I had a bit of a look at the NRAS a while ago , albeit not a particularly in depth look .
The thing that struck me about it was that the people who need to be on the scheme probably shouldn't live there .
As a landlord , I wouldn't like to own one of those properties as I already know that the tenants are going to struggle to pay the rent . Also , there doesn't seem to be any sort of incentive with the scheme . It can last for 10 years and then what ? As I said , I didn't study it too hard so maybe someone who is the NRAS system can help us understand it bit more .
E.g. The inner city apartments in Melbourne . If you at the qualifying incomes for NRAS , those people can't afford to live there . So why are they there in the first place ? Let's say you're a cleaner or a shop assistant on low wages . Just like everyone else , you need to live further out where it's cheaper and travel to work . Ultimately , if the traveling becomes too expensive then you have to consider working somewhere else closer to home . Everyone else has to do it so I don't understand the subsidy from that point of view .
This is where governments could actually really help . By better city planning and encouraging some decentralization , that would help take the pressure off somewhat .
Back to ng . As property returns are relatively low , it's going to interesting to see how property investing goes long term .
People suggest that there is a housing shortage now and this is making property too expensive . Based on that logic ,we need to increase supply in order to lower prices .
Who is going to invest if the returns are already poor ? This is why we need a whole new tax policy rather than tinkering around with the outdated one just because someone on a blog thinks it's a good idea .
