Why Super for Housing is a bad Idea
youtu.be
My first collab with Aus Unionshttps://linktr.ee/purplepingers

NOTE: Video sponsored by the ACTU

Key points

  • It would make house prices increase by more than the maximum amount people could withdraw
  • It would cost the government $1 trillion in the long run
  • It would leave people with $200k less in retirement savings
  • It would significantly affect the returns on all superannuation as funds would need to keep more cash reserves uninvested so it is available for withdrawal
  • Quokka@quokk.au
    361·
    6 months ago

    How about we ban owning multiple properties, remove any incentives for property as an investment, enforce quality building standards, and use government funds to build affordable housing.

    • alansuspect
      13·
      6 months ago

      I think politicians should be banned from owning multiple properties. It’s a huge conflict of interest.

    • ryannathans
      142·
      6 months ago

      Having multiple is fine, just remove negative gearing and investment incentives along with actually enforced building standards

      • NathA
        61·
        6 months ago

        People will just go back to what they did before negative gearing: Make businesses and move their properties into that. “Oh, your business made a loss paying more interest than it brought in as rent, I guess you can write that off as a loss and not pay tax on your income”.

        The result is the same, but it’s more work for the ATO.
        My old boss still had his holiday home under the business, because it’s how he did it before Negative Gearing was a thing.

        • ephemeral_gibbon
          7·
          6 months ago

          Make it so that interest on money borrowed against residential real estate can’t be declared as a business loss then. That’ll also make speculating housing investment funds a bad idea

        • Taleya
          3·
          6 months ago

          If that were the case we wouldn’t have aeen a sharp uptick in investment at the same time NG was introduced.

          You’re always gonna have people finding ways around things, the point is to make it hard enough your average schmoe bails on the attempt

        • ryannathans
          2·
          6 months ago

          Same thing would probably happen with property limits then

  • Ixoid@lemm.eeEnglish
    6·
    6 months ago

    Spud’s goal isn’t to make life better for the average Australian. All the listed negatives are positives for the LNP - make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. Luckily, he’s thick as shit and the average Australian can see what a terrible idea it is to spend your future.

  • No1
    5·
    6 months ago

    No,no,no,no! You’ve all got it wrong! You’re all looking at it from entirely the wrong objective!

    It’s a GREAT policy for property investors which will boost capital growth and provide excellent short term returns!

  • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    94·
    6 months ago

    So people remain excluded from property ownership, but hey, at least the economy will be ok

      • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        21·
        6 months ago

        Sorry, I was being a bit tongue in cheek there. The economy will continue to be shit for people who struggle to afford home ownership whether or not they can use superannuation to help get their foot in the door.

        • wscholermann
          7·
          6 months ago

          I think the point is if you are trying to fix housing early withdrawal of super is not the answer for all the reasons given.

          There are other solutions and it would take multiple policies working in tandom.

          • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            2·
            6 months ago

            Sure, but by the time those solutions are in place, another generation of people will have been denied the chance to own property, which has generational consequences on economic and educational outcomes for those families.

            The answer is short term relief combined with long term change. Denial of short term relief because of hypothetical long term strategies that aren’t going to be implemented helps no one.

            • wscholermann
              4·
              6 months ago

              Super is not the short term relief you are looking for though… More people floating around with more money would just push up the prices even more, offsetting any benefit from withdrawing super.

              Now if we started talking about increasing supply perhaps, that would be a different story.

    • quicken
      21·
      6 months ago

      That’s just a stupid comment. You could take the 1 trillion dollars it would cost the Australia government and spend it on any number of things to make ownership easier.

      • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        2·
        6 months ago

        You could take the 1 trillion dollars it would cost the Australia government and spend it on any number of things to make ownership easier.

        That’s true. The issue is, they’re not going to implement any of those ideas…

        So people who can’t enter the housing market remain fucked over, because the imperfect ideas that might actually get off the ground get set aside in favour of better ideas that will never see the light of day.