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

  • sarahlump on 02/04/2020 - 14:26

    I'm going to sound like a total noob. But doesn't negative gearing mean you charge less rent, and they take the lost profit out of your income tax? so how are you loosing money? doesn't your day job tax cover this?

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 02/04/2020 - 14:28
      +1

      Negative hearing means you are losing money full stop you might get a % of it back on a tax write off but the individual overall is still at a loss

      Overall NG is the most over rated beat up policy because in reality you are still losing money. Thus it is normally better to be positively gearing

      • sarahlump on 02/04/2020 - 14:31
        -1

        But dont most people pay thousands of dollars in income tax every year? so if your rent, which is just to cover bills and mortgage(because you should never be making a profit off of a rental property, it's both ethically and morally wrong, you get a house at the end) lowering rent below this threshold which(tbh most rentals can't bring in more than 12-18k a year) just means your income taxes will be 3-4k lower. Surely this is a good thing and results in a net better position?

        • isthisreallife22 on 02/04/2020 - 15:40
          +2

          Surely this is a good thing and results in a net better position?

          No.

          Using ozbargain as an example, if you pay $100 for something and get 5% off it, you still have $95 less than you started with.

          Negative gearing is like an ebay code

          • tarb on 03/04/2020 - 01:41
            +2

            @isthisreallife22: How about we tell the whole story. Negative gearing allows high income earners to get further ahead, drastically increasing their buying power, and is being abused to prop up the housing bubble at the expense of the working class. The more money you earn, the more you can abuse it.

            Lets say I earn 200k and sit firmly in the 45% marginal tax bracket. I can go out and buy 5 or 6 investment properties, with very little deposit and get loans that are as small a deposit as possible, preferably these are just interest only loans where I make no payments against the principle - just paying the interest. I rent out these properties for as much as I can, but the rent doesn't cover the expenses of the property, in the end I make a small loss on each property each year.

            I don't really care much about this loss though - because of negative gearing I can claim this loss against my income tax! All my losses are basically half price! I don't really care about rent, rates or expenses all that I want is to get as much leverage in the market as I can. Instead of paying down any property, I just keep buying more and more and more properties each one with as small a deposit as I can even if each house by itself makes a loss.

            Eventually I reach a point where I am losing quite a lot of money each year, maybe even knocking me down a few tiers on my marginal tax bracket, but I can sustain this loss with my personal income and negative gearing discounting it by half. However, in this time the property market has gone up 30% my portfolio of properties that I borrowed 2m for a few years ago is now worth 2.6m. That's great! That's even more collateral for even more loans and more properties! Lets go and use that extra 600k to get 5 more properties.

            This is an amazing never failing way of making money! I'm essentially investing with the banks money! And its risk free because the property market never goes down! And to top it all off when I sell these properties the profit is capital gains tax!

            …

            Negative gearing isn't wholly to blame for the state of our housing market, but its a big contributor. It's bad for the average Australian trying to buy a house to live in. It's bad for our economy, as trillions of dollars are tied up in a non productive asset. And it makes our country super scared any time the housing market skips a beat, because its a fragile bubble that if popped will bring our entire economy down with it.

            • duchy on 03/04/2020 - 10:19

              @tarb:

              And to top it all off when I sell these properties the profit is capital gains tax!

              What are you talking about?

          • Entheogen on 03/04/2020 - 07:31

            @isthisreallife22: Another poor analogy.

  • thriftybunny on 02/04/2020 - 14:28
    +1

    Someone's probably already said this but
    Instead of a 6 months blanket ban that transfers the pain from tenants to landlords, why can't we look at each situation on a case by case but with a lot of consideration towards the current hardship?

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 02/04/2020 - 14:30
      +4

      They should just offer landlords compensation of tenants who apply to centrelink for ground of financial hardship for support with tent payments.

      Put the proof of hardship in the government not the landlord

      • sarahlump on 02/04/2020 - 14:32
        -1

        Don't landlords own houses? isn't that a massive asset, like if your business isn't working, don't you just sell the house? I'm a little confused about this part.

        • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 14:51
          +3

          just because you have a investment or super fund, doesn't mean it should be sold at a loss to pay for someone else…

          • sarahlump on 02/04/2020 - 14:55
            -4

            @funnysht: Where's the loss? you get the difference in the loss back from income tax. it balances out. And the return on your investment 10% deposit? anywhere from 100k-500k over the lifetime of the property. I'd say that's not a loss.

            • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 14:58

              @sarahlump: i'm bit confused what you're getting at? How would you bake the loss from income tax…you just claim the loss as tax deductible, so you still lose out selling in this climate

            • isthisreallife22 on 02/04/2020 - 15:38
              +2

              @sarahlump: Where's the loss?

              Say you purchased a house at $450k as an investment and put in $50k deposit.

              And then it was forced sale due to these measures and in the current market it went for $200k

              The landlord now is $200k in debt to the bank (I doubt they care they lost their deposit as you seem to believe is the issue)

              $200k.

              • sarahlump on 02/04/2020 - 21:31
                -4

                @isthisreallife22: Ahahahaha, And here we go, the banks are evil! stop bagging on tenants. If you choose to invest into an evil industry like leasing houses then you suffer the consequences.HOUSES SHOULD NOT COST 450K!

            • abc123z on 07/04/2020 - 20:28

              @sarahlump: If you make a loss on selling your property, you can't claim that on your income tax. It is a capital loss.

        • Tonyh87 on 12/04/2020 - 11:48

          Damit Sarah, you always force me to run out of negs early in the day!

    • sarahlump on 02/04/2020 - 14:35
      -2

      If we got rid of landlords would there still be homeless people? would there be as many homeless people?

      • ZloyKrys on 02/04/2020 - 15:53
        +4

        Yes there will be more as those who can't afford to buy their own place have to live under the bridge because there will be no places to rent

        • tarb on 03/04/2020 - 01:55
          +1

          OR houses cost a lot less money and in turn rent costs a lot less money. A lot more people would be able to just buy a house. The average Australian doesn't throw the majority of their income into a mortgage and our whole economy benefits massively.

          Access to affordable housing should be a right and there should be limits placed on how many residential properties can be owned by each person. If you want to invest - buy stocks or bonds or commercial properties, maybe start a business, invest in your education, build residential houses and sell them, become an entrepreneur but for the love of god stop throwing money into the residential housing market.

          Australia's house prices are not normal. They are not good. They decrease our economy and our standard of living. We need to find a way to safely deflate the market before the whole thing blows up in our faces. They are a timebomb

    • ozhunter on 02/04/2020 - 15:45
      +10

      Landlords are literally stealing shelter from people

      Landlords paid for it.

      And the landlords are literally not living in those houses

      No, but it's costing them money. Money they recoup from having tenants.

      How can you be so entitled to someone else's hard work?

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 02/04/2020 - 15:54
        +5

        It is the whole reason this country is so economically f**ked now we have generations of entitled idiots who basically have leeched on other peoples hard work.

        • Vert93 on 02/04/2020 - 16:24
          +1

          @sarahlump

      • sarahlump on 03/04/2020 - 23:27
        -2

        THe landlord didn't pay for the house, the tenants did. This is what's wrong with the world. We have a world of entitled business owners, entitled landlords who think that the labour of peoples something they should own and live off instead of using their own.

        • Ughhh on 04/04/2020 - 10:40
          +1

          You sound like you believe you're entitled to free housing, who think that the labour of peoples something they should own and live off instead of using their own. Pot kettle

        • [Deactivated] on 11/04/2020 - 04:09
          +1

          THe landlord didn't pay for the house, the tenants did

          Then maybe the tenants should go and buy their own house.

          • sarahlump on 11/04/2020 - 19:00

            @[Deactivated]: I'm pretty sure the bougie landlords already bought up all the houses then enacted legislation and lobied to keep it that way by inflating the housing market.

  • cdkane on 02/04/2020 - 16:14
    +2

    In communist Russia landlord pays you!

