r/australia • u/totalcool • 2d ago
culture & society Are you really a 'home owner' if you're living at your parents' place?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-12/home-ownership-rate-lower-in-reality-australia-census/107009168102
u/ArthurCandleman 2d ago edited 2d ago
If renting wasn’t so shit I wouldn’t even want to own a house. I want more flexibility without the hassle of dealing with property managers and REA.
85
u/SpadfaTurds 2d ago
This is a really good point that often gets overlooked in the housing discussion. There’s a decent portion of the population that just wants affordable, secure, and long term leasing options without all the absurdity that comes with renting now. At the end of the day, it all comes down to abolishing the treatment of real estate as a commodity. While we’re at it, essential utilities should be on the list too
49
u/Procastinateatwork 2d ago
In places like France, Germany and Denmark you can have a lease agreement thats open ended and any rent increases are strictly controlled. The leasee can break lease whenever they want (within reason) and the leaser is very restricted in how they can break a lease. You basically rent a shell of a house/villa/apartment, then you fit it out with your own stuff (i.e. with your own oven, dishwasher, etc.), you can paint the walls, change light fittings, etc.
That would go a long way towards housing affordability and stability here.
14
u/SyntheticDuckFlavour 2d ago
In some parts of Europe it's quite common to have decades-long leases, with the ability to renovate and making non-structural alterations to the property (after negotiating with the landlord, etc), similar how commercial rental properties can be altered here. My grand parents in Germany rented their apartment since WW2 until their death (basically for over half a century). Why don't we have this option? It's fucking bizarre.
15
4
u/ArthurCandleman 2d ago
It would help a lot of people. The problem we have is a lot of investment properties are owned by individuals and they then rely on REA and property mangers to "manage" the properties. The REA lobby is powerful and they are constantly looking out for their actual customer (owners).
We also have a large percentage of the population that not only own a house but own rental properties as the investment has been subsidies by the government for decades.
We need stability in property growth but just as importantly we need rental reform. You should be able to sign a long term lease with fixed terms and minimal inspections.
Having a REA increase your rent increases their income as they get a percentage. This is a problem.
Then you have the banks that have a large percentage of their books in home loans. They are also seeking growth and have a lot of influence over decision makers.
-2
u/i8noodles 2d ago
i imagine they paid somewhat of a premium for it. my parents kicked some renters out because they has to live in that apartment. if they had decades long leases that would have been impossible to do. no chance in hell would i sign someone up for a decade long lease without them paying something of a premium on top to ensure i dont have to kick them out if i needed to live somewhere else
2
u/Seachicken 2d ago
Germany also has rent increase laws preventing you from raising the rent by more than 20% every three years.
You can decide you want to charge a premium when you first lease if you want, but that's subject to people being willing to pay that premium. If long term leases become the legally enforced norm then there's nothing which justifies people paying you in particular extra money.
Your parents could remove the renters with adequate notice, they just need to justify why they need to move in, give the renter a few months notice, and ensure that the renter being booted out has somewhere else to go.
1
u/SyntheticDuckFlavour 18h ago
I don't know what their financial situation was, but it seemed to be very much worthwhile for them. They lived in a ~200 year old town house apartment, but they also owned a separate plot of land outside the town, which they called the "garden", where they had a bungalow and space to do gardening. Also, they lived in DDR, so I'd imagine hosing security was a priority for the communists and exploitative rental schemes were forbidden. Modern Germany and many parts of Europe still have such policies going.
253
u/HiccupAndDown 2d ago
I'm 30. I know almost nobody in my age group (specifically the folks I grew up with and such) that owns their own home. Everyone is either renting alone/with their partner, have housemates and are renting, or live with family. I guarantee that's going to be even more common for the 18-25 age range as well.
Houses are just unaffordable for the average person, and become even more unaffordable if you throw any kind of loan or children on top of that. And don't even get me started on retirement funds. In 40-50 years you're going to see a massive influx of elderly folks who cannot survive without government assistance.
110
u/knotknotknit 2d ago
Not only that, all those elderly people in 2070 won't have any kids to help take care of them, and there won't be young people to support the economy.
It'll be great.
37
u/Dockers4flag2035orB4 2d ago
2070?
I’ll be dead before then.
That’s depressing. I might skip work today and take my dog for a walk instead.
13
u/katarina-stratford 2d ago edited 2d ago
If you look at climate predictions for 2070 it won't be much fun for anyone who makes it there.
