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

                • irony on 05/04/2020 - 07:08

                  @mdavant: So the statement:
                  "The RBA has been reluctant to cut rates further due to a fear that additional cuts would add fuel to the rapid rebound in Sydney and Melbourne property prices."

                  Doesn't mean they were not trying to increase house prices?

                  The statement:
                  "The Governor and the Treasurer have agreed that the appropriate target for monetary policy in Australia is to achieve an inflation rate of 2–3 per cent, on average, over time."

                  https://www.rba.gov.au/inflation/inflation-target.html

                  Doesn't mean that the RBA adjusts monetary policy (interest rates) to control inflation?

                  No point talking to you, believe what you want, goodbye.

                  • mdavant on 05/04/2020 - 09:46

                    @irony: No. the first statement is from a point in time.

                    It has no bearing on the thought processes of the many interest rate cuts from before this! You know, since the GFC.

                    You are cherry picking a very specific statement. It is a weak argument.
                    Please read the effects of interest rate cuts on housing and the effects of housing on consumption, to be better informed.

                    There is an inflation target. The RBA does not only use interest rate settings to "control" inflation.

                    Goodbye.
                    I suggest you do some reading. It will help your understanding of the effect of monetary policy on the housing market/bubble.

    • Pratty on 04/04/2020 - 08:23
      +1

      Brilliantly written. You’re bang on.

    • Gerry H on 04/04/2020 - 09:44
      +1

      i disagree with 4, tenants with no reserve are even worse. don't spend all your wage on friday nights at clubs then think you'll instantly get hand out when you're in trouble. land lord with reserve should not cop out for the tenant's recklessness, why not defer rent instead of being free? many landlords are hard working parents looking to upgrade their current property, by investing they offset the future price gain of their dream home.

      it's only the greedy pure investor who pushed real estate prices sky high who deserves the hurt. remove negative gearing and if someone owns more than 1 investment property then 2nd 3rd 4th etc property must be free for tenants.

      landlord =/= greedy investor, keep that in mind.

    • S2 on 04/04/2020 - 15:48
      +2

      Have such little in reserves that they cannot go for 6-12 months with no rental income.

      I don't think landlords considered putting away reserves for someone else to live in the property for 6-12 months without paying. It would actually be cheaper to have no one in the house than someone living there who may not be able to pay for 6 months or longer.

      I do agreed that landlords should have a heart and not force people out on the streets.

      Take losses like other members in society.

      A loss from not being able to get another tenant is reasonable. Taking that loss without being able to get someone else in (regardless of low potential for it) seems less reasonable.

    • dbun1 on 04/04/2020 - 16:35
      +3

      Most areas have vacancy rates low enough that no one would have ever factored in a period of 6-12 months to cover no rents.

  • regenade on 04/04/2020 - 02:19
    +3

    Smash the landlords and RE agencies, now is the time to bring back property prices down by 50%. Investment have risks so if you lost 50-70% in recent shares why not in investment property as well, let RE be the worst investy instrument in 6 months.

    • mdavant on 04/04/2020 - 05:43
      +2

      Ain't gonna happen because if that happened banks would fail.

      It should happen.

      Imagine if the govt let market forces drive property prices, not middle class welfare and poor interest rate policy.

      Rents could be half what they are, banks would not be so precariously positioned and we would be able to weather the current storm much more easily.

      Well they kicked the can down for so long it is now rusty and we hopefully step on it.

    • jjohnmaher on 04/04/2020 - 17:15

      Yes it can happen IF ALL short seller traders are WILLING to apply the same thing to their houses. All together put all their properties in the market to put pressure on prices to drop 20-60% then buy their properties back. Just like in the listed shares game!

  • Hotpotcorn on 04/04/2020 - 07:49

    this for sure will lower down house prices and I am happy with that :DDDDD looking to buy

    • tomfool on 04/04/2020 - 10:40
      +2

      This is the everyones dream buy in low sell high. As soon as you buy, you will not want property prices to drop.

      • downbythecreek on 04/04/2020 - 15:47
        +6

        I own a property and personally want them to plummet so people stop seeing residential properties as endless cashcow investment vehicles. So many people in this thread referring to themselves as 'landlords' when judging by their complaining there is nothing noble about them at all…

  • Maglia Nera on 04/04/2020 - 09:24
    +1

    chiming in to say there should be a 3rd option in the poll - BIKIES

    • [Deactivated] on 04/04/2020 - 11:29

      Works both ways mate.

  • Gerry H on 04/04/2020 - 09:36
    +4

    just make real estate price crash, remove negative gearing, tax foreign investor to hell, make one person own only 1 property at a time. that's all i care about.

    • tomfool on 04/04/2020 - 10:38
      +2

      How do you propose to supply housing to those that either don't want to buy or those that cant afford to buy regardless of property prices. Are you suggesting the government socialise housing? I have no objection to the foreign investors being locked out of owning property but someone has to supply housing to those who can't or don't want to own.

