Outrage at ‘hogging houses’ claim

Report suggests that older Aussies should sell their homes to make way for younger families.

Outrage at ‘hogging houses’ claim

Senior groups are outraged after a Monash University report released on Monday implied that older Australians should move out of their homes to make way for younger families.

The report, The housing affordability crisis in Sydney and Melbourne, suggested that unless older Australians living in the inner-city suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney moved out of their homes, there would be continued demand from young families looking for space in which to raise children. According to census data, up to 60 per cent of freestanding houses are currently occupied by Australians aged 50 and over.

National Seniors Australia Chief Executive Michael O’Neill has criticised the notion that older people should vacate their own homes to make way for younger families, describing it as “offensive” and “ludicrous”.  

He added that many older people bought their homes 30 or 40 years ago in what were once considered lower-class areas, and that they had worked and saved and paid up to 18 per cent interest on home loans throughout the 80s just to own them.

“It’s their castle,” said Mr O’Neill.

He also stated that social isolation was a serious risk as people aged and if older people were displaced from their communities they would lose important links vital for mental and physical health, including ties to doctors, pharmacists, neighbours and local shops.

Council on the Ageing (COTA) Chief Executive Ian Yates believes that there are good reasons for older people wishing to stay put, such as proximity to family, social networks and actually having the space in which to look after their grandchildren.

Add to that the fact that asset-rich, though income-poor, older people could risk losing their pension upon the sale of their home, as the cash earned would then be taken into consideration when being assessed for pension eligibility under the current assets test system.

Read more at The Sydney Morning Herald
Read the The housing affordability crisis in Sydney and Melbourne report

Opinion: Hold on to your houses

Why should older Australians be made to feel bad for wanting to hold on to their dearest and most precious asset? They’ve worked hard all their lives to own their homes. They’ve struggled and saved and done the right thing in order to attain that elusive ‘Australian dream’. Why would they want to give that up? Why should they?

Honestly, when I read this report, it made me quite angry.

I immediately thought of my nan, who is an amazingly strong and independent woman, and has lived in the same house for over 40 years. My nan is in her 80s. My pa (bless him) passed on around 15 years ago. She has been living alone in the family home ever since and she has no intention of moving out soon. This was made especially apparent to me when I was talking to her a couple of weeks ago, and she was telling me how she’d had workers over restumping and sorting out the foundations of her house. When she was telling me this, the thought crossed my mind that she was looking to stay there for quite some time, and the news couldn’t have made me happier.

Now I’m talking about this from a personal standpoint, and I’m sure many Australians would have a similar view – that the family home, as important as it is to the occupants, is just as important to the generations that follow.

In a world where everything seems to be moving at an incredible pace, where sometimes, it feels as if it’s rapidly spinning out of control, the family home provides some semblance of stability. It is the foundation of a family.

Older Australians should be given credit for hanging on to their houses. Why should they give them up? So some developer or foreign investor can snatch it from them, tear it down, clear-fell the block, subdivide it and turn it into ugly apartments anyway?

Has it occurred to these academics that the only reason we still have freestanding houses is because older Australians are hanging on to the precious few that remain?

Besides, is it their fault that there aren’t enough freestanding homes available to accommodate young families? No, the responsibility rests with town planners and greedy developers who have razed similar properties to cram in apartments and townhouses with little or no space left for yards and greenery. Maybe this should have been a consideration during the 90s’ subdivision craze (which began in earnest in the 90s but has gathered momentum ever since).

If younger families want a backyard for their children, then why not visit the grandparents more often? It’s not as if most young families can truly afford a freestanding house within the city limits of Melbourne and Sydney anyway. That ship has sailed for many young people, and by now, it’s on the very distant horizon.

And honestly, what young family would begrudge their parents or grandparents holding onto the home that they’ve fought so long and hard to own and maintain? I certainly don’t know of any, and I would be surprised if most Australians did.

My nan’s house is almost as precious to me as it is to her. My fondest childhood memories occurred there. My happiest moments, cherished visions of my grandparents and the joy of being with family. I would be shattered if she sold her home. Is that selfish or overly sentimental of me? Maybe. But true nonetheless.

What I’m saying is that it’s all well and good for a report to look at statistics and sales figures and census data and state that older Australians are ‘hogging houses’, but what a report can’t do is estimate the true value of the family home. A value far beyond a backyard, far beyond the sale price and availability of similar properties.

The family home should be treasured, and no one should begrudge our parents and grandparents for wanting to retain the strong foundations of families Australia-wide.

So I say hold on to your houses and damn the academics. Your house is your home, it is your castle and the foundation upon which family is built.

What do you think of this report? Does it anger you that it suggests older people are standing in the way of young families being able to own a home? Or do you agree with the report? How would you solve the current housing crises in our big cities?





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Aravis
    5th Nov 2015
    10:07am
    "Hold onto your houses and damn the academics" - YES! I am still steaming with rage at this obnoxious statement by an ignorant, sociopathic academic. Poke, poke, poke. That's what far too many over-privileged, Liberal-type people are doing to their elders. They can just STOP IT!
    Oldie84
    5th Nov 2015
    11:44am
    Have to smile Aravis, you are right about the Academics but to suggest they are Academics and not left leaning beggars the imagination. What they are suggesting has more place in Stalin's Russia than here. :-)
    Rae
    5th Nov 2015
    1:05pm
    Most of these academics appear to be greedy new immigrants bemoaning the fact that it takes 30 to 40 years to buy a property in any large world class city.

    That is entirely the fault of the financial industry and government policy of adding to the population in the unsustainable fashion of the past 15 years. Especially migrants who have always lived in a city and find the Australian country landscape totally foreign.

    We couldn't afford the inner city back in the 70s so settled in a regional city. We bought land and built and paid huge interest rates, high taxes and also paid our own childcare fees, saved our own deposits and didn't expect everything straight away on a platter.

    These properties will be passed on eventually.

    In the mean time get the greedy bankers and developers and councils to give something back and build a few more parks for kids to play in. Wider lane ways in the developments would not go astray either. You can't call them streets because they just aren't wide enough. No one wants to live in the rabbit warrens built on the fringes including the elderly.
    Abby
    5th Nov 2015
    1:18pm
    Well said Rae
    You hit the nail on the head.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:13pm
    Sounds a bit like a beat-up Leon.
    If this 'study' is legit then it must be coming from a belligerent genY who does not own a home because he/she will do without nothing to achieve it.
    I guess next there'll be a serve at self funded retirees for having a couple of rental properties so that they stay off the government ticker.
    The whole story sounds very hollow to me and bring to mind the Hockey "age of entitlement" poison when he and his mates were not only sucking on the public purse but trying their best to send huge sums of money to the bank accounts of wealthy Australians whilst taxing average citizens to pay for it. Well the GST increase is the next instalment of that.
    I do not know what we have become as a nation. A bit like the decay of the Roman empire methinks!
    Sceptic
    5th Nov 2015
    2:49pm
    40 years ago when we bought our first house we could not afford any of the inner suburbs. We bought 60 km from the city. Luckily, like many people I did not work in the city. I did however work in a suburb 15 km north of the city and it entailed a 62.5 Km drive each way to go to work. My wife drove 25 km each way to her place of work. Many do that now and would not dream of wanting to live nearer the city.
    leonYLC
    5th Nov 2015
    3:19pm
    Once again Mick, I urge you to read the report before you comment.

    Bob Birrell has a degree in economics from Melbourne University, in history from University of London (first class honours) and a PhD in Sociology from Princeton University – whilst David McCloskey has an MBA business and honours Psychology. Both respected researchers in their fields. Hardly belligerent gen Ys...
    TREBOR
    5th Nov 2015
    6:41pm
    You can teach monkeys to fly....... a perfect example of why we should never listen to Learned Professors etc... academia certainly has a lot to answer for with the current and recent crops of dingbats coming through it.

    Tony and Joey were educated at Australia's most prestigious university... the mind truly boggles..
    particolor
    9th Nov 2015
    12:50pm
    Yes Rae WELL SAID !! :-)
    Gra
    10th Nov 2015
    9:58pm
    Just goes to show LeonYLC, they can be well educated but still be way out of touch with the real world. McCloskey's Green ideals real shone through with his input in this report. If these fools had their way, the oldies would be turned into dog food just so the greedy Gen Y could get a piece of land.
    We paid our dues, worked hard, paid high interest and made other sacrifices to put a roof over our head. We didn't have two new cars parked in the garage (most homes only had one garage anyway, if they had one at all), we didn't need all the bells and whistles that the young one seem to feel the need for these days. We made owning a home a priority, not jetsetting around the world. Give me one good reason why we should abandon our family home just to make way for some snotty nosed Gen Y brat who wants it all now rather than work for things like we used to.
    Chris B T
    5th Nov 2015
    10:08am
    The Key Word Here Is Home OWNER, respect it and stop this tripe.
    Most will pass on in time leave them alone, to enjoy their remaining years in peace.
    In years to come there will more elderly as the younger become older. >:-)
    Just wait till there passed on or ready to sell.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:15pm
    It does sound a lot like sour grapes. You listen to the same people whine when boomers start dying en masse and the price of property goes down because of large supply and not enough takers. Expect to be abused in the grave folks!
    Precious 1
    7th Nov 2015
    9:38pm
    in uk and other european places houses stand for centuries despite wars fire etc much smaller country which houses far fewer people for obvious reasons...maybe retirement villages taken over ???as thry also housings many in established manor houses lolol no need to build more on reclaimed land there ..
    Precious 1
    7th Nov 2015
    9:38pm
    in uk and other european places houses stand for centuries despite wars fire etc much smaller country which houses far fewer people for obvious reasons...maybe retirement villages taken over ???as thry also housings many in established manor houses lolol no need to build more on reclaimed land there ..
    JAID
    5th Nov 2015
    10:13am
    The Monash report put an unfortunate spin on the numbers. And the numbers were not just a reflection of changing trends in home ownership but responded to the skew which population growth, age of first home purchase, lengthening life span, affordabilty (real income parity,) changing fertility and locational preference impacts upon them. The message, then, may be one of interest to a community at large but it should not be seen as a way of comparing a group today with its counterparts in other times and perhaps other places. The old are not hogging anything, they are enjoying the fruits of their input. This is pretty much as they traditionally have done in this social environment.

    If a society percieves efficient means of achieving a gain it can make it worthwhile to buyer and seller.
    JAID
    5th Nov 2015
    10:19am
    I said they are 'enjoying the fruits' that may be one way of putting it and is probably the way my 90 year old mother sees it but she still spends hours a day working her largish garden contributing also to local pleasure (as I have never done) and to the value of the property (as, sadly, I may one day benefit from.)
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:16pm
    And if there is a shortage............YOU BUILD MORE!! Not exactly the first time that has happened.
    Saalbach
    5th Nov 2015
    10:25am
    The housing issues could be addressed if we had Govts who had a long term approach. Clearly the creation of decent infrastructure such as rail systems to outlying areas would enable the creation of cheaper housing estates which provided backyards and local parks, etc, while ensuring reduced commuting times to work. This would make affordable housing available to young families, as well as reducing the prices of inner city homes (less demand = lower prices). Restricting foreign ownership would also help! Another solution would be for young families to get away from crowded, hostile, polluted and expensive cities such as Sydney and Melbourne, and go to some of the better places, such as Perth, Adelaide and Hobart!!!!
    leonYLC
    5th Nov 2015
    11:57am
    You make a very good point about improving infrastructure Saalbach, but, it seems more a priority these days for town planners to only consider apartments and roads, apartments and roads... And when the issue of improving the public transport system is raised, it always seems to be relegated to a 'green, left wing' argument.
    Vinnie The Knife
    5th Nov 2015
    10:27am
    Well written Leon Della Bosca I could not agree with you more However its inevitable that all these homes will eventually be knocked down and 4 to 6 Townhouses will be built on one 600 metre block where it will be almost impossible to drive down the street with all the cars parked there
    Rae
    5th Nov 2015
    1:16pm
    Funnily enough Vinnie a whole lot of estates went in around here a decade or so ago. It was fine while the kids were little but once they needed a car then the narrow streets became a real issue. There is nowhere to park a third and fourth car in the street nor on the property. There are no meeting areas for young people either.

    The design means you have to walk a long way to public transport.

    There are no shops or parks within walking distance.

    Older people simply could not live in these two story boxes where you must be able to drive to access any services.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:17pm
    You have a good point Vinnie.
    Precious 1
    7th Nov 2015
    9:31pm
    Maybe cars will be deleted one day when the flying drone will take us to work and back..shopping already online..even better beam me up Scottie will flourish..
    You just never know...large ostentatious houses obsolete and far happier people with less financial commitments maybe drones for afternoon flights to friends and barbeques????.
    RosyB
    5th Nov 2015
    10:32am
    The major cause of little or no backyard is councils approving subdivision on larger properties & the cost of housing.
    Developers & the younger generation buying large properties & putting units or townhouses on them. My son & his girlfriend are in the process of doing just this. They bought a house with a yard, the house will be bulldozed they will build two townhouses, live in one & sell the other to pay for it all.
    Wstaton
    5th Nov 2015
    10:34am
    Isn't it amazing, these people hit on the seniors for wanting to live the rest of their lives in the home they bought and brought up their families. Houses that hold their memories. Nothing is said about those who build massive houses on blocks that could accomodate several reasonable sized houses with backyards.

