Household Income

<html><body>
The results of a recent household income and wealth survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) are not necessarily what you’d expect according to CoreLogic research analyst Cameron Kusher.
He said, “The results state that higher income households are more likely to be over-indebted than lower income ones and determined those households that are over-indebted and those that are not.”
The 2015-16 household income and wealth survey results, which includes household debt and over-indebtedness considers a household to be over indebted if their debt is either three or more times their income, or 75% or more of the value of their assets.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/09/21/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-21%20at%2011.15.20%20am.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/09/21/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-21%20at%2011.15.20%20am.jpg" alt="">
Mr Kusher said, “On these measures the ABS considers 21.6% of households to be over-indebted, 51.9% of households to be not over-indebted and 26.4% of households have no debt.”
According to the results, households with the lowest disposable income are the least likely to be over-indebted while the fourth quintile households are most likely to be over-indebted.
The end results, according to Mr Kusher, is that households with higher incomes are less likely to be debt free and are more likely to be over-indebted than lower income households.
He said, “Lower income households are more likely to be debt- free compared to higher income households which is reflective of many lower income households having paid off their debt.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/09/21/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-21%20at%2011.15.28%20am.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/09/21/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-21%20at%2011.15.28%20am.jpg" alt="">
“The data shows that 94.6% of households which are either not over- indebted (37.8%) or without debt (56.8%) have no persons in the labour force which is reflective of retirees or people that are in a position to choose not to work.”
Households with mortgage debt are more likely to be over- indebted than those households that either rent or own their home outright; only 3.5% of households that own without a mortgage are considered to be over-indebted compared to 47.0% of household with a mortgage and 9.1% of rental households.
Lone person households are likely to be those persons who are living debt free (45.9%), while single family households with a couple and dependent children (10.7%) are the least likely to be living debt free.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/09/21/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-21%20at%2011.15.36%20am.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/09/21/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-21%20at%2011.15.36%20am.jpg" alt="">
Interestingly, the data indicates that group households are among those least likely to be over-indebted (16.2%) as well as being amongst the least likely to be without debt (20.8%).
Mr Kusher said, “This probably reflects the fact that university students and young professionals are most likely to live in group households while studying and prior to purchasing their own home.”
The data also shows that households that are over-indebted spend 24.2% of all goods and services expenditure on housing costs compared to not over-indebted households spending 16.8% of their expenditure on housing costs.
The report shows that on average, over-indebted households spend more than double ($150.54) each week on their mortgage repayments than households which are not over-indebted ($73.44).
Mr Kusher said, “Households with no mortgage debt, most of which are retiree households, are least likely to be over- indebted.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/09/21/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-21%20at%2011.15.47%20am.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/09/21/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-21%20at%2011.15.47%20am.jpg" alt="">
“On the other hand, higher income households with a family that have outstanding mortgage debt are those most likely to be over-indebted.”
“While you could say that families of working age with higher incomes are better able to service their debt, interest rate hikes or reductions in the value of their assets could have a significant impact on their ability to service their debt.”
Cameron Kusher is research analyst for CoreLogic. You can contact him <a href="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/about/" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

