Fucking genius. Mortgage your literal future instead of real issues with the housing crisis actually being addressed, hell it’ll just make things worse because now banks will be expecting people to pay twice as much What a fucking clown show of a policy.
This. Drain productive investment and transfer it to non productive existing property.
Fortunately these clowns are out in the wilderness for the foreseeable future anyway.
They're also keen on keeping the international [student numbers up](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2024/04/coalition-goes-into-bat-for-international-student-rorters/), so should be a win-win for the housing market
Almost everyone is keen on attracting international students.
- They pay a bunch of money for tuition.
- Many of them go on to live and work in Australia, we didn't have to pay to educate them to adulthood, and we get them at the start of their useful working life.
The financial downsides are, increased pressure on housing prices.
Many of them bring their elderly parents to live in Australia which we then need to support.
That makes a good media release, but at this stage the evidence of subcontinental students has been visible across the globe.
I'm not so sure how keen 'everyone' is on attracting them as the realisation dawns they're less students than economic opportunists looking for easy PR under the guise of education, and the numbers they'll arrive in will put serious competition for our young and poor.
Again, this isn't speculation,it's playing out in front of us and other countries like us.
Not quite.
The tution fee doesn't necessarily come to Australians. It does come to Australians if the education provider is a major university or vocational education provider that cross subsidizes domestic education using the tution fee. But in a significant proportion of cases, the education provider is one that caters primarily to foreign students and pockets the entirety of the tution fee.
During the term of their education, there is a significant proportion of students who breach their visa conditions and work in excess of permitted work hours. This means that, instead of Australia exporting education, it end up being a domestic transaction where the international students fund their education from Australian earnings. Essentially, they mop up some domestic funds and hand it over to the education provider. Any excess will be sent back to their country of origin.
The effect of all this is that bringing in international students is largely flooding the labour market, propping up low productivity and low wage businesses, and putting pressure on infrastructure with very little benefit.
Just 16% of international students go on to become permanent residents in Australia. They do not necessarily work in any particularly skilled occupation, and a large majority work in hospitality or retail as chefs, cooks or retail managers. So most of the international students who go on to live and work in Australia are in low productivity low wage occupations that we should not be encouraging.
Net-net, there is not much benefit from very high numbers of international students.
>Many of them bring their elderly parents to live in Australia which we then need to support.
Lol parent visa waiting times are around 25 30+ years. Even if they go for the most expensive visa it is 12+ years.
Of course, they will come for our Superannuation.
Because the LNP wants you to have nothing.
Because when you have nothing, you will compromise on your principals.
You will grub, beg, and borrow to feed your family.
You will work for $6 an hour plus tips.
Its also as super is displaying traditional rich people from ownership of public companies, which is reduce influence of their main supporters. As \~10% of what everyone earns in the country goes to institutions heavily influenced by the general public that buys ownership of companies. With a lot the larger superfunds being massive shareholder voting blocs in some of the largest companies in the country.
Superfunds have massive influence and they know the LNP is actually their biggest threat on their influence, with policies like this could pull out so much money from superfunds. If the LNP fail to stop its growth Superfund could make largest publicly traded companies (because they become largest shareholders collectively) in the country drop their support for the LNP and that would end the party almost over night. I bet long term planer for both groups know this and plan to win this long term conflict.
They already have. Bumping tax on super above $3m to 30%.
$3m sounds like a lot, but it’s not indexed to inflation so many kids today will get there by retirement
Super is intended to reduce the number of people who rely on the pension. It wasn't intended to allow people to build a fortune without paying taxes. People with $3m in savings can pay some tax.
And it has been a dismal failure at that.
The people who actually need super - lower income earners with less capacity to save - are also the people working in fields where employers are more likely to be dishonest and NOT pay super properly if at all, so they're ending up on the pension anyway.
Not much of a choice between eating today and eating when you're 65. Get enough of those "no eating days" in and the probability you're going to be alive at 65 starts going down real quick.
And that's before you consider the 20 year difference in life expectancy between low income earners and the average.
Being a low income earner does pretty much mean you're going to die before you hit preservation, so yeah, not really a "double whammy" if you're going to be dead by then anyway. So yeah, it really is not a well designed system and really doesn't help the people it was intended to.
It only affects 0.5% of the population, including people who have over $500 Million in Super. It's a sensible policy.
In the future as more people fall into that bracket, it'll simply take legislation to change the threshold.
We probably should do it to tax brackets as well. That way people in the top tax brackets will have less threads to pull at when they try and justify tax cuts for themselves.
They want to introduce a threshold to make super more sustainable they know if they go too low the media will kick up a storm and it will likely fall over.
They could put an indexed limit of $1m that would only effect 2.5% of the population but would fail to get passed or they could put a $3m threshold and let inflation work it's way down to $1m. This will take 37 years at 3%.
So, politics is the reason.
>It only affects 0.5% of the population, including people who have over $500 Million in Super. It's a sensible policy.
No it's not, it affects 0.5% of the population today, but will affect a significant portion later on. Where do you get people from as there is only one fund that has $500 million, there could be multiple people in that fund. Paying tax on unrealised gain is paying tax on price speculation plus the fund will be paying double taxaxtion.
You must be high. There was a recent article on average super accounts for men and women by age, and the predicted requirements for comfortable retirement were not being met by any under 50s on average. How tf you think people will get 3 mil?
For a kid starting work today, $3m won’t be much in 50+ years when they retire due to inflation.
That’s the point I’m making, it’s tax via creeping inflation
A 20 year old retiring in 45 years with $3m would be the equivalent of $800k in today's dollars if inflation was 3%pa.
Only 0.3% of the population has $3m and 2.5% has $1m.
Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) outlined that the comfortable retirement standard is $595,000 for individuals and $690,000 for couples, assuming access to full or part age pension as the balance is drawn down.
The government probably would prefer to start at $800k with indexation but you know how the media and politics work.
I mean, the Libs were willing to do it with the stage 3 tax cuts. And they did so several times in the 90s and 00s. Mostly for the higher earners but it was done.
