Talking Politics

[MD Jazz]

People tend to expand their spending to suit their income, but it is certainly true that a lot of people in well paid jobs have no idea of what most people earn. Some people seem to find it surprising that there are jobs that pay less than $100K.

We are long overdue for a housing price correction. We bought our house 30 years ago, they had started going up but not by that much. It kept increasing in value and year after year I thought it couldn't last. 30 years later, it is still going up. Absolutely ridiculous. Difficult to see prices dropping any time soon, but it would be good if at least the prices stopped rising.

DS

The average house price was 3 times ave annual earning when my parents purchased a house in Ashwood in the 70's. It's now over 10 times ave annual earnings. It's simply unaffordable and almost impossible to break into for many people.

Policies such as negative gearing/CGT incentives have played a part. Affordable housing was once a pillar of the aussie dream.

 

[MD Jazz]

Just think about how insensitive you sound. You're showing what type of person you are. I hope you never face any misfortune.

The misfortune of earning 200K plus a year. How dreadful.

You need to get some persepective General

 

[TT33]

$200k / year!!! F me, some pensioner COUPLES are only getting $40k per year.

If someone can't live on $200k / year I definitely don't feel sorry for them

 

[DavidSSS]

Just think about how insensitive you sound. You're showing what type of person you are. I hope you never face any misfortune.

I'm sorry, but when the unemployment benefit for a single person with a child is $21K anyone earning 10 times that amount and crying poor is the insensitive one.

If they struggle to meet mortgage repayments, they have an asset to sell, something the unemployed can only dream of.

DS

 

[Baloo]

Talking salaries before tax doesn't paint the real picture though.

200k is about 135 after tax
100k is about 75 after tax
70k is about 55 after tax

Fair bit of class warfare going on in this thread which is disappointing to see. If you can't accept that everyone is facing hardships except for the inherited wealth multi-millionaires, then you're being very closed minded.

 

[DavidSSS]

The average house price was 3 times ave annual earning when my parents purchased a house in Ashwood in the 70's. It's now over 10 times ave annual earnings. It's simply unaffordable and almost impossible to break into for many people.

Policies such as negative gearing/CGT incentives have played a part. Affordable housing was once a pillar of the aussie dream.

This is the salient point.

When we bought our house I was working as a tram driver, not badly paid, but not high paid by any stretch of the imagination. Likely around the median income but lower than the average income. Our house cost 5 times my income, and that's not to mention my partner earned more than I did.

Fast forward to today and until I take my upcoming redundancy I am in a far better paid job in real terms. I now earn slightly over the average for a full time employee and a fair bit over the median. Our house (although it is a little difficult to estimate given houses where I am are hardly ever sold, last sale in our street was before COVID) would be worth around 20 times my current income.

It is a mess.

3 things could help the situation: get rid of negative gearing, get rid of the tax breaks on selling investment properties and build sh!!tloads of public housing. I'd add that the government should seriously consider buying existing houses for public housing and also taxing the absolute crap out of any property which is left vacant. Holiday houses are ok as long as they are utilised, but there is plenty of empty housing in cities which are not holiday houses but investment properties.

DS

 

[DavidSSS]

Talking salaries before tax doesn't paint the real picture though.

200k is about 135 after tax
100k is about 75 after tax
70k is about 55 after tax

Fair bit of class warfare going on in this thread which is disappointing to see. If you can't accept that everyone is facing hardships except for the inherited wealth multi-millionaires, then you're being very closed minded.

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”​

​

― Warren Buffett

Class and income matter, levels of wealth matter, class exists.

The "class warfare" bogey is constantly brought up when people point to inequalities in wealth and income . . . and those who bring it up tend to be those who benefit from inequality.

DS

 

[Baloo]

and those who bring it up tend to be those who benefit from inequality.

How does one benefit from inequality? Again, framing the argument to imply those in the 200k bracket are directly and deliberately at fault for those below it. And then you wonder why class warfare gets brought up by those you accuse of benefitting from inequality.

 

[The_General]

A dishonest politician?

Name me some honest ones.

My favourite was probably

If you budgeted to afford 3% above market rate you would be able to afford 5.5% rates.

You can always sell the asset. Anyone crying poor on 200K is someone who cannot manage money. There are ultiple ways to reduce your outgoings at that level of income.

And 2 income families on 440K plus sannot be serious to be looking for sympathy about cost of living pressures.

You're not very good at reading the details. And you're showing a sign of ignorance. You're not real good at thinking about walking a mile in someone else's shoes at the best of times. How would you like to sell your house and potentially go back to renting? Move your kids from their school? No, didn't think so.

I don't agree that that people on $440k are poor either.

Wealth and income are not the same things, but those on $400k should be able to generate enough wealth out of that.

My point is, whilst I don't agree with the stage 3 tax cuts in their original form, I don't see the problem with everyone getting some benefit as there's
people in all wage brackets hurting. What's wrong with thinking about everyone's well being?

Trust me for thinking people on PRE could understand nuance!

 

[The_General]

What a garbage comment.

I think based off what you're saying mate, you're a garbage person. There's nothing wrong with showing compassion to those earning higher money than you. The fact you can't empathise with them says more about you than me. People are people. Unless they're crims or something like that, what's wrong with empathy?

PS. If you'd read my posts properly, you'd also have seen I said I was no where near the 5% of folks that are being repeatedly talked about here. ($200k).

$200k / year!!! F me, some pensioner COUPLES are only getting $40k per year.

If someone can't live on $200k / year I definitely don't feel sorry for them

Yep, my mother on her single pension (divorced) lives fortnight to fortnight.

I feel sorry for anyone who faces financial hardship. They have families, kids, partners. There's innocent people involved in this.
The financial stress can often lead to mental health problems and suicide.

I get told I need some perspective....think about problems like suicide, people chasing gambling to try fix their financial concerns, or heading towards crime. The last 5 years have been very abnormal, and it's caught a lot of folks out. Take some pressure off society in general helps everyone.

 

[The_General]

I'm sorry, but when the unemployment benefit for a single person with a child is $21K anyone earning 10 times that amount and crying poor is the insensitive one.

If they struggle to meet mortgage repayments, they have an asset to sell, something the unemployed can only dream of.

DS

Says the guy who was lucky enough to be in a generation where house prices were 3x his wage. Imagine trying to buy a $600k house now on your current wage. Remembering that $600k is well below median price range. How excited would you then be to sell it?
Then you talk about early retirement perhaps?

My generation will hopefully get the chance to retire at 67 (provided no politician changes it before I get there!). You have experienced levels of opportunity that a lot of people in society today do not have. It's not your fault, and I don't blame you for taking advantage of the conditions you were presented - half your luck.

Your holier than thou, judgemental approach while glibly saying "oh they should just manage their money better" "oh they can sell their house". If they were your feet in those boots, I bet your attitude would change.

 

[Redford]

The average house price was 3 times ave annual earning when my parents purchased a house in Ashwood in the 70's. It's now over 10 times ave annual earnings. It's simply unaffordable and almost impossible to break into for many people.

Policies such as negative gearing/CGT incentives have played a part. Affordable housing was once a pillar of the aussie dream.

I would say that the average house in Ashwood is more than 10 x the average salary Miles. Say a general family home - 3 beds 2 baths - that’s gonna set you back about $1.4m to $1.5m or so Miles. That’s way way more than 10 x average annual salary.

And Ashwood, to amplify the insanity of all this, personally, is just a standard, ok, sort of suburb (if you don’t mind me saying.)

The IMF keeps warning Treasury that our personal debt levels in this country are out of control, our property values grossly inflated, yet we keep rolling on. But hey, uneducated real estate shysters keep telling us the market is gonna keep booming so let’s all stay subscribed to their bs self interest…err I mean wisdom.

 

[eZyT]

Dutton and co yelling Liar from every corner, but I'm not sure they are going to get much traction. These tax cuts make 11 in 12 Aussie better off. The 1 in 12 still get a cut too.

