AUSTRALIA’S HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS CREATING “DEPENDENT GENERATION” – STUDY

Parents discussing with son

 

AUSTRALIA’S HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS CREATING “DEPENDENT GENERATION” – STUDY

HOUSING INCENTIVES … Fail to ease Sydney’s Affordability Crisis …

Here’s why!

… Government incentives in Australia’s priciest market led to construction of less than 1% of total affordable homes … i.e. .5% in eight (8) years!

The developers get a substantial FSR bonus under the ARH SEPP – and apparently there is no compliance regime?

With the NSW 2009 “density bonus” developers gain increased floorspace in return for affordable rental housing

NSW is now embarking to build 23,000 social and 500 affordable homes in 10 years; a second programme of 3,400 social and affordable homes across NSW over the next 4 years.

THIS is despite a 5 – 10 year waiting list for public (social) housing and a whole Cohort of Australians locked out of the housing market!

AND  in NSW there are 37,715 Homeless last census night (2016) , the statistics bureau found.

The NSW Federation of Housing Associations CEO, Wendy Hayhurst, said the voluntary planning agreements were flawed, due to their voluntary nature and lack of any compliance.

View to find how the housing affordability crisis was contrived:

https://theaimn.com/will-foreigners-buy-next-answer-australia/

AUSTRALIA’S HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS CREATING “DEPENDENT GENERATION” – STUDY

Core Logic finds 27% of millennials living with their parents in trend that could lead families to create independent living arrangements

Elle Hunt
@mlle_elle

Mon 8 May 2017

An Australian study found 27% of those aged 18 or over and living in the family home were saving towards a deposit, while 21% expected to remain with their parents until they were at least 30. Photograph: WestEnd61/Rex Features

Unaffordable housing has led to an “increasingly dependent generation” of young people, a new study has found, with many Australians resigned to living with their parents for longer as they save for a deposit.

The Perceptions of Housing Affordability report by property data analysts Core Logic found almost two-thirds (62%) of respondents who were living with their parents said they did so because they could not afford to move out.

Twenty-seven per cent of those aged 18 or over and living in the family home were saving towards a deposit, while 21% expected to remain with their parents until they were at least 30 years old.

‘I’m not doing this any more’: the rush to escape Sydney’s mad house prices

Read more

Lisa Claes, the managing director of Core Logic, said in the longer term, this could move parents to “fashion some sort of independent living arrangements” in which to accommodate their adult children in the family home.

She called the reluctant compromise “cubby house syndrome”, with underutilised spaces such as garages or rumpus rooms repurposed “to give young people some semblance of independence, even when they can’t afford to fly the nest completely”.

Of the total “millennial” respondents aged 18 to 34, 38% were renting and 27% were living with their parents.

Sixty-two per cent of respondents across all ages said a well-paying job was their best shot at getting on the property ladder, with 30% holding out for an inheritance or assistance from their family.

Kylie Davis, head of real estate solutions at Core Logic, said the current market posed a challenge for all generations. “Yes, the baby boomers are sitting on an awful lot of equity and capital growth, but they’re having to use some of that to support their kids, or they’ve had to change how they expected to live in their older age.”

Eight-seven per cent of non-homeowners who responded to the survey were concerned they could not afford to do so. Nationally, simply saving for a deposit was perceived to be the biggest impediment to buying a property, followed by the cost of stamp duty, which was of greatest concern in New South Wales.

Davis, who identified herself as a “card-carrying member of Gen X”, said the data showed millennials faced greater barriers to home ownership than previous generations had at their age.

“There’s a lot of conversation around ‘millennials should just stop eating avocados or going overseas on holiday or these other things that are preventing them saving’, but when you look at wage growth and property price increases – those barriers are higher than their parents or earlier cohorts faced at the same age.”

In particular, the survey painted a telling picture of the difference in attitudes towards housing affordability between people earning $130,000 or higher per annum and those earning under $40,000: “The higher the wage, the less likely the belief government assistance was necessary.”

High earners who were renting were more likely to expect parental assistance in home ownership, either through an inheritance or their parents buying them a house (34%) compared with 26% of those earning under $40,000.

‘I’m never going to afford a house’: on the frontline of Sydney’s rental affordability crisis

More than three-quarters (76%) of existing homeowners were concerned about moving to their next property. Among apartment owners who might have been aspiring to move somewhere bigger, that figure rose to 88%.

The survey did suggest prospective buyers were willing to compromise in order to buy their own home, with 33% stating they would make concessions regarding a more affordable property and 27% open to moving further away from work.

But location was a sticking point, with only 14% expressing openness to moving interstate and 21% to a less desirable area. Davis said millennials in particular were motivated by proximity to work, with many of the most rewarding and highest-paid job options focused in capital cities.

Without parental assistance, younger people’s best shot at home ownership was by moving to the regions – a trade-off many were not yet willing to make. “It would be great if you could – but will you be able to have the career trajectory that you want, in the industry that you want to work in, if you make that call?”

One of the solutions to housing unaffordability, she said, was increased infrastructure “joining the dots” between Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane.

Even better public transport connecting Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong and the Blue Mountains would make an impact, she said, giving people more options and in doing so affecting house prices.

The online survey, the first research of its kind to be conducted by Core Logic, took in the responses of 2,010 Australians aged between 18 and 64 years old.
Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/may/08/australias-housing-affordability-crisis-creating-dependent-generation-study

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

THE OFFICE OF STRATEGIC LANDS ADMINISTERS THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CORPORATION …the Minister for Planning is incorporated as the Corporation!

 

 

THE OFFICE OF STRATEGIC LANDS ADMINISTERS THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CORPORATION

CONCLUSION …

The Minister for Planning is incorporated as the Corporation Sole ‘Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979’.

The Corporation’s main activities are to:

acquire land, control and manage its vested lands and dispose of surplus land.

The Office of Strategic Lands administers the functions of the Corporation.

 

THE OFFICE OF STRATEGIC LANDS ADMINISTERS THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CORPORATION

Corporation Sole ‘Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979’

Audit Opinion

An unqualified audit opinion was issued on the Corporation Sole ‘Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979’ 30 June 2013 financial statements.

Operational Snapshot

The Corporation identifies, acquires, manages (on an interim basis) and transfers land to

other government agencies as required for planning purposes throughout the Sydney region.