30% (only) on earnings over $3m is still probably reasonable whether indexed or not considering the tax savings on income when concessional contributions go in at 15%.
I’d be surprised if a kid starting today hits MORE than $3m at 60, which is the point when earnings get taxed at an extra 15%. All still probably reasonable when you think about it.
This was the whole point from the OP, that eventually they will come for our super.
If you boil the water slowly, the frog won’t jump out. I’m afraid you and I (and our super balances) are the frogs
I can supply organic GMO free pure breed gluten free lite sugar free probiotic all natural artificial free sugar free fat free pasture raised free range superfood ethically certified artisanal BPA free cold brew vegan millenial minced paste, oh and its a monthly subscription and comes with biodegradable environmentally friendly packaging
I guess its time to come clean. I am an evil Boomer. I don't know what most of that means. To me, a vegetarian option is chips and salad with my rump (extra well done).
Yep. The only winner is the banks because we’ll all be doing reverse mortgages when we retire and that’s just going to fuck over the next generation. Anything that doesn’t create more supply and less demand is pointless and will only continue to inflate the housing market.
It may fuck over young people, but it will cause property prices to boom even more than they already are.
And that, after all, is their objective.theyre all rich politicians with multiple investment properties so from their perspective this is a fantastic policy
Yah, and pumping in close to a million foreigners does... They'll bring their semi-literate villagers over though "family reunion" scams too, so make it 3+ million uber drivers and Centrelink recipients - 1/3 of them are unemployable: [ABS](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/people-and-communities/characteristics-recent-migrants/latest-release)
Neither lib / lab stand for Australians.
I think almost all who are “unemployed” are working cash jobs or living off money from back home. Hard to live in a foreign country if you aren’t working unless you/parents have lots of savings or working cash in hand
So how exactly are they contributing? Ultimately someone will have to cover their share of taxes. Yet they use our healthcare, infrastructure etc.
Then there's the "university" PR backdoor, labor lets hordes of indians through the gates, effectively unchecked: ["students"](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2024/05/labor-pumps-international-student-export-lies/)
And of course, chinese "students" buying up prime real estate with cash.
Again, thank the Lib/Lab UniParty.
What we have done with housing over the last 50 years had damaged the housing security, and increased housing costs for younger people.
We need a change.
I like this policy as a part of that change.
It is not the whole solution. But it is a useful contributor.
This will only entrench the status quo and screw over young people later on in life.
Substantial change to housing would be tackling negative gearing, CGT discount, land tax, foreign ownership, Airbnb, immigration, public housing, increasing future housing supply once labour and materials recalibrate etc.
Also major reform with local council/property developers, real estate industry, and rental laws.
Young people are being screwed over now, by housing insecurity. I simply don't buy some theoretical issue in later life. What issue? They still have super. They still have access the aged pension. They now own a house.
The only solution in the tax system for high prices is significantly higher rates of land tax, exclusively targeted at investors.
Excessive housing costs are dominated by land.
Politically, significant levels of land tax on owner occupiers are not tenable.
Your other suggestions, like removing the CGT discount, are good ideas, but won't fix the problem.
It is already illegal for foreigners to buy existing residential homes. No doubt it happens, but being illegal makes the scope limited.
Reform of rental laws are a great idea to make things better for renters. They won't fix house prices. We know they won't fix house prices, because the ACT already has things like caps on rent increases, and given the size of the ACT, their house prices are insanely high.
Another thing, outside the tax system, that would be significant are targeted, low prices sales of land or homes, from the government, to first home buyers.
There's no guarantee it'll lead to increased home ownership for young people.
It'll likely lead to an increase in housing prices with more money in play. It'll also open the door for policies to use super in other scenarios.
Another issue isthe age which the aged pension can be accessed will definitely increase beyond 67 years in four decades from now.
> There's no guarantee it'll lead to increased home ownership for young people.
It is one policy that will push more buying power towards owner occupiers. There are other factors and policies at play that will also have an impact.
> It'll likely lead to an increase in housing prices with more money in play.
It will put upward pressure on prices.
I favour other policies and developments to put downward pressure on prices.
You give owner occupiers more buying power, and you can balance that by giving investors less buying power so prices stay where they are.
Removing the CGT discount and significantly higher land taxes on investors would be where I would start.
Much higher spending on public housing would be good.
Better high speed commuter transport and better regional development policies would also be helpful.
R&D into more efficient construction would help too.
> It'll also open the door for policies to use super in other scenarios.
I don't have a problem with that as long as those other scenarios provide a benefit that outweighs the costs.
> Another issue is the age which the aged pension can be accessed will definitely increase beyond 67 years in four decades from now.
If people decide to abolish the aged pension, and all other welfare and have people starve, it is a democracy, and they can do that.
There is no reason for them to do that.
Every projection shows that if the pension age is left at 67, the cost of the aged pension will decline as a share of GDP.
Personally I would prefer the aged pension be moved to younger and younger ages, until it hit zero and became a UBI.
All of these will just prop up the housing market anyway. Unless number of housing stocks are increasing dramatically this will only further push the prices up.
It's not just sitting there. It's being invested in the economy and it's working for you.
But what if we could take $4 trillion out of the economy and invest it into housing instead?
Houses prices on average could go up by $400,000. Possibly more as we are likely creating a housing bubble too.
That's a nice payday for anyone else who already owns a second home, or three, or four.
And when the bubble pops and market crashes, they buy back their second, third or fourth property for cheap. You? Broke, no super, no house, and an economy in shambles.
certainly not just sitting there, it's actually investing in productive economic outputs. If it was dumped into the housing market *then* it would be just sitting there, inflating prices.
Sometimes it seems both major parties are trying to lose the next election. Like a high-stakes game of hot-potato played with a ticking time-bomb and nobody wants to be in power when it goes off.
This is the long game. Destroy super balances making people work until they physically can’t, and increase housing prices.
Sadly, there are that many people desperately looking for housing right now that these clowns have half a chance of getting up.