    What's more most of the time when a family home is bough it is raised to the ground and a monolith is built that covers the whole block leaving virtually no backyard. Just go to Balwyn or Balwyn north to see examples of this.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:19pm
    Was in Balwyn North 55 years ago. A gorgeous part of the world.
    I think that you'll find that this study, or whatever else you could call it, is no more than the opinion of one or two disaffected genYs unhappy because they do not own a home and looking to apportion blame. Not really worth the space it has used here.
    Sceptic
    5th Nov 2015
    2:44pm
    raised is to lift razed is to knock down.
    Mike
    5th Nov 2015
    10:44am
    This is the first step, kick oldies out of their own homes. What comes next, maybe forced euthanasia once you hit 80, like Hitler introduced in Germany in the 30s. Solve the ageing population problem, Or maybe like that science fiction movie, everyone over the age of 35 was terminated.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:20pm
    Go easy on the turps mate!
    justme
    5th Nov 2015
    11:00am
    At least they put there names on it. Why not ask them what they have done or plan to do about this issue.
    The Australian Population Research Institute <
    tapri.org.au>
    PO Box 8107
    Monash University LPO
    Victoria 3800
    Australia
    Bob Birrell
    bob.birrell@monash.edu
    David McCloskey
    David.S.Mccloskey@gmail.com
    It's about time experts come out and discuss there theories.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:25pm
    I checked. Bob Birrell has a degree in Economics. You know how bad economic forecasts are. This bloke sounds like a dead loss. And what pray tell does a failed economist know about housing/population?
    McCloskey has a bit more to him but sounds like an ex marketing man.
    Take these two clowns for what they are: a joke!
    TREBOR
    5th Nov 2015
    6:47pm
    Thought he was a prophet but was actually a dead loss, mick? Bewdy..

    Sounds a bit like the wop twerp who said that anyone flying the Oz flag on Australia Day was a bogan pure and simple.. I don't customarily use terms like wop - but when they get uppity like that..... call a spade a spade...
    Ageing but not getting old
    5th Nov 2015
    7:23pm
    TREBOR: My dad, who worked in the Navy Yards in NYC during WWII, once challenged a man who called another co-worker a nasty word referring to his ethnic background. The bigot said to my dad "Why do you care; you're a wop!" My dad replied "Actually, I'm not, but I don't like that word any better" and with that, he decked the bigot with one punch..............We're already having enough controversy currently about how 'racist' Australia is...........give it a rest...there's many other words you can use........
    Strummer
    6th Nov 2015
    7:59am
    These "academics" need to be reminded whose taxes paid for their "education". More wasted money I guess.
    Hawkeye
    7th Nov 2015
    1:40pm
    Trebor/Aging
    What the hell is a wop? Never heard that one.
    Where I come from (Australia), the term is wog, (short for Worthy Oriental Gentleman) which started as a term of endearment.
    I would much rather be called a wog or a wop than an academic or a politician.
    I think "They're a Weird Mob" should be compulsory reading in schools, and a pre-requisite for Aussie citizenship. This would put a great many things into context and remove all the contrived offense at our normal Aussie language and customs.
    Stoker
    5th Nov 2015
    11:03am
    Alas I must agree with Leon and other commenters, Academia have no real idea of the real world out there and unfortunately it is mostly common bloody sense that is missing from University 'education'.
    So may oldies have worked hard for so long and looked after themselves, each other and their property and they do not need young ones to protest against them, get out of town you young folk go to regional cities and towns, build the country just like your oldies did.
    TREBOR
    5th Nov 2015
    6:49pm
    Lower the voting age top 16 - that'll fix us old bastards...
    maelcolium
    5th Nov 2015
    11:07am
    I fought a running battle on another blog site called Macrobusiness two days ago and was astounded at the depth of envy and sense of entitlement exhibited by many posters. The blog master proposed that the home be included in the assets test which would force the elderly to downsize and if they didn't then they should reverse mortgage the home and live off the proceeds. This ignores the fact that the elderly need the value in their home to fund their entry to aged care, but hey he didn't let that get in the way of a spot of social engineering.
    The reality is that the young can't afford the homes the elderly are living in due to the speculative housing bubble created by the stupidity of the reserve bank lowering interest rates. government still allowing negative gearing of established real estate and the capital gains tax rebate which has turned the home into a tradeable asset. This is not the fault those people who have worked their lives to provide a home for their families.
    What escapes these egg heads dreaming up ridiculous solutions is that in Australia we don't tell people where they can live. We don't tell them what car they can drive or what food they can eat. We are already seeing the attempts by the neocons to engineer welfare payments into a card system so that recipients can't exercise their right to consume alcohol. This attitude needs to stop as it is a slippery slope which can quickly move towards controlling what ALL people do in the society.
    Here's a thought. The government are seeking to reform university fees. I propose that the funding provided for the academics to produce this negative social engineering have their payments dropped. Watch them sqeal!
    FrankC
    5th Nov 2015
    12:15pm
    I agree maelcolium, the RBA made a big mistake bringing the interest rate down so low. You can almost hear the real estate agents pumping the air with a 'YES". Higher sell value means more money in their bulging pockets. Why should houses go up in price by up to 13% and 18% in some cases ,There is no justification. When we bought in the 80s the rate was 14.5 % and when it went up to 17%. It held prices. ( I'm sure we all remember that ). Yes the councils are not helping. Moreton bay regional council (with 12 , yes 12 divisions, electorates ) charge developers an obviously high price for land, and then tell them they can put a house on a VERY small block. Northlakes is a perfect example of this. You can virtually step from one roof to the next all the way down the street. Go to Google Earth and have a look
    Linda
    5th Nov 2015
    12:37pm
    I agree with your analysis maelocolium. Another side of the talk as to do with claiming the home is just an asset. For some it is, but for others, it is their safe haven, their hobby, their romance, their safety, and many many other things. Sacraficing to pay for it, taking care of it, maintaining it, all done for either it being an asset or a nest in a sometimes hostile world. I note and have said before that the oldies are simply seen as honey pots for the greedy.

    Try finding an appropriate place to live that does not also rip you off. Retirement villages are a good example. Density in housing for old people can mean noisy neighbors being too close and the noise being constant and causing stress and illness. We have neighbors, they are known in the house we live in and are unknown in any other place we go.

    It is so true that government policies at every level are part of the problem and blaming it on people who a few decades ago bought a house that then increasted in value because of other factors seems grossly unfair.

    With all the current changes and talk of changes, retired people are scared, as any arrangement that is currently in place could at any time change. We now need, do to the complexity of things more accountants, more lawyers and advisors to help us sort things out, these also come at a cost. We face declining health that also can be costly. Any changes should reflect an understanding of these things.

    In most cases, it is not our faults and we did nothing to make the value of our homes go to such high values. Here, it is not an asset, it is a home, a safe, restful haven.
    heyyybob
    5th Nov 2015
    1:19pm
    Nicely said Linda and I agree with you all. It (bash an oldie) seems to be becoming an 'Entitled Generations' ethos. We can only hope that THEIR children (if they have any) turn around and bite THEM in the bum realllllly hard, one day !!
    Rae
    5th Nov 2015
    1:39pm
    We need our own Political Party ASAP.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:29pm
    maelcolium: envy appears to about cover it. As if Australia is not close to the most heavily taxed country on the planet. Idiots who have opinions like those you covered may think well about what is going to happen if pollies attack older Australians. The ballot box is there to send a message. And if the political clowns believe that they can do as they like then I suggest try it on. That is one thing which will unite apathetic retirees at the ballot box.
    It'll be the quickest about face in Australian political history!
    Patriot
    5th Nov 2015
    5:49pm
    Rae,

    Hers is the link to the Mature Age party:
    http://themap.org.au/
    ex PS
    7th Nov 2016
    1:48pm
    maelcolium, unfortunately some people can't come to terms with the concept of ownership, especially when it comes to homes. They have this insane idea that governments and individuals have some sort of right to tell others, who have worked hard to get where they are how to manage their assets.
    I have yet to see any governments attempt at social engineering provide a benefit for the population at large, probably because those doing the engineering always seem to find a way of exempting themselves.
    MICK, for a long time I have thought along the same lines as you about political party's. It has become evident that because their are so many voters who unthinkingly vote along historical lines, new political organisations have little chance of gaining any political power. I have begun to think that using the people that we have is the best option and denying votes to particular party's has more effect than promising votes to those that think they will win office anyway.
    heyyybob
    5th Nov 2015
    11:18am
    Yep. I was shocked when I heard the report on the radio :( Bluddi academics give me the pip sometimes, they seem sooooo out of touch with some subjects. Translation of 'Experts' ----- Ex.. has been (s)perts..drips under pressure !! Sums it up so many times. So many of the 'young' (use the term loosely) experts/academics have no real appreciation of what the Older generation has endured/overcome/contributed in their lifetimes. *sigh
    heyyybob
    5th Nov 2015
    11:24am
    OK you oldies and that term seems, increasingly, to refer to folk over 55 years of age, brace yourself for MORE garbage/drivel/misguided opinions from the 'educated' (read people who have spent 20 odd years of state/federally funded time (away from reality) in academia. They may wake up when they have to finally shift out of their parents homes into the real world ;) Maybe :(
    tman5491
    5th Nov 2015
    11:28am
    My mum lived in her own house in Alphington till she passed away last year. It sold in March and already demolished to make way for town houses which now account for 3/4 of her street.
    Tom Tank
    5th Nov 2015
    11:37am
    The facts in this report speak for themselves in that 60% of freestanding homes are occupied by over 50's. It is the statement that oldies should move out to let young families in that is way out of line.
    It is government policy to increase housing density thus diminishing what was once the wonderful nature of Australian suburbs. The move to the Mac-Mansions by those trying to impress by theirs being bigger than their mates is also part of the housing issue.
    The oldies are not to blame so why should we be pushed around.
    Governments have not kept up with the necessary infrastructure to enable young people to enjoy a home with a bit of space so sheet the blame back to them.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:33pm
    McMansions are poorly built houses which have a limited lifespan. They are normally on small blocks.
    What you miss is that older Australians will die one day and the house will more than likely be sold anyway as children may not be able to buy out their siblings. Deed done!
    How about we start looking at the large number of CHinese who are buying (not all off the plan) and other nationalities who do not live here. Unpalatable methinks. Easier to go after soft targets: elderly people.
    Tom Tank
    5th Nov 2015
    3:39pm
    You are quite right Mick and so much of it is down to, shall we say poor government control. I wouldn't suggest for one minute that anyone in government would be looking after developers by giving them special consideration.
    There are inappropriate developments in every city and town and a certain few individuals have made an absolute fortune.
    TrickyT
    5th Nov 2015
    11:40am
    Never heard anything so ridiculous in all my life. 'Hogging' their house? Unfortunately the young of today are 'over privileged' as far as I'm concerned. They don't just want a house, they want it fully furnished with all the latest mod cons. My parents built their house with their own hands after spending months and months making the blocks to build it with. Started with kitchen and one bedroom and added on as they could afford to buy the material. Now they should what? Move out so some upstart can move in? Get real, if this is called 'hogging' you can be sure on one thing, I'll be 'hogging' my house too.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:34pm
    I can relate to your account. Good on you Tricky.
    TREBOR
    5th Nov 2015
    6:58pm
    Yep - just spent eight years building up a property and a hand-built house on pension and occasional casual work - which unfortunately now has to be sold for health reasons, so I can relate well to your parents Tricky.

    Looking at moving to another with a couple of problems - coupla cracks in walls that I need to take a good look at and leaky bathroom...... need to look it all over.

    Point is - not much actually deters a baby boomer when it comes to some hard work and fixing problems so as to have something of value.

    Many a youngie could learn from that.
    BnT
    6th Nov 2015
    6:18pm
    But they won't learn because they already know it all. So not only do they want our houses but they want our jobs as well because we no longer have anything to offer - we don't know what we are talking about.... as someone said further up about hogging houses, where will we end with this Gen Y/ I have never seen such self-centredness, such over self assurance (if there is such term) and such impatience as with this group...in everything they do....the odd one who has been bought up with some respect and consideration for others really stands out, the majority are me, me , me, and me again....
    Tj.
    5th Nov 2015
    11:40am
    Maybee the govt cut funding to Uni..drop kicks and divert the money to housing on the condition the pay for such housing with the same conditions as the elder generation have done..
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:35pm
    Maybe start having quotas again so that graduates can find a job and you lock out those who have no place in tertiary studies because they are not bright enough to undertake the courses they take.
    TREBOR
    5th Nov 2015
    7:00pm
    I thought one of ToJo's moves was to cut out the silly and unnecessary courses that had little to no value.

