It's the economy, stupid!

 
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/parental-welfare-pays-more-than-work/news-story/5f4d825e0957e954fea4e13e7ff2fe26

Thousands of parents claiming government benefits are financially better off not getting a job, with new figures showing they ­receive at least $45,000 a year ­tax-free, more than the take-home pay of most Australian workers.

As the Coalition embarks on an overhaul of the welfare sector, new government data obtained by The Australian reveals that the top 10 per cent of those on parenting benefits, about 43,200 people, received at least $45,032 in 2014-15.

The amount is boosted when families have multiple children and claim a range of government benefits, such as family tax payments and childcare rebates.
RTT_Rules
If you wanna have eight babies like this silly woman did in order to collect extreme amounts of child endowment and other benefits from our government - then yes, the system allows you do that. Those people only represent an extremely small amount and we're talking specifically about people who have lots of children and get support from the government that way - NOT simply just that they don't want to work.

Personally there's no way I'd have eight or more children just to get lots of Centrelink.
I actually know people who have. I think most of us know people who have chosen to not work (often with excuses).
RTT_Rules
You have a prejudice against people on Centrelink, you believe that because you know one person who simply doesn't want to work that they must all be like that.

I have a friend here in SA who has been on the dole for thirty years. There is no way in hell anyone would employ her, she's got some kind of a personalty disorder and she's basically very disagreeable. There's absolutely nothing that Centrelink, the old CES, the new Job Networks and even newer Job Access agencies have ever - EVER - been able to do for this woman and the astonishing thing is that she wants to work and has been actively looking for a job in all that time - and she still volunteers at places where she hopes they might offer her work eventually.

She's just nuts - she's even been sacked from some of her voluntary jobs that she's so unbearable. For every person like your cousin (or whoever it is) who doesn't want to work I can guarantee you there are a dozen more people on the dole who are:
  • Over 50 and considered too old by many employers
  • Poor literacy or limited skills, caring duties for family members, constrained by lack of a car (very often).
  • Usually lives in an area that's very cheap to rent because they have to (ie urban fringe or rural high unemployment area) where public transport is very poor and jobs are already problematic
  • Hampered by physical or psychiatric problems sometimes stemming from previous employment (eg: back or orthopaedic injuries, post-traumatic stress, etc).
  • Simply don't have anything that an employer really wants or might complain if they're underpaid.
These are really the majority of people of working age on welfare, they're simply unemployable for whatever reason - usually because employers are extremely fussy about who they'll take on and are prejudiced against age, disability, whatever.

Sponsored advertisement

  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Concerns were based on delays in commitment adding to costs and one or a small group of senators saying the German's should have won and this referenced to the fact the French sub is a new design, not that it was a bad sub or contractor, just a new sub.
RTT_Rules
It's all COSTS.

And please stop comparing Work-for-the-Dole programs like the submarines or the solar batteries to legitimate expenditure like police, ambos and hospitals etc - there is no comparison and it's very dishonest of you to imply that they're the same.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
@Carnot as opposed to Boris Johnson, the biggest political liar this century. You Carnot are the perfect embodiment of English exceptionalism. They need us more than we need them and it is complete Bollocks. The EU is a flawed organisation no doubt but the UK is much better within it then out of it. Already Australian and US companies are looking to deal with the Republic of Ireland for access to the EU market. And contrary to you believe that migration is one way, there are over 1.2 million Brits living in mainland Europe.

The EU is acting on  behalf of its members and it' position has not changed. It is not going to give the UK a better deal than its members. Please be better informed about the EU than what Farage, Johnson, Rees-Mogg and Gove are feeding you because they have absolutely no plan. Ponder that, over 2 years since Brexit and they still have no plan.

Michael
Both Conservative and Labour parties (Yes, Corbyn doesn't like the EU either) in the UK are currently pro-Brexit, so it's almost certainly going to happen.

It's worth having a reality check, as Simon Kuper wrote the other day:
https://www.ft.com/content/7b5c2076-c122-11e8-8d55-54197280d3f7
Carnot
I've heard arguments from Brits either side. Few seem hard and fast its right or wrong thing to do and many seem to think a re-vote may have different outcome. Most seem to agree why the vote got up, but not sure it should have.

Brits themselves certainly make the most of their easy access to EU, especially retiring Brits in Spain. Portugal, Cypress, southern Eastern EU. You don't need huge amounts of money to do this now, but if UK is treated like Aust, you will.

