It's time to re-think first home buyer grants
First home buyers are fighting with a 100 pound gorilla with one arm tied behind their backs as they compete with investors who have the luxury of negative gearing and superannuation funds.
But laws around negative gearing and super are unlikely to change so it’s time to revisit the issue.
I believe the answer lies in rethinking superannuation laws and first home buyer grants.
Historically the family home has been the corner stone of ones wealth but this is in danger of being lost. Superannuation was implemented to help people self fund their own retirement and compliment the wealth in their family homes. I believe that allowing first home buyers to access their super and assist them in laying that foundation keeps within the spirit of superannuation.
A worker who earns the average Australian income of $50,000 a year will have around $36,000 in super by the time they are 30 not including any return on their investments. As a couple that is $72,000! They also have the benefit of diverting more of their income into a tax-sheltered environment. It would not be unreasonable for a first home buying couple to have in excess of $100,000 in super by the time they want to purchase their first home.
Buying a property is only the first step to home ownership. Keeping up with the mortgage payments is where the real pain starts to bite.
A large deposit like this would mean first home buyers have more equity in their home and as a result in a more stable financial position. It would also save a significant amount in interest. For example if a first homebuyer had a $100,000 deposit they would only need to borrow around 80% of the property value rather than 90% or more. On a $500,000 home that would save them $2,500 to $3,000 per annum in interest.
They would also avoid paying a hefty mortgage insurance bill of around $5,000 to $10,000 in most cases.
Buying a property is only the first step to home ownership. Keeping up with the mortgage payments is where the real pain starts to bite. If governments really want to help with home ownership they should look at providing ongoing assistance and review first home buyer grants.
First home buyer grants have evolved over the years but on average they provide first home buyers with around $10,000 cash or stamp duty saving benefits. Rather than paying first home buyers a lump sum payment that is usually paid to the banks for mortgage insurance, I believe annual payments will be more effective and a better use of taxpayer money. An annual payment of $2,000 a year for the first five years would help first home buyers establish themselves in the market.
While the devil is in the detail the points outlined above provide a win-win outcome. The government wins as it helps solve first home buyer affordability at no extra cost. The economy wins, as more money will flow into the important building industry. First home buyers win as they will enter the market without paying mortgage insurance and save around $5,000 per annum in holding costs for the first five years.
There is a potential downside in that it would place further pressure on property prices. However this is already happening even without first home buyers and these ideas will go a long way to levelling the playing field between first home buyers and investors.
They would help young Australians into the market and start the process of building wealth in one of our most powerful tax-free investments – our home.
Mark Armstrong is a director of iProperty Plan, which provides independent analysis and tailored advice to investors and home buyers.
This article was first published on Property Observer in October, 2013.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE TO READ:
Exclusive: First home buyer picks from the experts