    Friend of mine made her professorship in writing stuff about women in teaching.... Jesus God - when will we get to the real issues in life? Much as I respect her personally - is this really a professorship spot?
    Queensland Diva
    5th Nov 2015
    11:47am
    Who do these people think they are? Not only do they expect that older Australians, who have saved and saved and own their own homes should make way for the new "gotta have everything right now" generation, they are making older Australians out to be the greedy ones. This "idea" doesn't deserve ANY time and space wasted on it. They are just making older Australians targets AGAIN. Disgusting.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:37pm
    Envy? I heard genY running a 'boomers have had all the breaks' attack years ago. Not sure if this is a follow up.
    ranga
    5th Nov 2015
    11:48am
    wHAT A BUNCH OF PLONKERS TO WASTE TIME EVEN THINKING OF SUCH.
    Oldie84
    5th Nov 2015
    11:49am
    Us Oldies should have some good advice for the market. Of course if you voice an opinion of how things could be made better you get the usual " here we go again" "in my time" etc. When we married 57 years ago we lived in one big room (on our block), better off than a lot of neighbours in a garage whilst they were building the house. Took years, was not flash with ensuite, rumpus room, study, TV room et al. But liveable.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:38pm
    You are from a different generation. The current lot want it all with no sacrifices.
    Anonymous
    5th Nov 2015
    3:16pm
    That's right, mick and they want it right NOW.
    ex PS
    7th Nov 2016
    1:51pm
    I couldn't get over how many first home buyers were out and about looking at the same houses as my wife and I were looking at for our dream retirement home. No such thing as buying what they could afford and working their way up for them.

    5th Nov 2015
    11:52am
    Unless there are EXTREME circumstances (bad health, crucial financial worries, etc) DO NOT give up your house/home. Financial gain from it's sale will result in monetary loss from the government if you are a pensioner! Do not listen to the government when it comes to "down-sizing" or you will be in irreversible worse financial straits in many ways rather than not. Get easily understood, trustworthy advice before proceeding with ANY transaction having to do with assets - be they money, property, jewellery, motor cars, etc. if you have to hasten do it VERY SLOWLY and CAREFULLY.
    TREBOR
    5th Nov 2015
    7:03pm
    They'll have to carry me out feet first..... the ex's (I'm her carer) oldest is making noises that I interpret as:- "I want power of attorney" - snowball's chance in hell - Mum will be staying in HER home until she drops and will be managing her own affairs.

    Hip and back troubles don't make you mentally incompetent.
    Bones
    5th Nov 2015
    11:52am
    I wonder, is this another church owned uni? I'm sick of this attitude from halfwit so called academics who write trash to a. Make a name for themselves and b. Justify their miserable existence.
    Where is the foreign ownership argument? This is the first thing that should be addressed, long before honest hard working Australians who slogged to even have a roof!
    As for the kids, well, do well at school go to uni and do the same as us oldies, work hard.
    leonYLC
    5th Nov 2015
    12:02pm
    The foreign ownership argument is quite relevant Bones, and is mentioned alongside greedy developers in the article, although not fleshed out as it could be. Maybe you could comment further on your thoughts? We'd love to see them!
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:40pm
    I recall that in the Menzies era Menzies opened up large areas of land for home building to get Australians out of rented accommodation. It worked, so why not repeat this strategy?
    TREBOR
    5th Nov 2015
    7:05pm
    Yes - but Menzies was a (gasp) socialist, and thus is anathema to the Neo-Thatcherites trapped in their 1980's delusions of grandeur.... lords and ladies of all they survey....
    bartpcb
    5th Nov 2015
    11:53am
    The expressions, 'Educated idiots' and 'Envious morons', spring to mind. It's likely to be some youngish academic trying to make a name for him/herself that suggested the older people sell up and move out.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:41pm
    I checked it out. One of the culprits was not young. Goes to show that ignorance and stupidity are restricted to any age.
    Geographer
    5th Nov 2015
    11:54am
    Calm down all you outraged oldies. There are many of us baby boomers who would like to trade down to a smaller house on a smaller, more manageable block of land but there are massive financial costs in doing so. Stamp duty, agent commission, reduction in pension entitlements when part of the family home (tax free and pension excluded) is changed into a financial asset (taxed and pension test included). I'd like to see more young families in my street but there are too many investors, local (subsidised by negative gearing) and overseas bidding up the prices and keeping young families out.
    Queensland Diva
    5th Nov 2015
    11:59am
    Sure, if you want to downsize, go right ahead - I am planning to do it also. However, to be made out to be somehow greedy for wanting to maintain your own home is another matter entirely and it's not on.
    heyyybob
    5th Nov 2015
    12:08pm
    Agree with you Diva.
    Geographer
    5th Nov 2015
    12:26pm
    I read the report and it did not say that oldies were 'greedily hanging on to their properties' That was the spin put on it by tabloid newspapers. Moreover, not all us baby boomers 'had to work long and hard all our lives' for the land we now occupy. I paid off my home 25 years ago (on one salary in the family)and for the last decades of my working life I was showered with tax cuts, a cash handout (remember that?), over generous salary sacrifice conditions for superannuation, low taxation on superannuation earnings, pay rises that more than kept pace with inflation. Spare me the poor baby boomer sob story.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:43pm
    Downsizing frees up a lot of cash, normally Geographer.
    I like your account. Clearly you were at the top end of the scale where the deals were pretty good. Not all have had the cash to properly prepare for their decades in retirement.
    Caz
    5th Nov 2015
    7:47pm
    Totally agree, Geographer. We'd like to downsize but the costs involved make it completely unworthwhile. Paying stamp duty for a new purchase would particularly stick in the craw. Not to mention agents' fees. To be an estate agent with house prices this high is a licence to print money.

    Solutions others have proposed aren't really attractive. Land supply is finite. Better to stabilise our population to a number that our fragile ecosystem ... and economy...can support, cut out negative gearing and the overseas investor market, and put an end to this cheek to jowel planning mayhem that's gone on way too long.
    ex PS
    7th Nov 2016
    1:58pm
    Yes their are Boomers who want to trade down, good for them. But their are just as many who are looking to buy a good sized block so that they can build the house that is ideal for them, as in low maintenance and low cost to run and live in. They may even find that they want to spend hours a day in the yard planting and looking after fruit trees and vegetables.
    The point is, it is a matter of individual choice, and no ones business but the person who owns the property involved, it is especially not something the government should get involved in.
    melbgirl
    5th Nov 2015
    11:58am
    Maybe if the inner/middle ring suburban councils stopped with the NIMBY planning rules, people might be able to afford to buy/rent something close to facilities. Blocking out huge suburban areas from becoming medium density housing is only benefiting the older generation and pushing families to the fringes, resulting in long travel times and less family time. There is most likely a lack of housing choices in these areas for people wanting to downsize due to said planning policies. When the family home is included in the assets test which is inevitable, we may see a change in attitude.
    Old
    5th Nov 2015
    11:59am
    Why do these people want to live in Sydney and Melbourn, I tire to listen to this constant nonsense from so called academics
    The older people that live in these cities possibly spent years working in the bush to afford these houses
    Let the young people do the same there are numerous small towns in Australia with homes with big back yards and a better community feel than the large cities
    Leave us older people alone
    Dmacca
    5th Nov 2015
    12:06pm
    My mother and father didn't have their own home until my father retired from the Army. So that was their first mortgage and on his death my mother was able to pay off the mortgage and own her own home. That was 15 years ago. She is in her eighties and I suspect we will carry her out on a stretcher. She has had two dogs in that time as company which have kept her going along with visits from family. What would she do if she sold her house? As has been mentioned she would suffer from the asset test, move to a unit which have proved to be as expensive as houses in some areas, especially inner areas where they are used to the amenities and friends and family. Then there are extra charges like body corporate fees etc. Wouldn't it be better for the government and real estate industry to stop pushing real estate as the vehicle to keep the economy afloat, thus reducing the cost of housing, get rid of stamp duty and return it to what it originally was, a small fee to cover the cost of title transfer instead of the money grab it has become by money hungry state governments. These elder citizens will eventually pass on and some houses will go to family members to bring up their children in and others will be sold off and dealt with as the new owners wish. Leave our older citizens to live out their lives in dignity. Most of them lived through some very tough times and have earned what they have and don't care for this age of entitlement.
    PlanB
    5th Nov 2015
    12:09pm
    There is NO way I want to live in a place that is a few feet from a neighbor – I love my space and my privacy, you can bet your life that once I die there will be a stampede to knock down my home and build 4 units –at least -- on the block.

    What a bloody hide I worked LONG AND HARD and intend to stay here for as long as I can!
    heyyybob
    5th Nov 2015
    12:12pm
    Good on yer PlanB - tell 'em they're dreamin' ;)
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:46pm
    That is the unfairness when you get this sort of 'opinion' PlanB. You paid the Piper so you should now not be attacked for making a good choice. I wonder what has happened to Australian values. Disappearing fast.
    Ritza
    5th Nov 2015
    12:12pm
    Thank you justme.
    I am composing my email now to these number-crunching academic twerps.
    The only advantage I have received is the insulation offer. Aside from that, as a single woman in a mediocre job i have JUST paid out my mortgage last year.

    X and Y kids WORK for like I did.. get out and demonstrate and complain about developers and the standards of building nowadays. Be proactive......
    ....and BTW pay 17% interest like i had to
    heyyybob
    5th Nov 2015
    12:21pm
    Gudonyer luv.......spot on :)
    KSS
    5th Nov 2015
    1:21pm
    Well before you send it off in a fit of peak, read the actual report first not some reporter's interpretation of it. You might actually be surprised to learn they make no such demands nor do they make any value judgements of those older people who live in 'family homes'.

    If anything they are critical of developers and Government polices that do not plan appropriately for the changing needs of people's life stages.
    heyyybob
    5th Nov 2015
    2:52pm
    OIC....so it was only screwed-up dumbass journos who misinterpretated the gist of a in-depth and enlightening study on .......(what) effect that elderly are having on living standards in Australia .......oh, rrrrrriighttt ;)
    margie
    5th Nov 2015
    12:16pm
    What a bloody cheek, when we purchased our ordinary 3 bedroom home 41 years ago, we worked hard to pay for it and to furnish it. No TV for 5 years, sheets at the windows and second hand furniture. We put in the gardens digging and planting seeds and cuttings generously given by family and friends. Huge contrast to today when you 'must' have a theatre room, 4 to 5 bedrooms all with ensuites, , carpets and drapes installed, large kitchen with every convenience known to man. Perhaps if people lowered their expectations they just may be able to purchase some land and build a small home, whether or not this is the case there is no reason for any older person to vacate their home. Just for your information we do have family and friends visiting that make use of those spare bedrooms, most of us have grandchildren visiting as well. My home will be left to my children in the fullness of time as is MY right and I will not be bullied into selling to greedy developers to stick up units with tiny little garden spaces with barely a wall separating you from the neighbours, you can stick your opinion where the sun don't shine, (sorry for the vulgarity but am fuming)
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:47pm
    You are telling a familiar story margie.
    maxchugg
    7th Nov 2015
    11:22am
    Margie, I am in total agreement with you.
    When I was married it was a different world. No first home buyers bonus, no paid parental leave, no free babysitting. Neither my wife not I had ever taken a vacation out of Australia, let alone to the world, and a new car was an impossible dream.
    Foundations were dug by hand for a modest 3 bedroom home, I worked part time as a labourer for the bricklayer on my home and others n weekends to help lower the building costs. Later others who had bought a new car and had been to Europe began to tell me how lucky I was to own my own home.
    It was, and still is, a matter of priorities and determination.
    PlanB
    7th Nov 2015
    3:35pm
    Max,

    doesn't it make you see RED when someone says that--I had a 37 year old say to me you are so lucky you own your home not rent to pay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You can imagine what I said to him.
    ex PS
    7th Nov 2016
    2:00pm
    Yep, nothing to do with luck, all to do with hard work, determination and planning.
    Oldman Roo
    5th Nov 2015
    12:24pm
    This story only confirms a general distrust I had in Academics and the right faction of the Liberal Party for some time . With most of us considered being only a drain in their world of greed , It is just a question of time with them , when they will banish us to live out of the way in caves on an island like a Lepers Colony .
    I would like to have the young make the same contribution we had to make to acquire our house and look after the grounds and not turning them into a desert like many of the homes owned by them in in my neighbourhood . The whole suggestion of moving us out our houses is just outrageous and treating the elderly citizens with contempt .
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:48pm
    The cretins who believe they own politics and everything else also have to live somewhere. But I imagine they would quarantine themselves as they did with the "age of entitlement" rhetoric.
    SWOZ
    5th Nov 2015
    12:43pm
    The main problem in their conclusions is, that should the houses be sold as some of the comments already highlight, they would not be priced for young working class families to acquire and move in. The proximity to the higher paid work places in the city make them highly valuable space to be acquired by developers to build medium or high density housing for young professional renters or childless couples. The only solution to the current housing problems around all large Australian cities is to release a lot more low cost land in outer suburbs and regional centers and connect them all with high speed, high frequency rail, providing secure parking spaces for cars, motorbikes, scooters and bicycles at the respective rail stations. China provides many good examples on how to develop new living spaces outside the old city centers and connect them with low cost, high speed public transport. This makes it possible for families to live in cleaner, greener environments and for the male and female breadwinners to easily commute to their work places and larger shopping malls. In the case of Melbourne and Victoria, a lot more land has to be released around Melton, Sunbury, Geelong and on the Mornington Peninsula and high speed, high rail connections established between those new living areas and between them and the city center and the industrial complexes at the edge of the city. Chasing older residents from their inner city suburban homes is only a potential short-term fix with the long term problem needing much more innovative solutions. More efficient and effective combinations of personal and public transport between home and work, home and medical and other services, shopping, etc. and the large scale release of low cost land in regional and sub-regional areas will do much more to improve housing availability to all young Australians. All we need is the political will and focus to do so!
    Wstaton
    5th Nov 2015
    2:29pm
    Quite right SWOZ. I remember going to Hong Kong several years ago on business. Got off at their new airport thru customs, down a escalator right onto a high speed train Into the centre of Hong Kong in 20 odd minutes (and it is 30km from Hong Hong) Ran every 10 minutes.

