JC Political Thread - For All Things Political Part 2

[Sabbath']

FFS. Have tried to reply to this 3 times but have scrolled away on mobile to grab a link and come back and nothing I've typed is here anymore...

But it’s not being held up by bureaucrats, that’s the point. Thats just the convenient line they spin to always blame government.

When AV Jennings can’t complete 10% of the approved lots that are in their current pipeline it’s not “bureaucracy” that is slowing it down!

https://www.openlot.com.au/melbourne-west

Plenty of land stock in just that one area for sale. Have a search around and can find more, your assumptions are wrong.

Yes there are substantial costs involved with greenfield sites and those costs used to be borne by the government (who owned and provided all those services). The government also sold the land (with assistance from the RE sector to do the auction) so they recouped the money paid for the services.

Do you think land prices would end up cheaper or more expensive if the government had to buy it in the first place? What happens with anything the government touches? Prices get jacked up and premiums get applied and ultimately taxpayers just foot the bill.

They also had a pretty decent incentive to sell the land quickly as they would get more ratepayers into their jurisdiction if they sold more blocks of land to build houses on.

Now the costs for all the infrastructure are foisted onto the private developers even though the governments get the ongoing rates that are supposed to be paying for those services. Creates a disconnect between the action and the ongoing benefits.

Land approval rates are dropping regardless, the article was linked a few pages back.

If you were in Vic I'd say to take a drive past some of the estates being built out in the west, east and north. You can see the progression of the sprawl. There are green fields with "coming soon" signs on them seperated by a wire fence from cleared lands, with the drainage and road mapping laid out. Then in the distance they're pouring house slabs and in the next field there are frames being built. And this goes on for km after km. So I really don't believe or buy into your assertion that the land is being being bought and made unavailable until some time the prices rise.

Took this quick grab off google maps flying over just one area of builds in the area.

Buying a car derives a benefit as well, not having to walk to work is a pretty solid benefit but that’s not (generally) considered an investment is it?

You don't buy a car with the same financial expectation as a house though.

Also using solar panels as an example isn’t really the same. Solar panels do provide an economic return (energy) that has actual ongoing value, either through using the energy yourself or selling it to the power grid.

And adding capital improvements, a carport, renovating a bathroom, adding an extension etc all add actual ongoing value

A carport derives effectively no economic benefit to me, it just makes my car cooler when I hop in it in summer and stops it from deteriorating as quick in the sun. Also reduces the risk from hail storms and such so possibly a minor decrease in insurance premiums and thats it.

Thus proving what I said...the money put into your house will give you a return in not only a tangible but also a financial one. Including when it comes time to sell.

Cars do provide a benefit in the short term but they normally depreciate in value so you don't use them as an investment.

So the carport is actually a net economic negative for the economy as a whole as my car is better protected so I’m less likely to spend money on it in the future getting it repainted or repaired due to UV or hail damage!

Did you take this communal irresponsibility into account before you did something for yourself?

Agreed. The government should stop this BS of importing more people than our housing and infrastructure can keep up with.

I still think importing the extra workers we currently require to build houses is a net positive for housing though as they will build more houses than they occupy.

Possibly, the problem would be the quality of the work. And how many jobs it would take to vet the decent workers from the crummy ones. Volume builders already suffer from the reputation of a slightly lower standard.

 

[vc commodore]

FFS. Have tried to reply to this 3 times but have scrolled away on mobile to grab a link and come back and nothing I've typed is here anymore...


https://www.openlot.com.au/melbourne-west

Plenty of land stock in just that one area for sale. Have a search around and can find more, your assumptions are wrong.





Do you think land prices would end up cheaper or more expensive if the government had to buy it in the first place? What happens with anything the government touches? Prices get jacked up and premiums get applied and ultimately taxpayers just foot the bill.

Land approval rates are dropping regardless, the article was linked a few pages back.