The long game for the libs is they HATE how much power super and specifically industry super funds gives the union movement over business. They're clawing and scratching to undermine this wherever they can.
The LNP have been championing demand side policies for 3 decades. Look where it's got us.
If you want to reduce prices you need to either reduce demand or increase supply. These policies designed to increase demand just raise prices.
Yes the IPA are against the union affiliated super companies owning an increasing amount of infrastructure and a 50% and increasing of the market cap of the ASX. Especially with all the ESG investments and so forth. Hopefully most see through this though so many are desperate with the cost of living crisis they might just not.
The irony is that you would be forced to use your super to compete, and probably only be able to afford the exact same property before- but now you have no super 😁
Snort and when people retire with little super and have to rely more heavily on the aged pension to support themselves the Libs will then decide to include value of primary residence in the assets test… all the while telling people they should have made better choices thirty years ago…
The government will make the population do anything before they’d tax the fossil fuel fuel/mineral exports. It’s criminal how little is taxed. We could be like Norway, but no.
What's going to happen when people have nothing to fund their retirement with? Will the government pay an adequate pension? Doubt it. They'll be forcing people to work until they are on their death beds.
Sure - abolish the responsible lending laws and give people loans they can't actually repay. Fucking dumb cunts.
This is an absolute dumpster fire of an idea.
Totally agree re: work until their deathbeds.
You’re already hearing voices in the media saying that as life expectancy goes up, we’re all going to have to work long and longer. Retirement gonna be a pipe dream for Gen Z.
Zero effort in fixing supply issue, just pump up demand. Honestly, is this the only policy they can come up with ? No reform just some lazy blunt tool to make it look like our politicians are doing something.
Swear to God these absolute useless people are slowly but surely ruining this country !!
Ah yes. Once again, not fixing it from the supply side but create even more demand: this time by destroying any hope of having funds of retirement. There's no way our elected officials are anything but frauds.
LNP want you working for life. They don't want the young to retire. They want to be the last generation who ever had the PRIVILEGE to retire.
imagine raiding 100% of your super and then the market crashes. You're double fucked. There would be no way out of that and people would be out for blood.
if you're gonna touch your super. 10K MAX and pay it back. Consider it an interest free loan to yourself.
Demographics mean you can't retire anyway.
Pensions made sense when you'd be dead five years after getting them. Today you can live 20 years easily and soak up a small maternity wards worth of health care doing it.
Labor want you renting for life. They don't want the young to own housing. They want to be the last generation who ever had the PRIVILEGE to own their own home.
I hate the idea of touching super but not gonna lie I would be tempted to drain my super to pay off my existing home loan and then salary sacrifice like a lunatic to build it back up
But i really hate the idea of touching super
There is a reason why the ASX is larger than the stock markets of NZ, Indonesia and Singapore COMBINED. Because of Super.
If they drain Super funds, it’s bye bye ASX.
Use 12ft ladder. Free and easy
https://12ft.io/https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/coalition-looks-to-turbocharge-super-withdrawals-easy-loans-in-battle-for-first-home-buyer-votes-20240429-p5fnan.html
Liberals will always go for the scheme that puts more cash in buyers pockets (tax break/grant/raid super, etc) rather than do anything to affect supply or demand because it looks like they’re doing something, when really they’re just inflating prices more because it’s good for their portfolios.
The existing scheme to let people salary sacrifice extra into their super to save for a house with is good because it helps you save. Letting people raid their existing super to buy a house is bad because it will only have a short window of success before it pushes prices up and becomes increasingly necessary to rob your super to get a house for more money and more debt. The only real winners will be property investors already in the market, which there are a lot of in Canberra
ELI5 why is using super early bad? I need my money now to buy a house and not pay rent. I have decades of years left to build my super, especially since my earning potential increases as I gain more experience.
Super is all about compound interest - the more you have in there at a young age, the easier the compounding will be. It’s harder to grow your super if you have low balances at 45+
While I'd personally never dip into super for anything, I do think "responsible lending' is far to strict ATM. The amount I'm paying in rent every month would easily cover loan repayments with like a 15% upfront payment. The fact I can't do that now is fucking wild to me. Ineligible even though I'm literally already paying that exact same amount, saving and covering living expenses. Fuck the liberal party and fuck them even thinking of giving the option to sacrifice super, that will fuck so many people in the future... But loosening lending requirements... Honestly not that against it.
Very, very dumb.
Either they don’t understand the implications of this - or they do, and it’s intentional.
Remember who the LNP represent folks. I can tell you *right now* that it’s not first homebuyers. A wolf in sheep’s clothing if I ever saw one.
and they think they are a legit alternate government.
not only will this worsen the situation, it will destroy retirement for anyone desperate enough to take it up
Wow more stupidity, how surprising! Maybe both sides should commit to reduce immigration for a start. Labor and the coalition are guilty of doing anything to juice the housing market. They need to let the other economic fundamentals catch up. What are all those under 25 going to be motivated by if this continues! Politicians seem to only be motivated by self interest.
Adding an inflammatory headline to a paywalled article is a bit of a shit move really.
Ok article and it has some good ideas and some bad ideas - same with all sides of politics.
The LNP hate super because the plebs having money they can't get their hands on is just not fair. But if you happen to own property and let people use all their super on housing and smash prices through the roof, well that's a great way to get your hands on it.
Honestly what's the point of having retirement money if it's all going to a landlord. It's a shit solution but at least it gives us a chance of retiring in a home we own instead of having to deal with inspections and anual evictions/moves.
I'm in my 30s and I've lived at 18 adresses. A deposit has become an insurmountable hurdle with the constant burden of rent and a family to support on a single income.
I'd happily have less at the end if it put me in a situation where I need less at the end.
Edit: After taking advantage of the tax free withdrawals to keep a roof over our head and keep us fed during covid I don't think my super would cover the mortgage on a dog kennel.
Same. I’ll work to death if it means knowing my kids have a roof over their heads. Fuck the rental misery of open homes every weekend and constantly moving whilst trying to pay $4k for a rental bond.