    We in Melbourne have been stuffing about with a rail link for umpteen years to Tullamarine and still have not fixed it. This is just the tip new rail links to various suburbs have been mooted for years without avail. Our Politicians sway with the wind instead of saying "stuff it" lets get on with it.

    Then we get the blather we are having now about seniors hogging stand alone houses which is their home and should stay that way if they wish.

    Not an excuse the politicians should be the excuses
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:53pm
    Wstaton: My wife and I spent a week riding the Shinkansen (high speed rail) in Japan at the beginning of the year. Don't expect a high speed rail link in this country though as our politicians waste unbelievable sums of public money on BS and fail to govern so that those amongst us who rort as a lifestyle are thrown off the public purse. The only way this country will get a high speed service to anywhere is if a private company builds it and we pay a toll for half a century or more.
    Swinging voter
    5th Nov 2015
    12:45pm
    Unfortunately there are too many self-perpetuating do-gooding industries sprouting up in Australia who think they have the power and right to force their ideas on the majority. The first wave of "equalisers" were the unions (we now know how corrupt, money grabbing and self-serving was their modus operandi, undisclosed for decades) that successfully control the ALP. Next came ACOSS that preaches equality (as someone said, in socialist terms, make everyone equal until everyone is equally poor). Then there's the churches, the Greens with sometime gp Natale now the fast talking font of all knowledge. Throw in Gillian Triggs the one whose open border fantasies would prioritise housing for illegals above our own citizens. Maybe giving up our houses would just suit her she could see 4 families living in the houses we were forced to move out of. Those groups can't wait to penalise people who worked their bums off. Mark Latham (former Labor PM aspirant) advocated in his book that when we die, the entire value of our life's work should all go to the "socially disadvantaged". All these real life deprived academics and treasury boffins can't wait to get their hands on our houses. The message should be sent to all of them loud and clear - HANDS OFF THE FAMILY HOME. If we can't feel assured we will live where we paid for as long as we choose, fearing we will be penalised for the fruits of our sacrifices, or that it won't go to those we want to have it in the end, all incentives will be stripped away and the whole lot of us will be living in government funded boxes next to dole bludgers and taxpayer funded illegals.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    2:55pm
    This is talk. If they try it on then half of the government MPs will lose their seats and these people think about self interest before anything else. Even the nation.
    stupidgalah
    5th Nov 2015
    12:48pm
    I have just been through a court case to get my house back. Its too precious to me to hand it over to someone younger.. Are they going to pay for it, or is it to be a gift? I Most stupid article I have read for a long time. I have three grandchildren at uni.......is this the rubbish someone is teaching them. Why don't we just get given a pill at 50 ..problem solved.....
    Rae
    5th Nov 2015
    1:55pm
    I am afraid it is the neo liberal rubbish they are cramming into the minds of our children in the Unis today.
    Swinging voter
    5th Nov 2015
    2:39pm
    Not only in the universities. My sister is shoving socialist junk down the necks of her high school students. Stuff that would make our dead soldiers, the ones who gave everything to keep Australia beautiful, turn in their graves.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    3:00pm
    You two sound like right wing trolls.
    First: many academics open issues up FOR DISCUSSION. Not your take of shoving information down the throats of students.
    Second: if you want to talk about right wing propaganda being shoved down the throats of the electorate then just turn on many of the media outlets. Disgraceful one sided crap straight from the big end of town.
    I know, I know....the leftist ABC. I guess you would call any media outlet which debates the issues that.
    Give us a break!
    Hasbeen
    5th Nov 2015
    12:50pm
    The younger generation will be the first to get large inheritances from their parents. That should set them up to buy houses, if they have been too slack to do it for themselves first.

    Hell, we gave them all their first cars. Gave them most of the furniture they needed to start homemaking, I was guarantor for their first loan to buy land, & am guarantor still on ones first home. The third spends far too much on booze, cigarettes & having a good time to be in the home buying market any time soon.

    I had to stay on the old hobby farm when they left, as I still had 3 horses, 2 cats & a couple of their dogs they had left behind for dad to look after. Now I'm far too old to start setting up a new home. Me thinks it's about time they started doing a bit of work around the yard for me, [2 actually do help], rather than sell me up.

    Actually one was suggesting she could keep a couple of ponies here for her kids just the other day.

    As the man said, I am totally sick of damn fool academics, who don't know which way is up, telling practical people how they should live. Perhaps if we filled their time with lecturers & tutoring, they would be too bust to go running off at the mouth so much.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    3:03pm
    Many of us have as you have done Hasbeen. The irony is that many children forget they have had a leg up and think it is a birth right to be staked at mum and dad's peril.
    Certainly the clowns who came out with the above tripe have either been misquoted or need to be unemployed.
    Rose
    5th Nov 2015
    12:50pm
    It is so true, Leon Della Bosca ! I sold my family home and I am still unsettled and unhappy after 7 years . I am also bitter because I felt forced to sell against my best judgement .The selling of the house was the end of my family also . In the apartment - box where I now live there is no room for grand-children nor for a tired son or daughter after a long trip ,no room for keeping mementos but a couple of photos.It is a lonely space and expensive.It is a mistake.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    3:04pm
    Sorry for you. Sad when it all goes pear shaped.
    EELS
    5th Nov 2015
    12:52pm
    I am just about over this blame game of just about everything of anyone over 60/65. Why don't they just euthanize the lot of us and be done with it if we are such a 'burden' on society.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    3:06pm
    Where do you live mate? Coming around with Philip Nitschke this evening......
    BB1
    5th Nov 2015
    1:04pm
    Why should I or any other older person have to sell up and move out so that the younger generation can live closer to the city or wherever. I bought a house suitable for my needs now and in the future. It is not the family home though the family will benefit from the sale upon my death sometime in the future.
    Why should I move from my area where my specialists are, my GP, my friends, and the local hospital. As for the house funding me into Aged care - you've got to be joking. In this area (Campbelltown NSW) to buy into Aged care facility is more that what my house is worth. The Government changed the way one gets into Aged Care so now if you want it, you pay through the nose for it. The Government like the Aged to stay in their own home, according to the Government it is cheaper to look after the Aged in their own home where the Aged pays all the costs, the Government funds some of the Nursing care if needed.
    For me to sell up and go and buy a property in a 'Retirement village" that I could afford with the sale of my property, I'd be out West somewhere, and I mean West of the Great Dividing Range. Nothing under $500,000 available in the Sydney Basin.
    Now what are they putting up for ones retirement. 3-4 bedroom mansions within these villages. You still pay ongoing costs of some sort or another, just like where one is now. Who on retirement, 70 onwards wants a 3-4 bedroom mansion. What would suit me, is a 2 bedroom nicely styled house, not a great yard but enough to have a small dog in with you. 70 onwards, the body doesn't want to look after a 3-4 bedroom mansion, you've still got to clean it etc and if you don't have good health, then you have to pay someone to come in and do it for you, just like you would in your old home.
    The Government really needs to look into what is being put out in the Market as a Retirement home/house. They changed the rules, and let all these Retirement mansions come into being. No I'm not jealous, just being realistic. When you get to 70+ you don't want to spend all day looking after a house, been there done that, I want to 'retire' gracefully.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    3:06pm
    You don't. And if you do VOTE OUT ANY GOVERNMENT WHICH TRIES IT ON.
    The Economist
    5th Nov 2015
    1:10pm
    I'm afraid I am onside with Monash. Sitting in our oversize houses until we shuffle off is not the problem; the problem is how long it is taking us to 'shuffle off'. As every year goes by we live longer and longer, stay more mobile and hence stay in our large houses on the family size blocks of land. So new families are pushed to the outer zones. This didn't happen in the past; we died and the house became available for someone else. I am a great believer in taking up less space when we no longer need it; and I now also believe that past 65 the only thing we should 'own' is what we can take with us when we go.
    CowboyJoe
    5th Nov 2015
    1:28pm
    So old socialists never die.

    They keep redistributing wealth in the after life?
    Swinging voter
    5th Nov 2015
    1:51pm
    Yes, socialists would like to re-distribute whatever the hard workers/savers have not rushed out and spent. They spend their mostly unproductive lives figuring out how to make life less comfortable for the achievers and easy for the lazy. If the socialists are not rich like the exclusive Rudd, Gillard and Friends Club, they are mostly lazy non-achievers themselves, barracking for the the easy life for border busters, layabouts, bludgers and those who aspire to whatever they can get from someone else for nothing until the unearned largesse runs out. As they say, the problem with socialists is that they eventually run out of other people's money.
    mangomick
    5th Nov 2015
    2:40pm
    The First Law of Economists: For every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist. The Second Law of Economists: They're both wrong.
    As someone pointed out. it wouldn't matter if every over 65 sold his large house close to the city they would only be picked up by developers and not young families and they would be knocked down and units built to replace them or the large block would be sub- divided and two smaller yards would occupy the same space.
    Don't blame the seniors blame Councils greedy developers and the Gen XYZers( the want it now generations) who were quite happy to live in the modern little concrete boxes that were built to replace previously existing older homes.
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    3:10pm
    Good post mango. Many of us have been sitting back watching how economists go about their business. The use of QE (made things worse!) since the GFC tells us all that economists are imbeciles. We also had an acquaintance once who was an economist. Had a household which was never in the black!
    The above guy must already be dead as his opinions are off the planet and not shared by anyone on this post I dare say.
    EELS
    5th Nov 2015
    3:14pm
    I'm with Cowboy-Joe, Swinging voter and mangomick. Leave us alone to live life as we wish. It is nobody else's business.
    Abby
    5th Nov 2015
    3:35pm
    Yeh! A coffin with wheels so they can move us around when we get in their road.
    Symo
    5th Nov 2015
    1:12pm
    The first part of the report states...

    Sydney and Melbourne face a serious housing crisis. The shortage of affordable separate housing stock already means that most first home buyers and renters cannot currently find housing suited to their needs in locations of their choice, either in Sydney or Melbourne.

    Have you noticed how it says "most first home buyers and renters cannot currently find housing suited to their needs in locations of their choice". Suck it up kids. Last time I looked there were more than these two choices in Australia to live. Move to a place that you can afford, rather than have this sense of entitlement that I should be able to live where I WANT when you can't afford it! Which is it going to be? Somewhere that is a location of your choice, or somewhere that is going to be an answer to your needs? In this current real estate climate chances are you can't have it both ways. A lot of the older generation weren't so "lucky" to have such a choice, but rather bought in places where they could afford.
    EELS
    5th Nov 2015
    3:15pm
    Yes!
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    3:16pm
    In other words genY wants to live in the inner city (ha, ha, ha) and pay zilch (ha, ha, ha) and are unhappy because they cannot afford it even with record low interest rates.
    Give me a break genY. SAVE SOME MONEY - stay out of the coffee shops, make do with your 2 year old car and trade in when 15 years of age, don't buy the latest phone or high tech gadget you do not need, be conservative with phone, electricity, don't go overseas for your holidays, stay away from the restaurant and stay home and cook it, rent a cheaper apartment and/or share with a friend, and finally SAVE, SAVE, SAVE.
    I know....who'd want to live like that? Answer: those who own a house and have a life after retirement. That's who loser!
    Sorry folks.....got a bit carried away there.
    heyyybob
    5th Nov 2015
    4:12pm
    Fair 'nuff Mick, fair 'nuff :)
    Rae
    5th Nov 2015
    6:00pm
    You tell them mick. The young ones that did save and are paying a mortgage would agree too.
    KSS
    5th Nov 2015
    1:13pm
    Have any of you exhibiting your outrage on the authors of this report actually read what they wrote instead of relying on the deliberately incendiary reporting of it?

