I was just thinking about this again today... It just occurred to me Singapore has the same system/policy. You have mandatory "super" type compulsory savings, but you can access those savings for a first home purchase, medical expenses, and possibly unemployment income support. From what I recall you can't access the universal safety nets there until you have depleted those funds or something.
Now there are obvious reasons I would oppose this on ideological and equity grounds. But I think it shows that maybe it is a bit daft you can't use those savings to then buy a first home. Especially when the whole retirement and social policy settings are geared around the assumption of home ownership in retirement.
But again it all comes back to the core issue. The problem isn't merely we creating all these weird financial hoops and barriers for people to become home owners during their working life. The real core of the Singapore model we are missing is the publicly subsidised non-market housing provision e.g. your Housemate proposal. Otherwise I suspect unlocking super for housing in the long run would largely be negated through private land markets absorbing the increased spending power. Even if we abolished super or made it for anything, over the long run I don't think people would diminish the value they put on home ownership, so the extra spending would still probably eventually end up in residential land.
Quite interesting stuff Mr Murray. I disagree with you on detail on matters stretching from housing policy to super to Covid, but laud your activism.
Singapore does have an interesting setup, in fact I ended up recommending it under pressure in Myanmar's housing strategy a couple of years ago (not that this meant anything as the regime immediately changed). Personally I have preferred Hong Kong, after seeing both in action.
I was just thinking about this again today... It just occurred to me Singapore has the same system/policy. You have mandatory "super" type compulsory savings, but you can access those savings for a first home purchase, medical expenses, and possibly unemployment income support. From what I recall you can't access the universal safety nets there until you have depleted those funds or something.
Now there are obvious reasons I would oppose this on ideological and equity grounds. But I think it shows that maybe it is a bit daft you can't use those savings to then buy a first home. Especially when the whole retirement and social policy settings are geared around the assumption of home ownership in retirement.
But again it all comes back to the core issue. The problem isn't merely we creating all these weird financial hoops and barriers for people to become home owners during their working life. The real core of the Singapore model we are missing is the publicly subsidised non-market housing provision e.g. your Housemate proposal. Otherwise I suspect unlocking super for housing in the long run would largely be negated through private land markets absorbing the increased spending power. Even if we abolished super or made it for anything, over the long run I don't think people would diminish the value they put on home ownership, so the extra spending would still probably eventually end up in residential land.
Quite interesting stuff Mr Murray. I disagree with you on detail on matters stretching from housing policy to super to Covid, but laud your activism.
Singapore does have an interesting setup, in fact I ended up recommending it under pressure in Myanmar's housing strategy a couple of years ago (not that this meant anything as the regime immediately changed). Personally I have preferred Hong Kong, after seeing both in action.
Thank you Cameron and thank you for not blocking me and sorry for annoying your in box. Keep up the good argument around super and helping the young.