By: eye_candy_images
25/05/2009
10:25 pm Yahoo! Profile:
eye_candy_images Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Thats right mate they should have spent on infrastructure, but that doesn't mean sporting complexes and soccer stadiums, or hospitals that the doctors don't want in Adelaide. How about spending on projects that benefit more than a small part of the community, like the Murray river or mining infrastructure. Why do governments think everyone lives in the capitol cities? |
|
By: puyi
25/05/2009
10:14 am Yahoo! Profile:
puyi Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Source: The Australian newspaper
By Nick Tabakoff and Joe Kelly | May 25, 2009
THE average loan size for first-home buyers has risen by $52,000 - or 23 per cent - in the past two years, raising fears that government incentives for young buyers are artificially inflating the market.
A report commissioned by Brandmanagement, a market research firm specialising in the finance sector, says the average size of loans being taken up by young home buyers is jumping by an "unsustainable" amount.
Brandmanagement's principal, Andrew Inwood, said the statistics - which indicate that property prices are rising in line with loan sizes - have raised questions about whether the grant was simply being used by consumers to buy into a bubble.
"What the government incentives appear to have done is transfer the money from the people who are borrowing money to buy their first homes into the pockets of those who are selling at a more attractive price," he said.
Mr Inwood hinted that this mini-boom in the price of properties would not go on forever.
"There'll be a collapse in those prices again," he said.
Australian Consumers Association spokesman Christopher Zinn said the rapid growth in loans to first-home buyers against the backdrop of the government incentives carried certain moral obligations for banks.
Even real estate agents admit that the government incentives are creating an unsustainable bubble at the more affordable end of the property market.
Legendary Sydney luxury property agent Bill Bridges said yesterday some agents on entry-level real estate were "loading the prices up" to capitalise on the first-home buyers scheme.
Mr Bridges is also pessimistic about the ability of many people taking up first-home buyer grants to service loans into the future.
He expressed concerns that if people are stretched beyond their means through incentives, "it will all end up like (the sub-prime mortgage situation in) America". |
|
By: puyi
22/05/2009
12:22 am Yahoo! Profile:
puyi Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Re:FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS -ARE YOU BEING FOOLED?
Observations on the Cost of Housing in Australia
Anthony Richards
Head of Economic Analysis Department
Address to 2008 Economic and Social Outlook Conference
The Melbourne Institute
Melbourne - 27 March 2008
<<On the demand side, it is now widely accepted that policies that simply give people more money to spend on housing are likely to be capitalised into higher housing prices. On the supply side, efforts to improve housing affordability should be focused on policies regarding land use and on improving efficiency in the supply of land and housing.>>
The first Home buyers Grant does absolutely NOTHING to improve housing affordability and does NOT HELP first home buyers as taxpayers money is simply used to inflate the price of the properties.
Only policies leading to an increase in the supply of properties will genuinely help first time home buyers, builders, plumbers, electricians, gardeners, etc. And more affordable houses will lead to more property transactions both from first home buyers and property investors. And more transactions will lead to more jobs for estate agents and more overall tax revenue for state governments.
If products are priced too high, there is a very high risk of a fall in price and nobody would be interested to buy. And this will lead to no job and no commission for estate agents. |
|
By: biglki
16/05/2009
12:10 pm Yahoo! Profile:
biglki Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Also, don't forget that "Lucky" Mr. Howard had the boom, he also sold off org *** ations such as Telstra and Sydney Airport to get that money for a surplus (which he didn't use and take advantage of when he had the chance) made easy by the boom. The result? They're now run by greedy private companies who care about nothing but making money. Just imagine if he sold off more... |
|
By: wozz5403
13/05/2009
1:46 pm Yahoo! Profile:
wozz5403 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Dead right rammyau. It took the Coalition 10 years to pay back God's (sorry, Gough W's) 94 billion. How long will King Kevvie's debt take? Bet he'e busily trying to find another Khemlani. If you don't know what that was all about, find out. |
|
By: biglki
12/05/2009
11:38 pm Yahoo! Profile:
biglki Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| the economy is made up of people spending. So how are we suppossed to help the economy if we aren't to spend? |
|
By: biglki
12/05/2009
11:23 pm Yahoo! Profile:
biglki Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
(continued over my last post) remain unpleasant no matter which government is currently is currently in power because it is ultimately a poor economy which leads to these bad rates. IIRC, the Great Depression created a 33% unemployment rate in the developed world. That’s one in three unemployed. But if the government is to help, it has no choice but to spend. Again, the economy is supported by contributors, so the government has two choices. To keep the money, leave the surplus and sit back and do nothing to contribute which will lead to an even worse economy or to take advantage of the asset (the surplus) that it has now to invest and contribute to the economy to aid the recovery process even if it means a deficit. It’s obvious that the latter is the better choice. To keep the surplus and do nothing like the Howard government did is to not contribute the economy because that surplus is useless if it’s not used. And it is common sense that that will inevitably lengthen and further severe this recession and unemployment rates etc. The results of this spending won’t be immediate (as I said earlier, change takes time) but instead of sitting down and doing nothing, we need to invest and contribute today to have a better future for tomorrow.