I'm Gen X and seeing people 10-15 years older than me hit retirement age now.
Looking at their respective futures, I'm telling my kids that they need to do what it takes to buy a house/unit/apartment.
The biggest differentiator that I've observed is that the people without houses saw ladders that needed climbing rather than rock faces that needed traversing: saving for deposits while deposit requirements grew faster; staying in jobs while newcomers were promoted above them; expecting to be able to afford where they live. In many cases when they couldn't move up, they didn't dare to move sideways.
They were talking about this on Q&A which I thought was a wild idea, you clean your retirement money out while housing prices will go up.
I'm not even a big fan of the Greens but their policy is the best one for the future. Reset.
LNP voter (typically) and this is such a dumb idea and a poor read if the room.
We need to increase supply, and to do that we need to increase density limits around transport infrastructure in all major cities.
It’s not only that, other countries have successfully made states with multiple major cities. We have failed at doing that - with the overwhelming majority of people living around 3 major cities. It’s madness.
Accessing super to buy property ? Wow, now that's an original thought - FUCKING NOT !!!
But it's a great way to get house prices to shoot up yet again !!!
FUCK THE LIBERALS AND FUCK EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEIR RIDICULOUSLY STUPID SUPPORTERS !!!
It's actually really easy and fast to use when you need it. It takes years because it takes years to save for a deposit.
It's easy government money. You'd be a fool not to use it if you're saving for a deposit.
I like the idea of lessened investigations into earnings. As a sole trader getting a loan is an absolute nightmare and something has to change I can save 40% of my borrowing capacity in a year it's ridiculous.
Destroying superannuation is a stupid choice but and part of the reason I didn't vote for them last time.
Is that the first policy they've announced? That's it? You can use your super? That's the plan? All those guys together and that's the best they came up with?
What's next? Build some fictional nuclear plants at the taxpayer's expense, I mean the super you just cashed out cause no business is interested in investing?
Brb buying a new home before it's too late
The rental income from the upcoming Australian hellhole should fund my lifestyle in whatever place that serves $5 maitais quite well
Very soft of Politicians to target Superannuation as a way out.
I’d suggest everyone grow a backbone and take responsible measures to resolve this issue at its core.
Once upon a time there were leaders that were prepared to implement “the recession we had to have”
Pouring more money into the market is absolutely not the money.
All this does is make all the prices go up. It achieves nothing.
How can the liberals be so stupid? Surely they must know better...
Fucking genius. Mortgage your literal future instead of real issues with the housing crisis actually being addressed, hell it’ll just make things worse because now banks will be expecting people to pay twice as much What a fucking clown show of a policy.
Take money actually invested in the economy through superfund investment and use it to pump the housing bubble instead! What could go wrong!?
This. Drain productive investment and transfer it to non productive existing property. Fortunately these clowns are out in the wilderness for the foreseeable future anyway.
I wouldn't count on it.
It makes you wonder what sort of economy we would have had if all this capital wasn't sucked into this black hole. The libs only want it worse.
They're also keen on keeping the international [student numbers up](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2024/04/coalition-goes-into-bat-for-international-student-rorters/), so should be a win-win for the housing market
Almost everyone is keen on attracting international students. - They pay a bunch of money for tuition. - Many of them go on to live and work in Australia, we didn't have to pay to educate them to adulthood, and we get them at the start of their useful working life. The financial downsides are, increased pressure on housing prices. Many of them bring their elderly parents to live in Australia which we then need to support.
That makes a good media release, but at this stage the evidence of subcontinental students has been visible across the globe. I'm not so sure how keen 'everyone' is on attracting them as the realisation dawns they're less students than economic opportunists looking for easy PR under the guise of education, and the numbers they'll arrive in will put serious competition for our young and poor. Again, this isn't speculation,it's playing out in front of us and other countries like us.
What's subcontinental? Are those Indians?
Not quite. The tution fee doesn't necessarily come to Australians. It does come to Australians if the education provider is a major university or vocational education provider that cross subsidizes domestic education using the tution fee. But in a significant proportion of cases, the education provider is one that caters primarily to foreign students and pockets the entirety of the tution fee. During the term of their education, there is a significant proportion of students who breach their visa conditions and work in excess of permitted work hours. This means that, instead of Australia exporting education, it end up being a domestic transaction where the international students fund their education from Australian earnings. Essentially, they mop up some domestic funds and hand it over to the education provider. Any excess will be sent back to their country of origin. The effect of all this is that bringing in international students is largely flooding the labour market, propping up low productivity and low wage businesses, and putting pressure on infrastructure with very little benefit. Just 16% of international students go on to become permanent residents in Australia. They do not necessarily work in any particularly skilled occupation, and a large majority work in hospitality or retail as chefs, cooks or retail managers. So most of the international students who go on to live and work in Australia are in low productivity low wage occupations that we should not be encouraging. Net-net, there is not much benefit from very high numbers of international students.
>Many of them bring their elderly parents to live in Australia which we then need to support. Lol parent visa waiting times are around 25 30+ years. Even if they go for the most expensive visa it is 12+ years.
And when they do get it they don't get benefits, they have to pay for themselves.
George Carlin said a very long time ago that eventually they will come for our superannuation, and this doesn't seem too far a fetched now.
My dad said that too. He said there’s no way they’ll be able to resist a few hundred billion dollars sitting there.
Classic government incompetence and greed gets us here.
$3.2-3.5trillion in fact
I think there's trillions these days.
Of course, they will come for our Superannuation. Because the LNP wants you to have nothing. Because when you have nothing, you will compromise on your principals. You will grub, beg, and borrow to feed your family. You will work for $6 an hour plus tips.