I think the reason the pro-Brexit in govt exists is because the Antis cannot do anything about it and want nothing to do with it.
  justarider Chief Commissioner

Location: Released again, maybe for the last time??
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/parental-welfare-pays-more-than-work/news-story/5f4d825e0957e954fea4e13e7ff2fe26

Thousands of parents claiming government benefits are financially better off not getting a job, with new figures showing they ­receive at least $45,000 a year ­tax-free, more than the take-home pay of most Australian workers.

As the Coalition embarks on an overhaul of the welfare sector, new government data obtained by The Australian reveals that the top 10 per cent of those on parenting benefits, about 43,200 people, received at least $45,032 in 2014-15.

The amount is boosted when families have multiple children and claim a range of government benefits, such as family tax payments and childcare rebates.
If you wanna have eight babies like this silly woman did in...Those people only represent an extremely small amount...
...
I actually know people who have. I think most of us know people who have chosen to not work (often with excuses).
You have a prejudice against people on Centrelink, you believe that because you know one person who simply doesn't want to work that they must all be like that.
...
    These are really the majority of people of working age on welfare, they're simply unemployable for whatever reason - usually because employers are extremely fussy about who they'll take on and are prejudiced against age, disability, whatever.
    don_dunstan
    @don_dunstan I intentionally avoid comment on this thread because the ideas are really a bit strident, and even yours are often not to my taste.

    HOWEVER, on this point you are absolutely SPOT ON !!

    It amazes me how uncharitable some people can be. The Australian must be the worst of the gutter press.
    It's so simple to shoot down their crap that obviously came from their big end mates with no comprehension of how tough life is for many people less fortunate than me.

    eg 10% of people receiving parenting allowance receive $45K
    That means that 90% of people with dependent children (and qualify means test), are under $45K and that is a very tough income to live on in this country.

    cheers
    John
      Carnot Minister for Railways

    As I mentioned earlier, to be on welfare in a big city is Struggle St. But not in most other places if you can be content with a simple lifestyle, secondhand cars, and cheap clothes etc, and stay away from smokes and lots of grog.
      RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

    Location: Dubai UAE
    Concerns were based on delays in commitment adding to costs and one or a small group of senators saying the German's should have won and this referenced to the fact the French sub is a new design, not that it was a bad sub or contractor, just a new sub.
    It's all COSTS.

    And please stop comparing Work-for-the-Dole programs like the submarines or the solar batteries to legitimate expenditure like police, ambos and hospitals etc - there is no comparison and it's very dishonest of you to imply that they're the same.
    don_dunstan
    I never mentioned work for the dole programs.

    I suspect the highly skilled people working on the sub for the defense of the country may take offence to being called work for the dole so you better stop.

    Interesting how you say the military is not legitimate expenditure.

    I also wonder those those former serviceman working OS training other countries military personal bringing money into Australia feel about having their former Australian military career being labeled  not legitimate expenditure?
      RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

    Location: Dubai UAE
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/parental-welfare-pays-more-than-work/news-story/5f4d825e0957e954fea4e13e7ff2fe26

    Thousands of parents claiming government benefits are financially better off not getting a job, with new figures showing they ­receive at least $45,000 a year ­tax-free, more than the take-home pay of most Australian workers.

    As the Coalition embarks on an overhaul of the welfare sector, new government data obtained by The Australian reveals that the top 10 per cent of those on parenting benefits, about 43,200 people, received at least $45,032 in 2014-15.

    The amount is boosted when families have multiple children and claim a range of government benefits, such as family tax payments and childcare rebates.
    If you wanna have eight babies like this silly woman did in order to collect extreme amounts of child endowment and other benefits from our government - then yes, the system allows you do that. Those people only represent an extremely small amount and we're talking specifically about people who have lots of children and get support from the government that way - NOT simply just that they don't want to work.

    Personally there's no way I'd have eight or more children just to get lots of Centrelink.
    I actually know people who have. I think most of us know people who have chosen to not work (often with excuses).
    You have a prejudice against people on Centrelink, you believe that because you know one person who simply doesn't want to work that they must all be like that.

    I have a friend here in SA who has been on the dole for thirty years. There is no way in hell anyone would employ her, she's got some kind of a personalty disorder and she's basically very disagreeable. There's absolutely nothing that Centrelink, the old CES, the new Job Networks and even newer Job Access agencies have ever - EVER - been able to do for this woman and the astonishing thing is that she wants to work and has been actively looking for a job in all that time - and she still volunteers at places where she hopes they might offer her work eventually.

