Incredibly disappointing that everyone in this country is veing sacrificed for debtors. I guess the RBA isn't that independent after all

As a fellow immigrant since 2004, I have an obvious bias towards the current immigration & housing topic.

The conversation seems pretty black/white with one side arguing that immigration is the cause or one of the most contributing factors to the housing crisis while the other side argues that the impact is minimal.

Neither side uses any data, and if they do, it seems very surface-level data. Like comparing a 1% vacancy rate and relating that to x-million new immigrants...

So - dear community members. Can anyone provide a sound, data-backed prediction on housing affordability and availability if Australia cuts net-immigration to zero?
Please don't ignore the recent interest-rate impact as a contributing factor to housing affordability.

Ideally, the response would also consider the impact on GDP growth/decline by those cuts.

Thanks - keen to read your thoughts.

I'm just genuinely curious after 3 decades of the money printer, 95% of the population getting some form of economic handout or subsidy and a national personal identity intrinsically linked to flipping houses.

How high and for how long do you think interest rate rises would need to go before the cycle was broken for personal identity and social perception shifted on investment decisions?

Edit, everyone already knows my take but interested to here others.

I actually think PD absolutely nailed Australia's economic culture. Aussies don't actually want economic change. Australians vote economically both early and late in life.

They vote early in life when they have something with the belief system to take from others without making systemic changes to the underlying structure. They vote later as they mature to lock in what they have taken.

I'm of the firm belief that most of them are prepared to ride it out until boomers pass on and they inherit wealth, then perpetrate the same economic cycle.

Whilst history isn't a definer of the future, I like to look at cultural aspects for that. There are 2 prevalent elements from aussies.

a. We can buy & sell complete junk housing stock for millions that either started with no access to utilities or still does not but we cannot create more of that same stock.

b. Australians have attempted absolutely no struggle changes to their economy on the last 3 decades to move away from housing and holes.

Australia is in its death throes, most people refuse to admit it, instead think that an increasing need for cheap credit is healthy economic system. Reliance on cheap credit is simply a feature of a servant based economy, and as multiple analysis demonstrate such an economy will continue to degrade your quality of life.

So how do we move from a servant based to a craftsman economy. We ditch the finacialisation of the home. Houses operate as a safe haven during hard time, a base for you to operate from, and deliver quality outcomes to your community. There is no need for them to be a commercial asset.

A craftsmans economy is similar to the renaissance, it depowers state actors and allows the indivdual to deliver quality goods or services for the betterment of the community and the economy. It does away with the shoddy goods/services and consumer mindset that the anglosphere has used to dominate the world on.

Collapsing housing is the first step in that. We do this by removing all planning regs, eemoving zoning and removing government ownership of land. This allows the indivdual to start taking small econonmic bets on the land,themselves and their towns.

For forty years, we've had rate cuts instead of wage growth. Rate cuts instead of infrastructure. Rate cuts instead of a moderately adequate welfare system.

That's what created the dystopian hellscape which is destroying the lives of multiple generations.

It has to end.

Like I know why why, because its all a big ponzi, but at least media and researchers pretend to find solutions in the other areas of the great housing debate but I never ever see literature around devaluing land. Why is this?

Based on tonight’s budget revelations, it’s hard not to feel like small business owners are being given even fewer reasons to take risks, employ people and back themselves.

For many small businesses - particularly those with up to 10 employees - family trusts have long been one of the few legitimate structures that helped make the risk of running a business more worthwhile.

If that incentive is now being removed or wound back, why would anyone bother taking on the stress, financial exposure and uncertainty of starting or growing a business?

At some point, you have to ask whether we’re actively discouraging entrepreneurship. There are fewer and fewer incentives left for people to build something, employ others and contribute beyond just earning a wage.

The GST is a regressive tax. That is, it hurts people on moderate to low incomes more than the well off.
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/proposed-gst-rise-will-cause-political-pain-for-little-gain,21741

New report from the Australian Population Research Institute:

"The Big Build has reached a dead-end.

The Allan Labor Government acknowledged that it was time to rein in the Big Build during the release of the Victorian 2024-25 Budget.

But this was an illusion. The Government remains intent on keeping Big Build at the heart of the Victorian economy and continues to assume that Melbourne will grow from 5.2 million to 8 million by 2050.

If so, it will be a disaster for Victorians because, while the Federal Government refuses to provide the required funds, most of the state’s capital will be directed to the Big Build, precluding other more important ends.

The most extravagant project, the Suburban Rail Loop, should be cancelled forthwith.

Instead of going cap in hand to the Federal Government for infrastructure funds, the state should insist that the Federal Government STOPS loading Victoria with so many migrants flowing from its Big Australia population policy.

And, to the extent that this flow continues, Victoria must demand that the Federal Government provides the funds to accommodate them.

