• Nath@aussie.zoneM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 days ago

    Yes and no. There are a lot of owner-occupiers in Australia now who on paper are Millionaires, and they like being Millionaires. They are not going to like it if/when that status is stripped from them.

    If houses nationally suddenly dropped in value by 50%, even if people’s mortgages were halved at the same time, I expect the change would still be met with hostility. It’s the unspoken truth of housing affordability: far too many Australians are happy with the present housing prices. They’re outnumbered by the rest of us, but they are a large enough voting block to decide any election.

    • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      They’re outnumbered by the rest of us, but they are a large enough voting block to decide any election.

      If they’re outnumbered, how are they deciding the election?

      • Nath@aussie.zoneM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 days ago

        Because the rest of us don’t have houses and aren’t set to lose half our net worth by such policy changes. So, we have a variety of election policies that we prioritise.

        When Labor propose making changes to the status quo, even with mild changes, they have historically lost the election.

        It might be different next time, but it’d be a huge political risk to propose changes again after previous rejections.

        • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          Unless you’re going to sell your house, it halving in value is irrelevant. In fact your primary place of residence halving in value would be an amazing thing for most people, as then they would be eligible for many handouts and subsidies that they currently wouldn’t be thanks to means testing. People wouldn’t have to sell their house to be able to afford in-home care (which is ironic).

      • YeahToast@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        Because they are often wealthy, connected and have a voice, for example negative gearing. This only impacted a small percentage of people compared to the masses, but still made labor lose in a landslide to the liberal party in 2019

      • guismo@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Because they own the media. Or they are the ones the media wants to please.

        Seeing TV on the gym always make me wonder who the hell makes that content and who the hell is meant to consume it.

        Are all the viewers real estate agents, house owners paying for renovation or people on yatch trips? I don’t see a single normal person on those shows.