    The report itself makes no value judgements, that is all being done by the reporting. The authors correctly state that over 60% of what would be considered 'family homes' in Melbourne and Sydney are currently held by people over 55. And this group of over 55s is growing rapidly as the population ages.

    What the authors do do, is take a swing at both Governments and developers for not providing the type of housing that people actually want and need. They talk about life stages and how housing needs change particularly once a couple decides to start a family. However, developers are simply looking at the demographics, seeing that the number of single or couple based households is growing and then assuming they all want to live in apartments. This is clearly not true but what it does mean, as some of you have already noted in your own areas, large blocks which once may have contained a single 'family' home are now being developed with high rise blocks of units. These units are necessarily small because of the cost of building them and the necessity of keeping the selling costs under $600,000 to avoid extra costs for investors. This makes the units unsuitable for families. But there is no available stock for new families in the inner cities (in fact there is a reduction of available stock even if the 'oldies' all moved out) and so families are either being forced further out or they reduce the size of the family etc.

    At no time in this report do the authors 'blame' the over 55s for the lack of housing either overtly or by implication. Quite the opposite in fact they point to a range of issues including Government (Federal, State and local Councils) policy and misinterpretation of demographic data and lack of imagination by the developers for not actually providing the type of housing people will need at different life stages. And by the way, they also warn the situation will get worse!

    They mention nothing of being 'asset rich, cash poor', that the over 50s are 'hogging houses' or that they should move out of their homes. All that is simply fabrication from reporters trying to create outrage where non is warranted. And many here have taken the bait!
    MICK
    5th Nov 2015
    3:18pm
    Always nice to get moderation. You could be right. Perhaps the report should have been attached to the article. Time for a coffee break...thanks KSS!
    leonYLC
    5th Nov 2015
    3:26pm
    Great comments KSS, it is good to see people reading the attached report! Always good to have a range of opinions and interpretations.
    Oldie84
    5th Nov 2015
    1:14pm
    Oh boy,

    those Monash blokes sure put their foot in it. Go Oldies Go. :-)

    I'd like to see the one who would force me to get out of my house........
    Geographer
    5th Nov 2015
    1:28pm
    How many times do you oldies need to be told. No-one has suggested you will be forced out of your home. All I am saying is that governments should remove the impediments to downsizing for those of us who want to move to a smaller, more manageable property and remain in the same area and community.
    mangomick
    5th Nov 2015
    2:56pm
    Don't shoot the Oldies ,shoot the messenger.
    But what you are saying about Governments removing the impediments quite often works the other way, meaning they raise rates on large properties so high, that oldies on the pension, have to get out or go back to living on bread and dripping.
    It's just like many Councils do when raising rates for non owner occupiers so as to try to get investors out of the housing market to free up homes for the GEN XYZers. That backfires because the young couple with kids now ends up having to pay a higher rental because of the higher costs incurred by the landlord. So now their dream of saving enough to buy their own place becomes harder.
    Oldie84
    5th Nov 2015
    4:32pm
    Ah Geographer one has to be careful...

    "Only the first Step is free". You probably have never heard that expression before but it holds an ominous warning.
    Rae
    5th Nov 2015
    6:06pm
    Geographer read George Orwell " The Road To Wigen Pier". Retired workers were forced out of their homes and into poverty quite blithly by government policy.
    Charlie
    5th Nov 2015
    1:22pm
    Silliest thing I ever heard of, almost as silly as giving the vote to 16yo.
    If you were a reasonable, sensible and honest person and were looking for a reason as to why there is a lack of affordable housing in our capital cities, there's a lot of reasons that come to mind before you blame the " greedy old seniors" who just want to live in their own home until they die. I always thought the word affordable had something to do with price and profit.
    Far too often we see scientific surveys undertaken to determine something that is already well known through common sense. When they start coming up with the wrong answers, it is embarrassingly obvious, they have stuffed it.
    Didee51
    5th Nov 2015
    1:24pm
    Many of the young families will only consider new homes now and are not interested in our homes. I am endeavouring to build 2 units at the moment, 1 for me and 1 for my daughter so that I can remain independently in my own home for as long as possible with my daughter close by to ensure that happens. I have been met with much resistance from both developers and council who don't want units. Little do they realise that I am just the start of the baby boomers and we will all start to downsize over the next few years. We worked hard for our home and paid a lot more interest on our mortgage than people today. My other observation is that houses still have yard space so there is really no problem. Maybe their research would be better utilised in areas of need instead of picking on those of us that have worked hard to own our homes.
    Jen
    5th Nov 2015
    1:38pm
    I wouldn't worry too much about it. It's nonsense. Some bright spark's "bright" idea. No reason whatsoever to move out to make way for families. Families - build your own house, like I did! Or make do with a unit or similar until you can afford your own house. It's what we've done for generations and what will continue to happen.
    Jude
    5th Nov 2015
    1:41pm
    Just something else to add to the list. If we believe all the reports by the 'academics' (who have enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle because of the hard work and sacrifices made by earlier generations) then we oldies are a drain on society and responsible for the budget blowouts, we are the cause of the majority of road accidents, we are responsible for most of the pollution and global warming, we are the reason behind the rising medical costs and long waiting lists for hospitals, and now, Lo and behold, we are hogging the houses! Don't stress out getting angry at the so-called academics. Treat it as a joke and feel sorry for these poor ignorant people who are so focussed on themselves and have nothing better to do than have a go at oldies. Remember, their time will come to be an oldie!
    Rose
    5th Nov 2015
    1:50pm
    The Economist must be a very young person.He is a great believer in taking up less space when he will be past 65 , he thinks that he will no longer need much space around him by then , and that the only he will "own" by then will be what he can take with him when he goes.That means he ,at 65, will be throwing away all he has been living for to let himself die. He will give up his space for someone else . The Economist is very young and very inconsistent." We live longer and longer ,stay more mobile" he said.What make him so sure that after 65 a person no longer need space to live longer and move around ? .
    Belinda
    5th Nov 2015
    1:54pm
    Older people are now being made to sell their homes to fund their fees in aged care, so more and more houses are coming on the market this way.
    I do think it's wrong to expect people to give up their homes though.
    Scrivener
    5th Nov 2015
    1:58pm
    Can't recall any older people having any agency in me buying my home. It took years and years on an increasing variable mortgage to pay it off and then a crooked broker caused me to lose the home. I still do not have a home of my own and now Centrelink are screwing me daily to cut as much as they can from the pittance they pay me. I'll never own a home now and I'm 73 so, to young families, I say walk in my cheap Target sand-shoes for fifty or sixty years and I'll pay attention to your aspirations. You want too much too soon and expect your elders to do it for you. Nick Off!
    Old Dog
    5th Nov 2015
    2:12pm
    This is at the heart of a belief that I hold dearly; Australia should NOT be selling off the farm. Selling the family home? No B***** way! I believe that Australia is letting non residents buy real estate, including the (inner city) family home and that this should not happen. This is what is driving house prices through the roof, not older people who are not prepared to sell their home. Even if real estate, home or farm is acquired by a non resident it should be a lease-hold situation, not free-hold.
    Jude
    5th Nov 2015
    3:26pm
    So true!
    jackie
    5th Nov 2015
    2:18pm
    The academics are greedy and corrupt. They are the ones that are trying to privatise universities for their own profit, not for the good of humanity. Stay put and live and die as you all wish instead of complying to the demands from GREED.
    Tezza
    5th Nov 2015
    3:28pm
    It would be interesting to know if the supposed academic who compiled the report has paid off their HECS debt. The oldies are the ones who have funded his 'academia'.
    An academic has not been educated in life skills. They would never make it on the outside. The majority are like 'exspurts' i.e. a drip under pressure
    big Al
    5th Nov 2015
    2:20pm
    I live in Lidcombe.N.S.W. part of Auburn council.A high percentage of the people who live here are overseas born migrants,most of the older Aussie residents moved out .
    What i see a lot of ,is CONCRETING the lawns to make more car park space,they don't want lawns......
    tia-maria
    5th Nov 2015
    2:41pm
    What happen to respecting us seniors.........we worked bloody hard to own our homes and try to live a quite life......but unfortunately we keep being attack by many and especial by our Politicians...............give it a rest.............as us retired pensioners.......... are the ones who given you the life of........ milk and honey..........Our Politicians are just full of GREED and with an Arrogant Attitude and cant let go of their Greed.
    nena
    5th Nov 2015
    2:56pm
    To those youngest who cannot afford to buy a home I suggest the following, as I did myself to buy and own my home:

    1- If you are a smoker, stop it now.
    2- If you buy take away lunch and dinner opt for making it at home and take some for lunch at work.
    3- If you are a gambler, stop now.
    4- If you want children...wait until you understand that there are already too many in the world, we don’t need any more.
    5- When you are thirsty drink fresh water out the tap...it is good for you and it cost you nothing.
    6- If you go for drinks after work, buy it from the shop instead and share them at home with family and friends. It is much cheaper and safer
    7- go Vegan, it is good for you for the animals and for the entire world.
    And...and...and...
    particolor
    5th Nov 2015
    3:08pm
    All that STOPPING Has made Jack and Jill Very Dull People !! :-( :-(
    LiveItUp
    5th Nov 2015
    4:54pm
    It's easier than that. Educate yourself and make all your money work for you not for someone else.
    Wstaton
    5th Nov 2015
    5:07pm
    Unless you are relying on the financial institutions advice then it's working for others.
    LiveItUp
    5th Nov 2015
    7:59pm
    I do neither work for others or rely upon financial institutions. I'm not prepared to hand over my money where every one gets well paid and I get the scraps. I want to make my own mistakes not have them hidden by some lame excuse.

    It is not how much money you make but what you do with it that matters.
    particolor
    5th Nov 2015
    3:13pm
    Well that's all the more reason NOW Why I will live till 110 and STAY Exactly where I am !! :-) Just to show the " Cant mind their own Business People" that they cant Mind My Business either !! :-( :-(
    particolor
    5th Nov 2015
    3:19pm
    PS.. Between NO Bacon and no House now ! What's Next On Their List ?? :-)
    I'm wondering if their New Bedouins are on the BACK of the Housing Waiting List like Our Kids ?? Ill BET They Aren't !! :-(

    5th Nov 2015
    3:14pm
    This is one of the most BS-filled reports I have ever heard. To hear such a thing which has been compiled by academia no less, and probably funded by a government grant, is a personal slap in the face to every elderly home owner. The findings of this report reek of appalling dispassion for aged people and are reminiscent of the attitude for the elderly like that of Joe Hockey. Whoever commissions reports usually gets the resulting recommendations they have paid for. That's how it always works or people wanting the desired results wouldn't fork out the funds for the "findings"........and, they can "stick" these findings!
    particolor
    5th Nov 2015
    3:28pm
    Only come Back with a Report Finding if its What We Want To Hear and Crap on to the Public with ! Now get on with it We don't pay You for Nothing !! :-(
    Signed... J. Stalin ... :-)
    mangomick
    5th Nov 2015
    3:30pm
    Can't possibly down size.If I downsize I'm likely to get a place with a smaller rooms. Then when I'm chasing the Mrs around the bedroom I'm more likely to catch her. Then what am I going to do???
    taylah
    5th Nov 2015
    3:31pm
    Can't wait for the "temporary young academics" to become OLD???? some countries are proud of their seniors and what they have achieved. My mum and dad started out in a 3 room 1/2 a house until they could finish it over many years as they could afford. New generation have no idea of waiting and achieving - want everything now. I hope they carry me out of my house in a box, and not too soon.
    particolor
    5th Nov 2015
    3:40pm
    I'd Flick a Match out of My Death Bed before I would let them tell Me what's good for me ! I always wanted to be Creeemated !! :-)
    Babs
    5th Nov 2015
    3:44pm
    The previous Labor Government were the first to push this idea of forcing older home owners out of their homes. We worked and saved very hard to own our home and I will never allow them to push me out. We will take in a couple of people so that we do not have any spare room. Maybe those who come up with these ideas should get in the real world and maybe then they would be experienced enough to make these suggestions.
    PlanB
    5th Nov 2015
    3:53pm
    Well I couldn't get out of Sydney soon enough, however because work was there thats where we had to stay, thank God I am out of there now and have been for 30 years
    Precious 1
    5th Nov 2015
    4:12pm
    unfortunately no o e can undo padt rules and regulations we all woud ove to livein the family home being looked after by an eager family member thinking he going to inherit
    .lolol myf home is now in the hands of others as I did nt mKe my claim as living overseas and now gone back to state ..i am the only beneficiary...without solicitors questions and hefty fees leave your houses to your kids properly and heaven sakes live in the granny flat....world is changing rapidly ...we lucky to be alive....never mind family homes
    Precious 1
    5th Nov 2015
    4:12pm
    unfortunately no o e can undo padt rules and regulations we all woud ove to livein the family home being looked after by an eager family member thinking he going to inherit
    .lolol myf home is now in the hands of others as I did nt mKe my claim as living overseas and now gone back to state ..i am the only beneficiary...without solicitors questions and hefty fees leave your houses to your kids properly and heaven sakes live in the granny flat....world is changing rapidly ...we lucky to be alive....never mind family homes
    mareela
    5th Nov 2015
    4:13pm
    LeonYLC I read Mick's post to mean that not the researchers were GenY but the population being researched was GenY. Big difference I'd say.
    Precious 1
    5th Nov 2015
    4:16pm
    yes older people can be the modt grumpy things to deal with and Im one myself
    .there are some beautiful seniors places where you pay no more than a quarter of ur income...give the family what they need .....i have a lovely place not far from family and no worries...some oldies very selfish!!!!!@????
    mangomick
    5th Nov 2015
    9:19pm
    Being and feeling old is all in the mind. Last thing anyone needs is to to live amongst a lot of oldies in some seniors village just crossing names off a list and wondering everyday if your name is going to be next.
    PlanB
    6th Nov 2015
    6:01am
    NO WAY will I ever move to a "seniors place" I would rather be DEAD!