So to sum up, rates and figures may be one thing but for the proof of which government is the better, you will have to know the nature behind those things. Looking at rates and figures alone is just skimming the surface; it will tell little about which is the better government.
Ps. anyone noticed that while the liberals had complained heaps, they did not suggest any plan of actions that they’ll take if they were in the government’s position. |
|
By: biglki
12/05/2009
11:21 pm Yahoo! Profile:
biglki Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| (continued over my last post) government does have some control over those things but it is ultimately the booming economy which gives us those good rates. That boom that Mr. Howard enjoyed had also given him a convenient surplus in his grasp, what did he decide to do with it? He decided to keep it. To save that money in his bank. And as we all know, money is useless on its own. It's what we buy out of money which counts. But instead of spending that money our government had when they had when the economic cycle was in good shape, they decided to keep it. And by doing this, that left many of Australia's potential problems unattended. Why didn't the Liberals invest on that infrastructure Australia needed for the future when the economy was strong? Why did they leave those trading ports overloaded which if freed, could have created an even stronger boom at that time? When you think about it, it is common sense that those unattended problems didn't become real problems back in the Howard era when the economy was still booming; they were concealed by the boom. But things have changed now. Now, we are in a very severe global economic downturn. The economic cycle is in a declining stage and those problems that were previously concealed by the boom are beginning to surface. Now, of course it would be better if these problems were addressed when the economy was strong so it’s a pity that the liberals didn’t do that when they had the chance. But problems are problems, so it is best if they are solved ASAP. And that’s what the government is doing now. Hanging on to that money and keeping that surplus is useless because I’ll say this once again; money on its own is useless unless we make use of it. Yes, we will face high unemployment rates etc during the length of this recession. But like how low unemployment rates are created with a booming economy, high unemployment rates are triggered by a declining economy. And these unpleasant rates will remain unpleasant no matte ... |
|
By: biglki
12/05/2009
11:17 pm Yahoo! Profile:
biglki Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
You seem to miss the fact that when the Howard government was in power, the economy was in great shape. Yes, the Howard government had a surplus. But how was that surplus created? The Howard government? Wow, if it was, I'm surprised. They must have had some kinda magic which can turn red numbers into black without doing much in such a short period of time. Now, you must first understand the nature of economics. It's a little like a cycle supported by contributors. Briefly, you get strong growth and consumers will have more confidence in spending which contributes to stronger growth then at some stage something will blow which leaves consumers with less spending confidence so that there'll be less consumers to contribute to the economy which leads to a downturn and decline and at some stage the decline will reach a point where it can't get any worse and a slow recovery will happen which eventually leads to growth and so on. And do people realise that at the time the Howard government came to power, the economy was starting to show signs of improvement? At the time the Howard government came to power, the economy has already reached its bottom and was beginning to show signs of improvement. Let's face it. For everything, change takes time and changing a large deficit into a large surplus in one day (what the Howard Government "seemingly" did) is virtually an impossibility. Instead, people should realise that the Keating government did make crucial reforms when the economic cycle was at a low point which gradually aided the recovery process. All the "Lucky" Liberals had to do was to sit down and watch the economy rise as a result of what happened before they came to power. A little over the edge this claim, I know, but it is feasible.