ckusher-ujnxiKuFQs

Almost three quarters of Australian households are indebted: Cameron Kusher

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released their biennial survey of household income and wealth earlier this week.  
The release has a huge amount of valuable data but at least initially I thought it was pertinent to look at the dwelling tenure data.  
The information is provided from 1994-95 up until the latest release (2015-16).
The tenure data is premised upon who is currently residing in the property, this is important to understand because when we look at the proportion of residents who own without a mortgage for example this doesn’t necessarily represent the total number of dwellings owned outright.  The reason being that some of those properties that are occupied by renters may be owned outright by the person who is renting that property out.
<a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/building/2017-09-18-articleimage1.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/09/22/2017-09-18-articleimage1.png" alt="">
  As at the 2015-16 release 30.4% of households were lived in by someone that owned that property outright.  
This figure was lower than the 31.4% in 2013-14 and as the above chart shows it has been steadily trending lower over recent years.
In fact, at the peak throughout the timeframe shown, 42.8% of households had no mortgage in 1995-96.  This is an interesting statistic when you consider than many people suggest that lower mortgage rates result in improved housing affordability.  
In June 1996 the standard variable mortgage rate was recorded at 9.75% compared to a mortgage rate of 5.4% in June 2016.  The ongoing decline in mortgage rates has pushed dwelling values higher and although it has made servicing mortgage debt easier it has not led to a greater proportion of the population living mortgage free.
<a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/building/2017-0918-articleimage2.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/09/22/2017-0918-articleimage2.png" alt="">
  With fewer households owning their home outright, there has been an increase in the proportion of households that live in a home that they own and still carry mortgage debt.  In 2015-16, 37.1% of households had mortgage debt which has increased from 35.8% in 2013-14.
 At its low point over the period highlighted on the chart, 28.1% of households had mortgage debt in 1995-96.  Since 2003-04, there has consistently been a higher proportion of households with mortgage debt than those without.
<a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/building/2017-09-18-articleimage3.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/09/22/2017-09-18-articleimage3.png" alt="">
  As the rates of outright home ownership have fallen there has been a rise in the proportion of households which are rented.  
Whereas outright home ownership has continued to fall and ownership with a mortgage has risen, it is interesting to note how the proportion of rental households has actually declined since the last survey.  
The latest data shows that in 2015-16, 30.3% of households nationally were rented compared to 31.0% in 2013-14.  Back in 1994-95 only 25.7% of households were rented.  
<a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/building/2017-09-18-articleimage4.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/09/22/2017-09-18-articleimage4.png" alt="">
  As the prominence of renting has increased over time, the responsibility to provide rental accommodation has increasingly fallen on private citizens rather than the public sector.
At its peak in 1995-96, 6.0% of households were rental properties which were rented from state housing authorities, by 2015-16 this figure had fallen to just 3.5%.  This is an important consideration for governments when considering potential changes to investment policies such as negative gearing.
Governments are clearly not as involved in providing housing as they have been in the past, if private citizens or companies are going to be responsible for providing that housing it is likely they will require some incentives other than just the rental income, escpecially considering how low rental yields are across Australian cities.
The charts presented highlight how home ownership is continuing to decline which is leading to a greater proportion of the population either being in mortgage debt or renting.  
As the population ages this can create challenges especially if an increasing number of Australians are retiring but still carry mortgage debt.  It also highlights that simply building more homes is not necessarily a solution to increasing home ownership rates.  
As we’ve seen over recent years during a housing construction boom first home buyer levels have been at near record-lows and housing investment levels have hit all-time highs.  Arresting the decline in home ownership in Australia will be no easy feat however, the data indicates that simply building more housing won’t necessarily solve the problem particularly if it isn’t at a price point which is reachable for lower and middle income earners.  
We would expect that over the coming years, the rate of home ownership will continue to fall especially given we have seen dwelling values continue to climb since June 2016.
Cameron Kusher is research analyst for CoreLogic. You can contact him <a href="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/about/" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Home ownership rates continue to fall: Cameron Kusher