The Corporation acquires land for:

  • infrastructure projects, such as road and rail corridors
  • regional open space, including recreational and conservation areas
  • specific sites for strategic planning projects, such as the Rouse Hill regional centre.

In 2012-13, the Corporation purchased land for $23.4 million ($68.2 million in 2011-12). It

transferred land with a value of $82.0 million ($31.0 million) to other agencies.

Key Issue

Completeness and Accuracy of Land Holdings

 

The Corporation

Sole recognised

$470 million of land managed by local councils

 

During 2012-13, the Corporation assessed the accounting treatment for land under the care, control and management of local councils. It provided evidence to support the recognition of these assets in its financial statements. The Corporation recognised $470 million in core land assets and $5.3 million in non-core land assets, which it accounted for as an adjustment to the Asset Revaluation Reserve in 2011.

The recognition of these assets resulted in an unqualified audit opinion on the 30 June 2013 financial statements. The audit opinion in each of the last three years was qualified, as the Corporation could not determine the completeness and accuracy of its land assets.

Other Information

Quality of Financial Statements

The Corporation improved the quality of its year end work papers. The work papers supported the audited financial statements. Most of the information was received on time. This helped the Corporation meet the earlier reporting timeframes required by Treasury. Last year’s report to Parliament recommended the Corporation improve the quality of its financial statements and supporting work papers.

Land Purchases

During 2012–13, the Corporation spent $12.3 million on acquiring land for open space

purposes in Fairfield, Blacktown, Liverpool, Pittwater, Ryde, Wollondilly and the Blue

Mountains. Most of the open space land (11 hectares) was for transfer to the Western Sydney Parklands Trust.

The Corporation also purchased nine small parcels of land for environmental conservation purposes in Riverstone and Marsden Park, as well as small parcels of land adjoining coastal environments in Pittwater.

P.2

It spent a further $6.0 million on land required for infrastructure as part of the South West Rail Line, which it transferred to Transport for NSW in late 2012.

Land Sales

Land sales generated proceeds of $41.5 million for the Corporation during the year. The

Corporation has entered into arrangements to facilitate the sale of land, including:

  • an agreement with UrbanGrowth NSW to develop and sell land at Bunya
  • an agreement with UrbanGrowth NSW and a private developer to develop and sell land in the Rouse Hill town centre.

Land Transfers

During the year, the Corporation transferred land valued at $82.0 million to several

government agencies. The land transfers were to Transport for NSW ($80.5 million), Western Sydney Parklands Trust ($1.4 million) and the Roads and Maritime Services ($100,000).

Other

Opportunities for improvements to accounting and internal control procedures were identified during the audit and reported to management.

Financial Information

Abridged Statement of Comprehensive Income

Year ended 30 June 2013

$’000

2012

$’000

Employee related expenses 2,593 4,496

Depreciation and amortisation 338 709

Grants and subsidies 46,364 15,091

Finance costs 21,563 20,947

Other expenses 9,465 5,114

Total expenses 80,323 46,357

Investment revenue 3,163 207

Other revenue 52,806 30,336

Total revenue 55,969 30,543

Other gains 21,468 13,144

Net result-deficit (2,886) (2,670)

Other comprehensive income

Net increase in revaluation of assets 84,831 4,315

Total other comprehensive income 84,831 4,315

Total comprehensive income 81,945 1,645

Employee related expenses decreased by $1.9 million, or 42.3 per cent, mainly due to a

number of staff positions remaining vacant during the year.

Grants and subsidies increased mainly due to $27.6 million provided to Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) for construction of the Erskine Park link road. RMS opened the road in July 2013.

The Corporation achieved a gain of $21.5 million ($13.1 million in 2011-12) on disposal of

land. This is influenced by the location, type and volume of land sold. The Corporation sold 266 lots (97 lots in 2011-12) in the Bunya project and 111 lots (85 lots in 2011-12) in the Rouse Hill project during the year.

 

P.3

The net increase in revaluation of assets was due to the Corporation revaluing its open space land at 30 April 2013.

Abridged Statement of Financial Position

At 30 June 2013

$’000

2012

$’000

Current assets 153,253 170,569

Non-current assets 1,516,303 1,519,666

Total assets 1,669,556 1,690,235

Current liabilities 56,093 107,394

Non-current liabilities 384,269 353,588

Total liabilities 440,362 460,982

Net assets 1,229,194 1,229,253

Current assets decreased by $17.3 million mainly due to a fall in cash to meet the costs of grants and subsidies and other expenses.

Current liabilities decreased by $51.3 million largely due to the settlement of liabilities for property purchases recorded in 2012.

The increase in non-current liabilities is predominately due to a $29.2 million increase in

borrowings to meet the costs of property acquisitions.

 

Corporation’s Activities

The Minister for Planning is incorporated as the Corporation Sole ‘Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979’. The Corporation’s main activities are to acquire land, control and manage its vested lands and dispose of surplus land.

The Office of Strategic Lands administers the functions of the Corporation.

CAAN FACEBOOK:  https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE:

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPLYING MEDIUM-DENSITY HOUSING CODE FOR “TENEMENTS” … PART 2

 

Image may contain: tree, house and outdoor

 

COMPLYING MEDIUM-DENSITY HOUSING CODE FOR “TENEMENTS” …

PART 2

PLEASE CONSIDER CHALLENGING MPs and political parties!

BECAUSE as we have seen the NSW LNP and their developer mates have “raised the stakes” and there is nothing to stop them doing so again and again EXCEPT the community … even if your Electorate is not included … in Part 1, will it remain safe?  How likely is that? Based on the “track record of the LNP?”

Further, the Low Rise Medium Density Design Guide (link):

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Policy-and-Legislation/Housing/~/media/56B9F795CFD44E71812332AFD30799E1.ashx

Where is the protection for existing solar installations?

Page 76 – Solar Access for Tenements (terraces) copied:

2.3H Solar and Daylight Access

IN 2.3H-1 OBJECTIVE DESIGN CRITERIA

 

NOTE: the wording – “living room OR private open space”

 

To provide good access to daylight suited to the
function of the room, minimise reliance on artificial
lighting and improve amenity.

 

* Page 99

“DESIRED FUTURE CHARACTER” through consultation with the community.

How does this work when development is ‘complying’ and is not subject to ‘consultation?’.

It is decided by a certifier! Whole areas could be subject to change without community input.

So, will developers and/or certifiers decide on these ‘site considerations’???????