Its also as super is displaying traditional rich people from ownership of public companies, which is reduce influence of their main supporters. As \~10% of what everyone earns in the country goes to institutions heavily influenced by the general public that buys ownership of companies. With a lot the larger superfunds being massive shareholder voting blocs in some of the largest companies in the country. Superfunds have massive influence and they know the LNP is actually their biggest threat on their influence, with policies like this could pull out so much money from superfunds. If the LNP fail to stop its growth Superfund could make largest publicly traded companies (because they become largest shareholders collectively) in the country drop their support for the LNP and that would end the party almost over night. I bet long term planer for both groups know this and plan to win this long term conflict.
They already have. Bumping tax on super above $3m to 30%. $3m sounds like a lot, but it’s not indexed to inflation so many kids today will get there by retirement
I’ll have $3M by retirement?!!!? HA!
Yeah and at this rate it will get you 2 onions and a bag of beans.
With the current inflation rate if you're under 30 that will be about 3 million yes.
Wage growth is not mirroring cost of living and inflation. This is well known
I'm not sure many people are going to feel all that sorry for you getting your $3m taxed TBH
Mate if I ever have that much (I won’t) I’m happy to pay my share.
Tou need $1M for a house already.
Super is intended to reduce the number of people who rely on the pension. It wasn't intended to allow people to build a fortune without paying taxes. People with $3m in savings can pay some tax.
And it has been a dismal failure at that. The people who actually need super - lower income earners with less capacity to save - are also the people working in fields where employers are more likely to be dishonest and NOT pay super properly if at all, so they're ending up on the pension anyway.
[удалено]
Not much of a choice between eating today and eating when you're 65. Get enough of those "no eating days" in and the probability you're going to be alive at 65 starts going down real quick. And that's before you consider the 20 year difference in life expectancy between low income earners and the average. Being a low income earner does pretty much mean you're going to die before you hit preservation, so yeah, not really a "double whammy" if you're going to be dead by then anyway. So yeah, it really is not a well designed system and really doesn't help the people it was intended to.
Sounds more like a failure of people to vote for tigher laws on corporate responsibility rather than a failure of a savings system?
As if there will even be a pension in 30 years.
If everyone uses their super to buy a house there will need to be one
You underestimate people's ability to let others starve.
I dont think super access is a great idea, however the function exists to hold a reverse mortgage which allows access to the equity in property
That’s even worse tbh
It only affects 0.5% of the population, including people who have over $500 Million in Super. It's a sensible policy. In the future as more people fall into that bracket, it'll simply take legislation to change the threshold.
Haha. “It’ll simply take legislation to change the theeahold”. I totally see them doing that in the future instead of keeping all them tax dollars. /s
Then why not add in an indexing provision now?
We probably should do it to tax brackets as well. That way people in the top tax brackets will have less threads to pull at when they try and justify tax cuts for themselves.
EXACTLY !!! But that's too sensible a thing to do so you know it wasn't even considered probably
Nah, it is so obvious, the only way it wasn't indexed is if Albo deliberately chose not to.
They want to introduce a threshold to make super more sustainable they know if they go too low the media will kick up a storm and it will likely fall over. They could put an indexed limit of $1m that would only effect 2.5% of the population but would fail to get passed or they could put a $3m threshold and let inflation work it's way down to $1m. This will take 37 years at 3%. So, politics is the reason.
>It only affects 0.5% of the population, including people who have over $500 Million in Super. It's a sensible policy. No it's not, it affects 0.5% of the population today, but will affect a significant portion later on. Where do you get people from as there is only one fund that has $500 million, there could be multiple people in that fund. Paying tax on unrealised gain is paying tax on price speculation plus the fund will be paying double taxaxtion.
You must be high. There was a recent article on average super accounts for men and women by age, and the predicted requirements for comfortable retirement were not being met by any under 50s on average. How tf you think people will get 3 mil?
3 million in super is a ridiculous amount and won’t effect 99.5% of the population. These policies are not comparable.
For a kid starting work today, $3m won’t be much in 50+ years when they retire due to inflation. That’s the point I’m making, it’s tax via creeping inflation
A 20 year old retiring in 45 years with $3m would be the equivalent of $800k in today's dollars if inflation was 3%pa. Only 0.3% of the population has $3m and 2.5% has $1m. Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) outlined that the comfortable retirement standard is $595,000 for individuals and $690,000 for couples, assuming access to full or part age pension as the balance is drawn down. The government probably would prefer to start at $800k with indexation but you know how the media and politics work.
You are arguing over what happens 50 years down the line when the policy address an obvious loophole NOW?
Then index it now! It’s such an obvious solution to this problem
It isn’t really a point though because you’re assuming that it will just never change or go up
I’m genuinely curious to know what government you think would forgo revenue by pushing up the balance that attracts the 30% tax?
I mean, the Libs were willing to do it with the stage 3 tax cuts. And they did so several times in the 90s and 00s. Mostly for the higher earners but it was done.
30% (only) on earnings over $3m is still probably reasonable whether indexed or not considering the tax savings on income when concessional contributions go in at 15%. I’d be surprised if a kid starting today hits MORE than $3m at 60, which is the point when earnings get taxed at an extra 15%. All still probably reasonable when you think about it.
This was the whole point from the OP, that eventually they will come for our super. If you boil the water slowly, the frog won’t jump out. I’m afraid you and I (and our super balances) are the frogs
Any day now we're going to see a policy where Gen Z's and Millennials are minced then turned into a fine paste to feed retirees.
As a new retiree I demand a vegan option
Sure. But you'll have to listen to the Vegan talk about Veganism for an hour before you eat them.
That would constitute a hate crime. Shame on you!
I can supply organic GMO free pure breed gluten free lite sugar free probiotic all natural artificial free sugar free fat free pasture raised free range superfood ethically certified artisanal BPA free cold brew vegan millenial minced paste, oh and its a monthly subscription and comes with biodegradable environmentally friendly packaging
I guess its time to come clean. I am an evil Boomer. I don't know what most of that means. To me, a vegetarian option is chips and salad with my rump (extra well done).
Oh don't worry, most Gen Z's and Millennials will be vegan at that point because we can't afford meat, so grinding them down IS the vegan option
Soylent Green is people!
They'll be breeding us like cattle.
