I find it obscene that 85 people own almost half of the worlds wealth.

[margomeoz]

No wonder I like the idea of socialism that is disgusting, especially when Abbott is now going to see what he can pry from aged pensioners.

The other 50% of people deserve a share in this wealth they helped earn it for the 85 people.

[the_hawk*]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

Interesting, but what is the job situation over there?  I noticed that on one of these Bundaberg properties it says rental appraisal $280-$300 per week.  If you are on the basic wage with couple of pre-school kids, unless you have grandparents willing to do childminding there is not much point of the wife working as the cost of childcare would just about wipe out her income.  And mortgage repayments on $350K would be $2000 per months - I cannot find calculator for less.  But lets say repayment + rates etc. would come to $400  per week; basically people would need to make much more than low paid people make.  So they cannot afford to buy and they can hardly afford to rent, unless they go somewhere middle of nowhere where there are no jobs. 

---

The houses I listed are near Brisbane.  I do not know about the availibility of jobs.

There are plenty of units and villas below $300k also.

When I was married, we started off in a flat, the rent was exactly 50% of the wage.  We used second hand furniture and saved for a cheap house. Young people starting off nowadays won't do this.

All young children need is love and care.  They don't care about their surroundings. 

---

yes thats how it use to be done, the kids these days expect to start where their parants are at after a life time of work and want a new flash house and every thing new and 2 new cars and then wonder why its hard or complain about not affording to go on holidays every year

[***super_nova***]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

---

All young children need is love and care.  They don't care about their surroundings. 

---

I do agree.  absolutely, but at least here there are not many old run down houses like there were even as recently as some 15 years ago, when I was looking for place to buy.  And the few that are still around get usually snatched up by developers who put block of units up.

I do not know what it is like in Brisbane, but here in Melbourne is a chronic shortage of rental properties.

When landlords have 20+ people wanting their property they will not rent it to somebody who would pay half their wages for rent and more likely to hit rough spot and stop paying.

it is a well publicised fact that cost of housing relative to people's income is the highest in history.

[the_hawk*]

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

---

All young children need is love and care.  They don't care about their surroundings. 

---

I do agree.  absolutely, but at least here there are not many old run down houses like there were even as recently as some 15 years ago, when I was looking for place to buy.  And the few that are still around get usually snatched up by developers who put block of units up.

I do not know what it is like in Brisbane, but here in Melbourne is a chronic shortage of rental properties.

When landlords have 20+ people wanting their property they will not rent it to somebody who would pay half their wages for rent and more likely to hit rough spot and stop paying.

it is a well publicised fact that cost of housing relative to people's income is the highest in history.

---

well we must have been ripped of back in the 70s when we bought our first house, it had no land scaping or carpats or curtains, it cost 5 years of my wages and I was being paid well above award, 

Now for five years of wages you can buy far more  

[***super_nova***]

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

---

Now for five years of wages you can buy far more  

---

Whose wages and in what area?

In this article it says that ratio of over 5 means 'unaffordable", in Australia the ratio is between 7.5 and 9 in capital cities.

http://economics.hia.com.au/media/House%20price%20to%20income%20ratio%20-%20FINAL.pdf

[tall_bearded · Accepted solution]

For those who thing it ok to asset strip pensioner, here are some facts you may want to consider.

The aged pension is already means tested.  For instance if memory serves, if a pensioners’ personal assets exceed $250,000 then this has a downward effect on the pension.  The same goes if the value of the family home exceeds a specific amount, but I’m not sure of the amount.  However I would think a Sydney waterfront property would fall within that category.

Also the historical circumstances which gave rise to the aged pension in the first place needs to be considered.  Ever since I could remember Australians have paid one of the highest rates of personal income tax in the world, and until recently, every time politicians were challenged as to the rate, the answer, irrespective of the party in Government at the time was the same.  You are paying for your future benefits, one of which is, when you are too old to work, you will be, subject to a means test, entitled to the aged pension.

Finally and most importantly of all, when you talk baby boomers you are taking about the 100 percenters.  That is, this is the group that not only pay some of the highest rates of income tax in the world whilst earning, but also, whilst earning, received no social benefits in return. That is no paid maternity leave, no carer’s payments, no baby bonus, no family payments schedule A or B, no subsidised child care etc. 

Therefore to now simply get this group to accept reduced benefits, whilst maintaining the current crop of benefits which they did not receive would amount to the worst breach of trust in Australian political history

[margomeoz]

Great post tall bearded so factual.

[polksaladallie]

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

For those who thing it ok to asset strip pensioner, here are some facts you may want to consider.

The aged pension is already means tested.  For instance if memory serves, if a pensioners’ personal assets exceed $250,000 then this has a downward effect on the pension.  The same goes if the value of the family home exceeds a specific amount, but I’m not sure of the amount.  However I would think a Sydney waterfront property would fall within that category.

---

The principlal home lived in by a pensioner is NOT considered an asset, and as such, is exempt from the means test, even if it is worth several million.

[polksaladallie]

The group you mention did receive family payments.

[margomeoz]

I am one of that group and I never received a halfpenny, maybe they forgot to tell me I could.

[tall_bearded]

The only payments we ever received was a small amount for Child endowment.

Furthermore to put the issue into perspective, my wife was a single mother in the 1970.  Was married but the husband did a runner.  Her options were, support the kids or we’ll take them away.  To support her children she held down two jobs, with child care being provided by her mother, who also made and mended most of the children’s cloths.  That is no single mum benefits.  Instead to keep them she had to provide for them or lose them, and at the same time pay income tax  on what she earnt. 

Then when we married in the late 80, we bought our first home and then had a child but were not entitled to any benefits.  Then when interest rates went to 17%+ our only hope of keeping the family home was for her to go back to work 6 weeks after the birth.  As for her salary after tax and child care payments, we were made $50 which was enough (just) to keep a roof over our head.