22nd Jul 2016
FONT SIZE: A+ A-
Housing affordability in the spotlight after HILDA report findings
Housing affordability in the spotlight after HILDA report findings

Within the next few years, fewer than half of all Australians will own a home, according to the latest annual Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) report.

The HILDA survey, which records data from the same 17,000 Australians over 15 years, shows that the number of Australian homeowners is rapidly declining. Authored by Melbourne Institute’s Professor Roger Wilkins, the study has prompted calls for the Government to address critical housing affordability issues and other social policies.

“The HILDA Survey helps to paint a picture of contemporary Australia. It’s a crucial tool for policy making and to understand the social and economic direction of the nation,” said Professor Wilkins.

On an individual basis, 51.7 per cent of Australians aged 18 and over own a home, a dramatic decline from 57 per cent in 2002.

New South Wales recorded the lowest rate of home ownership in Australia. In 2001 the number of homeowners in NSW was 68 per cent. The latest report shows that number has dropped to 63 per cent.

And although the NSW numbers don’t bode well for future homeowners, Victoria experienced a 7.8 per cent decrease in home-ownership, falling from 74 per cent in 2001 to 66 per cent in 2014, making it the biggest drop in numbers across the nation.

Home ownership numbers in South Australia dropped by 2.5 per cent, making it the state with the third-largest decline, whilst Queensland and Western Australia saw very little change. Due to small samples sizes, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory were excluded from the survey.

Home loans taken on by first-home buyers have halved since 2001, falling from 20.4 per cent to 10.4 per cent in 2014.

Results also showed that, between 2001 and 2014, the number of owner-occupied houses decreased by 3.5 per cent.

Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen saw the report’s findings as an opportunity to push Labor’s negative gearing policy.

"It's up to the Government whether they want to drop their ridiculous and shrill scare campaign against Labor's sensible negative gearing and capital gains tax reforms," said Mr Bowen.

Negative gearing seemed to be a hot issue in the lead up to Budget 2016/17, but it fell by the wayside as the Election 2016 campaign gained momentum. However, plans to tweak negative gearing policy may still be on the table in some form or another.

The report also showed that older couples are reaping the rewards of property investment, with those aged 65 and over who own their home now considered the wealthiest Australians.

“Wealth has grown very strongly for older Australians… since 2002 their average levels of wealth have grown in real terms by over 60 percent,” said Professor Wilkins.

Other findings of the report include:

  • between 2001 and 2014, nearly 70 per cent of all Australians have received some type of welfare payment
  • day care and preschool costs have risen by 110 per cent since 2001
  • 20 per cent of single-parent families are lacking basic essentials
  • average annual disposable income per household has increased from $58,000 in 2001 to $76,000 in 2014
  • small businesses are employing fewer people, mostly as low-wage part-time and casual workers.

Read the HILDA media release
Read the HILDA full report
Read more at www.abc.net.au

Do you own your own home? If so, are you aware of the type of growth in wealth reported by the HILDA survey? Are you a renter by choice, or because you can’t afford to buy? If so, are you happy with the amount of rent you pay and do you feel secure that you’ll be able to stay in your home for years to come?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login

    22nd Jul 2016
    10:03am
    Those who own a home are being penalised for it by Age Pension rules and are be THREATENED BY THE GOVERNMENT to sell or mortgage it in order to have enough money to SURVIVE!
    Anonymous
    22nd Jul 2016
    11:10am
    You are slightly off the topic, but why shouldn't you have to use your home to fund your retirement?

    If you have money outside your own home in excess of a certain level you have to use it before you get a pension. The same does not apply to your own home.

    If you 'hide' it in your house - or just happen to have accumulated it there over time as the price went up, then you should have to use that equity before getting or supplementing a pension.

    Your own home is an asset that should be assessed before you get a part or full pension.

    It is inequitable to do otherwise.
    MICK
    22nd Jul 2016
    11:13am
    I think that this is where the current government is trying to go Eddie. Not sure that this sort of attack would pass the senate though. Aren't you glad we have so many Independents on the cross benches?

    I find Leon's article a little disconcerting. Whilst HILDA's survey to justification housing being 'unaffordable' I do not see any discussion of HOW PEOPLE SPEND THEIR MONEY anywhere. I doubt whether the survey looks at this either.

    Those of us who are > 60 years old can recall:

    1. interest rates which ranged for 12% - 18%.
    2. needing to save a huge deposit. Up to 50% in some cases.
    3. needing to live frugally in order to afford the mortgage.
    4. needing to earn extra income to make it all work.
    5. going without most of the consumables genYs expect as a matter of course these days.

    In our case I remember the limited wardrobe of clothes which were worn out before being recycled as cleaning rags, the do it yourself mentality and the deprival to get rid of the mortgage millstone around our necks.
    Now that we are free and made then saved for retirement I have to constantly read about "unaffordability" of housing........with 4% interest rates. Oh yes...houses are more expensive, but let's remember that salaries have gone up and the double income.
    It appears to me that unaffordability is more about an unwillingness to go without the joys of life than anything else. And so the next round of boomer vilification will start again.....it's all the fault of those greedy blighters! Give me strength.
    MICK
    22nd Jul 2016
    11:16am
    Reasons: you have a point as long as your suggestion provides a fair threshold and is not just sour grapes. Please read my post above to get an idea of what many boomers had to do to get their home. No handouts there. We did not even get the first home buyers grant either.
    Anonymous
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:22pm
    Mick - I have no axe to grind - we sold our house a couple of years ago and have not repurchased one as yet.

    The interesting thing when you are in this position is that you have the choice under the present rules to bury a large percentage of any additional money, Super or otherwise, in a tax-free own home, so you can eventually get a part or full pension.

    Keep the money outside of your own home and pay the no-pension penalty. (I acknowledge there is a timing issue as Centrelink will 'see' those funds as being transferred which would affect any access to the pension for 5 years I think.)

