Chosen by Asker

Yes and No, this is a tough one. No because- Firstly it is giving first home owners a false sense of being able to afford property, if they couldnt afford a house when the economy was more stable, they may not be able to later on when the economy does stablise. Interest rates are at an alltime low, what will they do if rates rise again? if they can only just afford the property at this low rate, they are in serious trouble.This is causing some people to rush in to buy a property, with no knowledge of the market at all, or any concequences that arise with having a mortgage. Also with the market being inflated due to the grant, when house prices drop, they will be stuck with a property worth less then they owe on it. And seriously, if you cant afford the house without needing the grant, you cant afford the mortgage, if you needed the grant for the deposit because you had not enough savings, you cant afford the mortgage, full stop. Yes because- It may allow some to enter the market earlier then they would have been able to, and if they do their homework, they could get themselves a really good deal. Its providing work for realestate agents, builders, tradies ect and making home sellers a decent profit. Its keeping the banks strong (for the moment), which is essential for our economy, and keeping bankers in work. But depending on how you use the grant, the no's greatly outweigh the yes's.

by Krystle

7 months ago

Asker's Rating: 

Yes, I think it is the only bright spot in the budget as it is now, not being talked of for the future!

by Z+25- 7 months ago

Yes I think it is a great idea. At least it gives people a great chance to buy their dream home.

by LADY WITH AN ATTITUDE- 7 months ago

It's probably the best idea K. Rudds government has come up with since being elected.

by Alex- 7 months ago

No. Every time the government offers an increase in the 1st home grant, house prices rise correspondingly. When the grants are all finally removed, house prices will fall to a more realistic level, opening the market for all buyers, not just 1st home buyers. This will stimulate the market across the board.

by justme- 7 months ago

O.k. It's a great idea. It does inflate some markets, but right now I have a property for sale that I've already reduced and the last thing on my mind is to inflate the price because of the 1st homebuyers scheme. My daughter (a 1st homebuyer) won't buy because she thinks that the market is inflated because of it. She's in for a rude shock, because when the 1st homebuyer scheme ends, properties won't drop in price, guaranteed! This is a great chance for 1st homebuyers to get a foot in the door.

by Fred Bear- 7 months ago

Sars, I believe it's a double edged sword. While the grant does prop up the building and real-estate industries and has proven to increase the number of first home-owners getting into the property market, in tough economic times; it does inflate the estate market. I personally know of someone who had their home on the market pre the grant coming in (this most recent time) - they immediately removed it and re-listed it the following week at 10% higher! My daughter has taken advantage of it this time, it was certainly a help - but at the same time she now has a 300,000+ loan and interest rates will not stay this low forever.

by yellowstonedogs- 7 months ago

No. It inflates the real estate market and hence, doesn't show the real value of the houses for sale. It is a phyrric victory because we are gonna pay for the deficit it is causing the budget big time!

by Margarita- 7 months ago

No, because it artificially props up the housing market. many first homebuyers are struggling to meet the conditions, and secure a home. With rises in unemployment coming, and also rises in interest rates, Blind Freddy can see that many of these homebuyers are going to get into trouble before very long. In my opinion, the we are going to see significant falls in the price of housing over the next year or two, despite the positive spin doctoring put out by the politicians, the real estate industry, and the financial commentators. The current prices of housing compared to incomes are not sustainable. Look what's happening in the rest of the world. And if you believe it's not going to affect Australia, well you're guess is as good as mine. how about we compare notes in a couple of years.

by Eric Graudins- 7 months ago

Whatever my opinion of that is, voting for labor was a mistake. We are so gonna go pov because of them. I'm thinking of moving out of a country that keeps taking loans to try and fix things. Such a shame, cos we really do have a good set up over here.

by it's a CHOICE- 7 months ago

No, and yes I do think it's going to keep inflating the market. Also I believe it sucks tradespeople out of other needed areas. What I do agree with is that it should taper off. ie When you do offer something, you should phase it down, not just cut it off. But they should have done that now, not later till September.