    She's just nuts - she's even been sacked from some of her voluntary jobs that she's so unbearable. For every person like your cousin (or whoever it is) who doesn't want to work I can guarantee you there are a dozen more people on the dole who are:
    • Over 50 and considered too old by many employers
    • Poor literacy or limited skills, caring duties for family members, constrained by lack of a car (very often).
    • Usually lives in an area that's very cheap to rent because they have to (ie urban fringe or rural high unemployment area) where public transport is very poor and jobs are already problematic
    • Hampered by physical or psychiatric problems sometimes stemming from previous employment (eg: back or orthopaedic injuries, post-traumatic stress, etc).
    • Simply don't have anything that an employer really wants or might complain if they're underpaid.
    These are really the majority of people of working age on welfare, they're simply unemployable for whatever reason - usually because employers are extremely fussy about who they'll take on and are prejudiced against age, disability, whatever.
    don_dunstan
    Never said it was all of them, just said some.

    But just think 10% of the unemployed are entitled +$50k a year welfare incomes (tax free).  How many people does it take to support them? And remember we started this off with Austerity which usually starts with mass job loses in the private sector reducing govt sector income.

    Question, should we pay/compensate women to have large families?


    My only prejudice is against those who don't even try to get a job or refuse to accept that turning up reasonably well presented, sober and drug free is actually part of the contributing to society and stop leaching off the rest of us. After which there is more money for those who need real help.  Remember most unemployed are genuine people who are inbetween jobs and need help financially during this period which for most is less than a year, why would I prejudice these people, I actually think they should be paid more.

    I've actually known quite a few people over the years who don't work, refuse to work or cannot hold down a job. My cousin, single mum of 3, 2 a diabetic dumped by Hubby actually works now part-time. It took her a while to find something that worked, but she got there.

    Your friend and a few others you mentioned fits into the unemployable class, for which I think more needs to be done to get them off welfare or remove them from the stats and place them on sickness.
      don_dunstan Dr Beeching

    Location: Adelaide proud
    Never said it was all of them, just said some.

    But just think 10% of the unemployed are entitled +$50k a year welfare incomes (tax free)...
    RTT_Rules
    That isn't what The Australian article you quoted actually says, how many families are actually getting more than fifty thousand dollars in combined household income? And Parenting Payment and/or Newstart are not tax free - however the child payment parts are indeed tax free. Get it right, Shane, I know that you'd be doing the same thing to me!
    Your friend and a few others you mentioned fits into the unemployable class, for which I think more needs to be done to get them off welfare or remove them from the stats and place them on sickness.
    RTT_Rules
    Motherhood statement; Howard started off by shovelling people off Sickness Allowances and Disability Support Pension only to get slightly softer on their assessment later in his administration (less unemployed?). All I know is that people like that clank around in the system for years getting shoved from one program to another and nobody seems to be able to help them.
      don_dunstan Dr Beeching

    Location: Adelaide proud
    Question, should we pay/compensate women to have large families?
    RTT_Rules
    Not gunna touch that one with a barge pole.
      RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

    Location: Dubai UAE
    As I mentioned earlier, to be on welfare in a big city is Struggle St. But not in most other places if you can be content with a simple lifestyle, secondhand cars, and cheap clothes etc, and stay away from smokes and lots of grog.
    Carnot
    Unfortunately from my observation smoking and heavy drinking is more prevalent in this sector than else. More than a few packets a week and a carton on top of that and you are pushing $150/wk.

    Perhaps the govt giving the money to the poor to keep the money in the economy was a very accurate statement as what 50% would go immediately back to the govt as excise and much of the rest via the alcohol and nicotine industries.
      RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

    Location: Dubai UAE
    Question, should we pay/compensate women to have large families?
    Not gunna touch that one with a barge pole.
    don_dunstan
    Neither does the govt, but child enrollment should stop at 3 live birth pregnancies. More expensive to fund child raising than import qualified.
      don_dunstan Dr Beeching

    Location: Adelaide proud
    In relation to the submarines - Robert Gottliebsen said this in The Australian today (paywall):

    Because our submarine is still being designed cost estimates are rough. Nevertheless in 2016 defence people told all the journalists that the $50 billion cost estimate was after adjusting for inflation. Even so it was more than double the $20 billion firm tender from Germany.