    I have no real interest in burying all of our funds in our next home, but the fact the option is there means I could claim anything up to a full pension eventually by doing so shows there is still a large hole in the system for anyone to be dodgy, not just the rich.
    MICK
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:31pm
    I agree up to a point. If the government introduces a $2 million value exemption for the family home then that would be fair remembering that the media price in Sydney is around $1 million. Of course indexation to a housing index would have to form a part of any such exemption.
    ex PS
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:48pm
    Reasons, extending your theory about a home not being a home but an investment.
    Are you advocating that as an investment a house should be subject to the taxation privileges extended to other investments? Since it is no longer the family home, should we not be entitled to negative gear it, if the house losses value will we be able to write off the losses against income?
    Yours is a very interesting proposal, I can see a lot of tax being saved all over the country.
    Or are you advocating that the government has all the benefits with none of the pitfalls?
    Anonymous
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:53pm
    Mick - I see it differently.

    Regardless of what your own house is worth, it should be deemed as an asset for use in retirement, the same as cash, shares, etc., are under Centrelink rules.

    We worry about the rich using Super for succession planning, but for some reason think that just because someone was lucky enough to have their house go up in value to possible millions, that should be sacrosanct and not deemed for pension purposes.

    I see no problem with reverse mortgages that are government controlled where the home equity is run down to zero if necessary, but the owner cannot be evicted.

    I also have no problem if any rates are likewise debited to the home asset and deferred until death or sale, where the pensioner cannot afford to pay because the home has risen in value and makes it unaffordable to pay.

    I think this is an unresolved pension issue that is still to be addressed.
    Anonymous
    22nd Jul 2016
    1:00pm
    ex PS - the rules for your own home would not change, it is totally tax free now and would remain so.

    Your own home at ANY age is treated far better tax-wise than any other asset outside of Super under $1.6m IF you are over 60.

    So, no, you would not get any option to negative gear, etc, as it is already an untaxed 'asset'.
    ex PS
    22nd Jul 2016
    1:15pm
    Reasons, totally tax free, think again. At least you answered one question, you believe that the government should get all of the benefits with none of the pitfalls.
    MICK
    22nd Jul 2016
    1:30pm
    You can't use negative gearing for other than an investment. For a house that means rental income, not habitation.
    You need to cast you mind back a half century Reasons. What we have seen is new taxes routinely come in. The family home was once deductible. Still is in the US. Now you want it to be taxed as well? Clearly you have no children or grandchildren you want to help on the road of life.
    Anonymous
    22nd Jul 2016
    1:45pm
    ex PS - the government acknowledges risks associated with an individual's asset through its tax treatment of asset sales.

    If it is an asset other than the family home or Super under $1.6m and you are over 60, if you win by making money, they win on tax, if you lose they let you write down the losses on your next win.

    When there is no tax on the family home when you sell it, I am not sure how much more tax free it could be and why they would have to give anyone tax concessions on an 'asset' that has a totally tax-free status.
    TREBOR
    22nd Jul 2016
    1:54pm
    Can't eat a home.. perhaps you could flog it off a piece at a time to garner revenue so as to eat ....... (that lump on my cheek is my tongue stuck firmly there)....
    Anonymous
    22nd Jul 2016
    1:58pm
    Mick - I have a few children and most definitely am succession planning very intensively.

    I just believe that you can't attack one group as being rich and exclude another group that is asset rich, possibly by default through rising house prices, and not enforce them to use that 'asset' as a means for funding their retirement.

    It is just inequitable for people to attack the rich on one front for succession planning through Super, etc, but then expect to do similar via their own tax free home.
    Anonymous
    22nd Jul 2016
    2:27pm
    Good Blog here Reasons and to some extent Mick I agree that the house must be taken into account in calculation of the pension or welfare.
    I am also surprised to read that 70% of this country has received some sort of welfare in the last decade or so that is ridiculous and will eventually break this country and as I have said before these welfare recipients will one day be on a form of food stamps and we will be a third world country.
    Anonymous
    22nd Jul 2016
    3:26pm
    Robbo - it is the receipt of that welfare (and what you do with it of course) that many people fail to acknowledge if they have been recipients of it.

    I confess to having been able to take some serious advantage of Howard's middle-class welfare (before Labor correctly removed it), but accordingly now I don't expect anything from the State.

    It assisted us to setup our present assets and retirement, so I consider we have no right to, or expectation of any additional government assistance unless we live too long and eventually run out of money.
    Sceptic
    22nd Jul 2016
    3:29pm
    Good God, I agree with MICK. When I saw the news broadcast on the HILDA report last night, I immediately thought that it is significant that they do not mention that the over 65s who own their house, bought smaller, start up , houses. Most probably started work on leaving school. Did not take Gap Year, did not take overseas trips, did not eat out and go clubbing a number of nights a week. Plus the other things that they had to do to get into and keep paying a mortgage on a home
    Anonymous
    22nd Jul 2016
    5:17pm
    Sceptic - you can't easily or fairly compare what happened back in the 80's and now.

    Here are some home truths for boomers...

    * In 1985 the median house price in Sydney was $73K and is now $1m.

    * The average weekly wage in 1985 was $404.70 and was $1539.10 in 2015.

    * The price to income ratio in 1985 was 3.4 - now its over 12 - I repeat - TWELVE times!!

    Houses are bigger now, BUT it has been boomers adding crap into houses or building and making them bigger and better over the years that has caused many to be more expensive.

    I agree that boomers did not expect - nor have all the trimmings from day one - but most on this forum are kidding themselves if they don't think that the AVERAGE houses are not far more unaffordable today compared to when we were buying them back in the 80's.
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2016
    9:48am
    Reverting to the same old about the world of difference between 'welfare' and Social Security - needs to be stated over and over until people get it.

    'welfare' is the philosophy or policy of deciding what the best outcomes are for those purported to be 'in need'. Simple observation of this simple reality will show that 'welfare' is not malleable in the case of those with a genuine need, unless those in charge choose to abandon those people.

    Social Security in Australia is the paid-up over generations of contributions cache of funding from which the cash is drawn for those determined ends. That funding has never disappeared, it is simply hiding in the closet called 'consolidated revenue'.

    Therefore, the actual focus points of the distribution of Social Security in Australia may be argued - such as 'wealthfare' and unwarranted giving to some, or areas that are not properly to be considered welfare areas (such as childcare? Bet many will dispute that!) - but the reality of Social Security as a right AND its long-term investment funding by the Australian people cannot be argued.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jul 2016
    12:58pm
    Yes it is possible for your house to be an investment but I can't understand why anyone would want it to be out of choice.

