With reference to the $300,000 downsizing contribution, I am sure this policy is very much welcomed by those who qualify. But it seems to me that there are unintended effects in its implementation, as follows:

Let's say, for example, an older retired couple sells a large house for a large price and buys a small house for a much smaller price, leaving at least $300,000 in hand to take advantage of the policy. Although this releases a large house for somebody to buy, it would likely be of no interest to a first home buyer because of the high price. Conversely, the cashed up older couple would be competing with the first home buyer for the smaller cheaper house, thus tending to force up prices at the lower end of the market. I can't really see any winners there.

One aspect of the $300,000 downsizing contribution policy that almost never gets a mention is that the main barrier to qualification is the requirement for the house being sold to have been owned for at least 10 years. Since the average ownership of residential properties is around seven years, this limitation makes no sense, other than as a deliberate tool to ensure very few can qualify. In my view, a 5-year rule would be more appropriate and would be sufficient to deter anyone from buying and quickly reselling to take advantage of the downsizing policy.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Its true, a first home buyer may not be interested in the larger home but it would be a trickle down affect as homeowners move on.

I agree with the 5 years.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

No mention of where an 'eligible person' may just own multiple properties for 10 years - and lived in more than one of them. Ultimately - the intent is to free up smaller affordable properties is it not? Why not extend to the sale of investment properties that have been retained a long time?

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.