Page 151

4.1 Site Considerations

Allow for housing diversity When working in both existing and new greenfield areas, it is important that dwelling types are not grouped together in one location but ‘salt and peppered’ in a variety of locations. The term ‘salt and pepper’ refers to development which incorporates a number of housing types and sizes. It will provide a better outcome for housing diversity, provides interest and variety in housing forms and can respond to existing subdivision patterns.

CAAN: SO they say! As our estates are being redeveloped with that which is totally out of character, over-sized, dominant … and ugly!

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE:

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

COMPLYING MEDIUM-DENSITY HOUSING CODE FOR “TENEMENTS” … PART 1

 

No automatic alt text available.

 

COMPLYING MEDIUM-DENSITY HOUSING CODE FOR “TENEMENTS” …

PART 1:

The complying codes begin on 6th July 2018, and DoPE have very kindly added “manor houses” as a permitted use in R2 zones in our LEP’s.. that’s four (4) flats on a 600M2 lot!

No consult with the residents of NSW– simply added.

They appear to have used the COWARDS CODE OF “REGULATION” to enact this – to bypass scrutiny; to bypass a vote of Parliament, and to bypass the consent of OUR communities.

Further, these “tenements” (including terraces) can be built in R2 zones if multi dwelling housing is permitted in that zone.

That is what has happened – we have learnt – in the Electorate of Ryde, and it would appear 13 other Electorates!

The R2 zoning came about in Ryde with LNP influence on Council at the time …

*
It begs the question why is it that LANE COVE – which is closer to the SYDNEY CBD – has not been selected by DOPE, and the Planning Minister for the Complying Medium-Density Housing Code for “Tenements” … currently there are duplex multi dwelling developments in Lane Cove? *

WHY has RYDE been targeted for more higher density when it already has a number of High-rise Precincts and other high-rise pockets (not labelled as precincts)? Talking about 12 -30 – 33 – 45 – 60 storeys!

Including the North Ryde Station Precinct, Herring Road Macquarie Park Precinct, Top Ryde, Gladesville, and Meadowbank …

RYDE has allowed Duplex and Villa homes development. Why should it now be subjected also to Tenement development of Manor Homes (4 flats) on lots as small as 600M2?

Has the pressure been exerted by developer groups serving the overseas market particularly in China?

Or has pressure been brought to bear by the Liberal Party to protect the “North Shore”?

Why has the SUTHERLAND SHIRE been targeted – so distant from the CBD?

And regional cities – other than a grab by this disreputable lobby group.

Further, complying terraces can be 9m in height which is above the 8.5m height allowed in many R2 areas.

Does the 9m over-ride the development standards within our LEP’s, and bypass the consent of OUR communities?

If one is built next door – can we trust the ‘system’ (certifier/developer etc) because the poor neighbour will have little notice, will see no plans etc etc …

List of affected COUNCILS for Manor Houses per below.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Low Rise Medium Density Housing) Regulation 2017

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/EPIs/2018-131.pdf

Page 3

Direction 6. Manor houses must be permitted wherever multi dwelling housing is
permitted in the Land Use Table.

Direction 7. Multi dwelling housing (terraces) cannot be prohibited in a zone if multi

dwelling housing is permitted in that zone.

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/EPIs/2018-132.pdf

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

On pages 73 &74 of the document

Schedule 2 Amendment of other environmental planning instruments

2.1 BANKSTOWN Local Environmental Plan 2015

Land Use Table

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3 of Zone R2 Low Density Residential.

2.2 BYRON Local Environmental Plan 2014

Land Use Table

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3 of Zone R2 Low Density Residential.

2.3 CAMPBELLTOWN Local Environmental Plan 2015

Land Use Table

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3 of Zone R2 Low Density Residential.

2.4 EUROBODALLA Local Environmental Plan 2012

Land Use Table

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3 of Zone R2 Low Density Residential.

2.5 GREAT LAKES Local Environmental Plan 2014

Land Use Table

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3 of Zone R2 Low Density Residential.

2.6 HURSTVILLE Local Environmental Plan 2012

Land Use Table

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3 of Zone R2 Low Density Residential.

2.7 LITHGOW Local Environmental Plan 2014

Land Use Table

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3 of Zone R2 Low Density Residential.

2.8 MANLY Local Environmental Plan 2013

Land Use Table

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3 of Zone R2 Low Density Residential.

2.9 PORT MACQUARIE-HASTINGS Local Environmental Plan 2011

[1] Land Use Table

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3 of Zone RU5 Village.

[2] Land Use Table, Zone R2 Low Density Residential

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3.

2.10 PORT STEPHENS Local Environmental Plan 2013

Land Use Table

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3 of Zone R2 Low Density Residential.

2.11 RYDE Local Environmental Plan 2010

Land Use Table

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3 of Zone R2 Low Density Residential.

2.12 RYDE Local Environmental Plan 2014

Land Use Table

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3 of Zone R2 Low Density Residential.

2.13 SHELLHARBOUR Local Environmental Plan 2013

Land Use Table

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3 of Zone R2 Low Density Residential.

2.14 SHOALHAVEN Local Environmental Plan 2014

Land Use Table

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3 of Zone R2 Low Density Residential.

2.15 SUTHERLAND SHIRE Local Environmental Plan 2015

Land Use Table

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3 of Zone R2 Low Density Residential.

2.16 UPPER LACHLAN Local Environmental Plan 2010

[1] Land Use Table

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3 of Zone RU5 Village.

[2] Land Use Table, Zone R2 Low Density Residential

Insert “Manor houses;” in alphabetical order in item 3.

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE:

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

DOWNSIZING & MORE ABOUT THE PROHIBITIVE COSTS OF DOWNSIZING BESIDES STAMP DUTY!

Research shows most seniors are emotionally attached to their home.

 

DOWNSIZING & MORE ABOUT THE PROHIBITIVE COSTS OF DOWNSIZING BESIDES STAMP DUTY!

CAAN … on further thoughts about “How to Encourage Seniors to Downsize” … we recommend you think about these!

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/05/encourage-seniors-downsize/

The article said itself ‘downsizing’ is not driven or avoided by:

-stamp duty
-loss of benefits

It is about needing a more suitable residence, that the family home is too much to look after due to:

-ageing/health issues
-costs
-relationship changes
-loss of partner

Most stay as long as possible, yes it is an emotional issue, something it seems these

ADVOCATES OF SQUEEZING OUT OWNERS OF DETACHED DWELLINGS in desirable areas are incapable of understanding.