<html><body>
With affordable houses <a href="https://theconversation.com/get-used-to-your-commute-data-confirms-houses-near-jobs-are-too-expensive-77867" target="_blank" style="font-size: 12.16px;">increasingly out of reach</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-wage-growth-at-record-lows-66552" target="_blank" style="font-size: 12.16px;">wage growth slow</a> and <a href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2017/07/03/australia-debt-new-records/" target="_blank" style="font-size: 12.16px;">household debt high</a>, Australians are certainly feeling poor. But how do they compare to their neighbours? New Census data confirms there’s a lot of variability in income.
The Census breaks the country up into 349 geographic regions (named in quote marks below), some of which cover more than one major town and some of which group related suburbs within cities. We examined 331 of these regions, excluding those containing fewer than 1,000 households.
The data show there are high levels of income inequality within these regions. A simple way to measure this is to look at the ratio of income between those who are well off (the top 20% within a region) and of those who are relatively disadvantaged (the bottom 20%) in the Census data. In Australia the weekly household income for the top 20% (A$1,579 per week) is 3.5 times the income of the bottom 20% (A$457).
<hr>
<iframe style="border: none;" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/111/f2b689c1ab84b5613696b7ec6810186798244fac/site/index.html" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<hr>
The “Melbourne City” region has the most unequal incomes in Australia, where the top 20% have an income that is 8.3 times as high as those in the bottom 20%. “Adelaide City” (ratio of 5.5) and the “Sydney Inner City” (4.8) also have quite high levels of inequality.
Two of the poorest regions in the Northern Territory also have very high inequality. These are the vast region that encircles Darwin, called “Daly, Tiwi, West Arnhem” (ratio of 5.2) and the “East Arnhem” region (5.3).
However, there are regions with varying income levels, that also had relatively low inequality ratios. The region of “Molonglo”, in South Canberra (ratio of 2.2), “West Pilbara” in Western Australia (2.4) and “Kempsey, Nambucca” on New South Wales’ north coast (2.5) all have low levels of inequality.
For our analysis, we used equivalised household income. Equivalisation is a technique in which members of a household receive different weightings, based on the amount of additional resources they need.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics assumes that the first adult in a household has a weighting of 1, each additional adult a weighting of 0.5, and each child a weighting of 0.3. Total household income is then divided by the sum of the weightings for a representative income.
<h2>Incomes across Australia</h2>
For the whole of Australia, the equivalised median household income (the income in the middle of the distribution) is A$878 per week. The region with the lowest median income was “Daly, Tiwi, West Arnhem” in the Northern Territory, at A$510 per week.
<hr>
<iframe style="border: none;" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/109/19cd8878d4e989ae653c8c1338ef8552106a1e10/site/index.html" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<hr>
However, several regional areas like “Maryborough, Pyrenees” (northwest of Ballarat in Victoria), “Kempsey, Nambucca” (NSW), “Maryborough” (between Bundaberg and the Sunshine Coast in Queensland), “Inverell, Tenterfield” (in NSW’s Northern Tablelands) and “South East Coast” in Tasmania all had median incomes of A$575 per week or less.
At the other end of the distribution, households in leafy suburbs of North Sydney – “Mosman” (NSW) had a median income of A$1,767 per week. Areas like “South Canberra” (ACT), “Manly” (in Sydney’s east) and the mining-dominated “West Pilbara” (WA) all had median incomes of A$1,674 or more per week.
We also looked at the extremes of the distribution. We define high income as those households with an income of A$1,500 or more per week. This equates to about 22% of the population. We defined low-income households as having an income of less than A$400 per week (about 14% of households).
Around 40% of households in the “Daly, Tiwi, West Arnhem” region were classified as being in poverty compared to around 6% in “North Sydney, Mosman” region. Conversely, around 60% of households in this region were classified as having high income, compared with only 6% of households in “Kempsey, Nambucca”.
<h2>How segregated are we within regions and cities?</h2>
While government policy is often delivered at the regional level, people live their lives at the local or neighbourhood level. However, the relatively disadvantaged and the upper-middle class are often segregated within these regions.
<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/book/dream-hoarders/" target="_blank">Richard Reeves of the Brookings Institute argues</a> the segregation of the upper-middle class in Australia means this group “hoards” the benefits in the region they live in. Among the location advantages he lists are: access to the best schools, opportunities to network with the wealthy and powerful and the ability to disproportionately accrue capital gains on housing assets. To avoid this kind of “opportunity hoarding”, the rich and poor would need to be evenly spread within a region.
A simple way to look at this is through a “dissimilarity index”. In essence, this measures the evenness with which two groups are spread across a larger area. It ranges from zero to one, with higher values indicating a more uneven distribution and zero indicating complete mixing.
Looking at the distribution of the high income. Across Australia, the dissimilarity index has a value of 0.27. This means that around 27% of high-income households would have to move neighbourhoods to make the distribution completely even.
This varies quite substantially by region. “Far North” (encompassing Cape York in QLD) has a dissimilarity index of 0.42. “Auburn” (in western suburbs of Sydney, NSW) and “Playford” (on Adelaide’s northern fringe) also have quite large values.
Our richest regions tend to have the most even distribution of the wealthy, with “North Sydney, Mosman”, “Molonglo” and “Manly” having values of 0.06 or less.
“East Arnhem” has a very high level of concentration of low income individuals by neighbourhood, with a dissimilarity index of 0.70. The next two highest regions (“Katherine” and “Alice Springs”) are also in the Northern Territory, with index values of 0.53 and 0.55 respectively.
We can also compare the measures we used, to find out how they relate to each other. The following figure shows that the richest regions tend to be those with the highest level of income inequality.
However, as inequality goes up, there tends to be a greater concentration of low income households by neighbourhood (there’s also less of a concentration of high income households).
<h2>Have and have nots</h2>
It’s true that the level of income mobility is <a href="https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/publications-filter/income-mobility-in-australia" target="_blank">higher in Australia</a> than it is in the US. However, Australia also has prominent examples of economic policies that disproportionately benefit the upper-middle class, such as the capital gains tax discount and superannuation tax incentives.
Australia also has a geographically concentrated income distribution, with the rich living in neighbourhoods with other rich people. The poor are also more likely to live in close proximity to people who share their disadvantage.
If Richard Reeves is right, and the spatial segregation of high and low income households reinforces inequality across the generations, then policies that encourage the mixing of different social classes in the same neighbourhood and region should be a way forward.
<hr>
This article was put together with research assistance from Hubert Wu, Australian National University and Harvard University.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicholas-biddle-10171" target="_blank">Nicholas Biddle</a>, Associate Professor, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877" target="_blank">Australian National University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/francis-markham-14836" target="_blank">Francis Markham</a>, Research Fellow, College of Arts and Social Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877" target="_blank">Australian National University</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-income-inequality-looks-like-across-australia-80069" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

