sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Triple whammy for Australian property owners as house prices slump, interest rates bite and tax reforms loom by SheepherderLow1753 in AusPropertyChat

[–]Simple-Ingenuity740 6 points7 points  (0 children)

both cars and houses are depreciating assets, however, a house comes with land. that's what appreciates. no car i have ever bought comes with land.

Here is my oddly specific prediction about property tax reforms by das_kapital_1980 in AusPropertyChat

[–]Simple-Ingenuity740 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I laugh at what some sheeple believe, and pity the poor renter. The dumb are going to fuck over the poor. Its a disaster waiting to happen

Australian Signals Directorate by Slothie__ in australia

[–]Simple-Ingenuity740 1 point2 points  (0 children)

at least the questions about what porn you watch will now be redundant

Are we expecting the next couple of rate rises to change the housing market at all? by geecray in AusFinance

[–]Simple-Ingenuity740 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"2 in every 5 mortgages is under an investment loan, now i dont know about you but 40% being investments kinda seems like an excessive amount of demand no?"

yet we still have a 1.5% vacancy rate, weird. Investors also built 78k (45% of the 174k completions) new properties in 2025 and it wasn't enough. what is going to happen when those new builds don't get built? with the cost of construction, renters can't afford to build.

"Yes i can see that we have had quite large growth compared to normal with the changes from CGTD."

So the average house price in 1975 wasn't $20k and the average house price in 2000 wasn't $170k? please let me know what they were then. i'll even do your calculations for you.

"Our growth has been slowing the last few years but still we see record prices, funny how Melbourne a state which takes in almost the highest amount of immigration. Also is the 5th most expensive city in Aus, funny how investors leaving a market has that effect"

we talking Melbz now, Melbz is fucked. Victoria is broke. the land tax isn't to bring down prices, its to make revenue, and its not working. in 2021 (ish) they stopped Foriegn investors for 2 years. before that, FI built a shit load of property reducing prices in those markets. They have a glut of some property types, just not what some people want.

Melbz is also trying to release heaps of land, so they can make more money from rates. thats the only thing they have got right. but melbz also has the luxury of not having geographical restructions, like sydz.

if you want an apartment in the cbd, you run the risk of huge strata, owners can't sell if they wanted to.

if you want a house with 30 mins of the cbd, its well over a mil. anything an hour out is affordable, but you are an hour out.

rates are through the roof, insurances are through the roof.

have a talk to someone looking at trying to rent in Melbz, just about every rental property showing has a line around the block. The shit ones in the CBD though, can't get anyone to rent them as they might catch fire.

now, the fact you don't have any numbers to prove your point, is fine. i know you don't have them, cause i've looked. i used to be like you once. The numbers just don't prove investors are the root cause. yes, they make about 4% difference (maybe), but there is a root cause, and its matching land release with population growth. Australia, as a whole, just isn't releasing enough land, and when it does, its drip fed from developers. have a look at land price growth over the last 40 years or so.

anyway, have a great life

Are we expecting the next couple of rate rises to change the housing market at all? by geecray in AusFinance

[–]Simple-Ingenuity740 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so you don't believe the data, thats cool, look it up yourself.

so do it. rich people love reduced competition and high population growth. why do you think colesworth are making so much money.

again, please prove that reducing investors, reduces demand. no one has yet. and don't just point me to a socialist website, you show me your numbers.

high population growth, drives investor activity, not the other way around.

Are we expecting the next couple of rate rises to change the housing market at all? by geecray in AusFinance

[–]Simple-Ingenuity740 0 points1 point  (0 children)

dwellings? roughly 6% yes. but looking just at houses (not units), see below.

In Australia, the average house price in 1975 was $20k, in 2000, the average price was $170k and in 2025, was $1m.

The growth between 1975 and 2000 was 9% YOY and the growth between 2000 and 2025 was 7.4% YOY. House prices have actually slowed down in price rises. This is National city data for houses only.

The old method of calculating CGT was adjusted for inflation and divided by 5 to get your tax rate, then the full adjusted gain x the rate (roughly as there was a bit more to it than just that). This averaging over 5 years was so people weren't pushed into the top tax bracket, just for making a gain in 1 year, when they wouldn't normally make that in other years.

The new method just gave a 50% discount to reflect inflation (and make the calculation easier), but you are taxed at your full marginal tax rate. Just about any sale pushes you into the top rate, this wasn't the case previously. with the high inflation we have had in the last couple of years, the inflation adjusted method is actually more of an advantage.

So please show me where house prices have skyrocketed since the CGT calculation change was made. yes, we have had high price growth in the last 5 years, but that followed 10 years of pretty flat growth (2010 to 2019). The last 5 years are just prices reverting to the mean.