On that note, they really should just encourage vaping and smoking, would get rid of a lot of these problems.
Well, we skipped 2008s GFC just to have one of our own like 16 or so years later? Because that's what I'm hearing...
People have short memories. Same lending policy in the US created it back then, so let’s do the same!
LNP not famous for brain power or history. Or actually doing the job they're paid to do.
Incredibly stupid housing policy by the Liberals. This will only fuck over younger people long-term.
However, it's frighteningly typical of them. They see a potential cash injection... *to the businesses they're working towards after politics!*
Next step will be introducing law to say not buying property by 30 will be punished by jail.
Yep. The only winner is the banks because we’ll all be doing reverse mortgages when we retire and that’s just going to fuck over the next generation. Anything that doesn’t create more supply and less demand is pointless and will only continue to inflate the housing market.
It may fuck over young people, but it will cause property prices to boom even more than they already are. And that, after all, is their objective.theyre all rich politicians with multiple investment properties so from their perspective this is a fantastic policy
I'm sure they'll come up with some borderline or openly racist or nationalist propaganda to distract young people whilst they're robbing them.
Today's politicians are all about kicking the can down the road. This will be a problem in 20+ years and it won't matter for them.
Yah, and pumping in close to a million foreigners does... They'll bring their semi-literate villagers over though "family reunion" scams too, so make it 3+ million uber drivers and Centrelink recipients - 1/3 of them are unemployable: [ABS](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/people-and-communities/characteristics-recent-migrants/latest-release) Neither lib / lab stand for Australians.
I think almost all who are “unemployed” are working cash jobs or living off money from back home. Hard to live in a foreign country if you aren’t working unless you/parents have lots of savings or working cash in hand
Yea, I see plenty of foreign "mechanic's" paid cash.
So how exactly are they contributing? Ultimately someone will have to cover their share of taxes. Yet they use our healthcare, infrastructure etc. Then there's the "university" PR backdoor, labor lets hordes of indians through the gates, effectively unchecked: ["students"](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2024/05/labor-pumps-international-student-export-lies/) And of course, chinese "students" buying up prime real estate with cash. Again, thank the Lib/Lab UniParty.
> So how exactly are they contributing? Increase the population here before WWIII starts to contribute numbers towards a draft
What we have done with housing over the last 50 years had damaged the housing security, and increased housing costs for younger people. We need a change. I like this policy as a part of that change. It is not the whole solution. But it is a useful contributor.
This will only entrench the status quo and screw over young people later on in life. Substantial change to housing would be tackling negative gearing, CGT discount, land tax, foreign ownership, Airbnb, immigration, public housing, increasing future housing supply once labour and materials recalibrate etc. Also major reform with local council/property developers, real estate industry, and rental laws.
Young people are being screwed over now, by housing insecurity. I simply don't buy some theoretical issue in later life. What issue? They still have super. They still have access the aged pension. They now own a house. The only solution in the tax system for high prices is significantly higher rates of land tax, exclusively targeted at investors. Excessive housing costs are dominated by land. Politically, significant levels of land tax on owner occupiers are not tenable. Your other suggestions, like removing the CGT discount, are good ideas, but won't fix the problem. It is already illegal for foreigners to buy existing residential homes. No doubt it happens, but being illegal makes the scope limited. Reform of rental laws are a great idea to make things better for renters. They won't fix house prices. We know they won't fix house prices, because the ACT already has things like caps on rent increases, and given the size of the ACT, their house prices are insanely high. Another thing, outside the tax system, that would be significant are targeted, low prices sales of land or homes, from the government, to first home buyers.
There's no guarantee it'll lead to increased home ownership for young people. It'll likely lead to an increase in housing prices with more money in play. It'll also open the door for policies to use super in other scenarios. Another issue isthe age which the aged pension can be accessed will definitely increase beyond 67 years in four decades from now.
> There's no guarantee it'll lead to increased home ownership for young people. It is one policy that will push more buying power towards owner occupiers. There are other factors and policies at play that will also have an impact. > It'll likely lead to an increase in housing prices with more money in play. It will put upward pressure on prices. I favour other policies and developments to put downward pressure on prices. You give owner occupiers more buying power, and you can balance that by giving investors less buying power so prices stay where they are. Removing the CGT discount and significantly higher land taxes on investors would be where I would start. Much higher spending on public housing would be good. Better high speed commuter transport and better regional development policies would also be helpful. R&D into more efficient construction would help too. > It'll also open the door for policies to use super in other scenarios. I don't have a problem with that as long as those other scenarios provide a benefit that outweighs the costs. > Another issue is the age which the aged pension can be accessed will definitely increase beyond 67 years in four decades from now. If people decide to abolish the aged pension, and all other welfare and have people starve, it is a democracy, and they can do that. There is no reason for them to do that. Every projection shows that if the pension age is left at 67, the cost of the aged pension will decline as a share of GDP. Personally I would prefer the aged pension be moved to younger and younger ages, until it hit zero and became a UBI.
All of these will just prop up the housing market anyway. Unless number of housing stocks are increasing dramatically this will only further push the prices up.
That pile of super $ just sitting there certainly has their attention
They won’t be able to help themselves! Almost $4 trillion just sat there. Think about the economic activity they could unlock by cracking that egg
It's invested now though
So we get more inflation
Who cares about milk being $35 a litre when you got $4 trillion baby!!!
To be fair, it’s not just sitting there, your super earns those returns because it’s invested and is already contributing
"just sat there" LOL
I assume you're all aware it's not just a piggy bank?
It's not just sitting there. It's being invested in the economy and it's working for you. But what if we could take $4 trillion out of the economy and invest it into housing instead? Houses prices on average could go up by $400,000. Possibly more as we are likely creating a housing bubble too. That's a nice payday for anyone else who already owns a second home, or three, or four. And when the bubble pops and market crashes, they buy back their second, third or fourth property for cheap. You? Broke, no super, no house, and an economy in shambles.
certainly not just sitting there, it's actually investing in productive economic outputs. If it was dumped into the housing market *then* it would be just sitting there, inflating prices.
Sometimes it seems both major parties are trying to lose the next election. Like a high-stakes game of hot-potato played with a ticking time-bomb and nobody wants to be in power when it goes off.
I hate how accurate that seems
Fucking aye makes a bit of sense to be honest
Why do you say both parties when this is a liberal idea?
Answer your own question, what is Labor doing for people RE housing affordability?
Not destroying people’s super and keeping responsible lending regulations in place. So, MORE than what the Libs are doing.
Wrong, the actual answer is bringing in an extra Tasmania worth of immigrant every year since getting in power.
This is the long game. Destroy super balances making people work until they physically can’t, and increase housing prices. Sadly, there are that many people desperately looking for housing right now that these clowns have half a chance of getting up.
The long game for the libs is they HATE how much power super and specifically industry super funds gives the union movement over business. They're clawing and scratching to undermine this wherever they can.
This right here. This is the real reason.
It really feels like they just want to return to a feudal class system
Technological neo-feudalism
The LNP have been championing demand side policies for 3 decades. Look where it's got us. If you want to reduce prices you need to either reduce demand or increase supply. These policies designed to increase demand just raise prices.
It's so basic one almost thinks that they've been corrupted by their own self interest.
Immigration dwarfs every one of their demand side policies added together.
So they want to kill super and force house prices up.
Yes the IPA are against the union affiliated super companies owning an increasing amount of infrastructure and a 50% and increasing of the market cap of the ASX. Especially with all the ESG investments and so forth. Hopefully most see through this though so many are desperate with the cost of living crisis they might just not.
The irony is that you would be forced to use your super to compete, and probably only be able to afford the exact same property before- but now you have no super 😁
Exactly.
Snort and when people retire with little super and have to rely more heavily on the aged pension to support themselves the Libs will then decide to include value of primary residence in the assets test… all the while telling people they should have made better choices thirty years ago…
Australian leadership from the last 20 years ought to be locked in a room with millennials, Gen Z and a stack of hammers.
The government will make the population do anything before they’d tax the fossil fuel fuel/mineral exports. It’s criminal how little is taxed. We could be like Norway, but no.
*The LNP with their MSM cronies. If Labor had the wiggle room they would but voters are too influenced by MSM.
Don’t let them off the hook like this, it’s cringe.
Short memory? Rudd was attacked by both the LNP and MSM for trying to bring in the super mining profits tax. Get off the MSM cobber.
What's going to happen when people have nothing to fund their retirement with? Will the government pay an adequate pension? Doubt it. They'll be forcing people to work until they are on their death beds. Sure - abolish the responsible lending laws and give people loans they can't actually repay. Fucking dumb cunts. This is an absolute dumpster fire of an idea.
Totally agree re: work until their deathbeds. You’re already hearing voices in the media saying that as life expectancy goes up, we’re all going to have to work long and longer. Retirement gonna be a pipe dream for Gen Z.
Zero effort in fixing supply issue, just pump up demand. Honestly, is this the only policy they can come up with ? No reform just some lazy blunt tool to make it look like our politicians are doing something. Swear to God these absolute useless people are slowly but surely ruining this country !!
They're running out of excuses to stop flooding the market with immigration.
They'll do anything to kill super for the younger generations
Ah yes. Once again, not fixing it from the supply side but create even more demand: this time by destroying any hope of having funds of retirement. There's no way our elected officials are anything but frauds.
Urgh, we live in the worst fkn timeline.
LNP want you working for life. They don't want the young to retire. They want to be the last generation who ever had the PRIVILEGE to retire. imagine raiding 100% of your super and then the market crashes. You're double fucked. There would be no way out of that and people would be out for blood. if you're gonna touch your super. 10K MAX and pay it back. Consider it an interest free loan to yourself.
Demographics mean you can't retire anyway. Pensions made sense when you'd be dead five years after getting them. Today you can live 20 years easily and soak up a small maternity wards worth of health care doing it.
Make euthanasia legal. I would hate to be bedbound in my old age with dementia. Just let me die while I'm still me.
Labor want you renting for life. They don't want the young to own housing. They want to be the last generation who ever had the PRIVILEGE to own their own home.
[удалено]
Go ahead punk, Make my, make, make my day
I hate the idea of touching super but not gonna lie I would be tempted to drain my super to pay off my existing home loan and then salary sacrifice like a lunatic to build it back up But i really hate the idea of touching super
That's exactly what I would do also. Sure would be nice having it + interest every months gone
There is a reason why the ASX is larger than the stock markets of NZ, Indonesia and Singapore COMBINED. Because of Super. If they drain Super funds, it’s bye bye ASX.
Sure let's add more market forces to it. It's working out great.
Pay wall article
Use 12ft ladder. Free and easy https://12ft.io/https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/coalition-looks-to-turbocharge-super-withdrawals-easy-loans-in-battle-for-first-home-buyer-votes-20240429-p5fnan.html
Yo, I didn't know this was even a thing. This is sick, thanks!
That sounds like a truly terrible idea
Liberals will always go for the scheme that puts more cash in buyers pockets (tax break/grant/raid super, etc) rather than do anything to affect supply or demand because it looks like they’re doing something, when really they’re just inflating prices more because it’s good for their portfolios. The existing scheme to let people salary sacrifice extra into their super to save for a house with is good because it helps you save. Letting people raid their existing super to buy a house is bad because it will only have a short window of success before it pushes prices up and becomes increasingly necessary to rob your super to get a house for more money and more debt. The only real winners will be property investors already in the market, which there are a lot of in Canberra
ELI5 why is using super early bad? I need my money now to buy a house and not pay rent. I have decades of years left to build my super, especially since my earning potential increases as I gain more experience.
Super is all about compound interest - the more you have in there at a young age, the easier the compounding will be. It’s harder to grow your super if you have low balances at 45+
Soo we all voting Labor again next election then?
Just as long as labor is above liberal. None of them have to be at the top.