If you were in Vic I'd say to take a drive past some of the estates being built out in the west, east and north. You can see the progression of the sprawl. There are green fields with "coming soon" signs on them seperated by a wire fence from cleared lands, with the drainage and road mapping laid out. Then in the distance they're pouring house slabs and in the next field there are frames being built. And this goes on for km after km. So I really don't believe or buy into your assertion that the land is being being bought and made unavailable until some time the prices rise.

Took this quick grab off google maps flying over just one area of builds in the area.

This looks very similar to areas I have mentioned being developed in my neck of the woods....

The funny thing is, one area, that I provided a link to was owned by the gov't....

 

[shane_3800]

Right-wing violence on is on the rise.

https://rumble.com/v4p4oy3-lunatic-...sted-after-chilling-speech-well-murder-y.html

It's funny, in 2016 everyone was a nazi that supported Trump, then 2020 everyone was either a nazi or a fascist, now 2024, it's from the river to the sea.
Oh the irony, everyone is nazis, but kill the jews and free palestine.

 

[Reaper]

Hey look, it’s developers being shitheads, probably par for the course.

His option was to live in his half of the duplex while the other half gets demolished or take an apartment in the new development. I’d probably have done the same thing as having body corporate fees bleeding you dry isn’t exactly an appealing option.

I don't know the full story but it appears the owners dodged a bullet not accepting the developers offer. Not sure if they asked for cash or not. Unfortunately this is a common problem with semi detached our terraced housing. Really the only way to 'fix' that one is to re-roof it and the problem is solved. Not cheap though.

I’d like to see a simplification of the whole house building process. I recall reading that post-WW2 it was quite common for the owner to literally do an owner-built house - as in they did the actual building (and not just be the ‘builder’ on paper). Rules and regulations seem to have made true owner building out of scope of most people these days.

I see Victoria has removed the ‘planning application’ process for small second dwellings in some areas https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/gui...tegies-and-initiatives/small-second-dwellings

I also recall that the government (not sure if it was Victoria or Federal) at one stage produced a set of compliant building plans that could be purchased for a few hundred dollars.

So, I reckon a possible solution for the housing shortage could lie in a number of initiatives. Firstly, have a set of approved housing designs freely available, and deem these designs to be pre-approved (or exempt) for planning and building permits.

Maybe - there would need to be designated zones for these houses. What works in one place often is totally wrong else where.

Set up, or encourage, factory building of the wall frames and roof trusses for these designs (it might be as simple as the government underwriting the production of a stock of the units so companies are happy to mass produce the designs).

Not really - Unless they are built exactly side by side (and even then not always), footings and slabs are individually designed. Further, wind and climate ratings change dependent on the local area, topography and surrounding buildings etc. This will impact framing + storm water drainage capacity. Add to this literally **every** sewer and LPD is different, often requiring custom designed pump and retention systems, the idea of a 'standard' house other than the cosmetics really isn't a thing.

Encourage or facilitate ‘owner builder cooperatives’ where a group of likeminded individuals can get together to help each other out in building their own houses.

Oh geeze... The sooner they outlaw owner builders the better. For every one that does a great job (and there are quite a few), there are many that wind up in a huge mess.

It won’t be a solution for everyone, but I reckon there would be a lot of people who’d be happy to roll up their sleeves if there was a clear pathway for learning and doing the construction of their own house.

Even the idea of factory built houses could be considered, but it’s something that probably best done by government.

100% chance of a disaster if that happens.

I believe the recent ‘land tax‘ changes in Victoria will be hitting land that remains undeveloped after a year or so. It won’t stop the ‘land banking’, but at least the state government will be clawing back a bit of their profits if they do so.

On a similar topic, I read a story today that the new land taxes seem to be driving some property investors to sell up in Victoria. Apparently the number of investment properties on the market in Victoria has increased. The story had the usual comments that the renters will have less houses to choose from, like the houses will somehow disappear. ha ha!

It is early days, but keep an eye on what happens here in Victoria over the next year or two to see if it improves the housing situation or not.