The keenness that a cabal of interest groups have in promoting downsizing, and a broad based LAND TAX is alarming. Why has this emerged?

Could it be:

-they believe it demonstrates they are up to the task, showing government and others they are literally on the money, they have got the ideas

Or:

-are they desperate to come up with ideas that will funnel more housing into the grasp of developers

However:

-owing to compulsory superannuation more retirees are ‘self funded’, they don’t qualify for any government pension so the loss of benefits is irrelevant

MORE COSTS are involved in selling and buying (besides stamp duty) than acknowledged, and they are a real disincentive to relocating, just think about the costs of:

.inspections
.agents fees
.legal fees
.removalists
.fixing up the home for selling
.even small changes to the new home
.increased transport costs
.having the cash on hand to pay utility costs, insurance, levies and so on…

What about the fact that to downsize it will mean:

-moving away from the location enjoyed for sometime, and
-given the cost of metropolitan living it is unlikely not much money will be left in the coffers of those downsizing; there’s not going to be that lump of cash to be put into SUPER!

These ideas need to be called out for what they are … if they look like pig, smell like a pig and feel like a pig well then they must be a …

WE suggest perhaps this Think Tank are peddling a myth, or worse still they are building a belief that they want to be true … and if they bang hard enough some – especially those with the levers in their hands – might then allow it to happen, never mind the consequences!

WHAT FORCING SENIORS TO DOWNSIZE REALLY MEANS ….

-opening up another avenue for developers to landbank, demolish and redevelop to sell more “new homes” to foreign buyers … because the supply cannot meet the foreign demand!

SOME FACTS …

-that the Housing Affordability Crisis locking out a whole Cohort of Aus tralian First Home Buyers is due to LNP Government policies, it would seem have been written by the Developer Lobby!

-the 100% sell off of “new homes” to foreign buyers (FIRB ruling change)

-our suburbs have been rezoned for “Higher Density” both high-rise and medium density

-the inflated value of homes is due to the influx of black foreign money in our real estate

VIEW CAAN Facts Sheet for how the Housing Affordability Crisis was contrived!

 

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

 

HOW TO ENCOURAGE SENIORS TO DOWNSIZE

 

HOW TO ENCOURAGE SENIORS TO DOWNSIZE …

An Analysis of the Report of the Grattan Institute “Why Australians Don’t Downsize … ” May 2017

Conclusion: “If they’re serious about making it easier for young Australians to buy a home, they will have to make tougher policy choices.”

CAAN:

-by enforcing the AML Legislation for the Real Estate Sector (the second tranche)

.to eliminate money laundering in Australian Real Estate
.to eliminate the Proxy onshore foreign buyer’s agent laundering the black cash and avoiding the higher stamp duty, fees and charges

-remove the 50/100% sell off of “new homes” to overseas buyers (FIRB rule changes)
.giving preference to foreign buyers particularly in China over a whole Cohort of Australian First Home Buyers

-put a stop to VISA manipulation on buying Australian real estate they gain a Residency Visa

.stop with the Guardianship Visa, Student Visas and Investor Stream

VIEW: https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/05/encourage-seniors-downsize/

Macro Business By Guest in Australian budget
May 8, 2017

Encouraging senior Australians to downsize their homes is one of the more popular ideas

http://insidestory.org.au/options-for-housing-affordability-the-good-the-bad-and-the-cosmetic/

To make housing more affordable. The trouble is, incentives for downsizing would hit the budget, but make little difference to housing affordability.

It sounds good: new incentives would encourage seniors to move to housing that better suits their needs, while freeing up equity for their retirement and larger homes for younger families.

But the reality is different. Research shows most seniors are emotionally attached to their home and neighbourhood and don’t want to downsize.

When people do downsize, financial incentives are generally not the big things on their minds. And so most of the budget’s financial incentives will go to those who were going to downsize anyway.

Financial barriers to downsizing

There are three financial hurdles to downsizing. Downsizers risk losing some or all of their Age Pension, because the family home is exempt from the pension assets test, but any home equity unlocked by downsizing is not.

Downsizers also have to stump up the stamp duty on any new home they buy. For a senior purchasing the median-priced home in Sydney that’s now A$32,000. Finally earnings from the cash released are taxed, whereas capital gains on the home are not.

The Turnbull government has flagged the possibility of financial incentives in next week’s federal budget for superannuants and pensioners to downsize their home.

One proposal would exempt downsizers from the A$1.6 million cap on super balances eligible for tax-free earnings in retirement, or from the A$100,000 annual cap on post-tax contributions. But this would benefit only the very wealthiest retirees – just 60,000 retirees have super fund balances exceeding A$1.6 million.

More seniors would benefit from a proposal to exempt them from stamp duty when purchasing a smaller home. And many would benefit from a Property Council proposal to quarantine some portion of the proceeds from the pension assets test for up to a decade.

The trouble with all these proposals is that they would hit the budget – because everyone who downsized would get the benefits – but they would not encourage many more seniors to downsize.

Staying – or downsizing – is seldom about the money

Research shows that for two-thirds of older Australians, the desire to “age in place” is the most important reason for not selling the family home. Often they stay put because they can’t find suitable housing in the same local area.

In established suburbs where many seniors live, there are relatively few smaller dwellings because planning laws restrict subdivision. And even if the new house is next door, there’s an emotional cost to leaving a long-standing home, and to packing and moving.

And so, few older Australians downsize their home. According to the Productivity Commission, about 20% aged 60 or over have sold their home and purchased a less expensive one since turning 50. Another 15% have “strong intentions” to do so in the future.

When older Australians do downsize, their decision is dominated by non-financial considerations, such as a preference for a different style of house and living, a concern that it is getting too hard to maintain the house and garden, or the loss of a partner.

These emotional factors typically dwarf financial considerations. According to surveys, no more than 15% of downsizers are motivated by financial gain. Stamp duty costs were a barrier for only about 5% of those thinking of downsizing. Only 1% of seniors listed the impact on their pension as their main reason for not downsizing.

There are better and cheaper ways to encourage seniors to downsize
If governments do want to use financial incentives to encourage downsizing, budget sticks would be cheaper and fairer than budget carrots. Even if they have little effect on downsizing rates, at least they would contribute to much-needed budget repair and economic growth.