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 02/04/2020 - 16:22
      +1

      In Russia you pay the bank when renting the landlords always get paid the ownus is in the tenant to make sure the payments are up to date

  • braskic on 02/04/2020 - 16:33

    You will find landlord insurance can fix all of these problems. You do have insurance, don't you?

    • ZloyKrys on 02/04/2020 - 16:58
      +3

      The insurance will help, and insurance companies need to see tenant kicked out to pay the benefit. Look up how it works. How this is going to help anyone?

    • irony on 02/04/2020 - 17:06
      +1

      Yes,
      I do have insurance.
      It will be interesting to see how insurance companies deal with a flood of applications.
      Mine doesn't seem to cover me until a tenant vacates, is order to vacate and doesn't or dies.
      So I won't know how that will go until the 6 months are up.
      If the tenant has issues I hope they come and talk to me rather than wait.
      I think the real moral problem comes if the tenant still has their job and just decides that this is a good excuse not to pay anything for 6 months.
      https://www.terrischeer.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/TE…

      • funnysht on 03/04/2020 - 10:03

        I'm with EBM…wonder what they say anyway, given the siutation im sure the gov will bring in policy to protect the insurance firms as well.

  • Starcraftmazter on 02/04/2020 - 16:54
    +4

    Everyone has to pitch in, it would be inhumane to evict people in the middle of such a crisis.

    If the government didn't do this, there's no way to force landlords to negotiate on rent decreases, because most of them tend to be greedy and unreasonable.

    • irony on 02/04/2020 - 17:21
      +7

      Yes, of course, most of the 2 million Landlords are like that, over 1 million of them.
      While all tenants are honest, generous, resonable, never damage property or do a runner…

    • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 21:05
      +2

      everyone *except the banks need to pitch in

      • db87 on 05/04/2020 - 02:28

        I'm giving this an up vote as the only form of humour I've been able to take out of this thread. My meme-idea of a joke had me picturing a tiny little **fine print of this bouncing around ScoMos head with the trollollololllll trollface over his.

        Haha! Thanks!

  • lonewolf on 02/04/2020 - 17:33
    +3

    Is there a way to change my vote? I voted no i dont support the ban but after reading and doing some thinking on it, I am tempted to change my vote. Judging by most of my friends, the ones who own 1-50+ properties (yes some of my friends own that much) compared to my friends who dont own any, i can safely say the ones that own are definitely wealthier than the ones that dont own and once you own one it just gets easier to keep getting more.

  • ThePriceMatchGuy on 02/04/2020 - 17:41
    +4

    Interesting to see more than 200 people that don't support the ban..

    • ozhunter on 02/04/2020 - 17:51
      +3

      Surprising that more than 200 do support it. lol

    • Ghost47 on 02/04/2020 - 17:57
      +11

      The votes are probably indicative of why the Libs won the last election interestingly enough.

      • ozBFM on 02/04/2020 - 19:56
        +7

        This. People only care about money. Nothing else. Well said.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/04/2020 - 20:14

          Have you seen some of the comments by the more unscrupulous renters?

        • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 21:04

          Well if it's your money at risk..yes ppl tend to care about it.

      • ozhunter on 02/04/2020 - 20:33
        +1

        Most members here and generally online seem to lean left, but at least most of us can see that not allowing landlords to evict the tenant for not keeping the contract is wrong.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 03/04/2020 - 10:09

          I can name 8 countries currently implementing eviction bans. There's probably more.

          Who's in the right? Collectively all of them, or you?

        • Ghost47 on 03/04/2020 - 10:17

          It is wrong from a legal perspective (i.e. you don't pay you don't get) but the fact is that it's going to happen to a lot of people who are renting because of this coronavirus pandemic. The results without this policy is simple — a lot of people who rent who lose their jobs will have to either move in with family (which should be done if it can be done) or kicked out onto the streets. It is simply unsustainable and would be a disaster — should people in this country be kicked out onto the streets? Is that "Australian"? I would argue no, but my faith in this country has waned in recent years, because instead of looking out for others people these days just care about themselves. That being said, I'm sure people here would prefer if the government just commandeered stadiums across Australia and let newly evicted people live in them instead.

