I have looked at a fair bit of detail at what appears to be the only real major policy difference between the two parties is about the housing assistance packages.
The Liberals is effectively a plan that you can use your super to help with the house deposit.
Where as Labor is that the Government will effectively own a portion of your property and you pay them back when you sell.
The Labor plan already kind of exists in Tasmania. It is called a homeshare program and is limited to low income purchases. Typically is it used to purchase blocks of land and to build a basic house on it. You then pay the government back when you sell it. All in all it is not a bad scheme apart from the very limited number of people who actually qualify for it, and not a huge number of people knowing it even exists. Generally, it helps a lot of people who would frankly otherwise have limited chances to purchase a property to enter the property market.
The real issue that I see from the programs offered by both parties is that they will do absolutely nothing to assist home ownership for those trying to enter the market. All of these sort of programs end up doing is to drive up the price by what is effectively the government assistance and then it drops once the program ends. What genuinely is needed is there to be more land available to build on, together with the cost to actually build a basic house to be reduced. People also need to be a little bit more realistic for what they purchase for a first house. You do not need a place with everything that open and closes, with the games rooms, the toys that go with it, just go with something basic and it will be perfect for you. Worry about the toys with the next or the next place not the first place.
Also, taking money out of super while it sounds like a great idea for some there will be few that actually have that level of savings, plus it will be money that they have lost for use in their retirement. To me it is a very short sighted idea that will end up costing a future generation and the government who will have more people relying on a pension rather than being potentially self funded retirees.
The idea of some who mention negative gearing ignores the reality that it is mum and dad's who typically have got such an investment property and do it for a variety of reasons. I myself own a property that I rent out. It is rented out for $120 a week and the rent has been the same for the last 10 years. I have no intention of increasing it as I know that my tenant is not in a position to pay much more given she lives on her own. I also purchased the property to one day build a home to live on if I can afford it one day so the rental income is more about giving someone a home than it is about the actual rental return from it.
The Liberals is effectively a plan that you can use your super to help with the house deposit.
Where as Labor is that the Government will effectively own a portion of your property and you pay them back when you sell.
The Labor plan already kind of exists in Tasmania. It is called a homeshare program and is limited to low income purchases. Typically is it used to purchase blocks of land and to build a basic house on it. You then pay the government back when you sell it. All in all it is not a bad scheme apart from the very limited number of people who actually qualify for it, and not a huge number of people knowing it even exists. Generally, it helps a lot of people who would frankly otherwise have limited chances to purchase a property to enter the property market.
The real issue that I see from the programs offered by both parties is that they will do absolutely nothing to assist home ownership for those trying to enter the market. All of these sort of programs end up doing is to drive up the price by what is effectively the government assistance and then it drops once the program ends. What genuinely is needed is there to be more land available to build on, together with the cost to actually build a basic house to be reduced. People also need to be a little bit more realistic for what they purchase for a first house. You do not need a place with everything that open and closes, with the games rooms, the toys that go with it, just go with something basic and it will be perfect for you. Worry about the toys with the next or the next place not the first place.
Also, taking money out of super while it sounds like a great idea for some there will be few that actually have that level of savings, plus it will be money that they have lost for use in their retirement. To me it is a very short sighted idea that will end up costing a future generation and the government who will have more people relying on a pension rather than being potentially self funded retirees.
The idea of some who mention negative gearing ignores the reality that it is mum and dad's who typically have got such an investment property and do it for a variety of reasons. I myself own a property that I rent out. It is rented out for $120 a week and the rent has been the same for the last 10 years. I have no intention of increasing it as I know that my tenant is not in a position to pay much more given she lives on her own. I also purchased the property to one day build a home to live on if I can afford it one day so the rental income is more about giving someone a home than it is about the actual rental return from it.