by DaveZ- 7 months ago

As a divorced single mum trying to start again, I say it's unfair to us. We lost everything due to in incompetent & violent exhusband/father. How am I to start again?? There is no financial assistance for us to put up a new home loan. Must my child live in rentals her Mum can barely afford while the "First Home Buyers" reap all the benefits?? What about us? Give divorced singles Mums a chance Rudd.

by Catherine M- 7 months ago

It'll give a temporary sense of security which, like the Harvey Norman budget, will be short-lived and create bigger problems down the track. When is this nation going to learn that progress is not achieved through hand-outs. Each person has to develop a responsibility for oneself and not rely on cash payments. It just makes certain sectors look good when it comes to reporting back to the public. Buy now, pay later, yeah, yeah, yeah

by purpleclairebear- 7 months ago

This grant is only worthwhile for those who can afford to purchase their first home and who can still live within their means comfortably. It's also only worthwhile if the economy doesn't decline as those who become unemployed won't need the added burden of a large mortgage. There is still a lot to consider before jumping in and buying a home - even with a grant.

by Traci- 7 months ago

No, I don't think so. Properties with value less than $300,000 are in high demand because of the grant and that will increase its price. It's actually happening now. They sell like peanuts. My sister is a real estate proprietor. The most important thing is to retain and to create jobs. If these people lose their jobs then what happen? As we all know, the rate cut is not passed (fully) to consumers because of bank's higher operating cost. How long do you think central bank will keep cutting interest cash rate?

by Ms Bunny Rabbit- 7 months ago

I personally think it is a good idea as now I am not so rushed to find a property. I believe it is easier with the $14,000.00 first home owners grant as you don't feel like it's unachievable to own your first home. I have found that the market the prices have dropped slightly at the moment.

by kimberly- 7 months ago

Using taxpayer's money to keep house prices artificially inflated is a terrible idea.

by Bovine Blue- 7 months ago

Yes, I think it gives young people a better chance to own their own homes. Who could argue today when they see their parents settled with mortgage out of the way after years of hard work? Why not allow this generation the same opportunity.

by Tricia- 7 months ago

No.

by abwoodford1968- 7 months ago

yes because people that have been saving for a deposit can now move forward with there plans to purchase a property at a time when the market needs lots of movement. As far as market being inflated well that's up to the buyer to find out what the true market value of chosen property in the area they are buying is worth.

by Agatino- 7 months ago

Yes and No, what about people who lost their homes through the banks?? Do they get any help to try and become a home owner again, NO. I think everybody should get some kind of help to buy a home, especially in certain circumstances.

by Carrera Park- 7 months ago

Yes,I think it's a good idea.Having a property is a dream for any Australian. It become far away.It's a fact.

by Xiaozhi- 7 months ago

No. propping up this one aspect of our society is just inflating prices in the "first home buyer" bracket because that's where the demand is. These home buyers will end up having a mortgage larger than the value of their house once the prices steady again.

by cootha- 7 months ago

The short answer is an emphatic no. Oh, hang on, you want reasons? i. It stabilises the market doesn't it! Well, no. The government cannot 'create' consumption, they can only bring forward consumption that would have occured later. This means that, while First Time Buyers are buying now, when the grant is suspended the level of FTBs will then be less than it otherwise would have been. This will cause a slump in purchase numbers, with a correspondingly adverse affect on the whole market. ii. The government is being generous with money for those that need it! Well, that's not really true. The government does not create wealth, it takes it in taxes, and when it overspends it has to borrow it based on future taxes, paying the interest - from Oz's productive economy - to those that buy bonds and gilts, such as private investors, pension funds, and other countries - like China. This means that all the money spent now on this will have to be paid back, and a significant chunk of that goes abroad and into private pockets. Note the debt levels in the current budget. That's your money. You are going to pay it back, with interest. iii. First home buyers get a chance to get on the ladder though, right? Great! Well - not really. Now is the worst time in history to take on a leveraged position in a shaky asset class - ie. get a mortgage on a house. Debt levels are at their historical highest ever, and the government is persuading one of the most financially vulnerable sectors in society to take on increasing debt positions. This is a spectacularly bad idea. I would like to say all these buyers will be okay, but it's unlikely with unemployment increasing. For each one of those happy new buyers, picture a separate unhappy young couple being thrown out of their house, into bankruptcy, if they lose either of their jobs, or the market continues to deflate. It's a huge risk. iv. But the grant protects and creates jobs, that's important, we don't want it to be like all the other places in the world with economic problems! I hate to say it, but see point i above - the government cannot create wealth. These jobs are based on borrowing, and that will have to be paid back - plus interest - over time. While some jobs are potentialy saved now, that money is lost over time, and so overall the government is actually taking money and jobs from the economy. It would be faster to lose a lot of jobs right now, and have the currency weaken and companies go bust, to enable a recovery. All that is happening is that the government is interfering with the free market, and this will mean jobs, overall, are lost. The economy is in a bad state either way. v. I'm not even going to mention that overall the extra cash just inflates the prices across the market. Sub $500,000 houses are the only sector of the entire Oz housing market maintaining prices, even increasing. All in all, it is one of the worst possible things the government could have done. First Home Buyers should be able to buy cheap houses, and live comfortably in their home, not with a giant mortgage - a debt til death! - hanging round their neck. The house belongs to the bank until they pay it off. Good luck to them all.

by chris d- 7 months ago

I think get rid of the grants because all that I hear is happening is the housing market are hiking up housing prices. Building MORE public housing, more affordable housing is the way to go. Owning a house isn't a dream for everyone but housing "security" is. Actually I'd like the Government to extend the sustainability rebates (solar energy/water tanks/insulation etc.) indefinitely especially for low-middle income households. It's in the best interest of everyone. Also ALL current public housing should be upgraded to sustainable and energy efficient standards. It's very difficult to get a water tank when you live in a block of govie flats so I'm afraid that those who are poorest can't go green efficiently because of rental/building structure restrictions and they will miss out on the cost saving benefits that energy efficiency allows when they could be the ones to benefit the most with lower bills. Would save the Government money in utility releif grants in the long run.

by Artemisia Goldman- 7 months ago

Yes I do. The battler is the back bone of Australia What do the rich bastards do???????????????????

by PJJ- 7 months ago

surprise, surprise they exteneded the first home buyers. Good for me I need to sell a home soon.

by fi- 7 months ago

yes i agree that it should be extented till december as it will give more young families the opportunity to buy there knew home an it will give then a chance to save more for there deposit

by Karen- 7 months ago

To every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. Unfortunately, prolonging the first home buyers grant will only prolong the inevitable - a greater national deficit that will play untold havoc on individual pockets. The government unwittingly believes this extension will stimulate the economy. But in true Labour fashion little consideration is given to the means of compensating this generous grant and so economic mismanagement again appears to be the realm. It is indeed a pleasant fiction to believe that it will make housing affordable to those who are yet to own their first home. Unfortunately as previously discussed by others, in view of the grant, housing prices are inflated by capitalistic monsters and so the grant is but a joke! What you now have is first home buyers locked into contracts just as detrimental if the grant did not exist. The long-term effect is that these home-buyers like all of Australians will eventually pay through other financial devices the government would care to inflict in the future. The extended grant is but a smoke screen and further evidence of economic mis-management.

by Pj- 7 months ago

In a way doesn't bother me as I have my own property, which I might add had to work towards, didn't get any handouts from the government, either, for the priviledge.

by Susan- 7 months ago

how many of those people saying yes have actually been in a real full on recession? housing prices can be really savaged. in the area i was living in the early eighties and nineties you could buy a house for next to nothing. i remember one thousand people turning up for a cleaners job( i am not exaggerating). recessions dont just turn around quickly. you are fooling yourself if you think this. be cautious.

by bobo- 7 months ago

yep definetly its good for the economy and helps young people get started in owning ther own home

by carpetimage- 7 months ago

No, as it tends to keep prices on houses higher thus losing the purpose of the grant in the first place. Furthermore people buying again suffer due to the higher price.

by Dodyk G- 7 months ago

Yes it is a great thing to do.