          From an LL perspective it's definitely unfair, but it's not like LLs aren't getting anything at all either. Banks are willing to freeze mortgages which I think is very generous considering it's the banks — yet LLs are complaining about still having to pay interest, which to me is somewhat entitled as well. I could just as easily say that "people who can't pay their mortgages because of coronavirus should lose their homes", now how would LLs feel about that? Probably that it's unfair, but imagine the damage it would do to this country.

          If unemployment skyrockets, LLs will have a hard time finding a tenant, this could drive rent prices down. There are other ways to fix this issue but there are also other issues that could result e.g. move evicted to stadiums = many people gathered = possible spread = possible deaths, in this case you'll still have lots of empty homes and rent prices could be driven down. It's pretty heartless and selfish of people here who say they'd prefer to have an empty property than just let someone stay there considering the situation the world is in right now.

          • ozhunter on 03/04/2020 - 14:33

            @Ghost47: I agree that the purpose of moratorium is to provide housing security to tenants.

            Is that "Australian"? I would argue no, but my faith in this country has waned in recent years, because instead of looking out for others people these days just care about themselves.

            Is it "Australian" to leech off others? People do seem more selfish and less compassionate(including tenants) these days. One reason I'd say is due to government handouts. The government helps you out so I don't need to.

            If unemployment skyrockets, LLs will have a hard time finding a tenant, this could drive rent prices down.

            Even before this, LL know that a house without a paying tenant isn't a good investment.

            Banks are willing to freeze mortgages

            Banks are utility companies do offer financial hardship to anyone. I can't see why tenants don't take up these options and use their gov money to pay the rent. What else are they doing with their money? This is why I'm against the moratorium, it just encourages/incentivizes tenants that paying rent is less of a priority. P

            • Ghost47 on 03/04/2020 - 14:51

              @ozhunter:

              Is it "Australian" to leech off others? People do seem more selfish and less compassionate(including tenants) these days. One reason I'd say is due to government handouts. The government helps you out so I don't need to.

              I never said it was Australian to leech off others, but that is what the policy is at the current moment. It is being reviewed to ensure a fairer outcome for both parties.

              • ozhunter on 03/04/2020 - 17:30

                @Ghost47: I asked the question if it was Australia to leech off others, as this what the moratorium encourages tenants to do.

                It's like how there is cashless debit cards in some areas, to prioritize recipients to spend money on what is necessary, and not just freely spend on things you want.

                If your a landlord or just anyone in general, it's good to help as many people as you can as much as you can during these tough times, but you shouldn't be forced to, especially to strangers who just happened to be living in your house.

            • sarahlump on 03/04/2020 - 23:31

              @ozhunter: You are just trying to take any responsibility off of landlords for their business's failing. If your business is failing get out of the business. Cut your losses, sell the house for a loss and move on. Otherwise loose your house. Simple.

              • ozhunter on 04/04/2020 - 02:51
                +1

                @sarahlump: Why would sell, why can't I just use the property/equipment that I bought?

  • Gamer Dad Reviews on 02/04/2020 - 18:06
    -2

    I don't have the slightest bit of sympathy for LandLords - they were the ones who bid up the price of an essential living requirement - housing - to such an extreme extent that you literally need to be a multi-millionaire to buy a normal regular 3 bedroom suburban house. When I was a kid, my parents bought the regular suburban 3 bedroom house for $80k ~ $140k. Now for me to buy a similar house to live in with my 2 young kids, it would cose $2 ~ $4 million.
    Its not fair to treat an essential living requirement as your get rich quick scheme, such that parents with young kids can't even afford to buy a regular 3 bedroom house in the suburbs.
    Every LandLord deserves to lose every single red cent of their "investment". Seriously, go bankrupt. You deserve it. I pointedly refused to participate in the insane property bubble in this country over the last 20 years precisely because I foresaw that one day this reckoning would occur. You all on the other hand rushed in like fools, and now the piper started playing you want to have a cry? I'm not having a bar of it.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 02/04/2020 - 18:23
      +3

      Dont blame land lords blame the government for not implementing a proper tax system on owning multiple properties. If you want to fix the property prices issues all you need to do heavy tax owners of multiple properties instead of taxing out everyone with the stupid idea of stamp duty…..