    I agree that the house should be included in the assets test as currently we have the situation where it is beneficial to upsize instead of downsizing once retired. The house thus becomes a store of tax free family wealth more than just a home. If people downsized instead of buying bigger and more expensive houses in retirement to hide their assets there would be more suitable houses available for families instead of old grannie living in a six bedroom mansion.

    All social security in this country is welfare that must be paid for out of the budget each year. There is no pot of money put aside to pay people the age pension or any other welfare. So if you collect the pension you are collecting welfare generiously paid for by us taxpayers of Australia.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jul 2016
    1:03pm
    I also agree that people can over the age of 60 have tax free income from their super and if they own a house then it is a tax free store of wealth that doesn't count towards any welfare they receive.

    So if you rent don't own a house and have no super you could find yourself paying tax and collecting no pension. If you had the same money in super and your house you pay no tax and depending on your super amount could still collect the pension. It is all so unfair.
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2016
    5:27pm
    Don't make my humble you again, OG - the taxation strands the go into that portion of 'consolidated revenue' as part of the funding for the Pot have not disappeared. Not only that but ALL people who spend at all are taxpayers.... you may not discriminate in any way due to your confusion over the difference between paying income tax (as most pensioners have done for life already including their retirement contribution) and taxation per se.

    Sorry - we oldies have paid our dues and the money is simply hiding, as I said, in the closet of 'consolidated revenue' - one of the greatest rorts ever perpetrated on the Australian people, and by a 'Labor' government to boot.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jul 2016
    7:17pm
    You must be dreaming again Trebour there is not even a hidden pot of pennies for pensioners. You have not paid you dues at all as you get the pension because you simply don't have enough assets and income yourself to look after yourself in retirement. Welfare is as simple as that.
    FrankC
    24th Jul 2016
    3:02pm
    I agree mick. I remember when we had a house in Ipswich, in Qld, when our mortgage went up to 17%.. The youngsters today can't imagine that. The RBA don't help by continually dropping interest rates, which allows the greedy vendors (and R.E. agents ) to up the price by up to 14%, and this is what is precluding young couples from owning there own home. Many years ago in Victoria, I bought a property , lived in it for 3 years, rented it out for a year and then sold it to the tenant for what I paid for it, as she had been looking after it. I was offered $20K more from another person, but declined it. Why prices cannot stay the same for at least ten years I don't know. It seems to be a knock on situation, and vendors from overseas don't help.
    Florgan
    22nd Jul 2016
    10:09am
    I disagree
    All people have to decide is -
    do they want a lifestyle with all the trimmings
    Or
    Do they want to own a home.
    Home ownwership has never been easy and you have to sacrifice A LOT .
    Are you willing to sacrifice all the trimmings or not ?
    if you want something bad enough, you will make it happen.
    MICK
    22nd Jul 2016
    11:17am
    You understand. Thanks.
    David
    22nd Jul 2016
    11:47am
    Spot on Florgan.
    The title of this website (Your Life Choices) is so appropriate with this story.
    Many now want it all without the sacrifices....and when they don't get what others have got, they blame the government, not themselves.
    Sure, house prices have increased, but so have wages.
    Interest rates are only 4% now compared with 18% in my day.
    One reason why house prices are so dear now for first home buyers is that years ago people got a small, older and cheaper house in the outer suburbs for their first home. Now people for their first home want a larger home (with double garage, 4 bedrooms, ensuite etc.) that’s closer in to the city.
    Years ago people generally spent far more proportionally of their income on essentials and far less on services and discretionary items. Now it’s the other way around with people travelling many times before they reach the age of 25, driving newer cars (often heavily financed), going out to shows/restaurants/cafes/coffees several times a week etc.
    As a baby boomer, I saved hard and went without a lot to own my first home at 25. Not only is that the opposite now, but many Gen Y’s today are given their first car by their parents and also many parents now help their children to get their first home by funding their deposit and/or going guarantor.
    Grateful
    22nd Jul 2016
    11:56am
    Yes, but did WE have a million INVESTORS with massive tax incentives to compete against?? No, hard workers scraped and saved to buy their houses.
    Young couples nowadays can't even save enough for a deposit, let alone pay off half a million dollars mortgage. Having to put their children into exorbitantly priced child care just to put food on the table as the rest of their income goes to the bank to repay those exorbitant and artificially inflated mortgages. Inflated by massive taxation subsidies to investors who have forced up the price of houses out of the reach of the basic home owner.
    And what has that done to so many family relationships??? Think about it, financial stress for those who have those large mortgages and frustration for those who cannot see them ever owning their own home for their family!!!!!
    MICK
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:33pm
    Hey David....no plagiarising unless you are married to Donald Trump. Chuckle....
    ex PS
    22nd Jul 2016
    1:02pm
    Grateful, I saw a lot of these poor young people who could not afford to buy homes while my wife and I were looking for our dream retirement home.
    Yes that's right our dream retirement home and first home buyers were looking at the same homes. At the same time we had our home up for sale that we had lived in for the last twenty years. A modest three bedroom home close to schools and public transport about 40 minute drive into the CBD.
    I asked the sales woman how many young couples had looked at our house over three months, the response was one or two.
    I don't believe there is a shortage of affordable housing for young couples, what I believe is that there an unrealistic expectation by young people as to what they believe should be a first home.
    People need to learn to start small and work their way up, just like the Boomers and those who came before them did.
    MICK
    22nd Jul 2016
    1:35pm
    Our first home was a 100+ year old farm shack where the land had been long since subdivided. We owned this dump in 2 years and moved on but looking back very few people would have lived in such a dump. GenYs would get a great laugh I dare say.
    Yeah Ex PS and others.....there are many paths to getting a nice home. Blowing your dough and crying wolf are not the way though. Who ever said owning your own home was a walk in the park!
    mangomick
    22nd Jul 2016
    11:28am
    One would have to imagine that these surveys are taken only around the city and suburbs. The only way wealth has grown for older Australians is through the rising value of their property that they have held for most of their lives within the city limits. In rural /regional areas house prices are static or falling their interest rates are miniscule and rates and living expenses are rising and many older Australians are still trying to recover funds that were decimated during the GFC .
    MICK
    22nd Jul 2016
    11:34am
    Probably right mago. I wonder if the re-elected deadbeat government we have would give retirees anything if the value of their property fell through the floor? I won't hold my breath.
    jackie
    22nd Jul 2016
    11:37am
    A casual job market and job uncertainty make it harder for ordinary people to save. Foreign property ownership through money laundering have inflated the majority of Australians out of the price market. There used to be a government body the Fair Rents Commission that pulled greedy landlords inline. Our Governments have created this mess NOT ordinary Australians.
    MICK
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:37pm
    I beg to disagree with your blame.
    Whilst most of what you say is spot on all of the above have contributed but Australians have bid up the prices because of second incomes more than the external issue you mention.
    Don't blame the government entirely. It's more complicated than that and ultimately we all have the ballot box to vote out bastards, even if most are too stupid to use the ballot box for what it was intended as they cling to their cancerous parties.
    Rae
    22nd Jul 2016
    2:17pm
    Well it can only get better jackie. Rental vacancies are rising and rental yields falling in capital cities. Yields are only about 3% after costs. I imagine rents will fall further as all those new apartments are finished.

