6 Months Moratorium on Evictions (Poll)

Trying2SaveABuck on 31/03/2020 - 22:50
Last edited 31/03/2020 - 22:55

6 months moratorium on evictions (Poll)

Am i the only person who thinks this is stupid? essentially the government is turning landlords in the charities without giving them anything in return.

I get small businesses and commercial leases but im sorry that is the cost of doing business and the risk of starting a small business.

Why on god earth do landlords both commercial and domestic have to fit the bill?

WTF is the government thinking? how can they offer no reimbursement for landlord? at the very least! the government should say any losses inured can be used as a tax write off for future investments.

Poll Options

  • 425
    I support the ban on evictions for six months
  • 868
    i dont support the ban on evictions for six months
Home & Garden

Comments

        • Vote for Pedro on 01/04/2020 - 12:15
          +10

          I think we saw what happened when someone made a logical choice to kill franking credits. Our level of middle class entitlement outrage prevents any meaningful reform.

          • Danstar on 01/04/2020 - 12:50
            +1

            @Vote for Pedro: Cos the middle class is always the ones to get screwed

            • Vote for Pedro on 01/04/2020 - 12:52
              +2

              @Danstar: Should have been clearer. Upper middle class. And I consider myself in that bracket even though I don’t have an investment property

          • Chris Sandy on 02/05/2020 - 12:34
            -1

            @Vote for Pedro: I first am a renter, but I share some of the concerns expressed by many landlords, especially given the somewhat lopsided tenant-landlord arrangements being imposed at various government levels. There undoubtedly will be a sizeable proportion of less than ethical tenants who will try to hoodwink, indeed browbeat, their landlords to conform to their wishes by making spurious claims for rent reductions and rental holidays. I, for instance, live in a church owned house with two other people, one being a woman who I fairly recently learned was on a Centrelink Widow pension, unbeknown to anyone in my church (she belongs to another church BTW). This woman also works P/T in the black economy. She is chiefly engaged in cleaning and therapy work in Anglicare retirement homes. At any rate, having conveyed to elders from my church that she is unable to work at these homes because of the coronavirus outbreak, she asked for her rent to be waived until restrictions were lifted. Fair enough request you would think. The church complied with her wishes and is giving her a full rental holiday until she is able to get back on to her feet, all the while not knowing that she is on a Centrelink Widow allowance, which, like the Newstart allowance (now Jobseeker Payment), has more than doubled during this period. Yet she still does her utmost to play the church and others by crying poor. Go figure! I wonder how many other renters are playing their landlords (for suckers)? Lamentably there will always be those who attempt to turn an unfortunate situation to their advantage and for their profit - just look back at what happened with the Pink-Batts fiasco during the global financial crisis. 

        • foxinsox8 on 01/04/2020 - 13:47
          +1

          what are you suggesting would happen to rentals? Rents and house prices would decline to a lower equilibrium over time.
          This is a fuss about nothing. Landlords are being stopped from carrying out evictions. Tenants are not beng told they can get an effective rent moratorium. If they do they will carry that debt and all the sanctions that involves into the future - very few tenants will think that just escaping immediate eviction is sufficient motivation for failing to pay rent.

          • cameldownunder on 02/04/2020 - 12:52
            +1

            @foxinsox8: Or maybe the government is doing the landlord a favour, They might lose 6 month of rent, but when "things go back to normal" the rent probably will continue from where it was dropped.

            Now imagine if landlords could evict people:
            a) All those people without job, would be evicted.
            b) the landlord has to find a new tenant
            c) people who are evicted are those who dont have a salary
            d) Landlord cannot find any tenant, investment property stays empty —> no income —> same as if lonadlord does not get money
            OR
            e) Landlord reduces rent, say half, new tenant move in
            f) If things go back to normal, I doubt landlord can double rent, so Landlord is "stuck" for lower rent for a long time, resulting in greater loss, than non getting rental from tenant.

            This of course is a black and white scenario.

            Guess where the most part of the government subsidy would go without the moratorium? Exactly: Rental Payment.

            So yes the subsidy has to be backed up by a moratorium, otherwise it's just government feeding the Property investors.

            • ozhunter on 02/04/2020 - 12:57
              +3

              @cameldownunder:

              Now imagine if landlords could evict people:

              You'd see more people prioritize rental payments with their government subsidy.

              • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 13:05
                +3

                @ozhunter: All your posts seem to incorrectly assume everybody is entitled to the proposed government subsidy. Why is that?

              • cameldownunder on 02/04/2020 - 13:07
                +1

                @ozhunter: If they can't pay, they can't. So lets sue them, right? With going to court and so on. Read on to A-F

          • Gareth on 03/04/2020 - 12:15
            +3

            @foxinsox8: Everything you say I agree with. However…

            Sadly some tenants (a very small number I expect), know they can now not pay rent with no real consequence. Sure in 6 months (or whenever the moratorium ends) they'll get evicted with x thousand dollars outstanding, but they'll never repay their free ride. They do not have to have lost their job, or lost income, to just move on to the next unsuspecting landlord.

            To those who will undoubtedly yell "Landlords insurance", every policy I've seen has short limits of rent default they will cover. Not 6 months, or anything even close.

            • db87 on 04/04/2020 - 11:24
              +2

              @Gareth: Landlords insurance also won't pay out until a property is vacant. Therein lies (part of) the issue. They can't make a claim if they can't evict the tenant. Yet another very real problem/case some friends of ours and no doubt others are currently facing.

              Very blind decision made by the government without any means testing or binding agreement to ensure the landlord is protected when things go back to normal.

            • Chris Sandy on 02/05/2020 - 13:32

              @Gareth: My comment essentially echos your sentiment here, though I gave a specific example.

      • whooah1979 on 31/03/2020 - 23:18
        +2

        The ALP should do that. Remove NG completely and make it retrospective to include all properties.

    • whooah1979 on 31/03/2020 - 23:09
      +3

      84 years is long time.
      https://www.iselect.com.au/home-loans/property-investment/ne…

      Negative gearing was introduced in 1936 in an attempt to stimulate the Australian economy after the Great Depression.

      • Chandler on 01/04/2020 - 10:09
        +5

        Pretty sure the Great Depression ended a long time ago too, yet we still have negative gearing.

    • brendanm on 31/03/2020 - 23:43
      +6

      Negative gearing isn't that magnificent. The landlords still need to pay the difference, and get a little tax break.

      • peterpaoliello on 02/04/2020 - 13:04
        +3

        Agree i've never understood it, I don't see the benefit of claiming a loss to be taxed less? That's what it is isn't? Isn't it always better to be taxed more because you're earning more, so although you're taking home only .40c of every dollar you are at the end of the day making more money. How does Negative gearing work to be a benefit?

        Anyway moral of the story i'm the landlord for two properties, they're totally cash flow neutral (+/- $2k) through no manipulation but they've both manged to go down in value ~20% over the last 3 years from the purchase price. I don't understand why people think landlords are on some kind of care free magic carpet ride.

        • brendanm on 03/04/2020 - 07:43

          I suppose the theory is, if your paying 30% ish tax, you are technically getting a 30% "discount" on money you use to pay for an investment property. As the property, in theory, is increasing in value over time, you eventually own it outright, and have made good money, and had a tax break.

          • db87 on 04/04/2020 - 11:28

            @brendanm: Pretty much this. Your leveraging off your (assumed) higher income, tax dollars to pay or partially service your debt. Basically just reducing your taxable income so that you effectively pay less tax (it goes towards laying for your expenses).

            Perfect world, property goes up in capital, they then sell and profit from the difference only having had their tax money give them access into the property market in order to invest as opposed to raising capital to invest.

    • 82norm on 01/04/2020 - 09:37
      +3

      Not all landlords have mortgages.

      • knk on 01/04/2020 - 12:02

        Correct - but it's not the norm.

    • truongster on 01/04/2020 - 17:58
      +4

      You're saying landlords have to bear the burden of all the consequences and not see any benefits of their earned capital?

    • StingyJoe on 01/04/2020 - 20:26
      +4

      Mate, this comment is spot on! We get generous negative gearing subsidies year round funded by other taxpayers. Any business has its ups and downs, property rental included.

      • db87 on 04/04/2020 - 11:30
        -1

        I don't understand how negative gearing is funded by the taxpayer. It's less tax to the government, the taxpayer isn't copping the cost, the government just is t RECEIVING as much tax.