Investors have been leaving Vic in droves for quite some time. I listen to a couple of property podcasts and near universally they all avoid Victoria. Rental availability here has been at crisis for years and getting worse. Unfortunately those most affected are at the low end of the income spectrum who did absolutely nothing to cause the problem aside from voting for the fuckwits who cause the problem.

How many of them are good buildings that will still be there in 50 years? How many of them are concrete slabs in flood zones that will flood.

Most. Lots of designated 'flood' zones around Melbourne that haven't flooded *ever* since they were built on. I built a few townies once in Springvale 2/3 up a reasonably big hill which was designated flood. I promise, if that ever flooded the rest of the peasants were in a fkton of trouble.

Probably doesn’t help that we put foam blocks in our slabs now instead of concrete so China can use all the worlds concrete to make bridges to nowhere and houses that nobody lives in.

Pod slabs have been around for 35 or so years. When used correctly they are perfectly fine and their insulating properties are actually quite good. Personally I wouldn't use them in any H (or greater) soil classification without a very comprehensive drainage and storm water management plan attached to it.

The foam is a insulator but the concrete should not crack, either the slab design is wrong, not enough rebar or wrong grade concrete.

edit: They use the same system here in NZ, always see styrofoam blocks go down before the concrete poor.

I can't speak for NZ but in Aus it usually water management and slab heave which causes major failure. Nearly never concrete grade.

Or putting too much foam in to decrease concrete costs.

Only by fraud or error. The height of the pod doesn't really matter - it's the cover over the top which is **very** easily checked post pour.

There were horror stories many years ago of some operators pouring dodgy slabs. The unscrupulous operators were removing the reinforcing mesh after inspection, but before the concrete was poured. The story was that they were using the mesh again (and again) on the next job.

I have heard the same thing but never seen it myself. Might be in the category of a lot of other things being done in the good ol' days.....

Then you’d also get reports of some operators not using ‘bar chairs’ to hold the reinforcement mesh at the correct level. The claim was that the elevated mesh was too hard to walk/work on, but don’t worry, they’ll reach in and ‘pull the mesh up after the main pour’. Yer, right. So you end up with a slab with the reo sitting at the bottom doing practically nothing.

The other story that was common was the plastic membrane (water proofing) would sometimes partially fill up with water due to rain. So, instead of pumping and mopping the water out, some operators were just punching after holes in to the membrane to drain the water. No regard at all of the further home owner who might discover a damp area in the building later.

I have never heard of them punching holes. Can't see it doing **** really unless the slab was on sand the water probably won't drain. Even with sand it will be slow. I'd suggest thats in the urban myth category

Quite often there will be some water in the bottom of a beam but the conc will push it out as it's poured.

The advice at the time (and still holds today) was to have an independent inspector (perhaps the architect) present during the pour to see that all is done according to the plans.

Not bad advice although at slab stage an engineer carry out an inspection and issue a form 9 (? - can't remember the form number) to ensure the excavation & reo is correct. In all honesty - after that it takes somebody being very dishonest for anything bad to happen which is very unlikely. Conc grade used can be certified at any time by the conc plant. That said, AS usually has 20mPa as a baseline grade but *every* builder I have ever worked with usually gets 25 as it goes off faster and they can move onto the next stage quicker for minimal extra cost.

Alternatively, read up yourself and be there and video record the concrete pour for proof (your ‘word’ in court won’t be considered an expert opinion, but the video evidence will hold up).

Nearly every build contract prevents the owner being on site aside from appointments with the builder. I doubt many workers would concent to being video'ed and it's not something I'd agree to. Further, Worksafe will have serious questions to any builder that permitted such a thing

Here in Australia, I've heard many people in the earth moving industry talk about how some waffle pod slabs are on incorrect ground.

It happens here more than people think.

As above - if they are on H (or higher) then water management is very important. With all due respect to the people you have spoken to, I doubt if they are in a position to understand the whole job to know one way or another.