    Young people who have saved a deposit will be the winners I expect.
    Oldman Roo
    22nd Jul 2016
    3:13pm
    Mick and Rae , I can not agree entirely with both of you and think Jackie is right . I attend a few auctions and follow the real estate market in South Australia and record prices are still being achieved . The foreign influence is very strong and Real estate agents even print Brochures in Chinese and English .
    Negative gearing , low interest rates and these foreign buyers are the main reason for prices that make buying a house for the average Australian young couple very difficult .
    Our Government should be governing in the best interest of all Australian citizens and not just catering for the rich and foreigners .
    This once great country is being sold out all the way including forcing up the prices of Food products , Seafood including Lobster by exporting to lucrative overseas markets and we can no longer afford some of these like we used to years ago . All just to make some people richer and gain more export dollars to the detriment of the people who live in the country of origin .
    A great recipe for disaster that appears to be getting worse .
    Anonymous
    22nd Jul 2016
    4:26pm
    Hey Mick we already used the ballot box to vote out the bastards as you call them in 2013.
    Anonymous
    22nd Jul 2016
    4:33pm
    Jackie - I would agree with your assessment that successive governments have caused the housing bubble through first home owner schemes inflating the prices that home owners can ask. Looser bank lending over time and dual incomes have also exacerbated the issue of course.

    I think we have some very romantic ideas about house prices back in the 80's.

    Here are some home truths for us boomers...

    * In 1985 the median house price in Sydney was $73K and is now $1m.

    * The average weekly wage in 1985 was $404.70 and was $1539.10 in 2015.

    * The price to income ratio in 1985 was 3.4 - now its over 12 - I repeat - TWELVE times!!

    That is seriously HIGHER compared to when we boomers were buying houses - it means even a cheaper house is SERIOUSLY more expensive on average now compared to when we were buying! OK - we might have had less features in our houses, BUT it has been boomers adding crap into houses and making them bigger over the years that has caused many to be more expensive.

    I agree that boomers did not expect - nor have all the trimmings from day one - But, BUT, most on this forum are kidding themselves if they don't think that houses are not far more unaffordable today compared to when we were buying them back in the 80's. However, the figures above prove it to be so very true - it is convenient to think that things have not changed

    Houses are not investment assets - they are a commodity.

    Successive governments have made them an investment and need their increasing prices to create a wealth-effect so people keep borrowing and buying 'stuff' so the economy grows.

    Nothing goes up forever, including houses. Our kids just need to be patient and keep saving. Eventually they will have their day.
    Adrianus
    23rd Jul 2016
    7:40am
    I agree Rae. As the economy strengthens there will be better yields elsewhere.
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2016
    9:54am
    Absolutely correct on your figures Reasons - I've previously posted a chart of wages v housing prices in Sydney, starting from the mid-80's, that exact time which saw the advent of the Mandatory Dual Income Family (MADIF) which immediately caused a doubling of house prices thus cutting out the singles in most cases, for much the same conclusion. The advent of affirmative action created the escalating rise of costs of living.... think it through, people.

    Now my two 'single' children simply cannot raise the deposit, even though one is in building trades and the other is a supervisor in a security monitoring firm - both on excellent incomes. (My daughter is engaged, my son is separated from the mother of his three children)
    Rae
    23rd Jul 2016
    10:42am
    We couldn't afford to buy in Sydney in the 70s.

    So we bought on the Central Coast and commuted.

    You can buy a two bedroom unit in Gosford for $380 000 which could be paid back at current interest rates by a $500 a week payment or $350 interest only.

    Similar prices are available at Woy Woy and Umina.

    I bet the wedding will cost a bit too TREBOR. Unlike our generation that went from the church to the local hall where everyone brought a plate of food.

    If both your kids are on excellent incomes then they are living beyond their means if they can't save a deposit.

    HILDA does show a 25% rise in wealth about the age that settling down occurs. It is very expensive to be single in any city I'm afraid.
    Easy to spend hundreds a week on social activities.