        If you're worried about the middle class investor reducing their taxabke income, maybe you should do a Google on some of the multinational companies that pay next to no tax at all year on year, yet take billions of dollars in profits.

        • StingyJoe on 04/04/2020 - 21:37
          +3

          @db87 wow buddy you're really on a roll tonight with all the raging comments if you're digging for old posts like mine this far down the thread.

          Of course negative gearing is funded by the taxpayer. Just because you pay a bit less tax than someone of equivalent income without negative gearing does not mean the government's requirement to raise X amount of money decreases. If you pay less, someone else has to pay more, it is just that simple.

          If there was no "tax-breaks" we would all pay the same amount for equivalent income. This would probably be a bit less that what we do now. And you're right, it is ridiculous how companies manage to manage avoid paying their fair share of income tax.

          • db87 on 05/04/2020 - 01:44

            @StingyJoe: Not at all, I only started reading the thread today, so no need to get all hysterical over a reply.

            Nor do I think I'm "raging" at anybody, just stating a few facts but pick out what you will.

            No need to antagonise me just for replying to your post specifically, get over yourself.

            Anyway, I fail to see how YOU (read everyone) pay MORE tax if I (apparently we're making this personal, also read everyone) choose to lower MY taxable income.

            The government doesn't ask people to pay more out of their weekly/fortnightly/monthly earnings to prop up someone else who has reduced their tax liability. Their tax liability stays the same. About the only point I made in my reply.

            • StingyJoe on 05/04/2020 - 12:50

              @db87: @db87 Hysterical? Only with laughter mate.

              When you choose to lower your taxable income, it does not change the amount needed by government to run the country. Someone else on the same income level as you will pay more than you because they might not have the option to use some of the tax breaks e.g. Negative gearing or they are just ignorant of the possibility of these tax breaks.

              Tax breaks are not free although they can be a good idea for the population as a whole for a number of reasons. Lets however not be ignorant and claim that no-one has to fund these tax breaks somehow.

              • db87 on 05/04/2020 - 19:23
                -1

                @StingyJoe: I never said it doesn't change what the government needs to run. It just means I give them less of what I worked for. Anyone else crazy enough to give them more than is required is exactly that.

                Although my opinion of wealthy business people and their companies paying next to no tax is VERY firm, Kerry Packer phrased it very well during his trial. He never actually did anything wrong!

                But that's another story.

                My point still stands. An individual DOES NOT pay more out of their earnings to support me or you or anybody else claiming tax concessions. Their income in their pocket remains the same. They don't suddenly pay more tax just because somebody else reduced theirs. I'm baffled as to how you think they're having to pay anything extra.

                • StingyJoe on 05/04/2020 - 21:41

                  @db87: Great, we agree. Your choice of using a tax break e.g. negative gearing is not criminal and perfectly legal.

                  Nonetheless. Using the tax break will allow you to pay less of the funds needed by government to function. Who do you think has to pay the rest of the money needed by government after they gave you your tax break?

                  Its either your fellow citizens who are not eligible for tax breaks to pay on your behalf or government has to go into debt.

      • abc123z on 07/04/2020 - 18:26
        +1

        But in order to claim negative gearing your property needs to be earning rental income at market rates or for you to be taking steps to lease it to a paying tenant. The ATO clearly has this view.

        So effectively even those who are not negatively geared now, may be forced into a negative gearing situation by government policy at the same time that negative gearing has been effectively abolished (just wait til the ATO gets all these massively increased negative gearing claims and decides to disallow the deductions based on the above)

        At the same time landlord may also have lost their job so any tax deduction means nothing anyway.

        And no one is going to buy your house off you because you have a non paying tenant in it who can't be evicted so you just have to keep on paying for them.

    • cowiie on 01/04/2020 - 22:13
      +19

      F off. I save money and manage to buy a home and rent it out. I would rather it empty than have someone in it not paying rent and causing wear and tear on my property.

      Edit: Yes I pay an extra $200 out of pocket every month so I guess I am negative gearing, but now I have to pay an extra $1800 per month out of pocket, where do I get that money?? That’s half my wage before tax.

      • MrNice on 02/04/2020 - 19:06
        +3

        Correct!

        • I agree, it is the landlords property! They have a right to kick out those who do not pay because they need to pay a mortgage and interests on loans if they go with the 6 month freeze. Why to tenants feel entitled to live in a house scot free?