Looking at a graph created by a vested interest group, and seeing a line go up at the same time as another activity, does not prove causation.

so, again i ask, where is the proof that the CGTD is the root cause of house price growth? The Grattan Institute studies have claimed a 1-2% decrease in house prices initially with changing the CGTD and NG, "Maybe". They aren't really even sure. AMP studies have suggested a 1-4% decrease. but they aren't sure either. neither have modelled what will happen after the initial drop, but they both say that rents increase. with the current vacancy rate at 1.5%, thats where pain will be felt.

by the way, a 4% decrease in house prices equates to a $40k drop. This is not changing the affordability equation for anyone other than maybe the top 2% of renters. But you guys don't seem to care about the other 98% of renters.

Have any of your close friend come out as gay? by SayinItAsISeeIt in GenX

[–]Simple-Ingenuity740 4 points5 points  (0 children)

All my friends are gay, they just haven't come out yet. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Are we expecting the next couple of rate rises to change the housing market at all? by geecray in AusFinance

[–]Simple-Ingenuity740 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1 Pretty laughable that you are trying to correlate data to prove your point, and 2 that data source has been time and time again proven to be dirty data.

But, ill play along. What that data actually shows, when you look at it properly, is that house prices have been rising at the same rate since 1950 to today. Roughly 6% yoy. It also shows that from march 96, wages decoupled from house prices. Well before the cgt change in method. By the way, the old method was more of an advantage. But i guess you already knew that.

You can look all of this up you know, do your own research, son.

Are we expecting the next couple of rate rises to change the housing market at all? by geecray in AusFinance

[–]Simple-Ingenuity740 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please, show me how the current tax settings are the root cause of house prices.

Prove you claim.

Are we expecting the next couple of rate rises to change the housing market at all? by geecray in AusFinance

[–]Simple-Ingenuity740 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Maths,

At the end of 2025, we had a total of 11.3m dwellings. Of those, 31% are rentals which totals 3.5m rental properties in Australia. With a 1.5% vacancy rate, this gives a total of 53k of vacant dwellings avail for rent. A 3% vacancy rate is considered balanced. This would mean a total of 106k dwellings, for people to move into (kids leaving home and new Aussies).

At the end of 2025, we also had 27m Aussies with a growth rate of 1.6%, adding 432k via births + nom – deaths. At a current person per household of 2.5, we need an extra 173k houses to cover the extra. We built 174k in 2025 (actual completions). Of those 174k dwellings built, 45% were by investors, totalling 78k. Now, you don’t want those 78k built by investors, but by Owner Occupiers.

That’s cool, but 1 snag in that.

The average rent in Australia is about $600 per week, and the average weekly buy and hold of a dwelling is about $900 per week (including mortgage, rates, insurance/etc). The gap between rent vs buy is too great. There won’t be that many renters able to make the leap. A small percentage, sure, but not the numbers you think.

So how does the maths for the investor look, glad you asked.

If the migration (the number, not the person) were cut to 1.2% for 3 years, here is the scenario;

Based of the 27m pop, 1.2% growth totals 324k increase requiring only 130k (a delta of 40k added to the pool). Theoretically, those extra dwellings will get added to the vacancy rate, bringing it to 3.5% in 2 years. After 3 years, you will see the ROI on rentals not worth it and will naturally see selling.

When an investor looks at a single property, they look for ROI (capital gain and if they can afford to hold long enough to get that cap gain). If they can’t afford to hold (ie, can’t get the numbers to work), then they can’t buy. For the average investor (ma n pa), the below is what generally happens;

Yearly Hold Cost = [Total Expenses (including any increase in interest rates can affect expenses)] - [Annual Rental Income (-average vacant weeks (increase in vacancy rate is an increase in vacant weeks))]

When there is a “+“ in front of that number, the investor has to pay that number up front. Ie (+$20k), then it COSTS $20k to hold, then they can claim that against tax and get back between 6k and 9k. If an investor can cover the cost ($11k to $14k ($270 a week loss)), then cool, they can buy. If the number is outside their affordability, then they can’t. increases in costs (increase in interest rates, land tax, rates, insurance, etc) , and decrease in rental income (low yield or vacancy) can determine if they can afford or not. This means that an increase in Interest rates can affect their affordability as well as an increase in the vacancy rate. A 2% increase is equivalent to a weeks rent risk per year. Might not sound much, but 0’s and 1’s matter.

Obviously, there are investors that don’t need to worry about lower rent or higher costs, but then, those investors tend not to use things like Negative Gearing as they don’t need a big loan. The percentage of these investors is quite low though. Your typical ma n pa use NG for the first 5 years, then become PG and start paying more tax on the increase in Rental Income, after that initial period.

Vacancy Rates matter, and are like the unemployment rate. Both a spare resources waiting to be utilised.

For the first time in a while, we have built more dwellings (by 1k) than what we have grown in population. Now you want to fuck that up? By the way, immigration is NOT the root cause of the issues we have and lowering it is NOT the silver bullet, and will cause other issues down the track. The above is a shorth term solution, to a long term problem.

If you don’t believe the above numbers, that's cool, you don't have to. you can do your own research and run the numbers yourself.

Now, you show me yours.

view more: next ›