    Those million dollar places are out of reach, even the $1100 rents at Rozelle are out of reach but there are pockets of cheaper areas with good public transport still out there for those willing to have a go.
    Swinging voter
    22nd Jul 2016
    11:38am
    Home ownership usually results after decades of sacrifice e.g. going without holidays, new car, latest clothing, eating out, paying rates, taxes and maintenance. It will take a gutsy, foolish government that tries seriously muscling in on the equity people have sweated and slaved to achieve in their home, because the signal it would give is for people to simply stop striving for that sort of security for their old ages and start relying on taxpayer-funded housing. Mass exodus from the home ownership market - more than likely a recipe for economic disaster.
    MICK
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:40pm
    Why does that sound so so familiar?
    Grateful
    22nd Jul 2016
    11:47am
    This should be THE Number 1 issue that government should be addressing and rectifying.
    Why do people not see the blatantly obvious correlation between the introduction and enhancing of irresistible taxation benefits for negatively gearing houses and the current state of affairs? The system is fatally flawed.
    It is accepted that there has been a significant shortage of established houses in the areas under most demand, yet, defying all supply and demand logic, governments go and stimulate the demand for these house with huge taxation incentives!!!! Crazy!!!
    What did they expect other than demand exceeding supply and to make it worse, converting that demand from the historic base of home buyers, to investors treating house as commodities.
    There was no way that first home buyers could possibly compete with investors with virtually unlimited funding who were given a huge start by those incentives that first home buyers would not receive. The previous level playing field where houses were traditionally purchased as homes, primarily by those who worked hard and were more prudent in their spending, competing with those that didn't, those current prudent, hard working peoples' hopes and dreams have been destroyed, and until this flaw is corrected, possibly terminally.
    Sadly, what has also happened is that many people who benefited by the huge increase in the price of their homes, sold those homes and have moved to outer suburbs or to the seaside, or the hills and with that large lump of cash, they now have significantly increased the price of those houses, which, have nearly trebled in some seaside areas, thus magnifying and exacerbating the problem throughout the state.
    It is an economic and social DISASTER.
    Yes, let's at least start doing something and that idea of banning negative gearing for established houses, WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN from the START and restricted it to new homes is certainly one way of at least arresting the rises in prices.
    Negative gearing SHOULD be to encourage the construction of new affordable houses to provide the necessary supply to house first home buyers and their families and to create employment through construction and the flow ons required for a new home, not to create another investment commodity.
    Over 700,000 first home buyers have been "lost" since 2001, while more than a million houses are now negatively geared for rental purposes. Pretty obvious what caused that.
    We should ALL support urgent attention to this disaster as it has already destroyed the dreams and aspirations of a generation of people and without doubt those of several generations to come.
    What a shocking legacy we, yes, we, will leave for our grandchildren and THEIR children if we do nothing!!!! Or, do we want to maintain that sad image that we have earned as being the selfish generation thinking only of what's in it for us?
    MICK
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:45pm
    With a son in the construction industry I have been waiting for a decade for the building boom to start. Unbelievable that it has taken so long but finally under way.
    I agreed with Labor's negative gearing policy as it grandfathered existing investments but ended the taxpayer funded handout to the top end of town wanting both the profits as well as taxpayers footing the bill whilst in repayment stage of investments.
    I imagine that this issue pulled most of the investors into voting for the most corrupt government in living memory. Self interest goes a long way with most people.
    Not Senile Yet!
    22nd Jul 2016
    11:48am
    It is Not that House/Home that is unaffordable!!!
    It is the Land that it sits On!!
    When I was young....a block of Land was about 1/3 of the price of a house.....ie $100,000 house on $30/ $35000 block of Land.
    Now they want $250/ $260000 for that Land and the house only costs $120/ $130000!!!!
    They have been hiding inflation in the Prices of Land for 25yrs.....plus they refuse to release/re-zone land for housing!
    This means for every block there are 3 competing that can afford the price whilst 7 simply cannot afford the loan!
    It is the Land that is Unaffordable.....Not the house!
    Local Councils & State Governments have a vested interest in doing this.....because Rates are by Valuation and Stamp Duty by price!
    The Feds are in on it to with More GST from higher prices!
    Only increasing the amount of land available will bring down prices.....but All levels of Govt have a vested interest in Not Al owing that to happen!
    MICK
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:48pm
    And when we were earned one third as much too. Nothing has changed all that much other than genYs wanting a great lifestyle + all the add-ons (like a house) as well. This is the legacy for boomers who brought the little blighters up with an overinflated sense of 'rights' and expectations. God help the little dears. Now they whinge endlessly about their own folly.
    Dallanhk
    22nd Jul 2016
    11:48am
    What rot. The housing market is driven solely by supply and demand. If the economy was so bad then people would not buy houses and prices would fall - enabling people to buy houses!
    For young people it is a simple equation .... save and buy a house, or have all the 'goodies' you want now, now, now, and don't buy a house. It was thus for us and always shall be.
    MICK
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:48pm
    Ditto.
    Kaz
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:03pm
    We bought a $59000 house in 1987 at age 27 and did nothing but pay the mortgage, everything else was secondhand and minimal with no assistance and harder lending conditions. While we agree that housing is overvalued, today everyone gets new furniture, new cars, iPhones, eats out, goes on holidays, etc. I am not begrudging them this but it is a choice and many retirees worked to pay for their home and their children's education at uni, etc. it wasn't easy and it still isn't. Many new migrants built homes so their family could live there and save. I am not ashamed of owning my home and being able to do the things I now can do after a life time of working. We now also support an elderly parent. The family home should not be included as an asset.
    If the government wants to make rules, so be it, as long as they live under the same rules!
    MICK
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:51pm
    Well written. Retirees do not put this out there enough otherwise the genY reporters would stop whipping up discontent from those who live it up so much and look for their scapegoats, mostly in the family home.
    GenY needs to grow up, suck it in, and copy their parents going forward. That'll work!
    Grateful
    22nd Jul 2016
    2:18pm
    "everyone"???? Get real everybody, trying to compare what WE did to what this new generation of parents have to put up with is like comparing apples and oranges.
    WE could buy a brand new house for $20,000 back in 1965 as a 21 year old on an average wage. That house is now "valued" at $600,000!!!!
    Can anyone tell me that average wages have gone up 30 times since then???
    They have gone up 30%, THIRTY%, since 2001, yet house prices for a very average 3 bedroom brick veneer of 14 squares have TREBLED since 2001!!! FACT.
    I find it shameful that we are tarring "everyone" who can't buy a house as a greedy spendthrift, when VERY many retirees DEMAND that they get the FULL pension despite living in a $million house, that the government subsidized with tax incentives for negative gearing that has flowed on to ALL houses. To say that those $million houses have been EARNED by hard work is totally dishonest because without negative gearing they would probably be half of what they are valued at "NOT WORTH" today.
    ex PS
    23rd Jul 2016
    5:28am
    Fact, bought a modest house on the outskirts of Brisbane for $90,000.00 in 1991, sold it after 3 months on the market in 2016 $240,000.00. Do what we did if you can't afford a home close to the CBD, look for one further out and a little older, just common sense.
    I would call that affordable.
    We now live in a decent but not extravagant home after paying off and changing up several homes, not one of these homes was ever negative geared, we paid for them and we own them and their is no way I would agree that the government has any right to stake a claim for any reason.
    I am hoping they try because that will be the end of them once and for all.
    Shalshooli
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:44pm
    Yes! There's never been a more exciting time to be Australian!!!
    MICK
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:51pm
    And get your parents to buy you a home?
    floss
    22nd Jul 2016
    1:19pm
    A lot of the blame must be due to our crazy open door immigration policy putting so much pressure on our housing and infrastructure, think about it.
    MICK
    22nd Jul 2016
    1:24pm
    More like corrupt government serving the demands of big business whilst selling out the country. Add 456 visas to your list. It's all about making money for business leaders and the real estate industry.
    So what is definition of treason?
    Retired Knowall
    22nd Jul 2016
    5:05pm
    It's not the immigration policy, it's the DUMB policy of allowing non resident investors to buy land, buildings, farms etc at the expense of the younger generation. Try buying a house in China.
    Ayin
    22nd Jul 2016
    1:31pm
    If as this article postures young people cannot afford to purchase houses because of the high values of the marketplace, then how can older Australian home owners be assessed at inflated values placed on their home which is really only paper value as nobody can afford to buy them? and then we get blamed for keeping younger people out of the market.
    Rae
    22nd Jul 2016
    1:58pm
    If average incomes are up by $18000 a year then the figures must be created by something other than affordability.