The federal government should include the value of the family home above some threshold – such as A$500,000 – in the Age Pension assets test. This would encourage a few more seniors to downsize. More importantly, it would make pension arrangements fairer, and contribute up to A$7 billion a year to the budget.

Asset-rich, income-poor retirees could continue to receive a full pension by borrowing against the value of the home until the house is sold. The federal government would then recover the cost from the proceeds of the sale. If well designed, this scheme would have almost no effect on retirees – instead it would primarily reduce inheritances.

State governments should abolish stamp duties on property, and replace them with a general property tax, as the ACT Government is doing. This would encourage downsizing, although only at the margins.

But the real policy justification is that it would help working age households to take a better job that’s only accessible by moving house, and so improve economic growth. It’s a big prize: a national shift from stamp duties to broad-based property taxes could add up to A$9 billion a year to the economy.

In short, the downsizing debate is a prime example of how governments prefer politically easy options with cosmetic appeal, but little real effect, on housing affordability. If they’re serious about making it easier for young Australians to buy a home, they will have to make tougher policy choices.

Article by Brendan Coates and John Daley from the Grattan Institute

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

 

DOWNSIZING AND WHY AUSTRALIANS DON’T DO IT, AND THE LIMITS TO WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO!

 

DOWNSIZING AND WHY AUSTRALIANS DON’T DO IT, AND THE LIMITS TO WHAT THE
GOVERNMENT CAN DO!

MAY 2017

THIS opinion piece reflects the sort of LNP philosophy that leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth!

Recommending taxing elderly people to force them out of their homes that they worked 40 or more years to pay for!

Targeting them as “Asset Rich” is this in an attempt to create resentment from Millennials locked out of home ownership through sinister LNP Government policies?

For example “budget sticks” rather than carrots!

“The Federal Government should include the value of the family home above some threshold — such as $500,000 — in the age pension assets test” … the price of a one bedroom unit in Sydney …

“Asset-rich, income-poor retirees could continue to receive a full pension by borrowing against the value of the home until the house is sold.”

AND THIS ONE!

” … primarily reduce inheritances” this following the LNP locking out a whole Cohort of Australians from home ownership

KEYPOINTS:

-downsizers risk losing some or all of their age pension; though the family home is exempt from the pension assets test any home equity unlocked by downsizing is not

-downsizers have to stump up the stamp duty on any new home they buy; at May 2017 equates to $32,000 for the median-priced home in Sydney

-earnings from the cash released are taxed, whereas capital gains on the home are not

Downsizing: Why Australians don’t do it, and the limits to what the Government can do!

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-05/housing-why-australians-dont-downsize-and-what-the-govt-can-do/8500170?pfmredir=sm

OPINION THE CONVERSATION BY BRENDAN COATES AND JOHN DALEY, GRATTAN INSTITUTE

FRI 5 MAY 2017

A house for sale seen in Canberra

PHOTO Decisions about downsizing are often driven by emotional, not financial, considerations.

AAP: LUKAS COCH

Encouraging senior Australians to downsize their homes is one of the more popular ideas to make housing more affordable.

The trouble is, incentives for downsizing would hit the budget, but make little difference to housing affordability.

It sounds good: new incentives would encourage seniors to move to housing that better suits their needs, while freeing up equity for their retirement and larger homes for younger families.

But the reality is different.

Research shows most seniors are emotionally attached to their home and neighbourhood and don’t want to downsize.

When people do downsize, financial incentives are generally not the big things on their minds.

And so most of the budget’s financial incentives will go to those who were going to downsize anyway.

Financial barriers to downsizing
There are three financial hurdles to downsizing.

Downsizers risk losing some or all of their age pension, because the family home is exempt from the pension assets test, but any home equity unlocked by downsizing is not.

Downsizers also have to stump up the stamp duty on any new home they buy.

For a senior purchasing the median-priced home in Sydney, that’s now $32,000.

Selling the family home

Gerry and Rosemary Franklin made the tough decision to move into retirement accommodation after living in their family home for almost half a century.
Finally, earnings from the cash released are taxed, whereas capital gains on the home are not.

The Turnbull Government has flagged the possibility of financial incentives in next week’s federal budget for superannuants and pensioners to downsize their home.

One proposal would exempt downsizers from the $1.6 million cap on super balances eligible for tax-free earnings in retirement, or from the $100,000 annual cap on post-tax contributions.

But this would benefit only the very wealthiest retirees — just 60,000 retirees have super fund balances exceeding $1.6 million.

More seniors would benefit from a proposal to exempt them from stamp duty when purchasing a smaller home.

And many would benefit from a Property Council proposal to quarantine some portion of the proceeds from the pension assets test for up to a decade.

The trouble with all these proposals is that they would hit the budget — because everyone who downsized would get the benefits — but they would not encourage many more seniors to downsize.

Staying — or downsizing — seldom about the money
Research shows that for two-thirds of older Australians, the desire to “age in place” is the most important reason for not selling the family home.

Often they stay put because they can’t find suitable housing in the same local area.

In established suburbs where many seniors live, there are relatively few smaller dwellings because planning laws restrict subdivision.

And even if the new house is next door, there’s an emotional cost to leaving a long-standing home, and to packing and moving.

And so, few older Australians downsize their home.

According to the Productivity Commission, about 20 per cent of people aged 60 or over have sold their home and purchased a less expensive one since turning 50.

Another 15 per cent have “strong intentions” to do so in the future.

When older Australians do downsize, their decision is dominated by non-financial considerations, such as a preference for a different style of house and living, a concern that it is getting too hard to maintain the house and garden, or the loss of a partner.

These emotional factors typically dwarf financial considerations. According to surveys, no more than 15 per cent of downsizers are motivated by financial gain.

Stamp duty costs were a barrier for only about 5 per cent of those thinking of downsizing.

Only 1 per cent of seniors listed the impact on their pension as their main reason for not downsizing.

Better and cheaper ways to encourage downsizing
If governments do want to use financial incentives to encourage downsizing, budget sticks would be cheaper and fairer than budget carrots.

Even if they have little effect on downsizing rates, at least they would contribute to much-needed budget repair and economic growth.

The Federal Government should include the value of the family home above some threshold — such as $500,000 — in the age pension assets test.

This would encourage a few more seniors to downsize.