    But, as I pointed out last week, five dramatic words--“on a constant price basis” --- from Rear Admiral Gregory Sammut changed the $50 billion cost to around $90 billion. To that we add maintenance costs to take us to around $220 billion...

    That's talking about a roughly $30 billion over-run right there with the decision to go French. There's also an issue of Admiral Horacio Pyne refusing to meet with the French consortium; it's a larf-a-minute the management of our government let me tell you... More laughs than Carry On and The Girls of St Trinnians all-in-one.
      mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

    Location: Banned
    My understanding of the word "Austerity" is about adjusting the govt spending to match declining or reduced income. Not doing so will ultimately risk the countries finanical future and even its soverenity and likely bigger problems to those already affected.

    The poor are always the ones who will feel it the most as they are in a western economy the most dependent on govt spending, while making almost no contribution to govt revenue.

    The rich on the otherhand have limited to no dependence on govt spending and contribute to most of the govt revenue.
    I know that you have no compassion for poor people but a third of kids showing up with no food or money in a wealthy country like Britain is frankly disgusting.
    Article states that
    By 2021, roughly 35 percent of all minors in Britain are predicted to be poor, according to forecasts by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a London-based economic research group. And the country’s pending departure from the European Union may deepen the problem because of rising living costs and the sudden loss of funding from Brussels for young people, according to a joint assessment by seven leading children’s charities.

    So leaving the EU will see less welfare from Brussels? Isn't UK leaving the EU all about giving LESS money to Brussels, reduce uncontrolled migration into the UK from EU taking lower paid jobs, reduce Eastern Europeans working on low incomes in UK, then claiming welfare and sending back to families in the home country that exceed their local average wage.

    Perhaps focus on the accuracy or rather inaccuracy of the data quoted than making a half cocked comment.
    RTT_Rules
    Uncontrolled migration is nothing to do with the EU. Freedom of movement to the UK by EU citizens is, any migration from outside the EU is solely the UK. Anyway EU citizens are net contributors to the UK economy.

    Michael
      don_dunstan Dr Beeching

    Location: Adelaide proud
    As I mentioned earlier, to be on welfare in a big city is Struggle St. But not in most other places if you can be content with a simple lifestyle, secondhand cars, and cheap clothes etc, and stay away from smokes and lots of grog.
    Unfortunately from my observation smoking and heavy drinking is more prevalent in this sector than else. More than a few packets a week and a carton on top of that and you are pushing $150/wk.

    Perhaps the govt giving the money to the poor to keep the money in the economy was a very accurate statement as what 50% would go immediately back to the govt as excise and much of the rest via the alcohol and nicotine industries.
    RTT_Rules
    Mentally ill people (for example) often smoke like chimneys to help manage their illness. Pauline Hanson and Jacqui Lambie (when she was a senator) both rightly pointed out that "income management" deprives people of alcohol and tobacco - two perfectly legal drugs - when everyone else in society is allowed to have them.

    STOP bashing the poor or treating them like they're naughty children, they are not the cause of the problems we have in this country!
    Neither does the govt, but child enrollment should stop at 3 live birth pregnancies. More expensive to fund child raising than import qualified.
    RTT_Rules
    This is straying into eugenics territory now. The poor aren't even adequate enough to provide fodder for our menial service industry jobs, let's just stick them into ghettos and replace them with migrants (which is pretty much what they're doing anyway).
      Carnot Minister for Railways

    As I mentioned earlier, to be on welfare in a big city is Struggle St. But not in most other places if you can be content with a simple lifestyle, secondhand cars, and cheap clothes etc, and stay away from smokes and lots of grog.
    Unfortunately from my observation smoking and heavy drinking is more prevalent in this sector than else. More than a few packets a week and a carton on top of that and you are pushing $150/wk.

    Perhaps the govt giving the money to the poor to keep the money in the economy was a very accurate statement as what 50% would go immediately back to the govt as excise and much of the rest via the alcohol and nicotine industries.
    Mentally ill people (for example) often smoke like chimneys to help manage their illness. Pauline Hanson and Jacqui Lambie (when she was a senator) both rightly pointed out that "income management" deprives people of alcohol and tobacco - two perfectly legal drugs - when everyone else in society is allowed to have them.