    Perhaps younger people are buying using negative gearing while remaining at home.

    Perhaps older people are selling up to pay RAD to nursing homes or to move into retirement villages.

    There simply isn't enough information from 17000 surveyed to gain a worthwhile picture.

    I live in a regional beachside suburb and I do know the houses sold around here have all been to young families or first home owners. These young people are managing to pay mortgages and have kids just not in the CBD of a city and have forgone lifestyle choices to do so.

    An average salary of $76000 should allow home purchase in the suburbs.

    Besides which there will be hundreds of thousands of homes change hands shortly as the boomers start dying off.

    Young people will just need an infrequently used skill called patience and delayed gratification.
    Kopernicus
    22nd Jul 2016
    2:22pm
    Ayin and Rae I disagree with both oh you. A yin it,s simple who is buying - investors - thanks to tax gifting and low interest. Rae, the big diff between our youth and today is that prices are much more compared to average or household earnings. There is of course a proportional rise in rent. How do you save a deposit of 50 to 100k while paying big rent. This has been exacerbated in the last 2 to 3 years by low wages growth and astronomic rise in prices in many places.
    Rae
    23rd Jul 2016
    10:58am
    Look again at the HILDA and notice what happens at the settle down life stage. There is a 25% increase.

    Youth never did save money until they settled.

    No one is teaching the pay yourself first strategy either.

    To save you have to go without something.

    Having said that I wouldn't be racing into buying until the LNP let's on what the game plan is as commercial property might be a better investment. Even a good REIT.

    Land tax or adding the asset value to centrelink could make housing purchase a bad idea for a lot of people who can't save and will need the aged pension in retirement.
    TerryJ
    22nd Jul 2016
    2:50pm
    Don't get me started on "affordability". It's more like unwillingness to make sacrifices by the genY's. Most aren't willing to give up their nights out, weekends away,new cars, trendy clothes, electronic devices etc to save for a deposit, they expect the government to provide grants etc or handouts from their parents!! I know of many genY's who look for housing and and they are not happy unless the house has all the bells and whistles etc. No buying a modest house and work your way up.

    On the other topic of the family home as an asset, Nobody should have to sell their family home just to live. The problem is there are a lot of people who want to hang on to their assets for their kids benefit while maintaining access to a full pension. That effectively means we, as taxpayers, are paying for your kids inheritance. Rather than move people out of their family homes we could have some options like -
    1. Reverse mortgages as a previous comment alluded to. These reverse mortgages should be controlled by the government and NOT the greedy banks.
    2. If a family home is, say 100%, above the city mean (so in Sydney that would currently by $2M) then a full pension is paid and the total cost of that pension is repaid after the death or when the house is sold. The cost of a single pension is around $21,000 a year so after ten years the family home would be sold and $210,000 paid back to centrelink.
    These are just suggestions and are an attempt to think outside the box to come up with methods to allow people to enjoy a reasonable lifestyle after retirement without having to give up their family home.
    FM
    22nd Jul 2016
    9:37pm
    Rubbish Terry J. If people are getting a pension it means they do not have adequate income on which to live. This usually happens when people are in their later years. Every country in the world has an aged pension. No other country has this appalling mentality of pushing old people out in the street to save a few dollars for high income earners. To sell a home and have money left over people would usually have to move far away. Old people need the security of their own environment for their latter years and do not need banks foreclosing on them. What a mean, stupid, selfish, judgemental set of suggestions.
    Not a Bludger
    22nd Jul 2016
    3:30pm
    What a load of rubbish from those who claim to be experts (read rentseekers) in the dismal so-called "dismal science".

    Australa has one of the highest home ownership rates in the world and there is absolutely no sign that this is declining.

    Finance has, not for decades, been cheaper or more available to borrowers who are in gainful employment.

    Can you please stop reporting these harbingers of gloom and disaster.
    Alex
    22nd Jul 2016
    4:40pm
    Thanks for the common sense Old Bludger. The elder bashers got in early.
    Happy cyclist
    22nd Jul 2016
    3:47pm
    It might be time to adopt a different model. In Sweden, for example, a very large percentage of people living in the cities don't own but they do get lifetime leases (for as long as they want, they don't have to stay their life) and the rent is controlled and raises incrementally. Most people don't have any wish to own their own place and think we are mad saddling outselves with huge interest laden debts. Their rent is affordable and their tenure safe. Rent is just another monthly bill and they have much more discretionary money. And before anyone says 'but their taxes are huge', yes they are, and so are their incomes.
    TREBOR
    23rd Jul 2016
    9:59am
    In Switzerland mortgages are interest free... Bloody Socialists.... (snuckling emoticon implied)
    Alex
    22nd Jul 2016
    4:33pm
    As I am sure you know the survey this report is based on comes from a sample of 7,682 households selected in 2001. The 19,914 residents of those households form the basis of the ‘main sample’ that is inter viewed in each subsequent year (or survey wave), but with interviews only conducted with persons aged 15 years or older.
    Their findings on the growth of wealth are shown in the following table. I have not included millennials. We see that the greatest growth in wealth is not among the vilified retirees but among the 55-64 year olds who are mostly behind the push to reduce the incomes and assets of retired people.
    AGE 45-54 yr old; 55-64 yr old; 65+ yr old
    2002 $569,460 $ 594,631 $ 406,843
    2006 $660,057 $ 799,528 $ 535,213
    2010 $645,154 $ 863,162 $ 612,687
    2014 $630,934 $ 827,337 $ 655,777
    AGE 45-54 y old; 55-64 y old; 65+ yr old
    2002 $569,460 $ 594,631 $ 406,843
    2006 $660,057 $ 799,528 $ 535,213
    2010 $645,154 $ 863,162 $ 612,687
    2014 $630,934 $ 827,337 $ 655,777

