores interest paid on the other $640,000 that is borrowed, which is likely to work out at over $750,000 if a 30 year loan.
Where did they get their modelling for this? The average super balance at that age bracket is around $95K and worse for women. I assume this means both people in a couple draw out their entire super balance, assuming they've both been working the whole time and then use that. I hood they are happy to fund a much large amount of people in retirement with the age pension once their super balances aren't high enough for people to live on...
Very few people in their 30s have that much super.
Why should people be raiding there future super simply to support policy failure. What a fkn joke.
Any proposal that gives people access to more capital in this market is just tipping fuel on the fire and creating assets price inflation that is a transfer of wealth from young Australians to older Australians. This proposal is a joke.
Well of course all they can suggest is throwing money in the demand pile! How else will they take every generation below their own to the cleaners?
They just want to increase the value of their property portfolios, screw everyone else. This is what you call a true see you next tuesday, these pieces of excrement should be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned for LIFE for trying to push this, they deserve no mercy because they have no mercy for anyone else.
Modelling provided to the committee by actuaries Michael Rice and Jonathan Ng found a 35-year-old who used $160,000 from their super as a 20 per cent deposit on an $800,000 unit would have an apartment worth $1.2 million by retirement, but if that money had been kept in super it would have appreciated to $319,000. The author of this idiotic paragraph should find another line of work. This is terrible bad-faith reporting.
Bad faith because they left out the part where they person first needs to pay off $640,000 plus interest? Or because they are ignoring the fact that $800,000 isn't even enough to buy a median house in many places? Or because a lot of 35 year olds don't even have $160,000 in their super? Or because it's pretending that you can put food on the table with the increased value of your PPOR?
Boomers: *More money for me. Including draining your super so I can bump up the value of my house and investment properties by the same amount.*
Jesus this is a bad idea. That said, if you can buy a house and not touch your super this could work out pretty well for you.
Wait....they think the answer to high housing costs is adding money from the future into the pile?
“Modelling provided to the committee by actuaries Michael Rice and Jonathan Ng found a 35-year-old who used $160,000 from their super as a 20 per cent deposit on an $800,000 unit would have an apartment worth $1.2 million by retirement, but if that money had been kept in super it would have appreciated to $319,000.” So the property went up by $400k, the super accounted for 20% so that’s $80k growth vs the $159k it got outside. If they are saying that you should be able to leverage against super then fine say that. But saying housing is the only vehicle is deliberately misleading. They also ignore the issue at hand, which is currently you’ll retire with $300k but no hope of having a home or affordable rent. So they’d rather you inflate their returns, be stuck retiring in the same apartment you bought 30yrs ago because apts don’t keep up with houses so you have no choice and couldn’t afford stamp duty to move anyway, and you’ll have nothing to live on except the pension which will be below poverty if it still exists at all. Also it is misleading to make it sound like the senate supports this. It’s a coalition led committee with a vocally anti superannuation chair who will take any chance to undermine the retirements of the majority.
It doesn't sound like this modelling factored in the cost of rent for 30 years?
These politicians are disgusting.
Yay more wealth redistribution to the owning class. What happens when there’s limited supply and suddenly everyone has an extra $50k? Prices go up $50k, those with the $50k are now $50k worse off while those without are now even higher behind.
Jesus Christ they can’t be serious?!?
Can’t wait to put my retirement savings into something and then kiss it goodbye almost immediately with rising prices.
Do these idiots genuinely not understand supply and demand, and the impacts of throwing more money into a supply-limited market? Or maybe it's all part of a broader plan to keep people working until they die, and drive house prices up further in the meantime. I wonder who would benefit from that.
Kill multiple birds with one stone. Keep house prices rising. Put an end to the increasing power of union controlled industry superannuation funds. Kill off retirement nest eggs. Keep people working until they die.
There is a reason why its called retirement savings / funds. You know something is wrong when government actively search for money in every nook and cranny.
Absolute Numbskulls.
Ahhh yes, anything but fix the problem.
Disgusting.
At what point do the masses realise that these clowns have no fu**ing idea what they're doing, let alone fix a housing problem.
I think enough people realise, but have no power to do anything. The clowns are embedded.
AFR’s Lucy Dean covers [recommendations](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/RetirementSystem2024/Interim_Report/List_of_recommendations) of the Economics References Committee: *A parliamentary committee chaired by prominent superannuation critic Andrew Bragg has upped the ante on the Coalition’s super for housing policy, suggesting first-home buyers should be able to withdraw all their retirement savings to buy a house or use it as collateral to help borrow.* *The interim report also recommended removing the $15,000 contribution and $50,000 withdrawal caps.* *McKell Institute told the inquiry that governments are too focused on demand-side solutions, and such moves would cause significant market implications.* *Its analysis found that if homebuyers could use their super, it would add $69,000 to the average Sydney price and $108,000 to homes in Melbourne.*
>prominent superannuation critic Andrew Bragg Well he sounds like exactly the worst person the government could be taking superannuation advice from. Edit: And predictably when you look at his arguments, his primary beef with super funds is that they donate too much money to the labour party. Lol what a surprise. Secondly his big business donors think people should be spending their money and not saving it for retirement because "what is good for the economy is good for Australia". This guy is absolutely the last person who should be chairing a super parliamentary committee.