        • If you can't pay for something don't use it! That's how it was back then and how it should still stand today. If you can't pay for it, leave and let it free up. Should not matter if they struggle to find tenants, it is up to the landlord to decide as it was their decision to buy the property and the BANKS DON'T SHOW COMPASSION so they need to FIND MONEY to PAY INTERESTS on MORTGAGES.

        • Tenants need to understand that adults have responsibilities as well

      • Gerry H on 04/04/2020 - 09:58
        +1

        if a renter has lived in your property for 1+ years, you should show some mercy though, it's not some new stranger looking to leech off you. what i can't stand is that many renter with decent wages are in a position to pay if they didn't spend all their disposable income money over the years living life to the max. those type deserve to live on the streets.

    • tinyorca on 02/04/2020 - 00:57
      +2

      For some people it is their savings for retirement and all they have.
      Do you want to give away your super so someone else who lost their job can have it?

      • ziggy1312 on 02/04/2020 - 16:42

        Everybody has and for a long time will be paying

  • Anonym0us on 31/03/2020 - 23:01
    +18

    it does suck and i understand you wanna keep allow ppl to keep a roof over their heads but with all the stimulus packages they should pay rent. just seems poorly planned.

    Hopefully landlord insurance covers the rent.

    • [Deactivated] on 31/03/2020 - 23:17
      +3

      They only cover the first 6-8 weeks max of unpaid rent.

      • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2020 - 16:16
        -6

        … unlucky?

        Are we supposed to be upset at that? You buy a property, sometimes you win sometimes you lose.

        Worst case scenario you lose your property.

        Worst case scenario for renters, they're homeless and living on the streets.

        It's not the same at all.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2020 - 16:42
          +3

          You're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was "unlucky", just stating a fact.

          Are we supposed to be upset at that?

          Up to you. But I will be saddened to see the number of tenants who are going to be in a world of pain at the end of those 6 months. My advice would be, if you are facing financial difficulties speak to your landlord and come to a compromise that you can be both live with. Don't just stop paying rent because that's what your mates are doing. Otherwise come spring, you'll find yourself on the street.

          Worst case scenario you lose your property.

          We have an excellent relationship with our tenants and we'll be fine. We won't lose our IPs and they won't find themselves homeless, with or without moratorium. Win-win, isn't it?

        • Tambani on 02/04/2020 - 14:25
          +2

          Good point about the moral dilemma. Being homeless during a pandemic is much worse than someone losing an asset (if it doesn't make them homeless).

        • fusion17 on 04/04/2020 - 00:35

          That's like saying, your job can't be done remotely/non essential so you got laid down?
          Well,sometimes you win sometimes you lose.

          • [Deactivated] on 04/04/2020 - 08:36

            @fusion17: Yes, it is exactly like that actually.

            In which case the government would support you, no?

            Hence in this case, if you can't pay rent because of this pandemic, the government would support you too - and not let your landlord kick you out of your home.

      • netjock on 02/04/2020 - 09:25

        With amount of rent going unpaid I'd also be questioning the ability of those insurance companies to pay out.

    • brendanm on 31/03/2020 - 23:45
      +8

      Yep, seems like with the government throwing money around like there's no tomorrow, people should still be able to pay rents.

    • kevkevkev on 02/04/2020 - 20:31
      +4

      For anyone else wondering about landlord's insurance, I called my insurer up yesterday. Notably, one of the conditions required for them to pay out is that a notice of eviction has been served after 4 weeks in arrears. The 'no evictions' policy is a game changer that renders my policy worthless for this particular scenario. I do hope that whatever package is announced is well considered and 'spreads the pain' in as equitable a way as possible.

      • abc123z on 07/04/2020 - 18:30
        +1

        yes my insurer will make no statement at this time if this new law voids my policy, they are obviously looking for legal loopholes out of it

  • oscargamer on 31/03/2020 - 23:07

    But in turn, the LL takes a mortgage holiday from their bank…..

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 31/03/2020 - 23:08
      +22

      which they have to pay the interest back…or else they lose there house if the tenant doesnt pay rent of 6 months then nicks off the LL is still left with the costs of the loan, rates, insurances etc….