      A typical dont hate the player hate the game

      • Gamer Dad Reviews on 02/04/2020 - 19:08
        +2

        Fair enough comment, but the point is that property investors were playing a dangerous game, and now that the the full rewards of playing the game are becoming apparent (they are going to go bankrupt), well, good. Don't ask me for sympathy because I knew this is what they would get in the end.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/04/2020 - 19:12

          So were you in a position to buy property 20 years ago? What were house prices like back then?

          • neonlight on 02/04/2020 - 19:30

            @[Deactivated]: Properly not his nickname says so. Just a mojo best being d#$k at it

          • tarb on 03/04/2020 - 02:01

            @[Deactivated]: My bet is he would have seen much better returns by putting the money into the stock market. He would be contributing to the economy as that money gets put to use, and wouldn't be propping up the housing bubble and negatively contributing to the problem. It's a win-win-win.

            • [Deactivated] on 03/04/2020 - 12:02

              @tarb: Sure, that could have been done. But was that done?

              He claims to have chosen to not buy a property in the last 20 years. He's now taking pleasure in the plight of landlords who have made that choice. So it seems odd to me that such a financially-astute tenant wants to shaft the person taking a risk to loan out their property.

              My take is that it's either schadenfreude or crab mentality.

    • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 20:57
      +2

      i think the people even who voted they support the policy don't even agree with you….it's not the landlords that pushed up the pricing, you can't afford it mate for your 2 young kids..then go and live somewhere you can afford it buddy. You can buy a 3bdr place for around 400k in western areas.

      dude 2-3million…where do you want to live…in point piper with your young kids, near the beach…how about lowering your standards before you blame investors

      • Entheogen on 03/04/2020 - 07:37

        Read clearly.
        They're doing a comparison of a house bought during their parents era.

    • [Deactivated] on 03/04/2020 - 00:35
      +2

      Back in those days population is less.

      Now population is growing but everyone want to stay in the same area. Supply and demand my friend.

  • BartholemewH on 02/04/2020 - 19:27
    +6

    The government has pushed the barrow of property as an investment for years. Now they are f'ing everyone that drank the koolaid.

  • neonlight on 02/04/2020 - 19:28
    -2

    Renters will abuse and do whatever it takes to keep living at properties without paying for the whole six months and without a care on what the landlord needs to pay as usual.

    This is opening a loophole and will even take owners to tribunal if landlords don't comply

    • 91rs on 02/04/2020 - 20:28
      +1

      based on what? it's a nice big blanket statement that doesn't apply to most. Its like every landlord thinks every single tenant everywhere is out to f#$k them, its not the case.

      Nice read in news.com.au tonight about a landlords reply (accidental reply all probably) to a couple with special needs kids who one of them had lost their jobs and were seeing if they could get some assistance

      "Violet explained how she’d never been in contact with her landlord before, always paying rent through her property manager.
      “We originally sent the email (asking for a rent reduction) to the property manager – we were just running it past them, to see if it was possible.
      “They must have passed it on to the landlord.
      “We didn’t ask them to, it was just an idea at that point.”
      Seeing she had an unread message, Violet opened up her emails, and came to a “heartbreaking realisation”.
      “These guys can get f**ked,” the reply from her landlord read."

      Nice guy, Shall I just say its a typical landlord response like you've make blanket statements about renters?

  • KangarooOz on 02/04/2020 - 20:43
    +4

    Govt should suspend bills issued by water suppliers and councils when this new policy announced

    • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 20:55

      yes if theyre going to stick to this plan…then they should also stop strata payemtns, council fees, water fees

  • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 21:09
    +4

    so the gov is happy to splurge on child care centres, doubling the job seeker payments etc, increasing all sort of welfare payments which is fine but arent prepared to give a renter allowance to those who lost their jobs, but rather get the landlords to pay for it.

    Wonder how ppl would feel if child care centre workers were asked to come in without pay and work for free.