    It would drive me nuts living with other people -- or even close to others
    LiveItUp
    5th Nov 2015
    4:25pm
    I agree it is a good idea. If the house was part of the assets test this would make people more inclined to get themselves appropriate housing.
    Anonymous
    5th Nov 2015
    4:50pm
    Nonsense.
    LiveItUp
    5th Nov 2015
    4:52pm
    No it's realistic. People should not be getting the pension and living in expensive housing that is inappropriate for them.
    Wstaton
    5th Nov 2015
    4:58pm
    I guess Bonney you are living in a nice house where you want to live. Not on a pension so you can tell these people to move from where they brought up a family and blow to their memories and areas of comfort.
    LiveItUp
    5th Nov 2015
    7:44pm
    What a lot of rubbish! House has memories? Me thinks not. Surely a nice new more suitable housing is much better than an old run down breezy dwelling that costs heaps to run and maintain.

    Where I live is of no significance here as I live within my means without any welfare support. This loop hole of upgrading to a better house or living is an expensive house needs to be closed. Best way is to include the house in the assets test. Families should not get a windfall when a person dies if that person has been collecting welfare. This needs to be deducted from the sales of their assets.

    It never ceases to amaze me that people keep saying they have worked hard all their life and deserve welfare. If you worked hard then why are you now on welfare?
    PlanB
    6th Nov 2015
    6:10am
    Bonny so easy to see you are either NOT on the pension or have never worked hard to own your home -- or are on "Ä" pension --of some sort --renting -- maybe a Government home????

    As you have NFI what it takes to own a home you have worked long and hard for to own it and up keep it and what I would be like to have it in the assets test.

    I have NO idea how anyone affords to pay rent --unless they are in Government housing and so don't have to pay rates and up keep.
    PlanB
    6th Nov 2015
    6:16am
    Also Bonny, the reason why I am on the Aged Pension is because for a lot of years I also had to give up work so I could look after my Mother AND my Husband, I went back to work after each one passed away but I was unable to save money while looking after them however I saved the Government a heap by doing so. I also gave them both much better care than they would have got in care, because I loved them.
    LiveItUp
    8th Nov 2015
    1:45pm
    Let's face it a house is really only somewhere to live why have something that is inappropriate to your needs anyway. I have never been one to own things just to impress others myself and really can't understand why anyone else does.

    Yes I've done the hard yards looking after children, parents and partner too. I seem to have always had to work to accommodate others so can't see what was your problem. If I can do anyone can.
    ex PS
    7th Nov 2016
    2:05pm
    Bonny, if you enjoy living in a house and you are capable of looking after it, it is appropriate to your needs. It is definatley not up to some sticky beak, irrelevant and envious second or third party to make a decision on their behalf.
    mareela
    5th Nov 2015
    4:31pm
    Precious 1 are you saying you pay rent or own a dwelling? Are you talking about retirement villages? Not many non home owners could afford to pay commercial rent. ? Maybe you're talking about housing commission. Could you please explain? Thanks
    Precious 1
    5th Nov 2015
    6:59pm
    any person on a pension at 62 as I was by law pays Only a quarter of her/his income in any rental situation ...look into it at social services..unless I..am very wrong i will sincerely apologise!..i relinguished the marital home years ago went overseas finding work first and then came back to Oz and found work all around Oz..I never ever had a problem...maybe I wanted to be alone...childten all grown and wit partners..i danced with paupers and Kings...in different coutries
    Precious 1
    5th Nov 2015
    6:59pm
    any person on a pension at 62 as I was by law pays Only a quarter of her/his income in any rental situation ...look into it at social services..unless I..am very wrong i will sincerely apologise!..i relinguished the marital home years ago went overseas finding work first and then came back to Oz and found work all around Oz..I never ever had a problem...maybe I wanted to be alone...childten all grown and wit partners..i danced with paupers and Kings...in different coutries
    PlanB
    6th Nov 2015
    6:35am
    Precious, so you SOLD your home went o/s spent all the money then come back and either get rent assistance and or live in Government housing ?
    Wstaton
    5th Nov 2015
    4:43pm
    After reading the report it appears to me quite factual. Nowhere does it say that older people should move out so that the younger set can move in.

    It was also interesting to note that in table 10 it shows the percentage of people 50+ across all areas of greater Melbourne and Sydney averaged 50% Not just the inner areas.

    Does that mean we all should move out to wupwup to make room in all suburbs?

    It was also interesting to note after a search of age demographics that the number of people 25 - 49 (the area where people are looking for stand alone houses) was 7,532,771. The 50 and above age group was 6,962,363 (2011 stats) virtually 50 50.

    Considering that that the upper end of the 25-49 demographic would already have their own stand alone home (if not they are probably never going to get one) How many does it then leave in the lower 25 - 49 demographic?

    So how many people may be actually looking in the lower demographic? as the number of people in the 25 - 39 demographic is 4,486,173 Most likely looking.

    It has not made clear in the report just how many in the demographic may be looking.

    Apart from this I think is has been the spin by the media that has got people overheated the report pointing out factual fact, facts that have really come about by the malaise of government.
    mareela
    5th Nov 2015
    5:16pm
    Glad to hear you did so well geographer but please don't have the cheek to judge all baby boomers by your yard stick. I'm a single female who worked full time all my working life but obviously didn't have the same income you have had. Try walking in the shoes of someone less fortunate than yourself. You may or may not understand the hardships some people have had. Really annoys me to see someone make a ridiculous statement on behalf of a whole generation of baby boomers. Speak for yourself only and glad to hear you have done well for yourself and family.
    emmsworth
    5th Nov 2015
    5:23pm
    Isn't it typical of todays' society, to 'kick the oldies to the curb' and concentrate on just younger people and families. Its the same with people with disabilities. instead of offering a hand up to the elderly and disabled. It however, seems we are made out to be 'demons' and 'burdens' to be dealt with extremely harshly. Even the government, is pathetic in the way that pensioners and the disabled are treated. As for our house, my wife and I intend on staying in it for as long as we can. After all it is our 'Castle' and we own it......
    Franky
    5th Nov 2015
    5:38pm
    We are a so-called free country, and everyone has the right to live where they choose to. The govt. also has the right to enable legislation that would make it favourable for older people to move into a unit and give up their family home. So this is a lot about nothing....
    gr82do
    5th Nov 2015
    5:44pm
    The saddest thing is that it came out of a University. Where has commonsense gone?
    ex PS
    7th Nov 2016
    2:12pm
    Unfortunaley academics who mare working on a Doctorate have to provide a Thesis that may take years to complete and has to be based on a fresh idea that enables them to establish and prove a theory.
    As there are minimal new useful ideas to use, the subject matter for a thesis become more and more ridiculous. It is the system at fault not the individual, some blame has to go to the media for giving space to some of the outlandish ideas that are delivered by this process. And of course the public has to take some of the blame for accepting such a low standard of reporting.
    TREBOR
    5th Nov 2015
    6:37pm
    A perfect example of the politics of division that have held sway in this country for forty years now - since the advent of feminism etc and affirmative action (BTW that blurb yesterday about the wonderful lady jockey totally removed the gloss from her wsin by making it a 'feminist' issue - when will some people learn?).

    We've had women pitted against innocent men trying to make a decent living and keep families together - Oldest and Old Australians pitted against the recent waves of New Australians - workers and bosses pitted against one another to the detriment of both - just about every possible divisive idea has held sway her for far too long - and this one - pitting of the young against the old that you can find on any number of forums - would have to be the most stupid and frankly insane icing on the cake most of us have had to eat for years now.

    Let the young ones make their own way and find their own path to home ownership - the problem today is not the older people occupying homes - it is the investors, and the total unwillingness of any government - Liberal or Labor - to do anything about this for the simple reason that they themselves contain a huge number of property investors.

    Only a change of government completely away from this government of two parties will change that - and any number of other things so wrong today.
    Precious 1
    5th Nov 2015
    7:03pm
    The family home mentioned sounds like a govt property...my girls and also grandchildren have builttheir ow beautiful homes saving money themselves etc i am more than proud of my great family..who are all Ozzies anglo saxon heritage and working and well educated...
    older&wiser
    5th Nov 2015
    7:09pm
    My daughter was ready to call the doctor she was so concerned about my blood pressure when I heard of this ridiculous nonsense!! I brought up my daughter alone after her father walked out when she was 6 months old - and never contributed a cent. I struggled like bloody mad to give her a good home, good education, etc and only when I was in my mid 40's, she in her early 20's and ready to fly the coop, did I buy my first house. BUT this was after working sometimes 3 jobs, never taking holidays, buying second hand furniture and clothes, and giving up my much loved hobby. I worked bloody hard, renovating & decorating my run down house myself. Now in my mid 60’s, I still have to work for many years due to minimal super because of low paying jobs, and one fraudulent employer stealing my super.
    I’m lucky to still have a job, but every week is a struggle. I have worked hard to make my little house, with a large yard for my garden and dog, my HOME. I have added an extra large bedroom and ensuite, have a small pool, and want no more. Now some so-called expert thinks it would be a good idea to sell my place to some ‘working family’, for me to move from the home and area I know and love, into some box of a high rise. Simple – NO WAY.
    Here’s my current example of this foolhardiness. My next door neighbours – late 20’s couple. He woks away for 2 weeks, home for 2 weeks. She doesn’t work – often says she ‘doesn’t have to’ because of partner’s wage. Rent the house – nothing flash, but serves them OK (have one 3yo child). They have 2 large 4WD’s – easily worth around $50,000 new – and she does not drive!! He drivers one to work when he goes away – other car sits in driveway. Fence was getting run down: I have 1 dog, they have 2, and one of their dogs was continually literally stepping over the fence and pestering my dog. Suggested getting a Colourbond fence. Told me great!! – I got quotes, served them the paperwork. Then, without them even READING the quote or forms, said to me – and I swear this is almost word for word what she said –
    “Oh we can’t contribute because XY earns too much money now”. I said ‘I beg your pardon – what do you mean?’ She said “ well now that XY earns over $160,000 a year, we miss out on Government rebates and benefits”. I was absolutely stunned!! I replied that I was single, and was only on a third of what he was earning, and the Govt didn’t give ME anything. She just replied that no – they couldn’t afford it. Said they didn’t have that type of spare money just hanging around (is less than $2,000)
    So where have they been for his last break home? – off to Bali for 10 days!! When I arranged to get the fence put up, my lovely fence builder went to them and persuaded them to agree to contribute – but they will only agree to $1,500. Still – better than nothing. So now that fence is built – went to them to seek reimbursement – and they want to pay it off at $50 a month!! There is literally very little I can do, apart from paying a solicitor to seek payment.
    And I suppose THIS is the type of ‘working family’ I would be supposed to hand my house over to? Not in any way, not in any bloody way!! I am sick to bloody death of hearing about ‘working families’ and all the tax breaks and benefits they get. I don’t get anything, and after a recent electricity bill of over $650 for a quarter, and talk of the GST going up to 15%, I wonder just when the camel’s back (meaning me) – will break. And I don’t have copious amounts of power guzzling items in the house. If I ever want to sell my house it will because I WANT to, not because I HAVE to. Stop bashing the seniors and treating them like a piggy bank to support your own agenda.
    PlanB
    6th Nov 2015
    6:25am
    Good on you Sunset, give them what they deserve NOTHING!
    Robin7
    5th Nov 2015
    7:27pm
    the LNP have long tried to blame older aussies living in their homes for the housing affordability crisis. They have previously used the term "hogging the family home". This report is obviously biased and likely a funded opinion.