    The report notes that home ownership became less common over that time; “the rates of adults owning a home dropped from 64.4% in 2002 to 59.7% in 2014”. This may be due to the fact that many of the initial participants, selected on the basis being householders owned a house and as such were not necessarily representative. We also need to consider the margin of error for the findings.
    They report that the fall in home ownership among their respondents is partly due to the deadly combination of flattening income and increasing housing prices, but not due to an increase in the headline grabbing million dollar plus houses – they have always been out of the reach of most first-home buyers.
    The ratio of the 10th percentile house prices to the 10th percentile equivalised disposable income went from 8.2 times in 2001 to 14.0 times in 2008. It has now fallen to 12.4 times.
    Alex
    22nd Jul 2016
    4:37pm
    As Mick said, when we take into account that interest repayments are three to four times lower now than they were in the 1970s things are not very different. I lived through an experience in the late 1980 when my 15% mortgage was 14 times my disposable income by subletting part of the house and taking a second job. Many of the age 34+ people who were reported as complaining about not being able to own a home said they could afford one but did not want to renovate or change the suburb they lived in. Not all young people are in like that but these are the people who get media attention.
    Millenials have to stay in education longer that most over 65s and they wait until they have done their world travel before looking at buying a dwelling so it is not really valid to compare the 20 year olds of today with those of the 1960s and 70s.
    The report also shows that the 55-64 age group also own most of the investment property and the over 65s own virtually none.
    It is possible to provide support for first home buyers. In the UK the Government provides 40% of the purchase price for homes under 600 pounds for people who do not own a home with no repayments for 5 years. This is probably beyond our means but with interest rates so low there are options.
    Alex
    22nd Jul 2016
    4:39pm
    Frank, Bonny, Reasons, Old Geezer?
    FM
    22nd Jul 2016
    4:58pm
    Thank you Alex. It beggars believe that a number of people on this site constantly advocate making life even more difficult for the old and frail who have reduced incomes. They are obsessed about taking the pension off them if they possibly can. As long as they are alright themselves they do not care. The costs involved in selling a house and buying another one would leave very little disposable income and the person would most likely be on the pension again very rapidly. I need a long break from this site.
    FM
    22nd Jul 2016
    5:20pm
    I checked the earnings table for incomes in this study and found that 35-39 year olds now have much higher incomes than anyone else. It is some of these people like Jessica Irvine, smh, that are complaining that they have not been gifted a house. The table does not bother giving incomes for 65+ age group which one assumes are much lower than others.
    musicveg
    22nd Jul 2016
    5:22pm
    I rent and have done so for all my life, helping other's get richer. I don't think I will ever be able to afford a normal size house. I might have some hope saving for a TinyHouse (Tinyhouse movement is roaring in the USA), but finding an affordable piece of land is getting much harder, unless you want to be away from everything, and live off the grid as well.
    vincent
    22nd Jul 2016
    7:50pm
    Housing affordability is a personal thing. If you want to live in the city you pay, I could not afford that at the time so move out. Buy a modest home, in the early eighties a starter home was 10 to 12 squares and no ensuite, that is reality. And as far as rent is concerned when I arrived in Aus in 1980 rents were between 70 and 90 dollars. My first pay was 180 a week. So it is all proportional. The banks placed far higher restrictions on their lending and do you remember having to take out a second mortgage if the first one they allowed you was not sufficient. Then you got really shafted as far as interest was concerned. So gen Y stop complaining and live within your means
    GeorgeM
    22nd Jul 2016
    10:27pm
    Fast Eddie and Mick are right (initial comments) - this report is clearly forming the basis for another attack on the over 65s / Pensioners. In addition to the many issues this group went through to get their homes as Mick listed, they also did not get any Child Care Rebates, or Family Tax Benefits A, B, etc, and many also suffered in Paul Keating's 1990 recession with job losses, etc. They did everything with their own hard-earned after tax savings.
    FM
    23rd Jul 2016
    12:28am
    Yes George and the ten years of steep recession without return on savings has taken much of what they had saved for retirement. It is disappointing therefore that people, Mick included, think that older people who may no longer be fully self funded retirees should have their homes targeted even if those homes are now in parts of cities like Sydney that are on the $2mil mark. It would be a terrible and unnecessary upheaval for people possibly in their late 70s and 80s who would have to move far from their home suburb to get anything cheaper that would give them any money to spare. They will sell when they are ready to downsize. It is not about children and grandchildren it is about allowing old people to have the dignified retirement they earned.
    ex PS
    23rd Jul 2016
    5:44am
    I don't know what the fuss is about, why do young people want to buy a house when they are only going to turn it over to the government to pay for their pensions? They would be better off putting extra money into a retirement investment fund and rent, the government will even subsidise your rent for you.
    I bought my home believing it was part of a good strategy to keep my costs of living down in retirement, if it is going to be used to cut or even expunge my pension, I guess I wasted my time and money.
    I guess my best option is to sell my house to my son at a very reasonable price and then rent it back off him at an even more reasonable price and get the full pension and a rental rebate. My son can then get a negative gearing advantage and use the equity to finance his own house.
    It constantly amazes me how the government manages to complicate life whilst making no real gains.
    I guess this is a good example of using the home to finance your retirement.
    Grateful
    23rd Jul 2016
    10:19am
    Spot on exPS!!!! Win/win, gives your son an investment property with all the taxation benefits, thus HELPING him NOW instead of you having to die for him to get it, it provides him with a perfect superannuation investment when you do go (and that you will do) and allows you to stay in the home and community without having to move.
    It also provides you with a very nice lump of cash to do with what you wish and to fully enjoy all the benefits of your hard work and sacrifices to own that house in the first place without worrying about what the government does. I'm sure you would also be a far more reliable and supportive tenant than someone that the landlord doesn't even know!!
    Meanwhile, your son can then rent to live in, knowing that he has the security of the house that he has bought which he can then sell to enable him to buy if he so wishes when it is time for you to leave it.
    All your choice and all prices paid by your son to buy and for you to rent must be legitimately calculated to enable all of that, especially the rate of rent, to be allowed. No need for any "funny business" whatsoever. Great idea.
    Sundays
    23rd Jul 2016
    10:53am
    I have a friend who was struggling on the single age pension who has just done this exact thing because her daughter was also looking for an investment property. Of course you have to hope the kids don't want to sell it later
    Rae
    23rd Jul 2016
    11:10am
    Yes exPS.