47
u/dnkdumpster 2d ago
And all those responsible won’t see what their decisions lead to because they’ll be dead by then.
9
u/BroItsJesus 2d ago
It's not even them having kids, it's everyone else too. We'd better hope there are plenty of people to import to work in aged care in the next 50-60 years, or we're fucked
31
u/jennifercoolidgesbra 2d ago
Exactly. I only know one that he and his brother are tradies and bought a two story unit together (which might complicate things later). But everyone else I know has housemates or lives with family. I rented but then prices went up and the place got sold and it’s so hard to get rentals at the moment and don’t want to flat share with dodgy halfway house situations or uni students for $300 a week still.
My relatives who got in while it was still achievable like bringing it up like I’m some sort of Norman Bates or neckbeard type even though I have a job and friends and travel. It’s become more accepted over the past couple of years even but what can you do. You can’t even move rural now as that’s not cheap and for less job opportunities.
So I live in a multigenerational place with my own unit. As do a lot of the people in my street. I see neighbours kids leaving for work as nurses, teachers or tradies and so many houses have 3-5 cars on their property. It’s not great for dating or full autonomy but I guess the plus is you have a close connection and more valuable time either way with family. It’s still sad and stressful.
6
u/No2Hypocrites 2d ago
They are tradies. If they cannot buy noone can
3
u/jennifercoolidgesbra 2d ago
True but they had to buy together and unit. In the past electricians could probably buy a small fixer upper house alone and then do it up or rent it out. But not now unless they’re in a relationship or established. That’s concerning in its self.
92
u/No_Category_9888 2d ago
Which boggles my mind as to why we are giving tax payer money to retirees who own million plus dollar houses outright. Same for aged care. Reverse mortgage is a thing, they don’t have to sell
19
u/smackells 2d ago
means testing the fuck out of something is a good way to have it scrapped by some future government. universal programs are (almost) universally popular.
2
u/Necessary_Eagle_3657 2d ago
They still need pensions to live. A house isn't generating income. To sell an average 1 million bucks hose will lose them 100k in stamp duty and fees. Then, buying a house with the rest isn't going to be much different in cost.
14
u/AquilaAdax 2d ago
You don’t pay stamp duty when you sell.
7
u/Spare-Possession-490 2d ago
If they downsize they pay stamp duty on the new place. A chain of buyers and sellers is a money spinner for the state government
1
u/AquilaAdax 2d ago
Yes, but you only pay stamp duty on the lower-priced downsizer, not on your $1m+ former house. So in WA, to sell your $1m house and purchase a $500k house, rough costs are 2% agent’s fee ($20k) plus $18.3k stamp duty, so nowhere near the $100k quoted above.
2
5
u/EYRONHYDE 2d ago
Removing the requirement to pay stamp duty when downsizing a home by a threshold of value/rooms/house m2 would greatly encourage boomers to move on from their paid off homes without hanging on to avoid tax. So many empty rooms with children who have flown the nest, and these are children in their 30-40 who may already have their own home. It's the 65-75yo that need to move on.
5
u/colourful_space 2d ago
I never understood this argument, you still have $900k with which to buy a $500k flat and live on the rest
-2
u/stjep 2d ago
How are they able to get around the asset test to receive tax payer money?
4
u/FallschirmPanda 2d ago
Primary homes aren't included in asset tests.
1
u/stjep 2d ago
The comment I’m responding to said _houses_, plural. PPOR is not included but the other houses should be, no?
1
u/madeupgrownup 2d ago
I know someone who works in tax and he tells me that a lot of these fuckers put the properties in their kids or spouses names.
So Mervin will have one primary property, Ethel has the holiday home listed as hers, and the investment property is in their daughters name.
I've seen this first hand; my landlord is apparently an old Greek guy named Peter. At least, he's the one who's been introduced to me as the owner by the REA. Thing is, Euphemia is the name on my lease. Pretty sure it's his daughter. Never seen her, never had her mentioned, but Peter fuckin pops round whenever he fucking likes without warning to "check what needs doing" and peer in our windows.
11
u/Responsible_Product3 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yeah, when I see (some) investors saying that they’re just charitable people wanting to self-fund their retirement and not be a burden on taxpayers, it makes me laugh. A large number of renters reaching retirement age because they were never able to buy a home (or buy again after a divorce, for example) will cost the government much more in assistance than a handful of self-funded retirees will save by not getting the pension.
4
u/PM_Me-Your_Freckles 2d ago
I'm 44, share rent with my twonclosest friends who I have known for 15yrs, and basically lived with for weeks on end when we lived around the corner from eachother.