    The housing affordability crisis is caused by investors, both rich aussies trying to negative gear their way to a zero taxpaying lifestyle. AND foreign nationals buying multiple houses, real estate agents tell stories of collecting wealthy buyers from the airport and driving them past a dozen homes all of which are then purchased.

    Get foreign nationals out of the property market entirely, get rid of negative gearing for property, and then put a limit on how much property any person can own, and they cannot buy them in partners/kids names, nor buy them for the family trust.


    To claim all academics are lefties is asinine.
    mangomick
    5th Nov 2015
    7:42pm
    Great Idea if you really want your taxes to double or treble. Who the hell do you think owns those houses that many people on welfare live in now. Do you realise just how many low cost houses the Government would have to build if it wasn't for the many people who have rental properties. The Government Welfare budget just isn't big enough to build that many housing commission houses.
    particolor
    5th Nov 2015
    9:07pm
    Well they'd better pull their finger out and find enough Money for at Least 15.000 more houses before Christmas !! :-) :-)
    Robin7
    6th Nov 2015
    6:45am
    you two have got to be kidding, you are using anecdotes as evidence, and LNP scare-mongering for your "proof".

    If gov knocked negative gearing on its head they could build 50,000 houses in a heartbeat with the taxes saved.
    If they stopped foreign nationals buying up streets of houses ordinary aussies could buy their own homes.

    Negative Gearing and Foreign ownership are the two biggest factors to excessive house prices. With prices increasing by 10% a year but wages only moving 2% it wont be much longer before the only Australians who can afford to buy a home are the top 1%.

    40 years ago (1975) a widow pensioner could buy a house, after my dad died with no insurance that is exactly what my mother did,
    now in 2015 a single average wage earning family cannot.

    Lots of sources over-estimate welfare numbers, you two seem to be doing the same. Welfare numbers are falling.

    Rents are not cheap in the private sector. Various sources also over-estimate how many welfare families live in private housing. Queensland Housing alone has $16Billion worth in properties and builds 3,000 new dwellings a year. So your figure of 15,000 houses will be well exceeded by housing commissions Australia Wide as standard practice.
    Sources also talk big numbers about moving people from social to private housing, but most tenants so "moved on" found jobs and are no longer eligible.

    Slum Lords and Foreign Nationals owning dozens of houses are not "doing the rest of us a favour".
    older&wiser
    6th Nov 2015
    6:16pm
    Sorry Robin - have to totally disagree about the negative gearing. I was around the last time the Govt canned that - I had to move 3 times in a year as house owners sold up. And every time, the rent went up. Lack of negtive gearing = owners selling = less rental pool of places = higher rents. It has been a proven fact that cancelling out negative gearing does NOT equate to more houses being built. What really needs to be culled back is the number of overseas buyers buying houses in Australia. The so-called rules the govt has in place is nothing short of a joke. Have been going to auctions with a friend who is looking for a house, and time and time again she has been knocked out by flush Asian buyers. And that is not being racist - that is FACT. No matter what bid is placed, they go higher. Most cannot speak English, but know the auction rules. Speak to them and it is parents buying a place for their kids who are students in Australia. Convenient way to get in the Aust property door. Or wealthy Asian buyers wanting to get some money out of their own country. Stop these buyers - and the stock for home buyers would fall in reach.
    Robin7
    6th Nov 2015
    6:45pm
    in2sunset - gov and academia are not talking about houses being built, they are talking about being able to buy a house,
    previous posters tried to twist the topic to building houses by claiming that negative gearing owners were providing rents to welfare recipients, they are not.
    I have rented and accidentally opened letters to my house that were bills for roofing or new windows, works that were never done to the house I was renting.
    Negative gearing is to save on taxes, it drives house prices up, remove it and gov will have more money to spend on everything.
    mangomick
    6th Nov 2015
    7:46pm
    Robin 7. I think you'll find Particolor is making a tongue in cheek reference to the Syrian refugees that are coming.
    mangomick
    6th Nov 2015
    8:11pm
    Robin 7 I'll tell you just how effective the negative gearing of rental properties are in minimizing tax. I paid $40000 in tax last year and got $1500 back.
    In my book owning rental properties doesn't qualify as a great way of minimizing my PAYG tax. Will I have my hand out for a pension like you when I retire though. No I won't.
    Eventually negatively geared properties become positively geared and the owners pay more tax or they are sold and the owners pay capital gains tax at their marginal tax rate.
    If I really wanted to minimize tax I wouldn't worry about rental properties with all the hassles of maintenance and unpaid rents. Many people like myself invest in bricks and mortar because they have seen too many people screwed by the share markets and by dud financial planners. There are far easier ways just to minimize tax than buying rental properties.
    Dot
    5th Nov 2015
    9:34pm
    You gotta be kidding, sell our homes so someone else can purchase it.
    It's like putting a gun to our head, a life time of hard work to own what we have, now some academics tell us to move out.
    The time has come for all academics to shut their mouths or we'll shut it for you.
    particolor
    5th Nov 2015
    9:40pm
    All that Agree say I...:-)
    PlanB
    6th Nov 2015
    6:27am
    "I" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    ndibs
    5th Nov 2015
    9:58pm
    My Dad has just moved into an aged care village after caring for Mum until she died this year. He's 94 and they had a 3-bed house. After doing the buy-in for the aged care, he's still got too much in assets so looses $100/fortnight from the pension.
    They would have definitely been better if they had moved into somewhere that offered aged care 10 years ago - but didn't.
    When should we move-on - when we can't manage to maintain the condition of the house and yard in a reasonable manner. For those that can, I'd commend you to hang in there and maintain the pleasure and comfort that you have from being in your long-term abode.
    When I purchased our home over 40 years ago, it was an old 2-bed weatherboard shack and as funds and children came, we renovated and expanded.
    Our furniture was passed down from relatives and other loved ones and cherished until (the good stuff) passed on to the next generation once we had the means to match things.
    There's nothing wrong with a newly married couple and a child or 2 living in a 65m2 flat with 2nd hand things and it's quite good for them to do so.

    We need to stop the BLING and live a life within our means as Quality of Life has more to do with the pursuit of quality family time than seeking possessions or wealth.
    Dot
    5th Nov 2015
    9:58pm
    Looking forward to a revolution, it'll give us the opportunity to hunt down the political mafia and all those who keep pricing us out of existence like bringing the GST up to 15%, while at the same time lowering the tax for the rich.
    Jen
    6th Nov 2015
    7:13am
    I, too, look forward to that day, Dot. I hope it's not just a pipe dream! Pity our children and grandchildren otherwise.

    I just read the latest leaks about the TPP and as expected, it's all bad.
    PlanB
    6th Nov 2015
    7:29am
    Yes revolution well over due !

    TPP worries me too and I am sure that our dumb arsed Pollies do not understand it either -- or it is serving THEIR purposes only ?
    Robin7
    6th Nov 2015
    9:19am
    TPP - if you want to worry about the TPP then wait till you read the bit about certification of pharmaceuticals... if some foreign "company owned" think tank says their quack product works and is fit for human consumption then Australia have to accept it and allow it to be sold here.
    stunned.
    PlanB
    6th Nov 2015
    9:33am
    Yes Robin7 that was known b4 they even signed it
    Wstaton
    6th Nov 2015
    10:10am
    Just to show what is foisted on the unsuspecting public by the pharmaceuticals watch this video.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_levitin_how_to_stay_calm_when_you_know_you_ll_be_stressed?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2015-10-31&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_button

    Its about stress but what is interesting is what it says about some pharmaceutical product.

    It opened my mind.
    PlanB
    7th Nov 2015
    7:27am
    Wstation, that video is not the half of it, there are many medications out there that are foisted on us --- IF we allow them to be -- such as Fosamax / Prolia etc --- there are MANY more -- that have the most horrific side effects but the Drs are STILL pushing them.

    If you do not know about these and believe without checking, you are in BIG trouble.
    Bes
    5th Nov 2015
    10:32pm
    It's our fault, we gave them too much and now they want EVERYTHING.
    For starters at least a 4x2 for a starter home, his and hers cars, his and hers credit cards, his and hers mobile/plans... I mean, life just isn't worth living without these things!
    I mean.....who actually earns and actually pays for any of the above in today's world?
    Silly old buggers us...... actually paying for something was yesterday. The phrase, 'Maxed out' wasn't around then.
    Shopping around for a 'card' was for a birthday or Christmas.
    Today you live life based on the amount of credit you both have.
    Us oldies just don't know what we are talking about.
    Fancy actually struggling to pay something OFF! And on top of that then paying for a mortgage based on one wage (no maternal leave in those days) and only having one car and raising children?
    Well we only have one message for the 'academic'. You will have to steal it or take it by force. It's called ownership, it's a HOME. It holds memories....and it's OURS not the property of any credit company!
    So how about forgetting about all of this, just SUCK IT UP and probably go about your next strategy.......maybe Compulsory Euthanasia?
    Circum
    5th Nov 2015
    11:58pm
    Home owners do not have to justify why they live in their homes.Common sense tells you anyway.If some academics dont like it..then like michelle said..they can get stuffed.Its none of their business.There is one factor that applies to some people I know and that is the huge stamp duty cost which discourages some from moving.
    PlanB
    6th Nov 2015
    6:30am
    My oath Circum, stamp duty PLUS the moving fee and the bother of moving --when you don't want to.
    Strummer
    6th Nov 2015
    7:55am
    These twats need to be reminded whose taxes paid for their education. Seems like a waste of money to me!
    midnight
    6th Nov 2015
    8:05am
    It has taken me my whole life time to finally be mortgage free. Now the suggestion is that I sell my home, possibly to a foreign investor, lose my pension, because I now have some money, and pay rent, possibly to a foreign investor, and go back to the panic and stress of having to find a new home, renting from some unknown demigod, living in an area not of my choosing. How can that benefit the bottom line in Australian finances? Sounds really dumb to me.
    Radish
    6th Nov 2015
    8:31am
    What business is it of anyone as to whether you stay in your home or not? If a person wishes to downsize fine; but they should not be forced to do so.
    Keep increasing the population what do you expect; most want to live around the coastline and on the east coast in particular Sydney Melbourne, Brisbane.
    Yes Australia is a big country but large parts of it are not habitable.
    As for not being able to afford a home; how about some of the younger generation pull back on the money they waste; many have the attitude live for today and bugger tomorrow. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Living beyond your means is the way things are done today.
    doclisa
    6th Nov 2015
    10:40am
    I wonder if the term 'hogging' is what is crazy in this. That is not an academic specialst term. It sounds like fake media spin. No one 'hogs' their home. It is their home. They live in it.
    The issues is with the alternatives.
    Clearly by reading the comments what is needed is
    1. Better and preferably FREE public transport. so that the narrow laneways in developments are not an issue.
    2. Developemnt of parks/greenspace/shared space within new developments. If you look back to the notion of the 'backyard' we didn't actualy play in our own backyards, we went and played in 'the reserve', the 'creek' the beach' the new housing building sites' so unofficial public space.
    3.better fast transport to and between the second cities within the State sytem. Not road, but rail and fast rail.
    4. Caps on chopping up the old houses for development sites. They need to be included in a suitable mix of street scape and sociability.
    wally
    6th Nov 2015
    11:00am
    If my kids and their grandkids wanted to move into my house with me, I would be cool with that. But the fact is they have not and do not wish to do so. They prefer to live in the "Yuppievilles" of the trendier inner city suburbs than in the outer suburban "battler belt" of working class suburbs where I make my home.

    If the Monash University "egg-heads" think we oldies should make way for the younger generation, we will when we die and our children inherit our properties to sell off as they wish. So it is all a case of "jumping the gun" on this issue. If the poor wretched youngies are so keen to buy up properties, they can. They just have to forgo their Yuppieville dreams and live in the outer suburbs and get used to commuting.
    PlanB
    6th Nov 2015
    1:03pm
    Well my Son lives on acreage, I would also hate to live in "Yuppyvillle "
    disillusioned
    6th Nov 2015
    11:55am
    Isn't it funny that reports like this end up affecting people as policies are then changed on that premise. Seems its a useful tactic to 'soften up' people with the idea, or research, which supposedly gives politicians the opportunity to change laws..
    The Educator
    9th Nov 2015
    5:45pm
    I see you've played this game before.

    6th Nov 2015
    8:17pm
    Here's a th0ught. Maybe younger Australians should do what we did - reduce their expectations and settle for a smaller, older home far out in the outer suburbs, in a less desirable location. Maybe they should give up their expensive holidays and restaurant dinners and live on stew, soup and packed lunches; grow vegetables; work two jobs...

