NOTE: Video sponsored by the ACTU

Key points

  • It would make house prices increase by more than the maximum amount people could withdraw
  • It would cost the government $1 trillion in the long run
  • It would leave people with $200k less in retirement savings
  • It would significantly affect the returns on all superannuation as funds would need to keep more cash reserves uninvested so it is available for withdrawal
  • Quokka@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    6 months ago

    How about we ban owning multiple properties, remove any incentives for property as an investment, enforce quality building standards, and use government funds to build affordable housing.

  • AdaA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    So people remain excluded from property ownership, but hey, at least the economy will be ok

    • Tenniswaffles
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the economy going to even more shit than it is be worse for property ownership?

      • AdaA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Sorry, I was being a bit tongue in cheek there. The economy will continue to be shit for people who struggle to afford home ownership whether or not they can use superannuation to help get their foot in the door.

        • wscholermann@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          I think the point is if you are trying to fix housing early withdrawal of super is not the answer for all the reasons given.

          There are other solutions and it would take multiple policies working in tandom.

          • AdaA
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Sure, but by the time those solutions are in place, another generation of people will have been denied the chance to own property, which has generational consequences on economic and educational outcomes for those families.

            The answer is short term relief combined with long term change. Denial of short term relief because of hypothetical long term strategies that aren’t going to be implemented helps no one.

            • wscholermann@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Super is not the short term relief you are looking for though… More people floating around with more money would just push up the prices even more, offsetting any benefit from withdrawing super.

              Now if we started talking about increasing supply perhaps, that would be a different story.

    • quicken@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      That’s just a stupid comment. You could take the 1 trillion dollars it would cost the Australia government and spend it on any number of things to make ownership easier.

      • AdaA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        You could take the 1 trillion dollars it would cost the Australia government and spend it on any number of things to make ownership easier.

        That’s true. The issue is, they’re not going to implement any of those ideas…

        So people who can’t enter the housing market remain fucked over, because the imperfect ideas that might actually get off the ground get set aside in favour of better ideas that will never see the light of day.

  • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    I think we need a video on why it would be a good idea, because I can’t think of one (at least for the general public). I mean it is a good idea from the perspective of people with multiple properties and mortgages even on their own home because it will keep prices high

  • Ixoid@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    Spud’s goal isn’t to make life better for the average Australian. All the listed negatives are positives for the LNP - make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. Luckily, he’s thick as shit and the average Australian can see what a terrible idea it is to spend your future.

  • No1@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    No,no,no,no! You’ve all got it wrong! You’re all looking at it from entirely the wrong objective!

    It’s a GREAT policy for property investors which will boost capital growth and provide excellent short term returns!