Seems the REIQ disagree:

“Retaining negative gearing as part of the policy mix to improve housing affordability is definitely the right move, the Real Estate Institute of Australia (REIA) said this week in response to the Federal Labor Party’s recent proposals to end the crisis.”….
Source: http://lpn.quartileresearch.com.au/index.cfm?newsletterClientid=cli717977223edoras&screen=archive&newsletterPeriodArtLinkid=npa712558034minas

However what is at stake here is generations of Australians not being able to afford a home and that spells disaster for real estate agents and investors.
As for my property hunting solution Elizabeth, I am not talking about myself, I am not thinking of myself at all in this. More than likely I will buy in Bondi and I know what I will pay to live in an area that gives me my lifestyle.

I am however thinking of my nieces and nephews who in 20 years could be looking at a $150,000 deposit/taxes just to live in a very basic home.

That puts a strain on everyone, including parents, employers and governments. So we can either just put in place petty measures and keep the status quo or take some real action.

It has to be a multi pronged approach and it has to be big.

What the interesting part about it though is that many of the suggestions point at the inefficiencies of the three levels of government in this country.

I think that Peter is very close to the mark when he itemizes all the things which influence the market. However a drastic change in any one/all of the current market influencers would increase the level of risk.

For stamp duty to be abolished over night, would see house prices increase as the perception would be that there is increased demand.

I understand Peters argument about negative gearing as a barrier to getting into the market, however once in the market it does assist people in increasing their wealth. Now if we took away these ‘barriers’ we would make buying your first home more affordable, but the ability to invest and increase wealth would then be out of reach?

Peter, I am not going to get caught up in satisfying all the instant demands of Generation Y’s – when I started out in with my first property, I found the suburb I could afford to live in, and then found my flat. Of course the appeal of Bondi is tremendous, but if you cannot afford it in the first place, is the problem really Stamp Duty?

Perhaps we need to look at all the influencing factors, acknowledge their impact, and start planning to alter them as a collective and not just individual measures.

How could this be coordinated? I would not trust the current Government to do this as they would artificially create the perception of change. Would I trust the Labor Party? well if we need change then they are the ones to do it, but they would need to be held accountable for each change they made.

The question I have once again, is where are the institutes? Should not they be coming up with the strategies and then educating the Market or lobbying all governments? Where is their high profile consumer website, informing consumers about changes which could bring beneficial outcomes for them?

This is a great time and opportunity for the institutes to reinvent themselves and expose themselves to a whole new membership and following.

E

“”"”1. Why would lower property prices mean lower interest rates ?”"”"

I didn’t say that I said lower property prices would mean lower COUNCIL rates.

“”"”Why are you saying that lower interest rates would give younger people a chance, then later advocating higher interest rates to “stop the rot of spiralling prices”? “”"”

I was referring to Council rates again and I don’t advocate higher interest rates it’s just that if they did rise property prices would fall.

“”"”Please explain your statement “Why should people struggling to buy a home be forced by law to prop up buildings full of bludgers ?”
I’d like to hear your theory on that.”"”"

I meant, in my own gentle way, that the current ridiculous level of Stamp Duty is just to prop up an inefficient State govt bureaucracy.

Sorry for the sarcasm…………

My questions to you are as follows:
1. Why would lower property prices mean lower interest rates ?

2. Why are you saying that lower interest rates would give younger people a chance, then later advocating higher interest rates to “stop the rot of spiralling prices”?

3. Please explain your statement “Why should people struggling to buy a home be forced by law to prop up buildings full of bludgers ?”
I’d like to hear your theory on that.

And by the way, I do not have any axe to grind with you, and I am not trying to put you down like you seem to be trying to do to me.

The event to trigger this could come from anywhere, domestic or international events but it will come just a matter of when. AU has always been a boom bust economy, the bigger the boom the bigger the bust, I just can’t quite imagine how bad this one will be.

One solution is quicker outer land releases for mum & dad & kids type housing straight to the public not developers by Govt’s at a fair break even retail cost, with medium to high density affordable housing/gentification happening very close to CBD areas &/or transport routes etc.
In other words a double whammy effect.
Affordable Housing far and near as choice.

You need to get Govt’s acting more as Developers and getting the Developer margins out of the buyers equation.

As mentioned also by other posters.
Reducing the taxes piled on housing and land releases.

JD

I was saying the current housing crisis was partly caused by prolonged low interest rates and that when they go up it will stop the rot of spiralling prices.

Now trot along like a good lad and get someone to explain that to you.