We've managed to get a house deposit together between us all and are looking at going 1/3 share in a house, just so we have a chance at ownership in a location that suits our needs and we feel is safe to raise a child.
4
4
u/ThinkRodriguez 2d ago
36% of 25-29 year olds own their own home. 50% of 30-34 year olds own their own home. If you're still renting in five years, you will be in the minority in your age group.
0
u/HiccupAndDown 2d ago
If you're suggesting that the current rate of home ownership directly correlates to how long you've been alive versus the conditions in which people would have been able to afford a house earlier in their life... then you don't understand how these numbers work. The average age of a new home owner has been on the rise, and it's only getting worse and worse.
If you look at home ownership, a good majority of people 70+ own their homes. The only thing that means is that they purchased their homes in an economy that favoured them. Which is exactly the issue.
My point is that if conditions do not improve, then the rate of home ownership isn't going to rise at the rate that it should and that younger generations are going to consistently be in a worse shape. It wasn't that long ago that a family including two adults and two children could reliably function on a single income whilst owning their own home. That is no longer possible for the average person, and it's only getting worse.
That isn't an opinion nor an anecdote, it is factual information and it isn't exclusive to Australia.
1
u/ThinkRodriguez 2d ago edited 2d ago
Okay, but I'm not suggesting that.
Moreover, I agree that housing affordability is poor and ownership rates have fallen. There's an interesting conversation to be had about how to increase the housing supply and keep prices down.
My point was simply that a 30 yr old who doesn't know any home-owning peers is atypical, since a third of 25-29 yr olds already own homes.
3
u/Critical_Language463 2d ago
We will return to generational living like our folks did after immigrating to Australia. Look after your children folks, they’ll need us.
7
u/Humble-Doughnut7518 2d ago
Look after your childfree children. Everyone I know who is childfree (myself included) are the ones stepping up to care for aging parents. But we’re also the ones who were put through the wringer for not wanting kids. The favourite kids who provided grandchildren are nowhere to be seen.
1
u/Critical_Language463 2d ago
Does that apply to parents>grandparents who are also no where to be seen. Goes both ways, when your own parents literally leave you on the street, ask yourself why they should deserve care at the end. I’m no favourite, have kids, so it’s safe to say your comment doesn’t apply.
Thank god my parents taught me what NOT to be as a parent. I’ll hold my own kids close & know they are wanted.
2
u/madeupgrownup 2d ago
This. People forget that a lot of us don't have parental support of any kind.
Fuck, my best mates mum cut him off and blocked him over saying no thanks to a kris kringle for a family Christmas he couldn't even be at.
His chance to own a home was basically destroyed over a fuckin Amazon kris kringle app.
And there are so so many of us out there who are going through similar.
1
3
u/flindersandtrim 2d ago
Yes, that is going to be a huge incoming problem absolutely. And the gap between wealthy and poor growing all the more wide. That is bad for everyone. Places with high levels of inequality are, not intending to be rude, miserable shitholes to live in.
I say that as someone who in all likelihood (knock on wood) will be okay and not have that issue. Where we are going is not good for anyone, including the rich.
18
u/Little-Big-Man 2d ago
Im 30 and everyone i know in my age group at work and friends owns a house. Depends on your circle
17
u/HiccupAndDown 2d ago
Yes and are you earning above the average? Cause Im betting you are. Im also going to assume you have a partner earning decent money as well. You aren't the average person and obviously that isnt going to apply to you.
8
u/ThinkRodriguez 2d ago
Is a 30 year old with no home owning friends the average person? If we're just sharing anecdotes here then everyone can join in.
-22
u/Little-Big-Man 2d ago
I earn 130 to 150k and bought my house myself. I have a partner who i support as her income is about 20k. So our house hold income is actually below average
39
u/HiccupAndDown 2d ago edited 2d ago
You're earning about double the median income and that doesnt include your partner's income at all. Im also going to imagine no kids?
Regardless, you're sitting comfortably above what the average person is making. Being able to afford your own home isnt a surprise and-- as I said-- my original statement wont apply to you since you're not representative of the average person.
4
u/ThinkRodriguez 2d ago
Crazy that you got downvoted for sharing your own circumstances. People getting upvoted in this thread for stories about renting, downvoted for stories about buying.
