Comments by "John Woodrow" (@johnwoodrow8769) on "Dutton 're-affirmed' the Coalition's superannuation for housing policy in his budget reply" video.

It is a good policy. It's madness that a young couple on limited incomes, trying to scrape together a small deposit for a home, a near impossible task with the escalating costs of living, are currently denied access to their own money in order to scrape together a deposit. That 20k currently in superannuation, unavailable for 40+ years could make all the difference NOW, get them into a home, and out of the sometimes depressing rental market.
3
@JamielDeAbrew The only problem with your theory is that it isn't addressing the major problem for young first time home buyers. And that problem is getting enough money together for the initial deposit. So what is your solution? They have funds tied up in super, their money, which you're saying they shouldn't be able to use to add to whatever they have saved, and what parents etc may kick in. With current property prices, even if they fall 20-30%, the size of the required deposit for people on modest incomes is just impossible to save at the same time as pay rent, food, run a car, etc. Without the necessary deposit they are in effect permanently locked out of home ownership.
1
@JamielDeAbrew You can't blame negate gearing for the current situation. Negative gearing is only a material advantage to an investor when interest rates are high. The higher they are, the greater tax offset they can claim against other income. With the absurdly low artificial interest rates of recent years, the tax benefit has been very minor. It will return as an advantage now that rates are again on the rise. The main motivating factor for an investor is not negative gearing, it is the prospect of making a material capital gain. Without capital gain, the financial return on residential property even with negative gearing is pretty abysmal. Banning self-managed super funds (SMSF) from investing in residential property would be the most effective change a government could make. Industry super funds are not allowed to invest in residential property to limit making them speculative assets, so why should a SMSF be allowed to. There is a whole industry that has been operating for years now that actively approach people with industry super and convince them to transfer it all into an investment property held in a SMSF. They do all the 'work', obviously for a nice fee. IMO, its a curse on the social good of housing. Just hate the idea of a yearly property tax, for possibly the rest of your life, instead of a one off upfront payment. The only reason the NSW government is floating this idea is because it benefits the government. It's not because it benefits the home buyer.
1
There is no greater security that someone can have in their retirement than owning their own home. None! And that increased security starts the day they first move in, growing each months as money is repaid. It's a lifetime of increased security. The WORST thing for the country long-term is to end up a nation with a larger percentage of retired people who have been renters all their life. That will just result in widespread endemic poverty.
1
@JamielDeAbrew I've already responded to your simplistic error. A person/couple who cannot save the initial deposit, a near impossible task today for a young couple on modest incomes not living with their parents, is in effect permanently locked out of home ownership.
1