this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
86 points (93.0% liked)

Australia

3613 readers
104 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Feels bad man

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

When it comes to those in their 30s, Grattan Institute data shows that in 2016, 30-year-olds contributed twice as much to support older Australians’ living standards than Boomers did at 30. And that’s adjusted for inflation. ... The data projections expect 30-year-olds in 2041 to be paying nearly four times more.

Solid data behind the ladder pulling younger generations have been calling out since before the whole "avocado toast" boomer entitlement.

this generation has contributed more to support older generations ... in part, because more well-off, older Australians are paying less tax.

I guarantee boomers and Gen-X won't support a rebalancing, especially the type of rebalancing required — where housing being treated as an investment vehicle needs to cease via a dozen extreme regulations — like banning all ownership beyond a single investment property, banning all corporate ownership including SMSF's, banning of non-resident ownership, extreme taxes for empty property, and most penalties (beyond a sensible grace period) including outright forfeiture and resale of the entire asset; coupled with strong tenancy regulations to bring us in line with the EU, where the status quo is the opposite of Australia, instead of renting = temporary accommodation and housing insecurity.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Gen X here. I also just bought a house a year ago. I support the elimination of housing-as-investment. It has always been a smoke and mirrors trick anyway.

You buy a house to live in. You put money into that house. Eventually, 30 years later, I won't have to pay a mortgage any more but by that time I'll be a very old man. In the meantime the value of the house has gone up. Hooray? Not really: I can't get that money back out and live on it. To live on it, I'd have to sell the house. Then I'd need somewhere else to live. Oh, I suppose I could buy a house? Except the value of every other property has gone up just like mine. It's break-even. It's not an investment for anyone except developers and massive real estate corps.

[–] radiohead37@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

I never understood why people care so much about their property values. I personally think it makes me worse off when my house goes up in value. Now I have to pay more in property taxes and I can’t move because all other houses are way more expensive too.