So now we know that "Lucky" Mr. Howard reigned when the economy was naturally (yes, naturally) recovering and growing. And the booming economy was the reason which consequently leads to low unemployment and interest rates etc. Yes, the ... |
|
By: rammyau
12/05/2009
10:01 pm Yahoo! Profile:
rammyau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| magnum_1975....you no doubt have a short memory as you would have enjoyed the low interest rates, the lowest taxation, low unemployment that the last government gave us. That was after getting rid of Labours debt of a few years. Rudd has put us in debt of $50 + billion in 18mths and in 4 years that will rise to over 200 billion.To me that is not good economics. This country is/will suffer badly under this wretched government. |
|
By: rammyau
12/05/2009
9:53 pm Yahoo! Profile:
rammyau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| biru29us........being a Liberal supporter also...I totally agree with you. |
|
By: rammyau
12/05/2009
9:51 pm Yahoo! Profile:
rammyau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| cpd 267.........I couldn't agree with you more. |
|
By: rammyau
12/05/2009
9:49 pm Yahoo! Profile:
rammyau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Hear! hear!.........sadly we will not see the like again and probably not in my life time. |
|
By: dhevenor
12/05/2009
9:39 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dhevenor Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Get Rudd out of there just as fast as we can. Quit spending money we don't have. Where is Johnny? |
|
By: vincemcpherson
12/05/2009
9:34 pm Yahoo! Profile:
vincemcpherson Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| No all is not for given |
|
By: hbautomation
12/05/2009
9:28 pm Yahoo! Profile:
hbautomation Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Your right, I've been through the same, it has to be than coincidence surely.
We need smarts now not ideological workers party socialists!
I learned long ago that its the rich that keep me in a job!
There was a day i would have loved to take the rich mans house and watch him suffer, then i realized it was him paying my wages, so live it up rich man!! so i can too. |
|
By: cpd267
12/05/2009
9:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
cpd267 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Congratulations Australia.
In my life time I have seen 3 labour governments in power and I have now seen 3 governments that know how to spend other peoples money...BADLY.
Once again I am going to have to live through high unemployment, higher interest rates, and lower real wages. Only thing that was a suprise was the GST NOT being raised to 12.5%-15%. Ohh wait, when we go to an early election this year (I bet NOV-DEC)I'm sure we will see that introduced as a "temporary" deficit measure.
Maybe, just maybe, people will realise that this collection of failed trade unionists has no right to control the destiny of MY CHILDRENS future. (Come back John Howard & Peter Costello, all is forgiven) |
|
By: wd_holland
12/05/2009
9:01 pm Yahoo! Profile:
wd_holland Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Yes....labour promise the moon....then need to borrow like its going out of fashion to but it |
|
By: joseph_capri
12/05/2009
9:00 pm Yahoo! Profile:
joseph_capri Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Good one all labour voters have the IQ of 00000% lol |
|
By: joseph_capri
12/05/2009
8:59 pm Yahoo! Profile:
joseph_capri Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Well Mate Mr labour supporter you need to see past history with Labour if you are in to History. Labour needs to go go back to not running the country. |
|
By: biru29us
12/05/2009
8:51 pm Yahoo! Profile:
biru29us Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
think about it......the Coalition came in to rectify the 18% house loans....paid off the previous Labor party debt and then the people who should be IQ tested vote them out. The truth is you get the party you deserve.
Dont blame me I voted LIBERAL |
|
By: abacus_motel
12/05/2009
8:33 pm |
Message deleted. Reason: Breach of terms of service |
|
By: magnum_1975@ymail.com
12/05/2009
8:28 pm Yahoo! Profile:
magnum_1975@ymail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| WELL MATE IF THE HOWARD GOV WOULD HAVE SPEND IN INFERSTRUCTURE BACK WHEN THEY WERE IN POWER RUDD WOULD NOT HAVE TO DO IT NOW. EASY TO POINT THE FINGER AT THE CURRENT GOV BUT U HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW MUCH THE HOWARD GOVERNMENT SPEND ON THE PROJECTS THAT RUDD IS INVESTING NOW THE ANSWER IS HOWARD INVESTED ZERO IN THEESE PROJECTS, YES HE PAID THE NATIONS DEBT AND BUT AWAY A NICE NEST EGG FOR THE NATION BUTNOTHING WAS SPEND ON FUTURE LONG TERM ECONOMIC GROTH PROJECTS IF HE HAD DONE SO THE BUDGET TONIGHT WOULD NOT BE HIGH IN TERMS OF SPENDING AS IT IS. |
|
By: rammyau
12/05/2009
8:23 pm Yahoo! Profile:
rammyau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I am thoroughly disgusted with this gov. It was peoples stupidity of borrowing more money than they could afford and living beyond their means that got the world in crisis. Rudd took over with $20 + billion in the black, this idiot has now lowered our standard of living by his spend, spend theory. We will be paying for his incompetence for years and years to come. God help Australia! |
|