    • 91rs on 02/04/2020 - 21:27

      I expect the aim is so people with kids can still try and work or get some income to offset what they might have lost and be able to pay their rent, feed their children, put fuel in the car and pay other bills.
      After all this is over i'd really like to see actual numbers of how many renters got this free 6 months everyone seems to think will happen, how many will negotiate a reduced rate but still be paying something and how many just keep paying the amount in the agreement and nothing or little changes aside from probably reducing spending on other stuff.
      Seems to be a frenzy of upset boomers all angry about this.

      • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 21:29

        How would you feel if the gov asked anyone working will now contribute say 50% of their paycheck to help those who arent able to pay rent.

        Would you be fine with that?

        • 91rs on 02/04/2020 - 21:54
          +4

          My employer has announced its going to reduce all employee salaries 10% until end of year (that could change and end up with layoffs), has cancelled promotions and pay rises to try and survive this.
          While it doesn't thrill me in any way I'd prefer that than have no job.

          Being a dirty foreigner (Kiwi) I've always had to keep myself in a position where if I was without a job I could still pay my bills as I receive nothing from this country, why others expect so many handouts I don't know, that extends to handouts for negative gearing and property owners its all from the same tax payer bucket as far as I am concerned.
          So handing over 50% (you're talking of pre tax or of net?) either way it just isn't workable given I'm not even eligible for any other assistance yet pay the same tax as everyone else already, that would hurt more landlords than the limited amount that could or will feel the stress of this, thats before you look at loan defaults, credit cards not being paid, utilities etc that people would have issues with. It's not the solution.

          The people who have over extended with debt to get in to investment properties could be screwed, it was probably quite a poor decision to get in to that position to begin with but they've been told by TV and the Govt for decades property is your way to a fortune, buy it flip it and profit.

          Surely there will be tax increases soon to try and clear the incoming debt, this isn't something that can be sustained.

          I'd hope or expect that the double job seeker payments will be used to pay the rent (full or at a negotiated rate if required where accepted).
          Maybe its the way people have been brought up here but the one thing I was told was always pay your debts first, if that means you're eating 2min noodles (home brand on sale OZB deal, none of this fancy name brand stuff) then you do that & make sure your rents paid, any loans, utilities etc. That all comes first.

          • db87 on 05/04/2020 - 02:55
            +2

            @91rs: I'd love like to think that most people think like this, but I unfortunately feel like this isn't the case in our current generation.

            Time will obviously tell but I definitely agree that I would be sacrificing a lot of my own luxuries (yes, that includes recipe-book dinners and treats and "netflix") before expecting anybody else (government, landlord, friends, family) to foot my bills that I knowingly took on.

            This takes a different frame of mind and upbringing I think where one respects what they've come from (usually not much) to be able to forego some of life's luxuries in order to help everyone get by.

            Thanks for the reassurance that I'm not alone in my thinking.

        • tarb on 03/04/2020 - 02:13
          +3

          You're in a country where millions of people are hurting right now. Not just physically but financially as well. Hundreds of thousands will lose their jobs, small businesses will go bankrupt, large businesses will go bankrupt, investments will disappear, peoples supers have taken a massive hair cut, people are losing their bonuses, people are losing their dividends, people are having to delay their retirement and people will be downsizing their houses and lifestyles.
          You're (maybe but probably not) losing some rental income. Its not that its not a little unfair to you, it is, its just that this coronavirus is so much more unfair to so many more people that the landlords in this thread are coming off extremely entitled and selfish. What happened to the spirit of mate-ship in this country?

          • [Deactivated] on 03/04/2020 - 02:27
            +3

            @tarb: Mate-ship? Ask the bank, local government and corporations such as utility providers to show some mate-ship too!

            I have rental and would be offering reprieve if tenant cant pay. However I do expect them to pay it back when they are back on their feet. Same like banks who will capitalise the interests in repayment freeze.

            Meanwhile I still have to pay utilities, land tax, and council rates.

            In the end the tenant will still lose if I cant meet my payments and forced to sell the property.