 

[J_D 2.0]

Do you think land prices would end up cheaper or more expensive if the government had to buy it in the first place? What happens with anything the government touches? Prices get jacked up and premiums get applied and ultimately taxpayers just foot the bill.

Can’t be worse than a system whose explicit goal is to sell for the highest price possible.

I never understand this complete disconnect where everyone thinks anything done by “the socialist government“ is inherently going to cost more but anything done by the private sector will inherently cost less when the explicit goal of the private sector is to make the most money possible!

The market will provide for something to be done for the lowest price possible and for the consumer to benefit from it but the market needs to be unrestricted. That is no (or minimal) barriers to entry to ensure maximum competition.

You don't buy a car with the same financial expectation as a house though.

Thats only because that is what has been ingrained into our society. In Japan they very much treat housing like a car and despite having a very high population density they don’t have a housing crisis as their property market is relatively unrestricted and not treated like a scheme to get rich like it is here.

And adding capital improvements, a carport, renovating a bathroom, adding an extension etc all add actual ongoing value

They provide no monetary benefit until the point of eventual sale, and only insofar as the new owner wants to pay for those benefits.

Thus proving what I said...the money put into your house will give you a return in not only a tangible but also a financial one. Including when it comes time to sell.

Trust you to point to the minutiae edge case and say “see, proves my point”, lust like Reaper does. It doesn’t detract from my point that when something is seen as an “investment” no money spent is ever enough.

My carport cost me over $10k and if there was $100 worth of steel and aluminium in it I’d be surprised, but why not spend $10k if it’s an “investment” right?

In ye olden days before everything was heavily restricted I could have just bought the $100 worth of steel and aluminium myself and just put up a carport but nowadays it wouldn’t be “approved by the council” so I have to get “professional (price gougers)“ to do it!

I know everyone on here keeps saying I’m a socialist but really I’m a big fan of unrestricted markets (some laws are required of course to stop people from getting ripped off etc).

But we don’t have unrestricted markets in a lot of cases yet we still treat those sectors as if they are competitive markets when they are not. If we had an unrestricted housing market for instance anyone would be allowed to subdivide their own land without restriction, anyone would be free to build a house themselves if they wanted to, anyone could buy unused land for its initial purchase price if it remained unused for say 10 years (to prevent land banking).

You can’t fall back on free market principles if the market isn’t free and the land/housing market isn’t free, its terms are dictated by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Governments (federal, state and local) want house prices to keep going up because of stamp duties, land taxes, rates etc. Property developers want house prices to keep going up because they make more profits so they don’t build so many houses that they outcompete themselves.

Housing should be made more affordable and that won’t happen while all the vested interests that have control of the market want the exact opposite. The only potential circuit breaker that can be applied is a government that is willing to change the market dynamic to make housing the right it should be rather than the privilege it has become.

 

[Sabbath']

Can’t be worse than a system whose explicit goal is to sell for the highest price possible.

It's a free system. If you want to sell anything at what you paid for it or less, go ahead.

I never understand this complete disconnect where everyone thinks anything done by “the socialist government“ is inherently going to cost more but anything done by the private sector will inherently cost less when the explicit goal of the private sector is to make the most money possible!

Because the private sector doesn't have billions of dollars to pull out of their arse when their projects are ill conceived or planned to continue them, no matter what as the government, state and federal do.

Westgate tunnel. East-West Link, The Commonwealth games, LXRP as just 4 examples where there is a bottomless purse of public money to be called upon to bail these projects out.

Machines put on sites by the union when they know there is no chance of them being used but they're required, on daily hire as a "just in case" to extort money.

Thats only because that is what has been ingrained into our society. In Japan they very much treat housing like a car and despite having a very high population density they don’t have a housing crisis as their property market is relatively unrestricted and not treated like a scheme to get rich like it is here.

Japan 0.5/1000
Australia 5.1/1000 immigration rate.

Can you find a country with a similar immigration rate to compare with please.

