The family ‘next door’ (800m further up the hill) have an older daughter staying on. I once offered the suggestion that she was paying board… and was stunned at the logic of their response.
“No way! If she paid board, she’d assume she had a say in the ‘House Rules’. This way, we can determine what’s acceptable and what’s not!~”

I’ve thought about that proposition a lot. It seems illogical to provide for kids long after they reach 21, but, on the other hand, these parents retain almost as much control as if the child was a pre-teen. There are pluses and minuses in that situation, I guess… .

And cultures differ perhaps – I read a while back about an Italian lass who was 34 or somesuch with a degree and figured she could sue mater and pater for chucking her out. While the Germans seem stronger on mutter und vater being able to sue the kinder who don’t provide for their dotage.

Aussies – We’re a more mixed bag perhaps? But so long as a kid can still head over your way and make $100K pa plus driving a truck, I really don’t think the average ma ‘n pa should feel especially obligated to help them out.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/young-plump-for-inner-city-pads/story-e6frg2ru-1225891485450

You may recall that was this one of the property bears’ original propositions for market failure. Some, like Keen, even argued that it was a laudable arrangement. Have to wonder how long Aussie parents will accept this state of affairs, particularly where’s there’s minimal contribution and _very little actual accumulation_ by offspring… .

http://www.smh.com.au/business/home-loans-on-the-rise-20100712-106hy.html

Although, yeh, the Melbourne real estate industry might be cooking its figures a bit re auction clearance rates (which are low anyway):

http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/clearance-rates-fall-under-50-in-sydney-as-market-cools-20100712-106h4.html

Must admit, if we get any sort of significant price increase over the next 6 months it’ll catch me with my panties down – Not that that’d be unusual of course!

Some are thinking along the lines that we’ve skipped a business cycle. With the thought being that when the correction comes at the end of this cycle, it could be nastier than normal.

Mind you (as Greg has been pointing out), we’ve got to make it into the next business cycle proper yet:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/mills-steel-themselves-for-a-fall-in-third-quarter-as-demand-plunges/story-e6freqmx-1225890472397

Not easy investing these days. At least as much about which governments one figures will do what, as anything else. And on that score, my feel is to agree with Biker that unless the world loses it in a deflationary death spiral, Oz housing will continue to benefit from government protection as and if required.

Travel – Yes, I’d go by plane! (If I had to go at all. )

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/archive/t-299784.html

The first couple of responses put her off… totally.

Think we’re booked for a week in a city hotel in Cairns, anyway. Tamara is intrigued by Don’s negative comments about Cairns. It’s over thirty years since she visited (I’ve been no further north than Tweed Heads) and she figures it’s worth a butchers…
And, if we buy something, the trip will be deductible.

BTW… just in case… how quick a ride/drive is it from Cairns to Brizzy…?!~ Trying to sell the plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancor

I posted same on Greg’s most recent article but suspect you aren’t hooked into comments on it yet.

KHR Recommendation 13: Widow’s mite – $2 or $25? (again elsewhere) – No idea what might have been going through Henry’s mind – Which is one of the hassles of the very, very, very great bulk of even the recommendations never having come to the public’s attention:

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/FinalReport.aspx?doc=html/publications/papers/Final_Report_Part_1/chapter_12.htm

If memory serves me correct there were 2 flats downstairs and 3 upstairs? Worked well for everyone I suspect – At $75 per week (it was 1987) I was paying maybe 23% of my take home pay on rent (and living a bit higher than I really needed being there on my own). While the old boy who owned the property was probably going close to pulling a livable income off it after expenses and tax. But it wouldn’t happen nowadays is my understanding – Even if the zoning was right, one would hit the hurdle that there were unacceptably combustible materials used in the original home – So a conversion to flats wouldn’t be goer I guess.

Is that a bad thing? Probably not! But everyone sure does pay for it.

And yes, I fully expect it WAS reasonably common – I had a good mate living close by. And my recollection is that his digs were a 1 BR upstairs flat in an old house that had been divided up.

Low set (no value walking up stairs if one doesn’t have to)
Large kitchen (with eat in dining being convenient – So no need for a seperate dining room as such)
Lounge room very much optional – Handy as a place to sit and chat with visitors one doesn’t feel comfortable having see the mess in one’s kitchen/dining room maybe? Or if one has a TV fancier in the house???
A small study/office
No need for a laundry – A washing machine in either the kitchen or bathroom is fine
A bathroom with a toot in it
A separate toot (being told “Hang on!” is not a lot of fun for the “elderly” )
3 car accom (Not that I have 3 cars but I sure do have a lot of “stuff” – Workbench, tools etc – So lots of singles/couples would probably be happy with 2 or even 1.5 car accom)
2 decent sized bedrooms (one of which would be a bit of a “necessary” luxury given that it would pretty much just be for guests and/or to store indoor type stuff and/or to give a missus a place to go and sulk whenever I wasn’t doing what I was told quickly enough (the “boss’ study” perhaps?)
About 1.5 meters all around the house as “yard”

But the temptation to build such stuff is low. Partly because I question it’s resale value – Given that it is atypical. And housing lots that support it just aren’t what we have in SE QLD anyway – Maybe 220 square meters would be ideal? With the building being maybe 140 m2 tops – Not many 220 m2 blocks available in our land of sweeping plains and far horizons though. (Or regs that support building 140 m2 houses on them.)

Also a lot of little yuppie type suburbs are popping up that have a lot of expensive building requirements. A simple house on some land does not cut it any more – but instead need to be of a particular standard. Drip feed of land release and high spec building requirements does not help the situation.

I seems to me, that in many ways, many East Coast Aussies haven’t got our heads around the fact that the 4 bedroom 2 Bathroom 2 Car accom homes in the ‘burbs with lots of lawn to mow, aren’t the only way to do things. Or even what lots of us will really be screaming out for in a few years time.

There are some pretty obvious solutions; But our guv regs at NONE of the three levels seem very supportive – Yet? With any that are implemented needing to be thought through VERY thoroughly to avoid crashing housing prices, the building industry, the banks, and thus the economy.

Car (and boat and winnebago and motorised scooter and wheelchair) accomodation has still got me a bit tricked though – Not sure how much of that we’ll want – Not that there’s any shortage of space to put it all even in existing subdivisions – Given that we’ve had pretty big vacant front yards for many years now. Except the regs aren’t supportive of one building covered and fully enclosed secure accomodation of any sort in that vacant space – Which I must admit seems a bit strange to me – Outside the fact that our regs still reflect our current aspirations rather than our future needs maybe?

Current plans I’m working on are very much orientated towards redevelopment of existing property to provide accomodation for singles and childless couples. But as stated, the regs aren’t supportive – To the point of being actively anti even? With the danger being that I’ll end up with something that is a dog’s breakfast. Bouncing the ideas around is a bit of fun though.

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/more-of-us-but-mostly-living-alone-20100608-xti4.html

One of the reasons we build, rather than buying existing houses, is to avoid stamp duty. Whenever we locate a really superb home we _know_ we cannot build for the asking price, my missus reminds me to add in the stamp duty. Most of the time we don’t proceed. WA _already_ has NO stamp duty paid when you build. This really was no _first_ for NSW, as claimed.

And in a state where there’s much more coastline and cheaper land close to beaches, construction is rife.

I suspect that NSW’s move may mean the following:

* Sale of existing homes eases or even plateaus a little;

* Price of premium blocks rises significantly;

* Construction increases;

* Housing shortage (?) eases a little;

* Rents ease a little.

Four of these five effects align with Labor policy. No doubt Labor will point out that the policy eased the median price; without pointing out that sought-after blocks rose in price.
Employment in the building trades is also likely to increase.

Finally I suspect you’ll see more people camping out a couple of days prior to land release, as we do _every_ time a new subdivision occurs. There are usually scores to hundreds of people who miss out… .

Will other States follow their lead?

Interesting article where the Indian Finance minister seems to be advocating acting to withdraw stimulus before being forced to do so by the markets:

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2010/06/06/stories/2010060650830100.htm