What income inequality looks like across Australia

<html><body>
Amid the debate over negative gearing ahead of the budget, a new study has found that low-income households are using negative gearing to get into the property market while paying no net tax after welfare benefits has climbed to 60 percent. 
A study by KPMG says the bottom fifth of households (ranked by income) have enjoyed growth in “investment income” of 8.5 percent a year over the past decade, more than four times faster than the other 80 percent, according to a report in The Australian.
This was “confirmed by the substantial increase in value of second mortgage payments being undertaken within this quintile,” the study found.
It suggested the share of households paying no net tax — after welfare payments are netted against income tax paid — has reached 60 percent, which is above most conventional estimates that put the figure nearer 50 percent. 
The report analysed Melbourne Institute and ABS households income data over the 20 years to 2015.
KPMG chief economist Brendan Rynne was cited by The Australian as saying that a further government review was needed “as it suggests that the loosening of transfer payments after the GFC were never properly tightened up again — and it is very difficult to withdraw benefits once they have been granted”.
The number of low-income households with second mortgages is estimated to have more than doubled to above 37,000 since 2006.
“While it is perhaps understandable that the poorest members of our society want to diversify and increase their incomes, this group is the least able to take on the financial risk associated with geared investment activity,” Rynne said. “It is clear from our analysis that if the bubble does burst it will not just be the better-off who will be directly affected, the poor will be too.” 
The KPMG report finds half of the income of the poorest households was derived from government transfers.
“This outcome has in part been influenced by the growth in the Australian minimum wage … to $657 a week in 2015,” the report said. 
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Rise in low-income households on welfare using negative gearing: KPMG 