      • 82norm on 01/04/2020 - 09:38
        +2

        110% correct.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 10:02
        +6

        Blame the virus. Not the tenant.

        Millions have lost their job or been stood down through absolutely zero fault of their own.

        • isthisreallife22 on 01/04/2020 - 10:21
          +4

          I think most people are blaming the policy, not the tenant. The policy needs to burden share better, predominantly with the banks

            • Trojan on 02/04/2020 - 22:47
              +10

              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Isn't that a bit like saying "Tenants took the risk and entered into a rental agreement they can't afford without income from a job."

      • [Deactivated] on 03/04/2020 - 12:11

        yea yea

    • Hybroid on 31/03/2020 - 23:09
      +5

      Which costs them more in the long run because the interest accrued is on a larger capital.

      • StuBargainHunter on 01/04/2020 - 19:06

        And cash flow helps pay council rates, services, insurance, land tax etc… All while the landlord may also be hit with their employment income.

  • jimbobaus on 31/03/2020 - 23:15
    +42

    I am a landlord and a tenant ( we rent for tax purposes)
    I for one think the situation is unavoidable and the decision is a good one.
    Firstly if I evicted a tenant I had zero chance of getting a new tenant in the current climate.

    Not being able to evict (and I should point out it’s only for financial distress. You can still evict for other legitimate reasons such as criminal damage, breach of lease etc) means I am actually going to keep my tenants and the chances are I can arrange to let them make up any short fall over time.
    In fact all my tenants have had a rent reduction of 50% for 3 months. This was my choosing and I did it because I was in a position to do so (no loan or mortgage on any of my properties so very low outgoings) this has I feel created a positive environment for with my tenants.

    Now if I was not in a position to do so I would allow a repayment plan or for a Rent increase to make up lost rent over this time.

    But most importantly, the law change only prevents eviction due to financial distress due to Covid-19 if they can’t prove this and you want to evict you can. Also as I said above you can still evict for breach of lease for other reasons (criminal activity, running a business from a residential premises etc )

    Should also point out there are more protections and clarifications coming later this week. The national cabinet is meeting on Friday to discuss new regulations regarding rentals and landlord protections etc. so this is not the end of the story and the moratorium was called simply to bide time for them to finalise details. Including a system to reimburse landlords for lost rent (from tenants who refuse to pay after the crisis is over)

    • ozhunter on 31/03/2020 - 23:21
      +8

      Firstly if I evicted a tenant I had zero chance of getting a new tenant in the current climate

      Most landlords would assume this and likely wouldn't evict. But for the law to allow a 6 months moratorium could encourage some tenants to not pay.

      • jimbobaus on 31/03/2020 - 23:25
        +14

        The information we have received is a system will be introduced that will ensure payments will be collected after the crisis ends if people simply refuse to pay. Also saying this Most tenants would keep trying to pay and would accept that 6m is not really a long time and when this all ends they will be evicted and renting elsewhere with a mark on their name will be near impossible.
        The ones who won’t pay for this 6m and use and abuse the system were probably already bad tenants. Eviction processes commenced before 30/3 can still proceed. As a landlord I get your points and I fear them
        Myself but it’s the risk you take.
        I would also say the vast majority of renters are good people and pay on time and will continue to do so. Just because they rent doesn’t make them bad people that will simply take advantage.

        • jowu15 on 06/04/2020 - 20:09

          Country is not depends on the good nature of its citizen why should landlord live on the good nature and mercy of a tenant? I am surprised that you are a landlord I have to say, you lack an insight and experience of landlord. If you say most tenants are good and still paying why you offer 3 month 50% discount!!!

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 31/03/2020 - 23:22

      good on you for being in a position when you can be do that essentially you're taking a financial hit for your tenants if 'charity' and i dare say a large number of LL couldn't survive a hit like that for a sustained period of time

      • jimbobaus on 31/03/2020 - 23:29
        +7

        My reasons for doing it were not out fo charity as much as my tenants are good overall. I can’t remember the last time any of my tenants were late on rent. I just wants to help in anyway I could and I was able to do it. I felt not having the stress of rent concerns would help remove the stresses we are all facing at this point. It’s only 3m and I won’t extend past this. I just did it to keep them as tenants long term as they are genuinely some of the best I have had and I have had some shockers over the years lol.
        Every one of my investment properties has good tenants and I just wanted to ensure it stays that way as long as possible.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 31/03/2020 - 23:31
          +1

          Fair enough now imagine everyone of your rental properties had terrible tenants and this stupid ban on evictions came in….