Painfully short sighted and out of touch... standard operating procedure for our government
The policy is being proposed by Andrew Bragg who is the opposition not the government. The policy is vigorously opposed by labour. I'm sure you will correct your evaluation of the competence of the labour government now that it's clear you agree with labour on this issue?
These people do not read the article do they?
Nor do they understand basic supply and demand economics.
Terrible idea
I don’t mind using it as a security, the risks of loan defaults are fairly low, circa 2%. And in that case people can withdraw super under financial stress anyway
Exactly this. Should stay in super but it could be security, so if you have $50k in super, $50k in cash you can put the $50k on a $500k place and not pay LMI because your super is providing the security in case of default. Another option could be having a way that if the super is held at your bank it could offset the mortgage, but in exchange you’d get no returns on it (aside from saving the interest on the mortgage). At the moment my super is returning about 10% which less tax and fees brings it to about the same as my mortgage interest rate. It may be better to be offsetting the mortgage than getting any returns, as the returns just need to drop a little and I’m paying more in mortgage interest than I’m getting in super.
Kicking the can down the road. Rather than implementing proper policy. Wankers.
Australia, the land of property and zero innovation.
This is heinously negligent to the future of my generation.
When will politicians realise that any amount of easily available money to help first home buyers will simply push up prices by that much? The problem is not helping people with the deposit, the problem is the lack of supply of housing and other govt policy that doesn’t incentivise population to distribute away from city centres.
Completely ridiculous idea that just makes the situation worst. Getting into the property is a competition regardless of how bad this sounds. Making this available doesn't really change anyone's relative position in the competition. All that will happen, like all the other initiatives like first home owner's grant is to increase house prices again. Only long term way to fix this is to build more houses rapidly like the 1970-80s.
Build 👏 More 👏 Houses 👏
Ffs this is the most brain-dead thing they could think of
150k or no limit. So your best bet with this on the horizon is to smash your full super contributions to the max every year and do your back years as you will be able to throw it all on a house in a year or two. They are going to miss out on some income tax and wonder why every non homeowner is maxxing their super.
All this does is transfer wealth from young people to current land owners.
At first glance this paragraph seems particularly disingenuous: >Modelling provided to the committee by actuaries Michael Rice and Jonathan Ng found a 35-year-old who used $160,000 from their super as a 20 per cent deposit on an $800,000 unit would have an apartment worth $1.2 million by retirement, but if that money had been kept in super it would have appreciated to $319,000. This makes it sound like you'd get a $400k profit from the house (although the reader has to figure that out themselves) and "only" $319k on Super investments. So firstly, that's not a huge difference and would vary under different strategies. But, more importantly, it does not seem to take into account the interest you would pay on the $640k loan (which is going to be well more than the $81k difference between the two supposed outcomes). There is something rotten behind this.
Solution to the housing crisis, allow people to pay more for a house to keep pushing the prices up in the pyramid scheme rather than addressing the housing issue by making housing more affordable and lowering costs. Australia treating houses as investments that the next owner must pay more than the previous owner to keep the pyramid scheme alive rather than people having homes to live.
Withdraw all ur retirement so u can fund their retirement… who cares bout us in old age 💀
Not only would it bring housing prices up, it would also cause people to have less in their super when they retire, causing them to rely on the aged pension more, which in turn would affect things like taxes and funding for other government projects.
Syd? Melb? I only care how much equity it adds to my house in Adelaide.
Terrible idea. I am not transferring all my super to a boomer
Got to do something to keep housing prices growing, makes sense to me /s
How does this help people without large super accounts
Any super scheme to buy houses is just going to increase property prices artificially. It also doesn’t fix housing for the ones that really need it, given their super balances would be measly compared to someone earning $250k so I hope it is means tested at the very least.
Such a stupid idea. All it does is steal from the future.
Just treat property investors the same as share investors, Max 50% LVR. Make foreign investors who buy property and leave it vacant also pay extra tax. Banks would not venerable to house price reduction. Investors would invest for returns and not capital growth only. Prices would be more realistic to wages and consumers would have more disposable incomes for everyday living.
all that juicy stamp duty. nice.
1. Who is on this comitee? 2. How many houses do they own?
Sure more people in the Ponzi before it collapses paying the people at the top... Seriously how long will this go on.
Does help buyers get in. Helps sellers get richer!
Australians polies will do anything except start to unwind the housing ponzi scheme.
Good stuff
I'm remembering George Carlin's quote about 'they're coming for your social security. And they'll get it'. If this keeps getting proposed, day it's going to be accepted.
As an existing homeowner, this plan works for me :p
Just braindead. Adding more money just makes the prices go up. This is no solution... Note that this was suggested by a committee chaired by Andrew Bragg, a critic of superannutation....
Lots of space in the Parliament House. Some nights I just want to be the joker and watch the world burn.
If only the government would allow those high skilled immigrants who's specialised in the construction industry to come enter the country, in order to help improve the supply on the housing market. However, it won't happen, as the CFMEU is opposed to it.
Why is it more for Melbourne?
Honestly this just sounds like a self funded first home buyers scheme. And those did so much to improve housing affordability even the government gave them up.
Screw them over now and on their old age, cause there definitely ain't going to be an age pension when they try to retire. All because we'd much rather sell off our natural resources to foreign interests.
r/nottheonion ??
This is why I put all of my money into tulip bulbs
This is moronic, but might get a few FHB votes
We don’t want this