More importantly, it would make pension arrangements fairer, and contribute up to $7 billion a year to the budget.

Asset-rich, income-poor retirees could continue to receive a full pension by borrowing against the value of the home until the house is sold.

The Federal Government would then recover the cost from the proceeds of the sale.

If well designed, this scheme would have almost no effect on retirees — instead it would primarily reduce inheritances.

State governments should abolish stamp duties on property, and replace them with a general property tax, as the ACT Government is doing.

This would encourage downsizing, although only at the margins.

But the real policy justification is that it would help working age households to take a better job that’s only accessible by moving house, and so improve economic growth.

It’s a big prize: a national shift from stamp duties to broad-based property taxes could add up to $9 billion a year to the economy.

In short, the downsizing debate is a prime example of how governments prefer politically easy options with cosmetic appeal, but little real effect, on housing affordability.

If they’re serious about making it easier for young Australians to buy a home, they will have to make tougher policy choices.

Brendan Coates is a fellow at the Grattan Institute.

John Daley is CEO of the Grattan Institute.

Originally published in The Conversation:

https://theconversation.com/why-older-australians-dont-downsize-and-the-limits-to-what-the-government-can-do-about-it-76931

CAAN FACEBOOK:
https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE:
https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

 

SECRET REPORT WARNED TOP BUREAUCRATS TO DELAY NEW RAIL TIMETABLE … Epping to Chatswood and Bankstown Line

Patronage on Sydney's train network has surged over the past year.

 

 

SECRET REPORT WARNED TOP BUREAUCRATS TO DELAY NEW RAIL TIMETABLE RE EPPING TO CHATSWOOD AND BANKSTOWN LINE

CAAN has been notified that the full version that is available online was not printed in the hard copy!

There are a few paragraphs missing from the printed version.

PHOTO … The last paragraph on-line shared here is a doozy.

If this is correct, not only less seats, but the article describes a ‘slower metro-type service’
The very last sentence would seem to indicate they intend to spin and feed us weasel words, and an advertising campaign (“needs to be ‘headed off’ by communications in the very near future”.)

SUPPLIED HERE A COPY OF THE ONLINE VERSION AT 20 APRIL 2018

SECRET REPORT WARNED TOP BUREAUCRATS TO DELAY NEW RAIL TIMETABLE

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/secret-report-warned-top-bureaucrats-to-delay-new-rail-timetable-20180417-p4za20.html

EXCLUSIVE NATIONAL NSW PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Secret report warned top bureaucrats to delay new rail timetable

By Matt O’Sullivan 18 April 2018 — 6:30pm

The state’s top transport officials were warned to delay the recent timetable changes for Sydney’s stretched rail network until early this year after independent experts found “simply too many underlying issues which have not been fixed”, a high-level report reveals.

The “sensitive” report, obtained by the Herald using freedom of information laws, also details tensions and resentment between transport agencies, and an unwillingness to relay information to mid-level managers for fear of “politically-difficult leaks”.

Sydney’s rail network suffered widespread delays and cancellations to services in Janaury.

Photo: Louie Douvis
Despite the warnings, the new timetable was introduced on November 26, and later partly blamed for widespread delays and cancellations on Sydney’s rail network in December and January. Sydney Trains has since cut some train services to make the timetable more reliable.

The UK consultants who wrote the report were commissioned by Transport for NSW to assess plans to introduce the new timetable as early as October last year and rate its chance of success.

Following their investigation, they urged senior officials to delay it by several months until early this year due to a “substantial risk of failing to deliver the level of performance which the public will expect”.

Their report warned there was “little room” for rail systems or obsolete equipment, such as signalling, to fail before the “service might disintegrate substantially”, especially during the afternoon peak. This is, in effect, what occurred.

The final report by London’s Railway Consultancy was handed to Transport for NSW in March last year. As well as citing concerns about the practical difficulties of the timetable, the report reveals divides and communication gaps within and between transport agencies.

The report reveals ‘resentment and unhappiness” at Sydney Trains towards the lead agency, Transport for NSW.

Photo: Ryan Stuart

One was an unwillingness by Sydney Trains’ senior management to pass on “sufficient detail” to middle managers.

“One of the reasons for this is political concern about bad publicity which might emanate from the identification of ′losers’ (passenger journeys likely to get worse),” the report says.

“However, the confidentiality imperative (to avoid politically-difficult leaks) has unfortunately led to insufficient consultation during the process, and the ability of other rail staff to contribute to, or challenge, the timetable development.”

RELATED ARTICLE

We need to stop spending billions on things we don’t really need

INFRASTRUCTURE

We need to stop spending billions on things we don’t really need
Add to shortlist

The report also raised concerns that “political worries about particular groups of passengers being disadvantaged” limited the amount of information shared between the lead agency, Transport for NSW, and Sydney Trains.

A second concern was the relationship between Transport for NSW and Sydney Trains. Much of the detailed planning for the new timetable occurred within Transport for NSW’s rail service delivery office, which employs more than 100 people, rather than Sydney Trains. This led to tensions between planners at the two agencies.

The confidentiality imperative (to avoid politically-difficult leaks) has unfortunately led to insufficient consultation.

The report by London’s Railway Consultancy for Transport for NSW
There was “certainly some resentment and unhappiness” at Sydney Trains, the report said. This could have been due to poaching of staff by Transport for NSW, as well as people who were previously at a higher level “now seemingly on the receiving end of instructions”.

But Sydney Trains executive director Tony Eid said the report was outdated and written about an early draft of the timetable, which went through nine further drafts before final implementation.

“While we didn’t agree with everything the report said, it helped us identify a number of actions that were closed out before the timetable was implemented,” he said in a statement.

Mr Eid said the timetable was pushed back by six weeks from last October, and both Sydney Trains and Transport for NSW agreed a start date in November was the best option.

“There were no issues that stopped Transport for NSW and Sydney Trains working together effectively,” he said. “Any suggestion otherwise is simply wrong.”

In relation to the timetable, the report’s authors found that “there clearly are concerns about the probability of its success”, cautioning that “matters can turn nasty very quickly in the political environment and may be irrecoverable for many years”.

“Unsuccessful timetables are remembered, and this one cannot afford to fail,” they wrote.

“We believe there to be a wide range of operating consequences which will be barely satisfactory, leaving [Sydney Trains and Transport for NSW] at the mercy of equipment failures, random incidents, adverse passenger comment and political interference.”