They provide no monetary benefit until the point of eventual sale, and only insofar as the new owner wants to pay for those benefits.

So you invest the money with the eventual hope of a benefit. Sounds like when people invest in the stock market.

Trust you to point to the minutiae edge case and say “see, proves my point”, lust like Reaper does. It doesn’t detract from my point that when something is seen as an “investment” no money spent is ever enough.

Trust you to discount anything that disproves your opinion.

My carport cost me over $10k and if there was $100 worth of steel and aluminium in it I’d be surprised, but why not spend $10k if it’s an “investment” right?

Much of that cost would have been in the labour of assembling it though, am I correct? I priced up a 6x6 carport not long ago.

The kit was $6600
Labour was $3200
Permits were $1200

Plus conc for footings etc.

I complained on here at the time that when I had my 14*7m shed the kit price for that was only $11000 and labour to install it was $2600.

But, that was 7 years ago. And prices for materials and labour have all raised since then.

Should I have not built the shed that I get use out of back then because the price would have seemed high? Or do I now look at the price of material and labour and think that I got something for much less than I could build a similar structure for today and be thankful?

In ye olden days before everything was heavily restricted I could have just bought the $100 worth of steel and aluminium myself and just put up a carport but nowadays it wouldn’t be “approved by the council” so I have to get “professional (price gougers)“ to do it!

You're starting to sound like oldbomb...

As far as I know, there is no licensed trade to build a carport. Nobody is stopping you from getting the holes dug for the footings and those inspected and poured yourself. And then following the instructions and assembling the kit and then paying a licensed plumber to fit off the downpipes and have it all inspected and signed off by council as an owner builder.

Just depends what your time is worth to you to.

I know everyone on here keeps saying I’m a socialist but really I’m a big fan of unrestricted markets (some laws are required of course to stop people from getting ripped off etc).

But we don’t have unrestricted markets in a lot of cases yet we still treat those sectors as if they are competitive markets when they are not. If we had an unrestricted housing market for instance anyone would be allowed to subdivide their own land without restriction, anyone would be free to build a house themselves if they wanted to, anyone could buy unused land for its initial purchase price if it remained unused for say 10 years (to prevent land banking).

There are lots of considerations to take into account when it comes to subdivision, it's not just as simple as carving up a piece of land and dropping multiple houses on it.

Don't get me wrong, councils play a huge part in ******* up the process and their greed for rates can bite them squarely in the arse because of it.

We had to help dig up two km of road and lay in a new stormwater pipe and pits along the length of the road. Why? Because excess subdivision in an already developed area had added more roof space and less grass to soak the rainwater that was falling so every time it rained water was flooding somebodies house from the kerb overflowing.

Perfect.

 

[J_D 2.0]

It's a free system. If you want to sell anything at what you paid for it or less, go ahead.

You can only sell something for what the market will pay for it and if you create a system where the price only ever goes up and governments and reserve banks always intervene when the price dares to go down everyone will FOMO into it.

Everyone who entered the housing market during COVID got royally fuked over by the RBA who basically promised that everyone could hock themselves to the eyeballs because they weren’t going to raise rates until 2024. Purely a coincidence I’m sure.

Because the private sector doesn't have billions of dollars to pull out of their arse when their projects are ill conceived or planned to continue them, no matter what as the government, state and federal do.

So building public housing would be ill conceived would it? Ironically if the government actually built houses themselves then they would probably actually make money on the sale of those houses on a rent to buy basis.

So profits might end up in the public purse for a change instead of the private sector, but that wouldn’t reinforce the narrative that government only ever loses money would it?

The government used to be involved in profitable enterprises (CBA, Telstra/Telecom, CSL, Aurizon, etc) but funnily enough all the entities that make profits are sold off then everyone complains that the government “just wastes money”.

When the government is only left with things that the private sector won’t do because they aren’t profitable then of course every dollar the government spends goes into a money pit!