    STOP bashing the poor or treating them like they're naughty children, they are not the cause of the problems we have in this country!
    Neither does the govt, but child enrollment should stop at 3 live birth pregnancies. More expensive to fund child raising than import qualified.
    This is straying into eugenics territory now. The poor aren't even adequate enough to provide fodder for our menial service industry jobs, let's just stick them into ghettos and replace them with migrants (which is pretty much what they're doing anyway).
    don_dunstan
    I agree with you on the fact that mental illness and smoking cigarettes to cope with it is very common.  And yes, horrified at RTT_rules suggestion.  That just creates more problems.

    I've taken an interest in what Hungary are doing to support families, especially in the context of a low fertility rate and low immigration:
    https://ifstudies.org/blog/is-hungary-experiencing-a-policy-induced-baby-boom

    Interestingly, because it's in the EU many of their elite are working elsewhere in the EU and sending the cash back to their families in Hungary.
      Carnot Minister for Railways

    An interesting possible outcome of the Royal Commission on the Banking Sector:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-03/banking-royal-commission-could-trigger-house-price-collapse/10333150

    My personal view is that it's going to get very messy in the big cities as the bubble bursts.  Probably less of an issue where the bubble isn't as big.
      Graham4405 The Ghost of George Stephenson

    Location: Dalby Qld
    An interesting possible outcome of the Royal Commission on the Banking Sector:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-03/banking-royal-commission-could-trigger-house-price-collapse/10333150

    My personal view is that it's going to get very messy in the big cities as the bubble bursts.  Probably less of an issue where the bubble isn't as big.
    Carnot
    Agreed, my house is already worth very little on the market. Glad I don't live in a big city for many reasons...
      don_dunstan Dr Beeching

    Location: Adelaide proud
    An interesting possible outcome of the Royal Commission on the Banking Sector:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-03/banking-royal-commission-could-trigger-house-price-collapse/10333150

    My personal view is that it's going to get very messy in the big cities as the bubble bursts.  Probably less of an issue where the bubble isn't as big.
    Carnot
    Not the cause of it in my opinion but rather a catalyst for it. People inside and outside of parliament had been bitching about the bad behavior of the banks for some years but there was point blank refusal by Turnbull (himself a banker) to hold one until eventually they were forced by their own backbench into agreeing to a Royal Commission just before Xmas last year. People who were dead against it like Kelly O'Dwyer were forced to completely back-flip later on when all the overcharging and up-selling of junk insurance came out.

    Anyway house prices in Sydney and Melbourne had already started falling - from August last year according to CoreLogic - and Perth has been in a slump now since early 2015 losing about 15% overall since then, so the advent of the Royal Commission was some months after property had already turned the corner.

    Also I don't buy that facile argument that scrutiny isn't good; if the whole reason the real-estate market is nationally (on average) declining - because the banks are facing greater regulation because of poor practices being exposed and therefore they're not writing as many loans (?) If that was really the case then they should have been re-regulated ages ago because God knows how many poor loans there are out there already?
      don_dunstan Dr Beeching

    Location: Adelaide proud
    Trump's trade war expected to extend to ALL Chinese made goods by 2019 (Business Insider);

    JPMorgan thinks the Trump administration is likely to proceed with tariffs on all Chinese goods sent to the US by the end of next year, according to an analysis published this week. If the prediction comes true, it could spell trouble for Chinese stock markets.

    “We now assume US-China trade war enters Phase III in 2019, resulting in tariffs on all +$US500bn of imports from China,” the note, by analysts including Pedro Martins Junior and Rajiv Batra, said...“The $US200bn tariff on Chinese imports and retaliatory tariffs on $US60bn of US imports are in place,” JPMorgan wrote. “There is no clear sign of mitigating confrontation between China and the US in the near term.”

    JPMorgan now has tariffs on all trade between the two countries as its “base case” – meaning the bank believes it to be the most likely outcome.

    Sounds like Trump is not going to back down; good. The theft of intellectual property and unfair trade practices has to stop.
      don_dunstan Dr Beeching

    Location: Adelaide proud
    Mortgage stress in Australia is on the increase with the average borrower spending more than a third of their income on repayments (Domain);

    Mortgage repayments chew up 34 per cent of an average disposable household income, according to national figures compiled by financial comparison site Canstar.

    Using the average variable rate and latest average house price and income data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canstar compared repayments for principal and interest loans against disposable income.

    Borrowers in NSW were most at risk, with repayments for the average household taking up 40 per cent of their income. Those in Victoria were only marginally better off, with repayments at 38 per cent.