An internal document reveals that delays to Sydney’s trains are likely to be “cumulative and irrecoverable” during peak hours following incidents.

Leaked documents have previously revealed that Sydney Trains warned before the timetable was introduced that delays were likely to be “cumulative and irrecoverable” during peak periods following incidents.

Sydney Trains’ key indicator of success is the percentage of trains arriving within five minutes of scheduled times. That emphasis on punctuality, the British experts said, could lead to “services being planned and operated without due consideration of a rail service which passengers are known to find important” such as journey times.

They recommended senior managers improve the “KPI system so that railway management address a wider range of outcomes rather than just ‘% on time’”.

RELATED ARTICLE

Patronage on Sydney’s train network has surged over the past year.
Revealed: Sydney Trains warns timetable overhaul to make peak-hour delays ‘irrecoverable’

The timetable will undergo further changes ahead of the closure of the Epping-to-Chatswood line on September 30 for seven months, when it will be converted to carry single-deck metro trains as part of a $20 billion-plus project. Next year, temporary closures of the Bankstown line will also begin to allow for construction of a metro line from Sydenham to Bankstown.

In their report, the British consultants did warn that a “more complex stopping pattern” at stations under the new timetable for trains on the Bankstown line, “before then migrating to a higher frequency/slower metro-type service, is rather illogical”. They said local and political opposition to “metroising” the Bankstown line could turn into disapproval of the new timetable, and “needs to be ‘headed off’ by communications in the very near future”.

Matt O’Sullivan

Matt O’Sullivan is the Transport Reporter for The Sydney Morning Herald.

 

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE:

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

SYDNEY IS GROWING … HOW HAS THIS BEEN CONTRIVED … FACTS SHEET FOR FIRST HOME BUYERS TO FIGHT BACK!

 

Image may contain: sky and outdoor

 

SYDNEY IS GROWING … HOW HAS THIS BEEN CONTRIVED … FACTS SHEET FOR FIRST HOME BUYERS TO FIGHT BACK!

YOU can see it happening before your eyes BUT you need the Facts to disarm the Xeno slur, the racist accusations … because this awful predicament has been created by our own Government Policies!

-why First Home Buyers are priced out of the property market?
-why schools, hospitals, buses, trains are full up?
-why all over Sydney we sit in gridlock & not just in peak hour?
-why cranes are on the horizon in every direction yet the pollies say we need more supply?

WE all need to speak up! Take Action Before We Lose What Is Ours!

COMMUNITY ACTION ALLIANCE FOR NSW (CAAN) FACT SHEET

YOU may want to scroll down to view the headings here to look at what concerns you most! Then click the links to find out more.

IF you feel intimidated this document may help you to express your concerns publicly.

CHINESE BUY 1 IN 4 NEW PROPERTIES IN NSW: Credit Suisse

View for Chart revealing 87% of foreign purchases by Chinese

However, the actual percentage is indeterminate with Proxy purchase!

ALSO VIEW this article in “Foreign Property Buyers including Chinese”
Website Category.

http://www.afr.com/real-estate/chinese-buy-1-in-4-new-properties-in-nsw-credit-suisse-20171010-gyy7nd?&utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Afac-14omn0053-optim-nnn%3Anonpaid-25%2F06%2F2014-social_traffic-all-organicpost-nnn-afr-o&campaign_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_facebook

 

THE GREAT AUSTRALIAN HOUSING BUBBLE & GOVERNMENT INACTION

Most of the price growth has occurred under LNP Governments not the ALP

Posted by Community Action Alliance for NSW on Friday, May 26, 2017

BUYERS AGENTS, SYNDICATES & PROPERTY INVESTOR ALLIANCE TOGETHER EXPEDITE THE DEMAND FOR AUSSIE HOMES

The key points on how First Home Buyers (FHBs) have been locked out because there are no laws to prevent foreign buyers purchasing land in Australia.

AUSTRAC advised Four Corners foreign investors/buyers use relatives to set up Shell Corporations!

Posted by Community Action Alliance for NSW on Monday, May 8, 2017

VISAS

Including Guardian and Investor Stream.

The Guardian Visa is a new Visa system which has opened the door to International Primary School Students as young as 6 years old and their guardian to each buy several new properties or one existing property.

The Investor Stream Visa on the purchase of property valued at $1.5M to gain a Residency Visa.

Posted by Community Action Alliance for NSW on Thursday, May 4, 2017

PROXY … THE ONSHORE FOREIGN PROPERTY BUYERS AGENT

View the report from Investigative Journalist Michael West: “The Wall of Chinese Capital buying up Australian Properties” … this will not ease up until the Government introduces the second tranche of the Anti-Money Laundering Legislation.

Scroll down for more!

Posted by Community Action Alliance for NSW on Tuesday, April 25, 2017

BLACK MONEY … MONEY LAUNDERING … IN AUSTRALIAN REAL ESTATE

ALSO VIEW “BLACK MONEY; MONEY LAUNDERING IN AUSTRALIAN REAL ESTATE” WEBSITE CATEGORY  to find more!

View here for numerous reports including those from Andrew Heaton “Is Australian Real Estate a Haven for Money Laundering”;

Investigative Journalist Michael West “House Prices Surge on China Black Money; Authorities Dither;

Macro Business “Australian Federal Parliament Complicit in Property Money Laundering” …

Scroll down for more from others including Transparency International!

Posted by Community Action Alliance for NSW on Saturday, March 4, 2017

WHAT THE POLLIES ARE NOT TELLING YOU … ABOUT FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF NEW DWELLINGS …  THE FIRB RULING CHANGE …

Foreign ownership of new built homes was increased from 50% to 100% at the behest of the Lobby Group of Developers in 2008/09.

This was allegedly in order for them to gain finance to build. However this racket has been ongoing since 2009 to date. The Treasurer announced in the May 2017 Budget that it would be reduced back to 50%.

However what was not widely reported was that 50% reduction only applied to developments of 50 units or more … a sleight of hand.