Japan 0.5/1000
Australia 5.1/1000 immigration rate.

Can you find a country with a similar immigration rate to compare with please.

The immigration rate doesn’t have anything to do with it. Tokyo has still been growing in population but has some of the most affordable housing for a major city, mostly due to the lack of regulations (no NIMBY’s) and the fact that the Japanese see housing as a consumer good, not an investment due to high inheritance taxes.

So you invest the money with the eventual hope of a benefit. Sounds like when people invest in the stock market.

Yes, except businesses provide goods and services of benefit to society. A house that has existed for 20 years doesn’t provide any more benefits 20 years after it was built (assuming it’s not been renovated) so why should it be worth more? It’s just a tax on society as a whole.

Trust you to discount anything that disproves your opinion.

I don’t discount anything that disproves my opinion, in fact I explicitly pointed out the marginal benefit of lower insurance costs when I didn’t have to!

Something that never seems to happen from a lot of others on here who will explicitly remove anything that doesn’t suit their narrative.

Much of that cost would have been in the labour of assembling it though, am I correct?

It took one guy one day to put up the carport, so hardly a labour intensive process. If I’m generous $1000 would cover the labour cost.

As far as I know, there is no licensed trade to build a carport. Nobody is stopping you from getting the holes dug for the footings and those inspected and poured yourself. And then following the instructions and assembling the kit and then paying a licensed plumber to fit off the downpipes and have it all inspected and signed off by council as an owner builder.

Just depends what your time is worth to you to.

Sure, I determined that my back was worth more to me than doing the job myself so I paid someone else to do it.

Still should have been about half the price and there still would have been shitloads of profit for the company doing the job.

Problem is they already all have plenty of work going so don’t have to actively compete against each other and it’s all an “investment” right?

There are lots of considerations to take into account when it comes to subdivision, it's not just as simple as carving up a piece of land and dropping multiple houses on it.

Don't get me wrong, councils play a huge part in ******* up the process and their greed for rates can bite them squarely in the arse because of it.

We had to help dig up two km of road and lay in a new stormwater pipe and pits along the length of the road. Why? Because excess subdivision in an already developed area had added more roof space and less grass to soak the rainwater that was falling so every time it rained water was flooding somebodies house from the kerb overflowing.

Local councils are a hindrance sometimes and if you ask me they should have their planning rights stripped from them if they are going to actively block development for the sake of it.

A lot of what they do seems to just be demanding extortion fees for what they are going to let happen anyway though (the council fees on my carport was $2500 and I had to get a letter from my neighbour saying they don’t object).

Some of the stuff they do screams graft and corruption too. Like in my local area where the local Coles at Silkstone was prevented from opening for 6 months because the council forced the developer to put traffic lights in on a relatively minor street but the Caltex/Macdonalds at Ripley wasn’t forced to put traffic lights on their development on the main road into and out of the Ripley development scheduled to have 120,000 people.

Wouldn't surprise me if the developer of the Caltex/Macdonalds development were “really friendly” with the council!

 

[VS 5.0]

There are only 530 vacant lots for sale in the whole of Perth.

Make of that what you will.

 

[J_D 2.0]

I don't know the full story but it appears the owners dodged a bullet not accepting the developers offer. Not sure if they asked for cash or not. Unfortunately this is a common problem with semi detached our terraced housing. Really the only way to 'fix' that one is to re-roof it and the problem is solved. Not cheap though.

Agreed, I’d rather own something (land) than nothing (a unit). By the sounds of it the developer only offered a unit in the new development so hardly ideal.

Oh geeze... The sooner they outlaw owner builders the better. For every one that does a great job (and there are quite a few), there are many that wind up in a huge mess.

If anything we should have more owner builders as it increases competition in the market and gets more houses bullt. My parents (along with a young me who was roped into it) built their first house in the late 1990s.

Old man has always been a “do it once and do it right” kind of person so built a solid slab double story brick with a steel frame. That place isn’t going anywhere in a hurry and I’d be surprised if there were any cracks in the slab to this day.