          Some landlords would be in that situation with far less financial stability then you have at this point of time

          • jimbobaus on 31/03/2020 - 23:34
            +1

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Agreed. Like i said you would most likely know they were bad long before this came in and be working towards moving them on.

            But I totally get your points 100%

        • endolphin on 02/04/2020 - 19:26
          +1

          Are your tenants still working? I presume they have lost their jobs. Otherwise, that's ridiculous.

          (I'm also both a landlord and a tenant).

          • jimbobaus on 03/04/2020 - 01:08

            @endolphin: maybe that is what you think, but i for one did not think it was.

            The government was starting to do things to ease the burden and i was in a position to do so, I have multiple properties so i simply advised my agent to reduce all rents by 50% for the next 3 payments.
            Tenants were told this would not continue past the 3 months, that if they wished to pay extra to get ahead they could do so.
            I did not ask re their jobs, i was in a position to do so and so i did.

            The fact remains if they have not lost their jobs chances are they would see a reduction in hours etc regardless but that was neither here not there, i did it simply because i was in a position to do so.

            On a side note, my agent has today informed me that almost 70% of their tenants have contacted them seeking rent reductions, other agents i have spoken have said similar so it appears renters are trying to get the best outcome.

            All the agents i spoke to advised that they are recommending reducing rent to keep tenant paying, a refusal to do so would probably result in tenant leaving when they could and this only costs the landlord in the end (re-letting fees etc)

            My rent reduction has resulted in not being asked to reduce rent long term and as such in 3 months the rent will return to the current rate. Small time loss… long term gain.

            • endolphin on 03/04/2020 - 08:00
              +2

              @jimbobaus: Absolute madness. How about communicating with the tenants? Enquiring if their job is secure. Congratulations on helping to spread the idea that ALL tenants should expect some reprieve. The Prime Minister said himself, "if you are not facing financial hardship, pay your rent!".

              If my landlord offered to reduce my rent I would say "thanks, but I'm working full time, actually spending less money than normal with this lockdown, and my own tenants are the same. So I'm happy to keep paying the rent".

            • jowu15 on 06/04/2020 - 20:18

              @jimbobaus: most of the time tenants move because of work, relationship rather than if they like their landlord. Its not small time loss … long term gain. You are here to sale a fantasy

  • tsunamisurfer on 01/04/2020 - 00:06
    +6

    It is wrong to make LL's provide free housing from tenants.

    The measures should only be this. If the tenant is unable to pay, allow the tenant to leave the lease immediately without penalty nor bond.

    Its win win, the tenant can go and find another home within their budget, the LL is free to find a more financially prudent tenant.

    • theknight27 on 01/04/2020 - 00:42
      +2

      You're not going to be finding any more 'financially prudent' tenants right now…

      • kolorijo on 01/04/2020 - 09:38
        +3

        Cut the rent price in half, surely someone will bite, if not, cut it to a quarter. Something is better than nothing.

        Or

        Freeze mortgage & interest, don't do it half as$ like the govt did now.

        • abb on 01/04/2020 - 13:15
          +7

          Cut the rent price in half, surely someone will bite, if not, cut it to a quarter. Something is better than nothing.

          Nothing stopping you from offering that to your current tenants.

          • Trojan on 02/04/2020 - 09:34

            @abb: Offering is one thing. It takes 2 to tango and if a tenant has lost their jobs and/or simply have no money left, they won't be able to even pay 1/4 of the rent.

          • kolorijo on 06/04/2020 - 15:52

            @abb: True but I was replying to theknight27 comment about finding any more tenant.

    • jowu15 on 06/04/2020 - 20:20
      +1

      I rather have my property empty and I can do some improvement, renovatiion.

  • Miami Mall Alien on 01/04/2020 - 02:05
    +27

    Way to dramatise things out of proportion, have you been taking your cue from the mainstream media lately?

    It's not an across the board "get-out-of-paying-rent" card.

    You left out one key point: this applies to tenants who fail to meet rental obligations due to COVID-19-related financial hardship, job loss and housing insecurity.

