I think the real danger is subcribing to the norm formula:
New car = devalueing asset (if you can call it an asset)...... pointless exercise unless you are highly cashed up.
5 bedroom house with movie room - seriously, std packaged houses have fkn movie rooms? Do you need 5 rooms.... not saying everyone here wants this, but the construction companies are flogging loads of packages like this.... so lots of people must want them.
To get that 5 bed house you need two incomes = kids will have their mum around for first 9-12 months then cya mum, she's off to work to join this bullsh1t called "Working families". This working concept I find the biggest insult to humanity..... Families should spent time together, especially in the formative years...... little wonder so many illnesses, mental and physical are so common amoungst kids (obesity, adh etc)....
Working families is more about GDP, increased spending and consumption, increased profits, increased prices, increased everything, but decreased time families spend with each other. Every time I hear the words "working families" all I hear is 2 + 2 = 5 (Orwell)...... It has nothing to do with families.... its economics.... and so many people have subscribed to the standard formula....
And the family tax benefits etc... what a joke.... so the government subsidies to maintain artificial prices? If people can't afford items the prices go down.... middle class welfare is a joke......
My plan is to get back to basics as they were in the 80's.
One income, small but happy house. No need for the latest and greatest of living goods. Rather experiences with my kids (when I have them) over technology to entertain them... would rather go camping (cheap) and fishing, surfing, than to throw loads of money at Xbox games and trashy electro stuff.....
And simple household, so the wife can enjoy her time with the kids, as mother nature designed..... and while I'm at it.... feminism has done a lot of damage and a lot to answer for regarding the family institution.... sure, happy for future wife to work, but once the kids are at the age where that is cool..... she can become pres if she wants, but the kids can't be neglected.....
Family first, keep it simple, experiences over materialism......... living, not working to live.
/rantover
Someone here will know the era better than I, but I think it was one of the past federal labour governments who decided to take away the negative gearing tax break.
I think it only took about 12 months and the rental market was a shambles with no properties to rent as private investors retreated from the residential property market.
And all of a sudden house prices would have plummeted making them affordable for renters perhaps....
Neg gearing is a sham. Houses are necessities not commodities.
If people didn't have to pay off their house or rent, what would you do with your time?
Should I and all the other renters immediately stop paying rent?
none of the investors I know veiw their rental properties as a service to the community, theyre in it for monetary gain
K-Dog got it right. Feminism is definitely a problem. I would say being a stay at home mum experiencing a child growing up would be better than sucking up to some lame boss all day who has coffee breath. Anyway alot of women find it's too late when they have had their career and want kids. You get fertility issues.
I know families where I get stressed just listening to the amount of juggling they have to do to pay off the house, both working, two cars, taking kids to school/ rugby/birthdays and then there is just getting the simple things done like getting food.
YEP in that bracket also. only one kid so far though. was lucky to buy a house when prices were low twelve years ago. to save money dont drink dont smoke dont eat out try to limit your impulse buying dont buy big items new (eg cars boats caravans etc). It is very doable just need to spend on what you need and not what you want. I find people over the $60k mark complain the most, the more you earn the more yopu spend and when times are tough its hard to break that habit. My brothers income is well over the $60k and only has a wife no kids but seems to never have any money. cant work it out because his income would make a huge difference in my house hold. Also DIY around the house is the biggest saver off all if you have the know how may take longer but really does save a buck.
I have a mate who is a real estate agent in the Dandenong VIC area.
Most of those cats buying there are factory workers on 25-35k.... one income... buying 250k houses and putting kids through public school - some how they do it.......... very frugal.
Yea not saying its always easy living on that much but you can do it. I still get out and enjoy myself just have to be a cheapskate about it. Dont pay for entertainment when you can get up the beach fishing or camping, not that doesnt come without a cost aswell but cheaper than going to the movies. Last time the missus and i went to one off those which was 3d by the time wed bought tickets food and drink we were down seventy bucks luck we dont have a local cinema
60 grand or 160 grand just spend it and if you can, save a little. But most of all stop whinging and get on with doing what you can afford to do !!
The notion that those on more than 60K whinge more than those is bull.
The notion that those who bought a house years ago and now have two or more are causing the housing price spiral (currently downward spiral in most cases) is bull. The reality is, as someone posted earlier, that the governments of any persuasion don't want to provide public housing above the bare minimum and the private market has to pick up the slack.
The issue of housing affordability is somewhat problematic due in a large part to home building companies brainwashing you into thinking you cannot survive without a 4x2 that has a theatre room and study let alone a two car garage with a 4x4 and jetski. I'm sure the wife and I aren't the only ones who lived in a 1 bedroom, one sleepout and one dunny asbestos house for the early years until we could either upgrade or extend.
Going back to the evlPandas original question - I don't support a family on that amount but we do have only one income. And I would have to do some serious life adjustment to do it but the bull that anyone earning more and having a rental property is causing someone else not to be able to afford a house is simplistic in the extreme. Oh and by the way, anyone who could get a loan for $185,000 could have had my parents house in Gosnells a year ago after they had to move out (and it even had a small pool).
End of rant.....