    We bought our home at a time when women who worked were paid a pittance and most families had only one income. Anyone under 21 drew minimal wages, so saving during youth was impossible, We paid a minimum of 7% interest and up to 18% for extended periods. Gee, the young have it tough! Cheap interest. Huge wages, right from the time they start work. Two incomes in most families. My young neighbours are buying 5 bedroom, 3 bathroom, 3 living room brick and tile mansions - brand new, landscaped professionally, with heated swimming pools in the back yard - and taking their kids on overseas holidays every year, and whinging about doing it tough! I'm fed up with the greed and selfishness. Our generation earned our comfort in old age and it's past time the ''oldies bashing'' stopped and the young showed some respect and appreciation. We did it tough, but it never occurred to us to ask our parents and grandparents to sacrifice their life style to make it easier for us.
    PlanB
    7th Nov 2015
    7:32am
    Yes the 1st home we had we sat on butter boxes for many months and had Bon ami on the windows -- for a long time and no Elect for 6 months either, cooked on a primus and also heated the iron on it to iron clothes for work.

    These days they want it all NOW PLUS 2 cars
    speakup
    7th Nov 2015
    7:03am
    A simple way to ease the housing shortage , pay Pensioners married or not the same Pension allowing single Pensioners to live in one house instead of two separate homes,plus get rid of the salaries paid to the Governments Snoopers .
    Dont need to be an Academic to see the advantages of that.
    Why not leave the elderly Australians that helped build this country alone ,Academics are not restricted from aging or being stupid
    Gee Whiz
    7th Nov 2015
    9:59am
    What else could you expect from black hole Academic's?

    Most of the world's problems stem form idiots such as this. They live an insular existence far removed from reality and common sense.
    Mez
    7th Nov 2015
    3:55pm
    Yes well do not complain when the council land rates increase to keep up with the rising high property prices if you keep holding on to your empty big nests!
    It is only sensible to sell and downsize with the remaining money to be able to treat yourselves to an overseas cruise and deposit the remainder into a superfund for taxfree gains.
    Problem is that with old age often comes a certain amount of stubborness.
    Sure you have worked hard to earn these big empty houses but hey, that is history!
    PlanB
    7th Nov 2015
    4:04pm
    Mez, I am not interested in going O/S at all, I am also not interested in moving and or paying stamp duty to buy a place some where
    I DO NOT WANT BE This is where I want to be right where I am!
    Circum
    7th Nov 2015
    7:25pm
    Great article for a clear thinking analysis at high school Mez.Your logic leaves a lot to be desired.Its likely that I would still complain about the rates on my downsized property.Complain about the overpriced food on the cruise and complain about losing all or part of my pension by downsizing.
    Better to be stubborn than stupid
    Precious 1
    7th Nov 2015
    8:22pm
    I an elderly and see how some become when can hardly walk etc and have to have services in to get thrm up in mornings shower and dress..keep appts
    .shopping and so on ..these services are not free ..old age isnt pleasant at all for anyone.

    most of us wish and hope to sleep and pass on when our time is up.


    .
    Charlie
    7th Nov 2015
    9:10pm
    Mez, Maybe its the speed at which people expect to profit on property sales, is what needs to be held into question, not the slowness of the aged to keep moving out. In Australia we have hundreds of square kilometres of undeveloped land where people can buy property and houses. Its the young who need to go out and develop these new communities just as their forefathers did, and as only the young can do, but we seem to have a generation of young and migrants and refugees as well, who want everything to come to them. They shouldn't be counting the number of vacant bedrooms old people have in their homes. They should be getting out and making a life for themselves. Why create more high density housing before its really necessary.
    Mutley
    8th Nov 2015
    9:03am
    Me thinks Della Bosca has drawn a long bow in concluding that older home owners should move out and make room for the younger generation to raise their families. Having read the report I could find no conclusions only data upon which Sydney and Melbourne planners can act.
    Snow
    8th Nov 2015
    3:20pm
    These so called academics are talking out of their backsides. I don't own a home, never have and never will. But I do not begrudge those who do. I would like to see them going through a world war and depression world wide like my parents did. What stupid things to say. Good on those that have homes holding on to them.
    Travellersjoy
    9th Nov 2015
    10:20am
    In Melbourne the government forces councils to approve 'infill' housing and closer development.

    Even if we all moved out of our houses tomorrow, the backyards would disappear under new units faster than the developers can get money out of the banks.

    The goal is only rich kids will have backyards in future. The rest are caged until, and if, they are required in the workforce.

    It ain't old people keeping young people out of homes with gardens. It is current public policy - fully owned and developed by neoliberalism in both major parties, and some very misguided urbanists.
    Charlie
    9th Nov 2015
    3:12pm
    I thought this was the silliest thing I had ever heard of, but no there's another one out this week, to top it.
    An insurance company, I believe QBE was quoted, is part of a big push to have seniors go through some P plate type of assessment because they are such a danger on the road. They are supposedly dying with their foot on the accelerator and causing a danger to other road users.
    What insurance company would be stupid enough to put their name to such a load of nonsense if they want to remain in business. There are plenty of real statistics available to tell governments the main cause of carnage on the road and I bet seniors driving cars doesn't even make the list.
    The Educator
    9th Nov 2015
    5:32pm
    Drivers age over 75 have the highest risk of being killed in a crash per kilometre travelled than any other age group.

    http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/statistics/summaries/older-driver-statistics
    Wstaton
    9th Nov 2015
    5:45pm
    It would also appear that the most pedestrians killed is in the 70+ age group does that mean we should stop this group from walking?
    The Educator
    9th Nov 2015
    5:52pm
    Clearly the survival rate for being hit by a car being over 70 would be lower than someone much younger, but if the actual strike rates are higher more focus should be on why elderly pedestrians are being struck by cars.
    The Educator
    9th Nov 2015
    5:43pm
    Stay in your homes, but don't expect an age pension if you house is valued over a certain amount.

    The family home is capital gains tax free, and not an assessable asset for the Age Pension. It is unfair to own a $2m home and get a full age pension when someone who doesn't own their home and has significantly less financial assets gets no age pension.

    The age pension is not meant to be used to supplement an inheritance to your children, they can make it on their own. The family assets should be used and enjoyed by those who earned them in retirement. Otherwise we will see an inheritance tax imposed in the future, such as already exists in other countries.
    Wstaton
    9th Nov 2015
    5:49pm
    There used to be an inheritance tax but it was stopped by some politician at sometime. I guess once again this was for the Richie's to rat ain there gains rather than a poor pensioner who happen to be asset rich.
    The Educator
    9th Nov 2015
    6:00pm
    Yes, let's pity the asset rich for the burden they bear.
    Wstaton
    9th Nov 2015
    6:08pm
    Yes most of the asset is usually in the land not the modest home that may be on it.

    It would appear that the bracket creep richer tax payers are to be pitied but the reverse for the asset rich poor are to be condemned.

    Maybe not poor in the not be able to sustain themselves but are quite happy with their lot but are being condemned by having something that other greedy people want.
    PlanB
    10th Nov 2015
    7:16am
    What about if you have paid an amount for your home many years ago --decades in fact -- it goes up in value --you should not loose out because of that, maybe a different matter IF you have just bought a home worth a heap.

    You can not eat bricks and you can not be expected to move every time you home goes up in value.

    You also have to upkeep the home and pay the rates
    melbgirl
    10th Nov 2015
    9:16am
    Yes it is grossly unfair that asset rich people are able to claim the full pension. I have no assets but my small super pension reduces my pension at 50cents in the dollar, and I pay high private rent. I also pay tax every year.
    Some will say I should have saved more; I didn't expect hubby to die suddenly, had to raise 4 kids on my own working full time.
    I find it offensive when I hear people complaining they are struggling whilst living in homes worth $1.5m plus. If they are holding on to homes for the kid's inheritance, then maybe the kids should be supporting them, rather than the taxpayers - many of whom will never be able to afford their own home, despite working hard.
    PlanB
    11th Nov 2015
    6:09am
    Melgirl, I never expected my Husband to die at the age of 48 either but lucky we had just paid off the mortgage through working bloody hard.
    Yes the home IS worth more now but I can't eat bricks and I had no super as there was none then. I am holding onto my home because I want to live here and still have to up keep it and pay rates as does every one else.
    I also had ONE child because I knew it costs a lot to have more and I always thought ahead.
    Radish
    12th Nov 2015
    3:49pm
    Melbgirl, this subject was raised a little while ago and all hell broke loose when it was suggested that people in homes worth over a million should be penalised and the home should be included in the asset test.

    There are many rorts going on re getting access to a part pension. Everyone knows it, the government knows it but what the answer is I have no idea.
    Rose
    9th Nov 2015
    11:52pm
    The" asset rich" people are not hurt, they are rich and they adapt to any situation.Are the asset poor who get hurt. All it is happening nowadays is that the oldies are the ones with superannuation or savings : the market has a surplus of apartments (bird cages).The idea is
    to send all to occupy the bird cages and live behind plots of land to the speculators. Which is that the Government has been preaching for long time : market movement, savings is off, spending is in ,produce or perish... In my opinion Australia will have soon a class of poor people , homeless people who no longer can afford the rising levy on their cages, ,the rising taxes and price for utilities . Pushed out of their homes they will heavily rely on Government subsidies. I wonder what is that Australia will gain out of it.
    Voyager
    10th Nov 2015
    11:30am
    Not only does this Academic's work reflect Ageist and Communist views but it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding whole of life cycle of maturing families and the rights of aging people in this free country. It is Human Age discrimination purely and simply.
    meow
    11th Nov 2015
    10:21am
    I live in a housing trust house in Adelaide, SA. It is a single unit and I have lived here for 23 years, I transferred from a housing trust house in Whyalla. My children finished their growing up here, even my grandson spent a few years here. BUT the housing trust won't let my son and his family move in here when I can't cope with the house anymore or die and yet he has been on the housing trust list for over 20 years and is now on a disability pension for a work injury. He has to rent privately.
    Because they are expecting their second child there is not enough room to live here and we did try it for a year and a half but the house was too crowded, 3 adults and a teenager. HT houses are famous for their small bedrooms and both of us threw out furniture and belongings to try and make it work. So if the housing trust is serious why can't my child take over my house when I can no longer use it? Or be willing to do an addition so we can all live together? Cheaper than a whole house? I cared for my husband for 5 years and he died here so obviously I don't want to leave here, yet I believe they could put me out, although the policy at the moment isn't to do that, and the house would not go to one of my family who qualifies for rent assistance. So this affects renters as well as house owners.
    Leo
    11th Nov 2015
    11:09am
    There is no way we would move to make way for anyone else. People who have paid off their mortgage or buying their home can live anywhere they choose.
    foxfieldslavender
    12th Nov 2015
    10:41am
    This so called academic is saying nothing new, all he is repeating is what some misguided person said in the U K a couple of weeks ago. These older wiser Australians should hang onto their greatest asset as you cannot put a price on the memories within. All this report is doing is looking for a scapegoat to cover the government's ineptitude for not planning for future growth within Australia.
    Glenda
    12th Nov 2015
    10:17pm
    This report is appalling, it sickens and angers me. The housing crisis is due to the government's lack of insight into the growing population and their total inability to plan ahead where industries and commerce can be taken outside of the main cities. Also, the increasing population need to realise that they will have to work really hard as we did and go further afield to work for and have their home, or work even harder to buy a property in the CBD with its ridiculously high property prices. How outrageous and how insulting to us seniors, that some idiotic and malicious report suggests that we leave our family home .... for most of us and that includes me, this is the only investment in our lives and our haven that we paid for through years and years of hard work and sweat. Most of us older folks have never lived off welfare because we have been rightfully too damn proud and wanted to make it on our own, we raised our kids by ourselves (no handouts from the government), no help whatsoever. Thank you National Australian Seniors Chief Minister Michael O'Neill, for speaking up for us seniors. We worked very hard to get our homes, and in our homes is where we will stay.
    Willy
    17th Nov 2015
    10:46pm
    When stamp duties are abolished for the senior population it may help. But as it is now, lots of pensioners in Perth would like to downsize but resent paying extortionate stamp duty when selling or buying another property. I believe som states have abolished stamp duty for pensioners, why not W A?
    ex PS
    7th Nov 2016
    1:33pm
    When will these academics and the politicians who use them to garner support for unworkable and ludicrous programmers get the message.
    When someone works hard and pays for a car, boat or house, it is theirs to do with what they want. They become owners, they own the object that they have used their money to pay for. How simple can it be?
    If I want to build a 6 bedroom house on twenty acres and live in it all by myself that is my choice, it is called freedom, are these people advocating that the government should decide how big our car should be or how much land we should own based on how large our family is? I believe that this was the strategy used by China and the USSR, it did not work for them, why should it work for Australia.
    Why don't these people sit down have a nice hot cup of mind your own business and think of something productive and viable to spend their time on?
    Academic's are becoming less and less relevant in this day and age and unfortunately this particular member of the clan is proving it.
    Oliva
    10th Nov 2016
    2:46pm
    Some idiot got paid $ssssss to write up that socialist BS? It's not even a solution stupid.