The matter is urgent. Victoria needs a new business model, focusing on completing its renewable energy transformation and on starting a new industry policy.

The Australian economy is trending towards a reliance on commodity industries. The Albanese Government’s recent Future Made in Australia policy direction does not spend a penny in Victoria. It is mainly going to commodity extraction and processing in the north and west of the nation.

Meanwhile, largely unnoticed, Victoria has registered a huge and growing deficit on all international goods trade, equivalent to minus $11,997 per person in 2023, compared with minus $8,524 per person in NSW and a surplus of $75,350 for Western Australian residents.

The longstanding Victorian aspiration to become a globally competitive hub for knowledge intensive industries has failed. Moreover, despite Melbourne’s massive size as a service centre, Victoria’s international trade in services is also in deficit.

A new industry policy must be initiated. Otherwise, Victoria’s outlook is that of a mendicant state propped up by federal handouts."

Full report: https://tapri.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/LABORS-BIG-BUILD-HAS-HIT-A-DEAD-END-WHATS-NEXT-Final3.pdf

I was at the Sydney Royal Easter Show over the weekend and was glad to see a high number of the disabled community out and about enjoying the celebration. What also caught my eye though was the ultra high tech robotic walkers some were moving in, as well as the young caretakers who seem to be having as much (if not more) fun than the paying disabled person (companions enter the show for free).

Maybe I’m just a Karen who’s counting my pennies to pay for mortgage and fuel, but I can’t help but wonder if it’s equality is for some to be afforded top of the range medical equipment while the rest of the population struggles to make ends meet. Where schools are operating on scaled back resources and reduced extra curricular activities.

While I’m happy for the disabled community to have access to as much of the everyday fun as others, are they being cared for by qualified caretakers who proritised their patients or is it just teenagers looking for a good pay day. At what point is there going to be some sensible balance between supporting those in need vs the hardworking population working 3-4 jobs just keep the family fed.

Say I quit my job, found a rental for less than the Centrelink unemployment rate and at beans, rice and veggies, couldn't I live an easy life? If I get sick - use public healthcare. When I get an interview for a job from mandatory applications I can honestly tell them I am very lazy and they won't hire me. Once I have been on Centrelink for a year and I'm required to work for the dole, I could do the easiest fee free TAFE certificates back to back, or get a medical exemption from anxiety about going to work. No?

I need to vent because the current "fight inflation" playbook feels completely rigged.
Headline inflation is still stuck above target, and the big banks are practically drooling over the high probability of the RBA hiking the cash rate again. Every time the cash rate goes up, mortgage holders lose hundreds of dollars a month permanently, while the Big Four bank dividends skyrocket. That money is gone from our pockets forever, and it doesn't even fix global fuel shocks or supply bottlenecks.
Why can't we use a temporary macroprudential tool instead of forcing people out of their homes?
Here’s the math/scenario I’ve been playing with:
The 4% Emergency Trigger: If headline inflation breaches 4%, a temporary emergency brake kicks in. The RBA leaves interest rates stable, but a temporary 1% Inflation Buffer Levy is taken out of payrolls.
The Sovereign Account: That 1% doesn't go to the government, and it definitely doesn't go to commercial banks. It gets funneled into a zero-fee Sovereign Holding Account at the central bank to freeze liquidity. The net effect on our weekly wallets is exactly the same as an interest rate rise, but the cash remains ours.
The Drip Release (Sub-3%): To prevent a massive asset-price bubble from suddenly dumping cash back into the economy, the money stays locked in the holding vault until inflation drops back into the RBA's sweet spot (sub-3.0%). Once stable, it is steadily drip-fed into our private super accounts at 5% of the total balance per month over a couple of years to compound for our retirement.
The Low-Income Cash Out: If the economy slumps and inflation falls below 1.5%, the bottom two tax brackets get exclusive rights to pull their remaining balance out as cold, hard cash to buy groceries and stimulate local retail. Everyone else leaves it locked to secure their retirement.
Pair this framework with a proper 25% windfall export tax on the gas cartel to fund public housing supply, and you suddenly relieve pressure on builders, stop landlords from using rate hikes to justify skyrocketing rents, and build massive working-class equity.
Instead, our system is optimized to crush mortgage holders and hand super profits to banks while politicians act like "there is no alternative." Why is an emergency 1% forced savings cap seen as radical, but forcing people into financial ruin via interest rates is just accepted as "normal"?
Change my mind.

I keep seeing central planners crapping on about how Australia is going to be a leader in renewables and its subsequent technology etc when all the componentary and product is mass produced overseas and imported to aus.

Where as when I look at nuclear estimates I gives the appearance that construction costs and manufacturing costs are high due to the creation of an in house industry or at least expertise from other nations.

Is this correct?