3 - Housing revolution for Australia incoming

Thanks to soaring property prices, Australians will soon be spending record dosh to keep a roof over their head.

What the 1943 Commonwealth Housing Commission said was the right of every citizen.

According to REA data reported by the Australian Financial Review on the 11th of October, one more rise in the interest rate will see homeowners paying thirty-seven point four percent of income on their home, given typical household income in a medium-priced home, closing in on the record thirty-seven point five percent that Aussies were foregoing for somewhere to live in December 1989.

But that was at a time of fifteen percent interest rates.

Today, the repayment millstone is due to prices, said Treasury Jim Chalmers when asked about the REA analysis.

They have risen five hundred and forty percent since 1989, reported AFR.

According to the article, inhabitants of three states, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, are already spending record income even before another rate rise, which is expected in November.

Demands for change.

Debate is increasing about usually unchallenged aspects of how Australian mortgages and rents work under the headline, "Breaking point: Overwhelming majority of Aussies demand nationwide rent caps." News.com.au reported on the 14th of October that a poll commissioned by the Australia Institute revealed that four in five people support government regulations to control rents.

This includes over seventy percent of those who own their home or have a mortgage.

Australia Institute Deputy Research Director Jack Thrower said, "This polling shows that voters overwhelmingly back bold government interventions, directly regulating rents and spending more to actually build more public housing." An article the same day on ABC News on why Australians are so, quote, "obsessed with property", admitted that part of the problem is that Australia's retail banking sector is an established oligopoly, as the competition regulator says.

Further, RBA rate moves have a bigger impact on Aussies because we don't have fixed interest thirty-year mortgages like most similar countries.

The longest term fixed loan, which is rare, is ten years, and they tend to have higher rates to compensate for bank risk.

In the USA, this risk is shared by government agencies that purchase the debt.

The easiest fix for this is a public bank.

When the Commonwealth Bank was owned by the government, it did make thirty-year fixed interest loans, albeit not on a large scale.

Another way Australia widely diverges from similar nations is that only four percent of Australian households live in social housing.

OECD countries have much higher social housing stock.

The Netherlands boasts nearly forty percent, Denmark over twenty-one percent, Austria twenty percent, and the UK almost seventeen percent.

The US, however, is similar to us at three point three percent.

Thanks to soaring property prices, Australians will soon be spending record dosh to keep a roof over their head.

What the 1943 Commonwealth Housing Commission said was the right of every citizen.

According to REA data reported by the Australian Financial Review on the 11th of October, one more rise in the interest rate will see homeowners paying thirty-seven point four percent of income on their home, given typical household income in a medium-priced home, closing in on the record thirty-seven point five percent that Aussies were foregoing for somewhere to live in December 1989.

But that was at a time of fifteen percent interest rates.

Today, the repayment millstone is due to prices, said Treasury Jim Chalmers when asked about the REA analysis.

They have risen five hundred and forty percent since 1989, reported AFR.

According to the article, inhabitants of three states, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, are already spending record income even before another rate rise, which is expected in November.

Demands for change.

Debate is increasing about usually unchallenged aspects of how Australian mortgages and rents work under the headline, "Breaking point: Overwhelming majority of Aussies demand nationwide rent caps." News.com.au reported on the 14th of October that a poll commissioned by the Australia Institute revealed that four in five people support government regulations to control rents.

This includes over seventy percent of those who own their home or have a mortgage.

Australia Institute Deputy Research Director Jack Thrower said, "This polling shows that voters overwhelmingly back bold government interventions, directly regulating rents and spending more to actually build more public housing." An article the same day on ABC News on why Australians are so, quote, "obsessed with property", admitted that part of the problem is that Australia's retail banking sector is an established oligopoly, as the competition regulator says.

Further, RBA rate moves have a bigger impact on Aussies because we don't have fixed interest thirty-year mortgages like most similar countries.

The longest term fixed loan, which is rare, is ten years, and they tend to have higher rates to compensate for bank risk.

In the USA, this risk is shared by government agencies that purchase the debt.

The easiest fix for this is a public bank.

When the Commonwealth Bank was owned by the government, it did make thirty-year fixed interest loans, albeit not on a large scale.

Another way Australia widely diverges from similar nations is that only four percent of Australian households live in social housing.

OECD countries have much higher social housing stock.

The Netherlands boasts nearly forty percent, Denmark over twenty-one percent, Austria twenty percent, and the UK almost seventeen percent.

The US, however, is similar to us at three point three percent.