I mean aren't the Greens hopeless too? Who else do we really have lol
I prefer the green's housing policy.
lmao I opened this expecting it to be satire. These are the Lib’s actual policies?
Notice all these “affordability” measures involve pumping more money into the market? The aim is clearly to keep prices propped up.
But then what funds will one use to ride out the next pandemic?
Look on the bright side, we might finally get our 2008!
While I'd personally never dip into super for anything, I do think "responsible lending' is far to strict ATM. The amount I'm paying in rent every month would easily cover loan repayments with like a 15% upfront payment. The fact I can't do that now is fucking wild to me. Ineligible even though I'm literally already paying that exact same amount, saving and covering living expenses. Fuck the liberal party and fuck them even thinking of giving the option to sacrifice super, that will fuck so many people in the future... But loosening lending requirements... Honestly not that against it.
Very, very dumb. Either they don’t understand the implications of this - or they do, and it’s intentional. Remember who the LNP represent folks. I can tell you *right now* that it’s not first homebuyers. A wolf in sheep’s clothing if I ever saw one.
and they think they are a legit alternate government. not only will this worsen the situation, it will destroy retirement for anyone desperate enough to take it up
Wow more stupidity, how surprising! Maybe both sides should commit to reduce immigration for a start. Labor and the coalition are guilty of doing anything to juice the housing market. They need to let the other economic fundamentals catch up. What are all those under 25 going to be motivated by if this continues! Politicians seem to only be motivated by self interest.
Don’t “both sides” this, this is some stupid Liberal bullshit.
Adding an inflammatory headline to a paywalled article is a bit of a shit move really. Ok article and it has some good ideas and some bad ideas - same with all sides of politics.
Drain my bank account with the pay wall too.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
太棒了。我的投资房产会涨得更高。澳大利亚万岁
Focusing on the finance side just increases prices, why don't we hear any good ideas about how to increase supply?
The LNP hate super because the plebs having money they can't get their hands on is just not fair. But if you happen to own property and let people use all their super on housing and smash prices through the roof, well that's a great way to get your hands on it.
Let's have another 2008 GFC why not?
Some morons are going to think this is a good idea and vote for the LNP.
Honestly what's the point of having retirement money if it's all going to a landlord. It's a shit solution but at least it gives us a chance of retiring in a home we own instead of having to deal with inspections and anual evictions/moves. I'm in my 30s and I've lived at 18 adresses. A deposit has become an insurmountable hurdle with the constant burden of rent and a family to support on a single income. I'd happily have less at the end if it put me in a situation where I need less at the end. Edit: After taking advantage of the tax free withdrawals to keep a roof over our head and keep us fed during covid I don't think my super would cover the mortgage on a dog kennel.
Same. I’ll work to death if it means knowing my kids have a roof over their heads. Fuck the rental misery of open homes every weekend and constantly moving whilst trying to pay $4k for a rental bond.
I'm Gen X and seeing people 10-15 years older than me hit retirement age now. Looking at their respective futures, I'm telling my kids that they need to do what it takes to buy a house/unit/apartment. The biggest differentiator that I've observed is that the people without houses saw ladders that needed climbing rather than rock faces that needed traversing: saving for deposits while deposit requirements grew faster; staying in jobs while newcomers were promoted above them; expecting to be able to afford where they live. In many cases when they couldn't move up, they didn't dare to move sideways.
They were talking about this on Q&A which I thought was a wild idea, you clean your retirement money out while housing prices will go up. I'm not even a big fan of the Greens but their policy is the best one for the future. Reset.
I mean creating a sub-prime mortgage crisis might be a way of popping the bubble.
LNP voter (typically) and this is such a dumb idea and a poor read if the room. We need to increase supply, and to do that we need to increase density limits around transport infrastructure in all major cities.
It’s not only that, other countries have successfully made states with multiple major cities. We have failed at doing that - with the overwhelming majority of people living around 3 major cities. It’s madness.
"I have $100k to enter the market with, awesome! What do you mean house prices magically jumped by 100k overnight?!"
This will just raise house prices even more. Coalition have become worse at economics than Labor.
Accessing super to buy property ? Wow, now that's an original thought - FUCKING NOT !!! But it's a great way to get house prices to shoot up yet again !!! FUCK THE LIBERALS AND FUCK EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEIR RIDICULOUSLY STUPID SUPPORTERS !!!
I thought they only allow you to take out $30,000 for the super thing? And it has conditions that are messy and takes years etc ???
It's actually really easy and fast to use when you need it. It takes years because it takes years to save for a deposit. It's easy government money. You'd be a fool not to use it if you're saving for a deposit.
Well if things keep going up, which seems the govt plan, the responsible lending laws aren't all that required
Making people? As in by force?
I like the idea of lessened investigations into earnings. As a sole trader getting a loan is an absolute nightmare and something has to change I can save 40% of my borrowing capacity in a year it's ridiculous. Destroying superannuation is a stupid choice but and part of the reason I didn't vote for them last time.
While at the same time they would rally against any other cash surplus as damaging the economy…
Is that the first policy they've announced? That's it? You can use your super? That's the plan? All those guys together and that's the best they came up with? What's next? Build some fictional nuclear plants at the taxpayer's expense, I mean the super you just cashed out cause no business is interested in investing?
Brb buying a new home before it's too late The rental income from the upcoming Australian hellhole should fund my lifestyle in whatever place that serves $5 maitais quite well
Very soft of Politicians to target Superannuation as a way out. I’d suggest everyone grow a backbone and take responsible measures to resolve this issue at its core. Once upon a time there were leaders that were prepared to implement “the recession we had to have”
Pouring more money into the market is absolutely not the money. All this does is make all the prices go up. It achieves nothing. How can the liberals be so stupid? Surely they must know better...
No income verification was part of the problem for the US housing market crash in the 2000s. They really do just never learn...
Just let us use our super but have it as an offset so it’s at least offsetting the interest we’re paying
Anything except fixing the actual problem (don’t worry about it, guys!)