    Gosh, interest rates still stuck at emergency post-war lows and yet people are struggling to make payments - imagine what will happen if rates go up a full percent? Or two percent?
      justarider Chief Commissioner

    Location: Released again, maybe for the last time??
    34% of household disposable income. Oh the poor little dears.

    My first home, 45 years ago, guess what 30% of household DINK income. Went to 40% when 2 kids and a stay home mum.
    Nothing new to see here. Us baby boomers were such terrible examples.

    cheers
    John
      bingley hall Minister for Railways

    Location: Last train to Skaville
    34% of household disposable income. Oh the poor little dears.

    My first home, 45 years ago, guess what 30% of household DINK income. Went to 40% when 2 kids and a stay home mum.
    Nothing new to see here. Us baby boomers were such terrible examples.

    cheers
    John
    justarider

    So you choose to ridicule a particular section of society based on an article written by vested interests, an article where not one person who might be suffering mortgage stress is actual interviewed or quoted.

    The irony is, you'd probably be first in the queue lecturing us not to believe everything you read in the media Razz
      justarider Chief Commissioner

    Location: Released again, maybe for the last time??
    34% of household disposable income. Oh the poor little dears.

    My first home, 45 years ago, guess what 30% of household DINK income. Went to 40% when 2 kids and a stay home mum.
    Nothing new to see here. Us baby boomers were such terrible examples.

    cheers
    John

    So you choose to ridicule a particular section of society based on an article written by vested interests, an article where not one person who might be suffering mortgage stress is actual interviewed or quoted.

    The irony is, you'd probably be first in the queue lecturing us not to believe everything you read in the media Razz
    bingley hall
    "Mortgage Stress" is real enough for the article to assume that we all know what is being talked about.
    Don't need any personal stories or quotes here to recognise that the figures quoted are real and do hurt.

    Might be a vested interest, aren't most opinions or research papers. So What?

    The point is that "Mortgage Stress" is not new, it's been happening for generations.
    For the latest group to complain about it, as we have been hearing about over the last year or so , is over the top.
    Worthy of the same sympathy that was offered 40 years ago - not much.
    You may call it ridicule. I prefer to classify the "poor me" attitude, given all the benefits bestowed, as ridiculous.

    As for your last line, now that is ridiculous.
      don_dunstan Dr Beeching

    Location: Adelaide proud
    The point is that we now have much larger loans; around $450,000 is the average mortgage now versus five figure sums in the eighties. This will multiply the problems enormously - and all while the repercussions of falling prices are already weakening the banking system (Bloomberg);

    House prices in Australia have fallen for 12 straight months due to stricter lending standards and stretched affordability. Despite the central bank keeping interest rates on hold for the past two years, debt servicing costs have also begun to rise, with three of the four major banks lifting key mortgage rates in response to higher funding costs.

    Pimco estimates that a 200 basis point increase in mortgage rates could lift borrowers’ repayments from 38 percent of their pre-tax income to close to 48 percent, which would see housing affordability worsen to levels last seen in the global financial crisis.

    Larger loans mean that it'll only a take a slight increase in interest rates to wipe many people out - 48% is nearly half your income going on your mortgage, that's going to unsustainable for a great many Australians.
      Graham4405 The Ghost of George Stephenson

    Location: Dalby Qld
    The point is that we now have much larger loans; around $450,000 is the average mortgage now versus five figure sums in the eighties. This will multiply the problems enormously - and all while the repercussions of falling prices are already weakening the banking system (Bloomberg);

    House prices in Australia have fallen for 12 straight months due to stricter lending standards and stretched affordability. Despite the central bank keeping interest rates on hold for the past two years, debt servicing costs have also begun to rise, with three of the four major banks lifting key mortgage rates in response to higher funding costs.

    Pimco estimates that a 200 basis point increase in mortgage rates could lift borrowers’ repayments from 38 percent of their pre-tax income to close to 48 percent, which would see housing affordability worsen to levels last seen in the global financial crisis.

    Larger loans mean that it'll only a take a slight increase in interest rates to wipe many people out - 48% is nearly half your income going on your mortgage, that's going to unsustainable for a great many Australians.
    don_dunstan
    You only have as large a mortgage as you allow yourself to take on. Nobody forces anyone into taking on any mortgage. House prices will only rise to the level that buyers are prepared to pay. Many houses on the market here, because the asking prices are too high.

    Sponsored advertisement

    Display from:   

    Quick Reply

    We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.