Pod slabs have been around for 35 or so years. When used correctly they are perfectly fine and their insulating properties are actually quite good. Personally I wouldn't use them in any H (or greater) soil classification without a very comprehensive drainage and storm water management plan attached to it.

Sure, but it would be easy for a dodgy builder to add more cheaper foam instead of expensive concrete.

Only by fraud or error. The height of the pod doesn't really matter - it's the cover over the top which is **very** easily checked post pour.

I‘m sure a lot of that kind of fraud or “error” does go on in house builds where the owner doesn’t give a fuk (landlords). The only times I’ve heard of cracked slabs is in build to rent houses where (presumably) the person paying for the build doesn’t really care (or bother inspecting themselves) as it’s just something they are renting out.

 

[Reaper]

Can’t be worse than a system whose explicit goal is to sell for the highest price possible.

You do realise that literally anybody who decides to sell land (including governments) the world over has that goal??? I'm sure there are a few exceptions but they are few and far between.

I never understand this complete disconnect where everyone thinks anything done by “the socialist government“ is inherently going to cost more but anything done by the private sector will inherently cost less when the explicit goal of the private sector is to make the most money possible!

The market will provide for something to be done for the lowest price possible and for the consumer to benefit from it but the market needs to be unrestricted. That is no (or minimal) barriers to entry to ensure maximum competition.



Thats only because that is what has been ingrained into our society. In Japan they very much treat housing like a car and despite having a very high population density they don’t have a housing crisis as their property market is relatively unrestricted and not treated like a scheme to get rich like it is here.

Have you actually seen how the Japanese society works? Yes it has it's attractions but for most of the population they may as well be robots doing what they are told.

They provide no monetary benefit until the point of eventual sale, and only insofar as the new owner wants to pay for those benefits.

There is the ongoing utility benefit of it's use which was the point in the first place. Further, if that up front investment hadn't been made, the beneficiary would have had to rent space under another carport for that time at a (probably) higher cost over time so there was a monetary benefit ongoing as well.

No different to home ownership - Up front (much) higher cost in ownership vs lower (but ongoing) cost of renting but no ultimate ownership. Given a long enough time horizon you will spend more on rent than the house is worth. Many choose this option for various reasons, others don't really have a choice.

Sadly for those without the choice, they are getting hit the hardest by the current situation and crazy ideologies like yours are making matters worse.

Trust you to point to the minutiae edge case and say “see, proves my point”, lust like Reaper does. It doesn’t detract from my point that when something is seen as an “investment” no money spent is ever enough.

I don't recall ever saying that although you are very good at lobbing evidence which entirely goes against whatever point you are trying to make.

My carport cost me over $10k and if there was $100 worth of steel and aluminium in it I’d be surprised, but why not spend $10k if it’s an “investment” right?

You clearly have little understanding of how much it costs to build things. Roughly speaking it's a 50/50 split between cost of materials and labour in building (actually this extends to most manufacturing). For something like that, markup will be somewhere between 20 & 30%.

In ye olden days before everything was heavily restricted I could have just bought the $100 worth of steel and aluminium myself and just put up a carport but nowadays it wouldn’t be “approved by the council” so I have to get “professional (price gougers)“ to do it!

Ahhh yes, the good ol' days..... Most states now have a thing called Rescode (name varies from state to state but it's essentially the same thing) which is a set of rules for which buildings can be designed. It varies from planning overlay to overlay - eg inner city building will be different to rural which will be different to outer suburbs. If said carport design is within those guidelines then in most cases you won't need town planning (DA in some states) approval - just get a building permit and off you go.

You don't need a professional builder to install it - just get a owner builder permit although with the lack of knowledge you have demonstrated I recommend you pay somebody who knows what they are doing to carry out the job.

Or would you prefer somebody with zero experience and qualification just puts up whatever they think will do the job without any design or oversite to check that what they are building is safe?