It would make house prices increase by more than the maximum amount people could withdraw
It would cost the government $1 trillion in the long run
It would leave people with $200k less in retirement savings
It would significantly affect the returns on all superannuation as funds would need to keep more cash reserves uninvested so it is available for withdrawal

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So people remain excluded from property ownership, but hey, at least the economy will be ok

[–] Tenniswaffles@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the economy going to even more shit than it is be worse for property ownership?

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sorry, I was being a bit tongue in cheek there. The economy will continue to be shit for people who struggle to afford home ownership whether or not they can use superannuation to help get their foot in the door.

[–] quicken@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's just a stupid comment. You could take the 1 trillion dollars it would cost the Australia government and spend it on any number of things to make ownership easier.

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You could take the 1 trillion dollars it would cost the Australia government and spend it on any number of things to make ownership easier.

That's true. The issue is, they're not going to implement any of those ideas...

So people who can't enter the housing market remain fucked over, because the imperfect ideas that might actually get off the ground get set aside in favour of better ideas that will never see the light of day.