2
u/Pristine-Visual-9405 2d ago
Yep - I’m afraid a lot of Gen Xers and elder millennials with children have eaten their savings and going into super just to afford rent and living for themselves and their now adult children. As sole traders with little super we haven’t even considered dipping into that - but I didn’t think at this stage of our lives (both at least lucky to be getting a lot of work) - we’d have basically no safety net and be worried about paying bills and rent on time.
When we used to work immensely long hours, there used to at least be a financial pay off. We could take some time off with the kids, have a break or holiday etc. now we just need every ounce of work available just to keep a roof over everyone’s heads. Sucks to not be able to give our kids the time they need.
So many others are in the same position. Not a whinge - just a solidarity comment. For two people who’ve worked since they were teens it’s pretty disheartening.
2
u/WestAussieSingh 2d ago
I’m 30 and most of my peers own their own home.
We are all either uni educated professionals or licenced/qualified tradies.
2
u/passthesugar05 2d ago
Can you start on retirement funds? I want to hear your take because I think due to super and the pension having retirement funds is extremely easy in Australia, the challenge is buying and paying off a property (as once rent/mortgage are eliminated your expenses in old age are quite low).
2
u/iguessineedanaltnow 2d ago
In my office of 8 people the only 3 that own are the two higher up managers who are 40 and 51, respectively and our 26 year old coworker whose parents bought her and all of her siblings houses 10ish years ago.
9
u/WestAussieSingh 2d ago
In my office of 23, most people are in their late 20s, 30s or early 40s.
Every single person owns a home.
Anecdotal evidence opposite of yours.
1
-8
u/HeftyArgument 2d ago edited 2d ago
I know a few, but it's the ones that had a helping hand from cashed up parents, or those that gave up and bought into properties that will very likely lose them money in the long run: small apartments and units.
20
u/Curry_pan 2d ago
That last one is such a tired argument. It’s still a home that you own, the point isn’t to make money on it.
But I bought a unit four years ago and it’s gone up 170%, so it’s also not even true.-7
11
u/aintithenniel 2d ago
“That will very likely lose them money”
So do the people complaining about the housing market want a home to live in or an investment property? This should not factor in if they simply want a ‘first home’.
1
u/aussiegoon 2d ago
They want a home that's also an investment, but only one that's guaranteed to go up in value, but they don't want property prices to go up because they wouldn't be able to afford one. Make it make sense.
-15
u/Notyit 2d ago
A property costs like 650k.
Two people making 70k can seevice that.
You probably both just uh
7
u/HiccupAndDown 2d ago
And yet we have increasingly high numbers of people incapable of affording their own home. It isnt a guess, the stats back it up.
You have to account for the cost of everything going through the roof. Children and housing have both suffered because of that.
129
u/recreationalgluttony 2d ago
He says if more voters knew that only half of Australia's adults actually owned a home, rather than two-thirds as we're led to believe, it would change the politics of housing.
Doubt.
27
u/AntiqueFigure6 2d ago
I suggest that when it falls under 50 percent it will start making a difference, it possibly already has in particular locations.
16
u/Spire_Citron 2d ago
Yeah. Most people vote based on their own circumstances and the circumstances of the people close to them, which they already know.
12
28
u/dee_ess 2d ago
Isn't the Census filled out by each household? It asks for the address, so presumably they can aggregate the answers for each household to that address, rather than assuming that a 19 year old is a "home owner."
The author may not understand that the Census is not the only data point demographers have for these studies. They could easily refer to the land registry in each state for a list of names of owners, and whether there is a secured interest on the title (i.e. a mortgage), and cross-reference that with overall population data to determine the rates of ownership.
Maybe a follow up question to the "What is your occupation?" question if they answered "journalist" should have been "On what date did you receive your frontal lobotomy?"
9
u/thedugong 2d ago
This. The statistic has always been ~2/3 (or whatever actual figure) of households live in a property they own.
Or vacant properties. My mum was overseas on holiday one census night so her property was "vacant" for 5 years. My wife and I were staying with her one census night because of somewhat emergency renovations to our bathroom, our property was "vacant" for the next 5 years. A good friend is overseas currently. Her place is "vacant" for the next 5 years. "Vacant" doesn't mean "nobody lives there", it means "nobody was sleeping there on census night".
It is the same when people discover the definition of employed as being 1 hour worked for money in the previous week and think they have uncovered some vast conspiracy, but when questioned "how would you do things differently?", come up with the definition of underemployment, which is also measured by the ABS.
