Chamber of Commerce wants to restrict age pension, page-118

On the issue of homes, NSW once provided housing for those in need. I don't know what other States do or did. BUT in NSW the government, I do not which party decided to let the long term owners BUY the taxpayer funded housing because
1. the mainenance cost was too high
2. the government wanted to release capital and spend elsewhere [you see it today with infrastructure].
3. handed down to dependants?
4. there may be other reason as well.

So the end result is a greater demand / burden on the community for 'welfare' housing which is only increasing the demand for housing generally. There is not a supply problem in housing affordability there is a DEMAND problem. Which comes back to immigration, propulation growth and the aging population. If we continue to increase supply then we are fooling ourselves. The arrible land is being swollowed by housing. Jobs growth is merely in the service, retail and housing construction industries.

So back to selling public housing, that should never have happened. The solution to keeping public housing was
1. 'tennents' pay for all up-keep and mainenance costs - abuse it and you lose it
2. no hand me downs to dependants
3. public housing remains in public hands for the future needy
4. community expectation that if you are provided 'welfare' housing you contribute to housing a homeless person?

Said too much. I think I might join a political party just to see what ideas candidates for pre-selection offer. The current evidence is they offer nothing in ideas. They are leaners not lifters.


I hope the C 0 C is reading this thread!