            • tarb on 03/04/2020 - 03:35
              +6

              @[Deactivated]: But why are you special mate? Why should you be immune to the negative financial consequences of this pandemic?

              You think that guy who owns that small business the government just forced shut is having a good month? He's still got all those bills to pay. How about a just about to retire teacher who's super just halved and now has to work another 5 years - so the market can recover. How about those pensioners who did everything right and now live self sufficiently off their dividend payments… that just got cancelled. Or the hundreds of thousands of people who will be out of work for a prolonged period of time with no idea if or when they will get to re-enter the work force. Everybody is having a bad time.

              Land lords might (but again, probably wont) miss out on some rental income, but will have their major expense, (their mortgage) put on pause as well. Even in this situation, I imagine the vast majority of these investment properties will go on just fine. But if this does happens to you, you will be a few thousand dollars worse off at no fault of your own and that sucks. Take comfort in knowing you are not alone and a lot of people the world over are really struggling right now, and most of them a lot more then you. And know that some very grateful people didn't have to move out of their homes, in the middle of winter, in the middle of a pandemic, without any money.

              • Ctn on 03/04/2020 - 09:29
                +3

                @tarb: Even if these things doesn't happen, there's still..

                • the pending hit to the value of the investment property (biggest hit)
                • the pending hit to the landlords owner occupied property (biggest hit)
                • potential hit from the rent freeze while the landlord is still paying the interests, repairs, and bills on that property. (7k+ hit per 6 months)

                Landlords mortgage payment deferral will cost the owner lots in interests, better to pay what you can now.
                The deferral is not a 0% interest, and not all banks allow this.

                The eventual hit to the landlord is going to be steep.

                Not all landlords are are rich and probably just getting by, just like everyone else.

              • funnysht on 03/04/2020 - 09:48

                @tarb: Would you be happy to give up 50% of your pay check weekly or your alowance in view of mateship?

      • ozhunter on 02/04/2020 - 22:45

        After all this is over i'd really like to see actual numbers of how many renters got this free 6 months everyone seems to think will happen

        The whole 6 months? not many at all. That's not the point.

        What would happen pre-Covid19 if a tenant lost their job? They would get gov assistance, but still they would get evicted if they didn't pay their rent long enough. Difference is now, they would get more gov assistance.

        Just seems like spoiled entitled tenants are upset that the government are giving them even more money.

    • sarahlump on 03/04/2020 - 23:34

      You don't seem to understand.

      Landlords are not hard done by, they aren't vulnerable.

      Poor people are, this is to support poor people. Please stop equating the two groups as the same.

  • Captain Snooze on 03/04/2020 - 02:29
    +12

    Real estate was never a guaranteed profit investment. Don't invest in what you can't afford to be a negative for a few months.

    • funnysht on 03/04/2020 - 09:57
      +4

      To put it simply any real estate investment shares, retail shop, et are businesses and never a guaranteed profit investment.

      So the gov has asked to close down businessess…ok fine. So they dont lose any money and also be given allowances.

      Whilst they ask landlord who also have a businesss to not evict, continue to be 'open' at a loss and not be given any allowances.

      That's fair aint it.

    • nwa on 03/04/2020 - 17:03

      True its more about the LL don't mind being in negative, i.e. not getting any rental income still paying for rates, utilities, upkeep, mortgage if one, costs of re letting is already being in negative. Now its a double hit to the LL being in negative and paying for someone else's rent.

  • meoden1005 on 03/04/2020 - 07:13
    +12

    What Mr PM could do better:
    Ban eviction.
    Allow landlord to pass the overdue rent to the bank.
    Bank will provide loan to tenants to pay overdue rent.
    Bank will engage debt recovery after 6 months.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 03/04/2020 - 07:14
      +2

      That would make a hell of a lot more sense

      • funnysht on 03/04/2020 - 09:53
        +1

        Their real interests are to protect the banks thats why.

        Sure we need to prevent economic collapse…but have you seen any of the other oecd countries in economic collapse by not doing these interventions.