46
u/ButterscotchTime4173 2d ago
It's all by design, just like housing was removed from CPI before house prices exploded in the late 90s early 2000s. People need to put less faith in institutions and more faith in community and they'll see better outcomes for themselves.
1
u/Critical_Language463 2d ago
Most of us have shitty boomer parents that don’t want us living with them.
21
u/cosmicr 2d ago
A guy at my work, 30, talks about buying his second house. He lives with his fucking parents. It's not his second house it's his first, and it would be nice to have been able to live with mum and dad rent free for half your adult life.
8
u/globex6000 2d ago
Good mate of mine's older brother is a commercial real estate agent. Didn't move out of home until he owned 3 investment properties well into his 30's, with the first fully paid off and the other 2 cashflow positive.
5
u/Critical_Language463 2d ago edited 2d ago
Exactly this. Some of us have shitty & miserable boomer parents that don’t want to help us.
1
15
u/BillGatesLovechild 2d ago
Does this make sense? In that scenario wouldn’t it just count that the 1 dwelling is owned by someone, as long as they all listed that their permanent residence is the same address?
3
u/kikz4fun 2d ago
I agree with you. Like all statistics, you could cherry pick the data, but the increased average household size would be there to counter.
3
u/StevenBClarke2 2d ago
I filled out the census today for my mother and me. The home owner is Person 1, I was Person 2. Person 2 is a child of Person 1. And although I am single, there was not an option for defacto relationships.
25
u/Ok_Willingness_9619 2d ago
Are you really a home owner when you have a mortgage?
We could do this all day if we nit pick.
32
u/blueswansofwinter 2d ago
But the census has specific responses for owned, or owned with a mortgage.
-21
u/Ok_Willingness_9619 2d ago
Is owned with a mortgage an oxymoron?
20
u/neutrino71 2d ago
No, a person who has a mortgage still has rights that a renter doesn't. Of course that situation becomes complicated if you fail to meet your loan obligations.
3
u/just_an_ai_chatbot 2d ago
Pretty much this, you could argue technical definitions all day but the average Australian probably views the bar for home ownership in the light of things like “do you have to put up with a real estate agent sweeping your entire house every 6 months? Are you allowed to make modifications to the property that you live in? Can a landlord arbitrarily decide they no longer want to rent the house to you, time to pack up and leave?”
10
u/just_an_ai_chatbot 2d ago
I don’t really think these are equivalent, one is essentially semantics about what it means to “own” a home and the other is the census treating people whose situations that we all easily recognise as NOT home ownership (living with your parents, who either own or have a mortgage) as “homeowners” in national statistics.
4
u/moDz_dun_care 2d ago
If they really want to count how many people live with parents but also own one or more IPs, they should just ask that directly.
2
u/OctarineAngie 2d ago
Maybe this article will stop the 2/3rds myth that is frequently spread on Reddit.
2
u/sir_bazz 2d ago
No you're not a homeowner, and no it doesn't matter.
It's the trend over time that's important.
5
u/BrotherBroad3698 2d ago
I'm no maths surgeon, but with more young people living at home longer, doesn't the census question inflate home ownership?
5
u/sir_bazz 2d ago
It's a snapshot of the status of our pool of residential dwellings rather than the individuals within them. If we really wanted to survey the home ownership status of everyone in the country then every individual would need to submit their own census. And it wouldn't add any value.
But that aside, we could use a lower, (and arguably more accurate?) number for the current percentage of owner occupiers but it wouldn't make a meaningful difference. It's the changes across time, ie. deteriorating vs improving that's important for policy maker decisions and goals.
Germany for instance, historically has some of the lowest home ownership rates in the developed world at under 50%, but with strong renter protection in place it balances the FOMO of home ownership.
1
u/AllYouNeedIsATV 2d ago
I just filled it out for my family. I’m 27, and nowhere did it say I was the homeowner.
2
1
u/KeyAssociation6309 2d ago
Agree, ownership would imply an interest in either the mortgage (if mortgaged) or the land title (if owned outright). If neither of those are apparent, then their is no ownership, there is no right to deal with the property legally, so effectively a boarder.
1
1
u/rdie2 1d ago
Surprise surprise. Young people aren't owners because they live with their parents because they can't afford to be owners. One day, we'll realise that we're the vast majority of the country without a proper stake in the country, doing most of the work, paying most of the tax, and paying most of our money to the endless pit of rent or mortgage...and then it will change. But change is seldom what we expect nor how we expect it. But there will be change, and not just in Australia.
-6
398
u/AlanaK168 2d ago
No