    I finally found the approximate value of a single and couple aged pension.

    If you wanted to buy them the single would cost around $390 000 and the couple $590 000 so saving for your own retirement and the worry of diminishing returns etc could be avoided by saving a lot less and renting.

    All these changes are simply making the full aged pension option with rental assistance look pretty damn good.

    Your savings could be used to help the kids well before pension age.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jul 2016
    1:37pm
    I would rather have the capital as I could earn a lot more on it than what one gets in pension each fortnight.
    Grateful
    23rd Jul 2016
    2:27pm
    Old Geezer. exPS's idea would let you have much of your cake( being part Age Pension) and eat it (spending your hard earned capital from the sale of the house).

    In all seriousness (not that I'm not serious about exPC's idea, which is a beauty), the whole Age Pension structure MUST get a very badly needed complete overhaul. But, it has to be bi-partisan as it will be a political hot potato. Let's see if Turnbull and Shorten live up to their words when they say that they can "work together" because the entire taxation system and all of its exorbitant and much abused lurks, plus the Age Pension system, are killing our economy and our lifestyles (with less hospital beds and higher health costs already being exposed)'.
    It will also take some oven mindedness from all of us who are involved with both systems, as some of us surely will be on the wrong end of those decisions if they restore fairness and equity, as the current systems certainly don't.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Jul 2016
    4:24pm
    An example of a similar idea. I know a young couple who bought a house and their friends live in their house. Their friends bought a similar house and this couple now live in that house. Both are now doing well because all their interest and outgoings are tax deductible and they all earn good incomes. Their idea is when both houses are paid for they will swap houses.

    Welfare, tax and super have so many rules that one can run a mack truck through them without touching the sides. I regularly help people qualify for the pension and for other benefits so have a fair idea of how it all works. Too many people now have what I call a welfare mentality in this country now so much so people that don't qualify for the pension are now saying they have left their pension card at home to save face.
    MD
    24th Jul 2016
    2:20pm
    Home ownership, the haves versus the have not's ? It's all relative and generational shift largely decides individual values, meaning ; as pointed out by others' comment, current generational expectations far exceed their willingness to 'knuckle under'. They want it all - NOW. Well hello poor darlings, but it don't work the way you seem to think it should. This could be a failing their parents contributed to as well. To coin a common pronoun - 'whatever'. The current gen of selfies need to determine their own path to either success or failure regardless of whether they see home ownership as a plus or minus. The present 'system' is there for their uptake and should they so choose then pre-requesite expectations require that they jump through the hoops, take it or leave it. To start comparing their lot with the past is pointless - we dealt with our situation to arrive at this point in life. If they expect to achieve the same then quit bellyachin & put up or shut up !

    On another related matter: a few made mention of "inheritance, leaving something for the kids/grandkids " & etc. The only attachment when being born into this world is an umbilical cord, no guarentees otherwise ! Meaning regardless of whatever we might wish to do, albeit with the best of intention,well, "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men, Gang aft a-gley" may apply. The same goes for those of us and respective attitude to "entitlement, rights' & etc. Governments and those in power have historically changed the rules on a whim and there exists no guarantee to ensure history will not repeat itself.

    Let the present generations make their own mistakes - they will need to deal with them. Forget about comparisons - you can't put an old head on young shoulders & vice versa.
    Each of us - in doing as we see fit, is under no obligation to meet/match trend or status quo. Onus is on the individual to abide by current laws and satisfy obligations regardless of whether we make the grade or fall short, ie, home or no home, govt pension or not, rich or poor.

    For those expecting another coupla decades on this mortal coil, prepare for yet more changes - both negatively & positively, it's all a matter of individual perspective and/or attendant bloody mindedness.
    Rae
    24th Jul 2016
    5:31pm
    Very well said MD.

    Yes and as you go along you make huge mistakes that hindsight would have fixed and more mistakes that worked out a treat for all your people except for you.

    At the end of the day if you can say you managed to stay free, and there are a handful of friends who will weep for you and a family that will howl then you really can't expect much more.

    My freedom came from a loving father and mother that insisted on insurance when we were 19 and immortal, and a teeny little book.

    The "Richest Man In Babylon" was written decades ago but details the very simple habit of saving 10 cents for every dollar across your palm. Then investing it in something you can understand and with honourable men.

    I still do it. ten cents out of every dollar really isn't that much to pay yourself but boy does it buy a heap of joy down the track.

    During that couple of decades, into our future you mention, it could get pretty hairy due to Mother Nature and Father Sky throwing tantrums over our total disrespect for them and the idiots and scoundrels playing with other people's money having no respect either.

    If you can help someone along the way it never goes amiss.

    Or save a tree or some critter that is caught up in the chaos we seem to want to inflict upon the existence we are graced with.
    ex PS
    27th Jul 2016
    4:43pm
    I guess that we must recognise that owning a home is not an entitlement, if you can't afford one don't buy one.
    Why tie up so much money when you can not be sure that it will work in your favor when you retire?
    Grateful
    28th Jul 2016
    9:56am
    Great column by Bernard Salt in today's The Australian and many of you won't like it.
    Briefly, this is an excerpt
    "The reason why you don’t have a house, my lovely, is because a greedy ogre has gobbled up all the housing and has left nothing for you. We call this ogre “baby boomer”.

    What is required of course is a transfer of sorts from the greedy-ogre baby boomer to the sublime-innocents who follow.

    Even I like the creative ingenuity of this fairy tale.

    It explains why I don’t have a house; it asks no question about effort, application and sacrifice on my part; and it promises personal enrichment.

    Why would the sublime innocents ever question this logic; it is not in their interests to do so. And it feeds into another intrinsic human demand for consumerism and hedonism.

    “If greedy baby boomers have gobbled up all the housing, then I am entitled to travel overseas and have a great time.”


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles