As the PM's 'clifftop' home raises eyebrows, explore the property portfolios of all federal politicians
www.abc.net.au
The prime minister's seaside property purchase raised eyebrows, but many politicians have larger property holdings.

Ever wonder why Parliament is more interested in the rights of landlords than in fixing housing affordability.

  • No1@aussie.zone
    8·
    1 month ago

    So, it’s about 65% (2 out of every 3!) of parliamentarians that own investment property. And possibly 5% that rent.

    Contrast that with 20% of all taxpayers, or 14.9% of all Australians own an investment property. And 30% of all Australians rent. (Sources: investment, rent)

    Not really representative of the population, is it?

    The phrase that keeps popping into my head is “Elite ruling class”…

    • Nath@aussie.zone
      4·
      1 month ago

      They’re paid well. Let’s be real: I’d buy a dream home also if I pulled a parliamentary salary.

      I also believe they should be paid well. Corruption is a big enough issue with elected officials. You reduce the risk of bribery and corruption by taking “money” off their list of personal problems.

      Besides, PMs are still not paid enough for what they put up with. Imagine having half the country hating you and angry with you simply because your employer is not their favourite employer. Being the CEO of any large company pays better and comes with far less personal hate. It’d be like being the CEO of Coles where people exclusively shop at Coles or Woolies and are actively hostile at the customers and employees of the other. Oh, and their CEOs are famous household names. It ultimately doesn’t even matter how good of a job you do, half the population is going to hate you and dissect every little thing you say and do anyway - on or off the clock.

      No thanks. Let the dude have his beach house.

      I am however in complete agreement with you on the investment property thing. I don’t know what the solution to the housing crisis is, but you’re sure not going to solve it by piling onto the problem. Renting out your house that isn’t meeting your own needs for some reason or another is fine. There are many examples where that is understandable. Building a portfolio of 3+ houses and renting them out so you can live off that as income is something I believe needs to become far less attractive.

      • Joshi@aussie.zoneOP
        2·
        1 month ago

        Sensible people have been suggesting that investing in real estate needs to be less attractive for decades. F***ing Paul Keeting tried to end negative gearing in the 80s. Millionaires didn’t like it to the degree that it might’ve swung a couple of marginal seats and it probably didn’t help that Hawke had a few investment properties himself.

        When the only people with political power would lose out from sensible policy then it doesn’t happen.

        Let’s all agree to stop calling our system a democracy.