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/64293/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Newly released analysis from Roy Morgan reaffirms that it is the lowest-income households that face the highest mortgage stress. And, contrary to what many might expect, the worst stress is not in Sydney and Melbourne, where property prices have hit record highs.
The Roy Morgan report estimates that 18.4 percent of Australian households are experiencing mortgage stress, a situation where over one-third of their income goes towards servicing a home loan.
Mortgage stress can lead to many complex social issues. It is considered one of the underlying causes of the Global Financial Crisis.
For many households affected by mortgage stress, defaulting is the last resort. Yet, as the mortgage-servicing pressure increases, so does mortgage risk.
Mortgage risk, the chance of a borrower defaulting, has increased to 83.2 percent for households earning under $60,000 per year. It is, however, virtually non-existent for households earning more than $150,000.
<h2>Income is more important than interest rates</h2>
The Roy Morgan report highlights the importance of income, more so than house prices and borrowing costs, to mortgage stress. In fact, interest rates would need to more than double to match the impact of a loss of income on housing stress.
The previous peak in mortgage stress was in 2008-09, a period of high interest rates and bubble-like price growth in Sydney and Melbourne.
This time around, record low interest rates appear on the surface to be counter-balancing the default rate. Yet this is tied to a stagnation in income levels.
House prices and income levels moved in step until 2013. While house prices have continued to increase, household income levels have flattened since then, when the cash rate dropped to a historic low of 2.75 percent. The cash rate is now even lower at 1.50 percent, with further cuts forecast.
The troubling prediction from this is that mortgage stress among Australian households is set to remain high, despite the current low interest rates.
<h2>Widening inequality</h2>
As home ownership concentrates among wealthier households, this report also shows that higher-income households are more resilient to increases in interest rates. This means, too, that home ownership increasingly requires a dual income.
The owner-occupied home is often referred to as the largest single asset that most households own. In countries like Australia and the USA, home ownership is promoted by government and linked to many aspects of future wellbeing. However, as recent HILDA analysis shows, owner-occupied households are becoming far less common.
The “Great Australian Dream” is expected to apply to only a minority of households next decade. With those in the already most marginalised parts of society most affected by mortgage stress, a change in the structures that incentivise home ownership is required to minimise the growing inequality gap.
<h2>Pockets of pain</h2>
The limitation with national averages is that pockets of pain are brushed over. The report drills into state-by-state analysis and metro vs regional comparisons.
While the largest mortgages across the country, averaging over $300,000, are in Sydney, mortgage stress is highest in Tasmania and South Australia.
Mortgage stress in Tasmania and South Australia sits well above the national average, as do their unemployment figures, 6.5% and 6.9% respectively, against a national average of 5.7%. Households in regional areas are also facing more acute mortgage stress than their city counterparts.
<h2>The housing market underpins the Australian financial sector</h2>
Regulators aren’t taking any chances. With nearly $1 trillion in outstanding mortgage debt, double the pre-GFC level, the 2014 Financial Systems Inquiry identified that mortgages are now a significant systemic risk. In a recent speech on the prudential regulator’s outlook, APRA general manager Heidi Richards stated that “the housing market now underpins our financial sector”.
APRA has been tightening the lending standards of the big banks. Effective from July 1, the big banks have been required to apply higher “risk weightings” to residential mortgages. These determine the amount of capital held against assets to limit the likelihood of insolvency.
The silver lining to this otherwise depressing analysis is that the risks to financial stability are relatively low. Home ownership concentrated amongst wealthier households actually means there is a high degree of aggregate resilience to changes in future interest rates and incomes.
However, the report’s focus is on current incomes. To brace for a true housing market downturn, the key will be monitoring employment and income statistics – unemployment rates as well as hours.
Danika Wright is lecturer in finance, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/danika-wright-121868" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Household Income

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Household Income

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News