Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunama
I think the real problem with housing affordability these days for young people is that they have unrealistic expectations about how much house you need.
Seems that everyone wants a four bedroom with ensuite, study, double garage under the roofline etc etc. Perhaps if people were a bit more realistic about what they really can afford, they would not be in debt up to the eyeballs.
I have had buyers tell me that they could not fit their family into a 3 br house.
I grew up in a 3 br house with 8 siblings.
As for negative gearing, without the tax benefits available, the true cost of owning an investment property would have to be paid for by the tenant. I certainly don't want my properties making me poorer.
Housing affordability in Sydney is not within the grasp of many, but as far as I know there is no law that mandates you have to live there  |
I think you are correct in part.
Like you I remember in the early 80s when an average suburban house was 14 to 17 squares in size (i.e. 100 square feet per square), and it was pretty barren, apart from perhaps a heater . Nowadays in new estates I see 30 to 40 square house sizes on tiny blocks, with an awful lot of added features that weren't in houses back then.
The other part is the cost of land. State governments have restricted the availability of land to ridiculous extents, which is why it costs so much.
Down here in Melbourne there are huge swathes of rural land quite near the city tied up in "Green Wedges". The owners can graze cows on them.
And it's not like it's really nice nature land - just flat land with nothing much on it.
I know of one owner who tried to get his land subdivided and got nowhere. He was trying to subdivide it into 30 acre blocks.
Regards,
Renato