    Tenants and landlords who haven't been caused financial distress by the pandemic are still expected to honour the leases and rental agreements.

    Secondly, this policy has not been spelled out in detail by the Morrison government, and like all of the other half-baked, knee-jerk measures in response to the crisis, it remains to be seen exactly how it will be practically enforced and how ordinary people can go about claiming this clause in their individual circumstances.

    The potential for misuse of this option is rife, as is the potential for its complete ineffectualness in helping people actually in need of housing with incredibly precarious financial situations right now.

    • Ghost47 on 01/04/2020 - 12:26
      +7

      this applies to tenants who fail to meet rental obligations due to COVID-19-related financial hardship, job loss and housing insecurity.

      I think OP expects these people who have suffered great hardship to suck it up and pay anyway or go live on the streets.

      • S2 on 02/04/2020 - 00:09
        +1

        how can they offer no reimbursement for landlord?

        As per the post, OP is against the inequality of the policy. OP would like compensation for the landlord who would also suffer from COVID-19 in this scenario.
        OP has not focused on targeting specific individuals - you have by targeting OP.

        • Ghost47 on 02/04/2020 - 11:05
          +1

          That doesn't negate my comment. It's clear from comments in this thread that people find this policy — which extends to those who have lost their job or suffered financial hardship due to COVID-19 — deplorable and unfair. I could say the exact same thing about the banks letting mortgage owners off with a free 6 month leeway (yes they have to pay interest but that's a small price to pay considering you don't have to pay your mortgage for 6 months). That in itself is compensation for landlords who suffer from COVID-19, although it might extend to their PPOR, which IMO is still very generous.

          Since this policy extends to only a certain group of people who can't pay rent, e.g. those who have lost their jobs due to COVID-19, the post inherently targets those individuals. I'm also targeting many others in this thread who are expressing the same opinion as the OP.

          • S2 on 02/04/2020 - 12:08

            @Ghost47: I see you have equated; the policy = COVID-19 victims. Therefore, anyone not liking the policy also doesn't like COVID-19 victims. I don't see it like that and so don't see OPs comments like that. I can sort of see your perspective on it, but I still can't get over the hurdle of "I call out a poor policy because of the policy, not because I'm against COVID-19 victims". To put it another way, I care about the victims, but that still doesn't make it a good policy. I don't think OP and others expect COVID-19 victims to get kicked out onto the streets like you've suggested - I'll submit Rolling245's response as an example - they sympathize with a tenant in dire times.
            It seems normal for landlords to think it's a poor policy since it hasn't been worked out and detailed yet - as per Amar89's comment above. Once details are provided, I think it would be far more balanced than is currently feared.

            • Ghost47 on 02/04/2020 - 13:13
              +1

              @S2:

              I see you have equated; the policy = COVID-19 victims. Therefore, anyone not liking the policy also doesn't like COVID-19 victims.

              Considering that the policy extends to those who can prove they've experienced financial hardship due to COVID-19 I can't see how anyone would not make that connection, especially when the original post clearly doesn't seem to extend any sympathy and complains about being a "charity". If OP stated "we don't want to be a charity but we don't want homeless people either, this policy sucks" that would have made it more clear but that point was not made whatsoever.

              Considering there are plenty of replies here out of the one that you picked stood up for renters, there are other people here saying that it doesn't matter and rent should be paid nonetheless, or that landlords still have to pay their mortgage (which the banks have created a freeze for, but you can also see that they are complaining about this somewhat generous act — mainly related to accruing interest — considering it's the banks that are actually offering it).

              It seems normal for landlords to think it's a poor policy since it hasn't been worked out and detailed yet - as per Amar89's comment above. Once details are provided, I think it would be far more balanced than is currently feared.

              I guess time will tell, but I would keep my expectations low from this government.

              • abc123z on 07/04/2020 - 18:41
                +1

                @Ghost47: The laws passed so far in Tasmania have no requirement at all to show hardship let alone caused by coronavirus, it appears to be a blanket ban on a number of types of evictions and not just non payment of rent. It is a free pass for tenants to not pay rent with almost zero consequences.

