3 ms·

I'm Brisbane outskirts. Moved here to avoid the crazy Sydney prices about 5 years ago. We would expect a bit under double now, maybe 70% up. It's crazy. Great

I'm Brisbane outskirts. Moved here to avoid the crazy Sydney prices about 5 years ago. We would expect a bit under double now, maybe 70% up. It's crazy. Great to feel you have more equity on the surface, but it's meaningless really as you have to sell to buy if your moving and then things like rates and stamp duty are higher than ever. I think the best solution is cap how many properties people can own. Homes are good for people or investors, not both. While interest rates are the main driver, a country like Australia has little ability to far steer outside global rates. From that I think the best solution is to place a limit of ~3 residential properties per person, or something like than with a grace period to ease the new rules. Get the big investors out of the market. Make homes for people again. Action should have been 15 years ago before it was todays problem, but was still obviously heading this way. It's going to be hard to unwind now without creating serious pain somewhere.

PickledHotdog 4y ago
Unfortunately it's been the policy of successive Australian governments to put "real estate investment" into the engine room of the economy. They didn't do it 15 years ago vecahse they didn't want to. It's going to be an absolute ball-breaker trying to unwind the whole thing, too. If you limit it to 3 houses per person you'll get people buying houses for their three year olds (which already happens). It's an improvement, for sure, but it'll be rorted. What we really need is 1960s Chinese Land Reforms
- Gustomaximus 4y ago
  > If you limit it to 3 houses per person you'll get people buying houses for their three year olds That's easy enough to rule against, much like they do with income shifting to children. > What we really need is 1960s Chinese Land Reforms Not really into violence. Also where has it landed them 60 years later? The best is sensible structural rules for the long term.

PickledHotdog 4y ago

Unfortunately it's been the policy of successive Australian governments to put "real estate investment" into the engine room of the economy. They didn't do it 15 years ago vecahse they didn't want to. It's going to be an absolute ball-breaker trying to unwind the whole thing, too. If you limit it to 3 houses per person you'll get people buying houses for their three year olds (which already happens). It's an improvement, for sure, but it'll be rorted. What we really need is 1960s Chinese Land Reforms

Gustomaximus 4y ago
> If you limit it to 3 houses per person you'll get people buying houses for their three year olds That's easy enough to rule against, much like they do with income shifting to children. > What we really need is 1960s Chinese Land Reforms Not really into violence. Also where has it landed them 60 years later? The best is sensible structural rules for the long term.