Not sure they can win this

They could sell beer prices doubling

Just say theyre gonna halve on facebook.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Not sure where it started Scoop but I hope we break the cycle. Sticking with election promises for the period of a government in a changing environment can and will lead to really bad decisions.
I don’t know about you but I would prefer a government who adapted to changing conditions than one who slavishly follows something because it was taken to an election.
Both major parties are guilty of playing the game and imo it needs to stop especially where it relates to economic policy which is dynamic not static

Probably not much wrong with breaking an election promise when necessary. But it might be considered polite to announce that you're not comfortable with some of the promises made by the incumbents, and you fully intend to review and possibly alter them. Before you firstly get elected on the back of continuous promises that you're going to keep the promises already written into legislation. Secondly don't keep lying that you are keeping those promises for a couple more years and right up until a few days before you suddenly and surprisingly break those promises which you have been planning and arranging to do for months beforehand.
Elbowskneesy n Jimmy Choo been feeding the public massive amounts of *smile* from day one n laughing all the way.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Australia desperately needs tax reform but I fear we are a million miles away from it.
To be able to achieve meaningful tax reform by means there will be winners and losers and to me that requires either bi-partisan political support or a government with such a large majority in both houses they can get it done.
Politics makes it almost impossible

Pretty sure a little tax policy called GST was supposed to be the meaningful tax reform that was desperately needed to clean up a whole heap of messy issues. All it did in the end was add another layer for the Government to gouge the punter with.

Simple fact that all governments will always spend and waste way more money than their income, because all they ever do is whack everything on the public credit card then promise they're gunna save us while we financially bleed out.

 

[AngryAnt]

Just think about how insensitive you sound. You're showing what type of person you are. I hope you never face any misfortune.

If you earn a big salary but still overleverage, would have thought that would be on you.

We expect the poor to pay to their debts, why not the rich?

 

[The_General]

If you earn a big salary but still overleverage, would have thought that would be on you.

We expect the poor to pay to their debts, why not the rich?

I agree, I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm saying just because they're on a large wage, doesn't mean they shouldn't get something in terms of a tax cut.

The narrative here and elsewhere seems to be, "they're rich, so *smile* em. They can have nothing". If they get an extra $4-5k a year, who is that hurting?

 

[spook]

I think based off what you're saying mate, you're a garbage person. There's nothing wrong with showing compassion to those earning higher money than you. The fact you can't empathise with them says more about you than me. People are people. Unless they're crims or something like that, what's wrong with empathy?

PS. If you'd read my posts properly, you'd also have seen I said I was no where near the 5% of folks that are being repeatedly talked about here. ($200k).

Another garbage comment showing what kind of person you are. That you turn so quickly to abusing someone you know nothing about from the safety of your keyboard says a lot about your character, 'General'.

I never made any comment or inference about you or what you earn.

What I said was if you can't afford your massive mortgage, you can sell your expensive house. (Literally, almost word for word, what I said.) And you'll be fine. Not on the bread line. Not worrying about clothing your kids. Absolutely fine. A comment backed by many others. Fine if you don't agree, if you think it;s a horrible hardship to have to sell your $2m house and buy a $1.5m house, but leave the abuse out of it. You're meant to be a moderator.

 

[Sintiger]

Probably not much wrong with breaking an election promise when necessary. But it might be considered polite to announce that you're not comfortable with some of the promises made by the incumbents, and you fully intend to review and possibly alter them. Before you firstly get elected on the back of continuous promises that you're going to keep the promises already written into legislation. Secondly don't keep lying that you are keeping those promises for a couple more years and right up until a few days before you suddenly and surprisingly break those promises which you have been planning and arranging to do for months beforehand.
Elbowskneesy n Jimmy Choo been feeding the public massive amounts of *smile* from day one n laughing all the way.

If you read the reports on the background negotiations the decision was only just taken and happened quite quickly.

Keeping promises that are already legislation means that you cannot alter any legislation, which doesn’t make sense. That’s what governments do.

I do agree that this decision should have been made earlier, mainly because it was so blindingly obvious that it needed to be made

Sorry I don’t know who Jimmy Choo is.

 

[tigerman]

Ok, this is an assumption..........The lawyer and her husband who both earn 220K a year and can't afford to buy a house, how could that be so?
Have they both got flash cars, I suspect that they probably do. Are they wanting to get into the top end of the housing market, I suspect that they do.
If my assumptions are correct, how about they drive more modest, less expensive cars, and surely on a combined 440K a year they could buy an affordable house in a modest suburb, instead of trying to keep up with the Joneses, in Rose Bay and Double Bay.

We paid 100k for our house 30 years ago, and I drive a 10 year old Toyota.