  • duluxe2000 on 01/04/2020 - 02:49
    +2

    The gov must act quick to prevent another crisis : massive of homeless people. However the no-eviction rule should be played carefully to avoid abusing. There should be a consequence if a tenant choose this route so ones can afford to pay rent should keep paying. For instance, tenants who are defaulted in this period will have to pay (as tax) in the future (like HECS) the amount they own, while landlord gets tax credits?

  • Bourb on 01/04/2020 - 07:19
    +3

    "In July 1985, the Hawke Labor Government effectively abolished negative gearing for all future rental property investors.
    The Hawke Government reinstated full negative gearing in 1987".

    I guess getting rid of negative gearing may not be as attractive as some people think!

    • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2020 - 16:18
      +2

      How does this prove anything about negative gearing…?

      • S2 on 02/04/2020 - 00:12

        It does show it had enough support to get reinstated two years later in 1987.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/04/2020 - 00:19

          Only if there was a referendum on it.

          • S2 on 02/04/2020 - 00:32

            @[Deactivated]: I meant parliamentary support (if that's the correct term) to pass the legislation. Although I think there would also be a significant number of public support for it at the time to be reinstated.

            • [Deactivated] on 02/04/2020 - 08:41
              +2

              @S2: Parliamentary support reflects the interests of those who were elected, not the electorate. It shouldn't be surprising that a Hawke government reinstated negative gearing.

              Unless the public voted on something directly, it's largely impossible to tell (with an certainty) what the level of support is.

    • netjock on 02/04/2020 - 09:28

      I guess getting rid of negative gearing may not be as attractive as some people think!

      Overnight it isn't but if you wind it down 1% a year over the next 30 or so years nobody is going to notice. Just Labour at the last election trying to do too much at once to win votes.

  • ozbjunkie on 01/04/2020 - 07:27
    +8

    I can pay my rent through the crisis, and I wouldn't dream of not paying rent to my very fair and likeable landlords who live off my rent as a pension in their old age.

    However, if people were destitute, we would have far greater risks to society, to themselves, and to others if we made them homeless.

    I know we can't always count on the good nature of strangers (or, business associates I guess in the case of a landlord tenant relationship), but I'd like to think that the people who cannot pay, make sure they pay their landlord every cent at the first available opportunity.

    I'm not a landlord, but if I was, I would want rent, and I also wouldn't want anyone homeless. If I only could pick one, I'd like to think I would begrudgingly pick for nobody to be homeless.

  • ozBFM on 01/04/2020 - 08:06
    -1

    imo the law is flawed for both sides. 6 month mortgage freeze and 6 month evictions are both bad.

    Landlords are business owners. Yes a lot of them are mom and pop, just like our small businesses. There is cost of doing business, and in this case yes they have to take a hit in some cases. A better solution would have been to use the same money to increase job keeper payments so no one really gets into this position in the first place, and maybe give landlords the ability to defer / waive some of the taxes just like any other small business would be afforded.

    Australia bring in around 200k people per year in immigration, and in the last 3-4 years 25%-30% of the local housing stock has been picked up by foreigners. Increase visa fees, increase taxes on foreign buyers to fill the shortfall.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 09:58
      +3

      the last 3-4 years 25%-30% of the local housing stock has been picked up by foreigners.

      Lol. Citation required.

      • ozBFM on 01/04/2020 - 10:20
        +1

        Here is an old link, I would assume this ownership is higher now. 4pc of all properties and 25% 2015-2017. If you google more, I am sure you can find more info, or just ask someone who attended an auction in the last couple of years.

        https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-07/anz-finds-foreign-buy…

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 10:36
          +1
          1. You claim 3-4 years and provide a 2.5 year old article as evidence - just lol
          2. You may wish to reread your own article. It specifically refers to new construction, NEW apartments, and estimates 2.5-4% foreign ownership in general :)

          Quick question, are you Caucasian by any chance?

          • ozBFM on 01/04/2020 - 10:47
            +1

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: I am not Caucasian if that helps …. I said 25-30% in the last 3-4 years. Google it, you will find the info. If you dont want to read it or beleive it, cant really do anything about it.

            33% of all new land&house was bought by foreigners in the last 2 years.

            Some good info (with sources ) here: https://medium.com/@matt_11659/matt-barrie-australias-econom…

            I also dont have a horse in this race. Just pointing out all data suggests the over leveraged aussie household. I am a data analyst and work on prediction and forecasting.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join