      • Gerry H on 04/04/2020 - 12:33

        oh yes i forgot, good point. a person can only own 2 max properties then.

  • Livert on 04/04/2020 - 11:01
    +5

    It's simple. It's not your house. If you can't pay to live in it, get out.

  • surm on 04/04/2020 - 12:42
    +9

    Supermarkets don't sell discounted goods to those who have lost income due to COVID-19, regardless of the past profits made by the supermarkets from the same customers.

    Neither do Petrol stations nor do the banks.
    So why are landlords expected to give discounts and incur losses?

    Suppose a landlord loses the job to COVID-19 but their tenant is unaffected. Is the tenant then supposed to pay a higher rent to "share the burden"? If not, why is only the landlord expected to chip in?

    • mdavant on 04/04/2020 - 13:04
      -7

      Because it is because of increased personal debt that rents are so ridiculously high.

      There is logic in what I said then.

      Otherwise, please :

      Explain to me the increased utility of a 1980's house valued at $400k today, rented at $400 per week today, as opposed to that same house valued at $800k today, rented at $650 per week today.

      • mdavant on 04/04/2020 - 13:15
        -5

        great, negged instead of responding to a logical post. This is a really important question to understand why we are struggling so much at the moment.

  • g452 on 04/04/2020 - 14:41

    Your concern for those with the means to be landlords is simply touching.

  • Miss B on 04/04/2020 - 14:53
    +3

    Anyone who doesn't maintain a good relationship with their landlord/real estate is an idiot and most of them wouldn't have anyway.

    Changing rentals now would be difficult and would increase contact between people. It's not an ideal situation, but neither is everyone who's losing their jobs right now. There would be very few people not paying any rent, some may need to temporarily negotiate down, some may need a bit of time until benefits kick in. Assets tests are being ignored so if it's someone's only income and the tenant really can't pay rent sign up to Centrelink with everyone else who just lost their income.

    Most people will continue on as normal. Nothing has changed for me as a renter. People are acting as though everyone's just going to stop paying rent for no reason, but what happens at the end of the 6 months when they want a rental reference and they can be evicted? It's in everyone's best interests to work together. Landlords may struggle to rent out properties at the moment.

    I do think they should stop the interest for people who are financially affected by COVID-19 and can't make their mortgage repayments though.

    • ozhunter on 04/04/2020 - 15:25
      +2

      but what happens at the end of the 6 months when they want a rental reference and they can be evicted?

      They'd take the black mark and hopefully get out of thousands of rent payments.

      Landlords may struggle to rent out properties at the moment.

      LL know this. People are acting that like every LL will automatically kick out tenants the seconds they can. It's up to the LL to whether to keep the current tenant and try recoup rental payments after 6 months, or kick them out(if there was no moratorium) and risk having the house empty.

      With so much things closed and advice to stay to at home, there seem to be little reason, if any, that tenants can't use the welfare payments they are receiving to pay for their rent.

      • Miss B on 04/04/2020 - 17:54
        -1

        Cool, yeah, you've convinced me. I'm going to just go rent free for the next 6 months. Might even post it as a bargain, no rent for the next 6 months in Australia.

        • ozhunter on 04/04/2020 - 19:11

          If you do, the actual bargain would be that you can choose to not pay any rent for 6 months and still won't be evicted.

  • surm on 04/04/2020 - 16:18
    +5

    This is how the banks are offering to help home loan customers.

    We’ll help you through this

    I’m writing to ensure you have the latest information on <Bank Name>’s response to COVID-19 and understand what this means for you and your banking.

    I want to reassure you that we’re here to help.

    If you’re a home loan customer:

    • If you’re ahead on your repayments, you can access your redraw balance. Other options that might be available to you include making repayments using funds in your linked offset account or other deposits you have available to make loan repayments;

    • If you don’t have a redraw balance available, you can request to defer home loan repayments for up to six months, with interest capitalised;

    So, Landlords can in turn pass this "help" on to tenants
    1) If tenants have paid excess rent, they can redraw the excess.
    2) Tenants can request to defer rent payments if tenants agree to repay the deferred rent with interest after 6 months.

    • lowlifesphere on 04/04/2020 - 16:37
      +1

      Yes exactly, this thread is full of landlords complaining how covid19 has impacted their investments. Sell your property if you can no longer afford it. No one is forcing you to keep it.

      • ozhunter on 04/04/2020 - 19:12

        Sigh…

        The issue isn't about whether LL can afford their investments or if it has gone up or down in value.

        • g452 on 04/04/2020 - 20:26

          The issue isn't about whether LL can afford their investments or if it has gone up or down in value

          Reduce it, and yes it is.

          Expected loudest moaning is from those who have invested in machines, sometimes many multiple machines, to produce Toilet Paper suddenly facing a prospect that they may not be getting the Toilet Paper they were expecting. Some of this Toilet Paper has been fed back into the machines to generate more Toilet Paper. They may not actually have any real Toilet Paper to fall back on. How scary. None of this will put them far enough ahead of others stocks of Toilet Paper. And that's what it's all about isn't it? Having a trolley loads of Toilet Paper and having those that don't have the means to generate their own Toilet Paper pay for it.