  • Mosher on 03/04/2020 - 08:12
    +2

    Even if I had the money to buy a house and rent it out I never would as the horror stories you hear about tenents

    Take for example the wives uncle and his new wife moved interstate for his new job and they thought lets rent out our house to the daughter (his step daughter)

    The daughter stops paying rent and when they come back to visit and speak to her and tell her she needs to pay rent or they will kick her out

    She leaves but before hand trashes the house

    You would think you could trust a family member more than a stranger but I guess they have a greater sense of entitlement

  • Euphemistic on 03/04/2020 - 08:26
    +9

    Not a simple topic. No situation is perfect. Some buttwad tenants will immediately claim hardship to get out of rent and ‘profit’ but some landlords will understand and make arrangements with their lender to keep a good tenant.

    As a landlord I’d rather keep good tenants and if that meant dropping/missing rent for a few months now and not having to chase new tenants in a difficult market it might be worth taking that hit. Banks have indicated they will make allowances for this.

    There are plenty of (profanity) landlords out there who would relish turfing a freshly unemployed person out immediately to try and keep rent at max. But by doing so, might find out that there aren’t many new renters available now and end up getting no rent rather than less.

  • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 03/04/2020 - 09:16

    The OP has it the wrong way around. Most residential tenants have enough support to pay the rent. Commercial tenants are the ones who are meant to pay for a property generating no income? This is not a cost of doing business, when businesses have been summarily shut down by government decree.
    Commercial landlords need to shoulder their share of the commercial pain, or they're just parasites.

  • Trojan on 03/04/2020 - 09:36
    +3

    After reading through this thread, one thing is common among all of us:
    We are all thinking about ourselves and looking at people who we perceive as "better off" than ourselves to take the pain

    The tenant wants the landlord (potentially) receive no rent whilst having to pay for the upkeep of the property
    The landlord wants the government or bank to take the loss by having the government pay the rent or bank to freeze interest on the mortgages

    And this is obvious because the biggest killer right now is not COVID-19 but people in third world countries dying due to lack of food and medical care yet it seems not very many people is giving them much thoughts right now.

    • funnysht on 03/04/2020 - 09:43

      pretty much like TWD…where the enemy really aint the zoombies but ourselves.

    • nwa on 03/04/2020 - 09:58
      +9

      The landlord only wants the government or bank to take the loss because of their decision in the first place. Most if not all landlords would have wanted to leave the system as is i.e. let them negotiate or evict if they choose to do so, better to have empty or try to get a paying tenant rather than have a tenant not pay for 6 months and try to recover that money afterwards.

    • S2 on 03/04/2020 - 13:19
      +1

      Did you come into this discussion looking for content on "people in third world countries dying due to lack of food and medical care"? You've picked the wrong forum thread in that case. If it doesn't already exist, perhaps you'd like to start it?

  • Gauntlet on 03/04/2020 - 11:11
    +2

    It's freezing rent, not free rent. Sick of hearing it, you have to pay eventually. I personally think that puts you in a worse position as you now have a debt to your landlord.
    That's how I understand it anyway, correct me if I'm wrong.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 03/04/2020 - 11:26
      +4

      It is but in practice at the end of this there is ZERO a LL can do if the tenant takes off

      • [Deactivated] on 03/04/2020 - 12:17

        Blacklist them on the tenancy database if you can.

        edit: That is, if a tenant is intentionally taking advantage of the situation, and not if they can't meet obligations due to legitimate financial distress.

      • Gauntlet on 03/04/2020 - 12:18

        Ah right, good luck getting another rental after pulling that though. I'd hope most people aren't that stupid.
        The rental market is hard as it is without a black mark against your name.

      • 91rs on 03/04/2020 - 15:15
        +1

        They can go and find the box they're living in or bridge they're living under on the way to work and hassle them for some money and tell them how much money they owe to them if it makes them feel any better.
        If you've not got the means to pay then what can be done? I'd like to see the payments from govt to be made to RE or LL on behalf of the tenant to make sure its being paid but well that's even less control for what are usually functional adults.
        This just feels way blown out of proportion as to how many LLs will be impacted and by how much.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join