-it does not apply to developments already approved

-it is easily overcome with 50% sell-off the plan and 50% purchase of any development through a Proxy; Buyers Agent; Syndicate; Investor Alliance

-developers can also alter projects to consist of 49 dwellings or less

-ties in with the Medium Density Housing Code of duplex, townhouses, manor homes and terraces (10 per 600M2 lot)

Posted by Community Action Alliance for NSW on Friday, February 17, 2017

THE IMPACT OF A BIG AUSTRALIA … “THE STING” (reducing lot sizes for higher density)

Posted by Community Action Alliance for NSW on Friday, August 5, 2016

The Plan and in fact what they have pulled off is the rezoning of where we live in Sydney! With the reduction of Lot Sizes as little as 280 – 300 M2 to enable higher density throughout Sydney, and across NSW!

All part of “A Plan to Grow Sydney” to be further implemented by the Greater Sydney Commission (the GSC) with Lucy Turnbull (the PM’s wife) at the helm.

Could this be the biggest Con of them all?

The talk that is put about by the GSC is that they want to activate Boomers to downsize in order to create more “affordable housing” … but that obviously is B.S. because it is not affordable housing for Aussie First Home Buyers it is about inflating the “new housing market” to cater for the foreign buyers 100%.

Not only are our suburbs, quality of life, urban bushlands, heritage and communities being destroyed by the high-rise slums but now they plan to create higher density by development of as many as 10 terraces on a SUBURBAN 600M2 lot!

BOOMERS … the Best Thing you can Do … is Not Sell! Try and Keep the Family Home for Your Family …

-so that in the future they can own a piece of Australia
-ensure the job market is there for young Australians
-and not lose out to foreign ownership

FOR explanation of this “CON” view: “New Housing Plan to Put Medium Density Developments on Residential Lot Almost Anywhere in NSW”

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/the-hills/new-housing-plan-to-put-mediumdensity-developments-on-residential-lots-almost-anywhere-in-nsw/news-story/a5568610188d6cd584b2ee5c5c78c79f

CAAN FACEBOOK:

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

WEBSITE:

https://caanhousinginequalitywithaussieslockedout.wordpress.com/

CHINESE BUY 1 IN 4 NEW PROPERTIES IN NSW: CREDIT SUISSE

Buyers inspecting plans at the launch of  an apartment block in Epping last year.

 

CHINESE BUY 1 IN 4 NEW PROPERTIES IN NSW: CREDIT SUISSE

CHINA represents 87 per cent of foreign property buyers in NSW: January to June 2017

Buyers inspecting plans at the launch of an apartment block in Epping last year. Fiona Morris

by Nick Lenaghan

Foreign buyers, almost all of them Chinese, are buying the equivalent of 25 per cent of new housing supply in NSW, undeterred by local taxes or investment limits imposed in China.

Credit Suisse’s Hasan Tevfik and Peter Liu have forecast a “stronger-for-longer” scenario for the housing sector after analysing foreign buyer receipts collected in NSW, Victoria and Brisbane.

The trend is strong in Victoria as well, with foreign buyers accounting for the equivalent of 17 per cent of new housing. In Queensland, it is 8 per cent.

“Almost 90 per cent of foreign demand is from China and there is little evidence that new capital controls by the Chinese authorities, announced in December 2016, have slowed demand for Aussie housing,” the analysts wrote in a report released overnight.

“We think the tailwind of Chinese wealth creation will mean more, not less, foreign buying of Aussie housing.

In Sydney, house prices fell by 0.1 per cent over September, the first fall since late 2015. New dwelling approvals have also been sluggish.

In their report ‘Build it and they will come’, the Credit Suisse strategists expect the moderation in housing activity and house price inflation to continue.

“But Chinese demand suggests we ought to remain skeptical of a collapse,” they wrote.

“Residential exposed companies should benefit including the developers, building material companies and banks.”

Following an initial report in March this year, and using Freedom of Information requests the Credit Suisse report collates tax receipts collected by the state revenue offices in the three states over the 2016-17 financial year.

It found foreign buyers are pouring an annualised $5.9 billion into residential property in NSW, $3.4 billion in Victoria and $700 million in Queensland.

That investment is just a tiny fraction of the national housing market, worth $6.7 trillion, or $5.6 trillion in the three east coast states. However, the report notes, it represents a large proportion of the value of new housing supply.

 

While the Chinese dominate overall foreign demand, it is Americans who spend the most on each property, with an average purchase price in Sydney of $1.7 million, according to Credit Suisse. Indians spend the least, averaging less than $400,000.

From July 1 this year, NSW doubled the stamp duty on foreign buyers to 8 per cent and increased the land tax surcharge from 0.75 per cent to 2 per cent.

Along with stamp duty and a federal fee, a foreign buyer is saddled with a 12 per cent tax burden before they can take possession of their property.”Will the most recent increase in tax be enough for her to reconsider and cause house prices in Sydney to decline? International experience so far suggests not,” the Credit Suisse analysts wrote.

Victoria and Queensland also impose taxes on foreign buyers of residential property of 7 per cent and 3 per cent, respectively.

 

The prospect of higher surcharges on foreign buyers, along with the further depreciation of the renminbi – thereby making Australian housing less cheap compared to the cost of Chinese apartments – represent risks to Chinese demand for real estate here.

Offsetting these risks, in the Credit Suisse view, is the “tailwind of Chinese wealth creation”. Chinese millionaires account for much of the real estate buying in Australia.

Six years ago, their wealth would have covered 1.2 times the Australian housing market. Now it covers two times the value of local housing.

“As our property market becomes more global perhaps we should be concentrating less on Australian incomes as a measure of buying power and more on wealth creation in the Asian region,” the analysts wrote.

All this is good news for major developers such as Lendlease, Stockland and Mirvac, the report noted.

The big four banks also have exposure to the residential market, along with building materials companies such as Boral,BlueScope Steel, Dulux, CSR and Adelaide Brighton.

Credit Suisse have added Fletcher Building to their Long portfolio and also cite property websites REA Group and Fairfax Media, the publisher of The Australian Financial Review.

“The foreign buyer has never before been as an important driver of the Australian housing market as she is now,” the analysts wrote.

“We forecast these flows to continue at a strong pace and will serve to cushion the downside in activity and prices.”

SOURCE:   http://www.afr.com/real-estate/chinese-buy-1-in-4-new-properties-in-nsw-credit-suisse-20171010-gyy7nd?&utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Afac-14omn0053-optim-nnn%3Anonpaid-25%2F06%2F2014-social_traffic-all-organicpost-nnn-afr-o&campaign_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_facebook
CAAN FACEBOOK:
https://www.facebook.com/Community-Action-Alliance-for-NSW-744190798994541/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel
WEBSITE: