Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

8 Comments

  1. Protecting first home buyers is subsidising property investors in the same way that accommodation supplements subsidise property investors.
    Sometimes you need to make a sacrifice for the greater good, and the sacrifice is not a whole generation of first home buyers, it is a portion of privileged first home buyers likely financed into ownership b the bank of mum and dad.
    They will be fine. It is the people who work and want a home but can’t afford one, and renters who are held to ransom by unscrupulous landlords, that you should be concerned about.
    And until house prices fall by at least 50% from current levels, or even better 70%, these young people are destined to head offshore to a country that offers more than wolverine tears.

  2. One of the advantages of having a state owned bank is that it can offer cheaper mortgages to stressed borrowers, even if it is not in its economic interest to do so.

    1. However I can’t see this awful government agreeing to that since it would probably create problems for the Australian banks.

  3. So every man woman and child paid $450 in exported bank profits. Why isn’t it part of the reserve bank governors mandate to stop this from occurring?

  4. What about a gofundme for the homeowners: “Show compassion to [Insert name] who has dropped a $200k deposit on a 2 bed do-up drainage ditch and now faces negative equity. Please give generously to [Insert name]”?

    1. No. There is no reason usurious banksters should be paid by donors, there is no reason they should be paid by anyone.

Comments are closed.