by Julie B- 7 months ago

Bad move, it's going to keep inflating the market. The price of every house under construction is inflated to absorb the grant, because builders know that it's easy money from the public teat. There must be better ways to encourage home ownership.. Joint ownership with government? Increased public housing base, providing a low cost stock for private ownership? I dont know, but ongoing distortionary middle class welfare ain't the solution

by Tony- 7 months ago

The first home owner grant as well as the baby bonus and the parenting payment, soon to be intorduced, are all a waste of tax payers money. What ever happened to saving for those decisions in our lives that should cost us not every tax payer?

by asherbug- 7 months ago

I think it's a good idea, it helps young people to acquire their first home. It will be easier for my children for sure. That shouldn't be the case, it's a matter of policing the market I believe.

by Miguel Myke O- 7 months ago

yes, i like it

by brain man- 7 months ago

Yes it is good for a number of reasons. It is keeping lots of tradesman and their suppliers in work and it is keeping house prices from falling. This is good for those who need to sell like me .I am going to list my house soon before the grant tapers down because it is pretty likely prices will start falling over the next two years. im hoping they do so i can buy another more suitable(for me) property. when the prices come down. I do think the first home buyers are saving some dollars now but if they wait it is likely that they can buy a cheaper property later(when unemployment gets higher)and be just as well off.it is a matter of how much they will fall.(crystal ball needed here) i do agree with one comment about divorced people who are starting again.they get nothing. i think states should abolish stamp duty,it is a big rip off and a major deterrent for me wanting to buy again.this would be across the board and would not only benefit 1st home buyers.rudd could factor this in to the grant and reduce it as part ofthe grant is only paying stamp duty anyway.(unless you live in nsw where i think it is waived for 1st time buyers !)Lucky arn't they

by cavedweller- 7 months ago

no. its just another handout disguised in the form of a grant.record low interest rates coupled with free money,yipee. if you can't afford a home without a government donation,then just get over it , live within your means and lower your price range search. if anything,it should be a zero to very low interest ,deferred payment loan,then the rest of tax paying (pre-grant) australia won't be funding another burden as well as the government getting a return on monies spent. what else could the allocated funds be used to improve? can i have $14,000 towards a new car ?

by oli.g.- 7 months ago

Yes, But I think they leave the current version of it in place for at least 1 more year to help out the people that are really struggling right now. After the recession is over with, they could (but don't have to) drop it down to 10,500. That would help out a lot of people.

by Herceles- 7 months ago

I strongly support this idea because I can now list my property for sale with 10-20% higher than without the 1st home buyer grant extend. and this is what I also overhearing other sellers and agents doing at this stage.

by Cloudy- 7 months ago

No I don't think its a good idea All it does is prevents house prices from falling I am going to be a first home buyer but now obviously have to wait until the grants end The real estate institutes think its good, and if they think its good it means higher prices for first home buyers thats all it comes down to

by Steven- 7 months ago

no very stupid the cons put it on top of the original price so its useless plus this day of age who has a job tomorrow ????

by waz0feen- 7 months ago

no

by Keith- 7 months ago

No - over inflated pricing in the housing market is a direct result of the first home owners grant.

by oldersox- 7 months ago

No, Just keeps the prices artificially high, and with banks allowed to create money out of thin air to "lend", it creates a system of spiralling prices in an already overpriced market, that no one can afford. People need to get a clearer view on the reality of housing finance and its fraudulent abuse.

by Mike- 7 months ago

I am for it but I am only sorry it was not available in 1964 when we struggled to get a loan so that we could use it as collateral for another loan so we could get enough for the deposit. It is much easy to get a home these days. If the young kids gave up smoking, fast food, resturants, and sleep on the floor and sit on boxes. Also not feel it necessary to drive anything other than a 20 year old car then anyone could do it we did. I might add with our own kids we have been paying ever since.

by terry_prism- 7 months ago

It doesn't make it any easier for most people. If you think about it, it's only those that would've bought ANYWAY that benefit. People that wouldn't have otherwise been able to buy a house don't benefit at all. Maybe this money could be better used on plasma TV's & the like :?

by TAS- 7 months ago

no its just inflating prices

by vanessa e- 7 months ago