The nation has not yet embraced the idea that housing needs to be more affordable, or that it's the most important economic and social issue facing the country.
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.
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).
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
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.
If they’re outnumbered, how are they deciding the election?
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.
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).
Rates would also go down.
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
So they’re not outnumbered then, are they?
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.