          I mean, dinner parties will be less fun when one cannot boast of one's stash of Toilet Paper anymore.

    • db87 on 05/04/2020 - 03:05

      So hypothetically, how is dipping into the LL's redraw or offset facility that they have saved/worked hard/sacrificed for helping anybody?

      It's still propping up the non paying tenant.

      • Pratty on 05/04/2020 - 07:02
        +1

        Therefore, can’t afford the house anymore (by your definition). Sell it! It is no longer a viable investment. A non-paying tenant is part of the investment equation. You wouldn’t have the house otherwise if it was sitting empty.

        Who’s it helping? You, first and foremost, to get out of a poor financial situation. And two, it’s helping the person looking to buy a house (likely their first at this moment in time).

        • db87 on 05/04/2020 - 08:25
          +1

          Doubt it. The person people usually link to trying to buy a house is typically already renting. If they can't afford their rent, how do you expect them to buy a house?

          Also, the few that may go insolvent and thus end up selling, end up selling to the preying wealthy, all whilst having to drain some or all of their savings in the process.

          I don't know about you, but I don't many investors that willingly throw their hard earned cash into a sinking ship (ie: paying someone else debt/rent), people aren't THAT kind.

          • Pratty on 05/04/2020 - 10:09

            @db87: Mmm I’d disagree. The people who can’t afford their rent right now are the minority. I think renters are being lumped into one group. Majority of renters can afford their rent, have job security, and may be looking to buy. Surely based on current statistics you’d agree that the people who can’t afford their rent are a minority? A large group sure, but still a minority.

            • db87 on 05/04/2020 - 10:35
              +1

              @Pratty: Hmm, maybe not a minority, nor a majority like I may have made it sound but it definitely won't help the situation.

              Same goes for the landlords that to some extent rely on the rental payments. That doesn't just apply to people that negatively geared, positively geared LL's are going to feel the pain also.

              I agree, there's a lot more to take into account but forcing the lower class investor to effectively default just so someone else can profit from their loss, is much in the same thing in my eyes. Those same people looking to get a great deal at someone else's expense would hate to be in the same position if they were also forced out.

              Therein lies my connection to the fat cats that will likely price these new home buyers out AND clean up the aftermath. They're not going to be buying all of the over-developed properties in the outer suburbs. They'll clean out the inner suburbs where the rental yields are the highest. That definitely worries me!

              I personally made a sacrifice when we bought our PPoR and I honestly don't think enough people are willing to make that these days. They generally want the million dollar plus properties within 15km of the CBD (Syd/Mel) - I think this is a different argument for other states given they have far more sffordable property by comparison.

              I would too! But reality is, I'd have bought an even cheaper property further out if it meant not having to pay someone rent. Obviously everyone has very differing circumstances and don't even have this luxury, but we're talking about people looking to buy, so I can safely assume they have at least some capital to make a purchase.

              • Pratty on 05/04/2020 - 11:01
                +2

                @db87: I see what you’re saying and tend to agree. If the fat cats end up doing what you describe, everyone just continues to lose…

  • surm on 04/04/2020 - 16:57
    +1

    Suppose COVID-19 affected tenants have bank loans (eg. Car loans). Are they now getting discounts on agreed loan repayments from banks? Are they asking banks to "forget" a portion of agreed loan repayments, resulting in losses to banks?

    If not, why would anyone think that landlords must give rental discounts and incur losses to themselves?

    All that banks are offering is to capitalise interest ie pay back missed repayments with interest. That is what landlords can offer to tenants. If tenants can't pay the full rent now, they can repay the rental debt with interest 6 months later.

    • db87 on 05/04/2020 - 03:07
      +1

      Good luck… Unfortunately I'm with a lot of people here that would agree. If a tenant can't afford their rent now, how would anyone expect them to pay their normal rent, PLUS their rent in arrears PLUS interest in 6 months time?

      I definitely agree though that yet again, the banks are being let off very lightly (for now) whilst still being able to take their profits.

      We're in for a very testing time!

    • [Deactivated] on 06/04/2020 - 21:48
      +1

      And what if they simply don't have money to pay two rents for 6 months? Take them to court and get court order for $20/mo because that's all they can afford?

  • [Deactivated] on 04/04/2020 - 17:27
    +1

    Glad i sold my last rental last year, tenants owned a shop/business and is closed, would be losing $450 a week now for sure.

    • g452 on 04/04/2020 - 20:54

      Phew…dodged a bullet there mate!

      I wonder what that bullet hit though? Bah….who cares…..

  • sarahlump on 04/04/2020 - 20:05
    +2

    It sounds like maybe capitalism isn't the answer. Like maybe property ownership isn't the answer. Didn't somebody say all the ages ago?

    Lets be real, the real estate market will get a bail out like it always has

    • mdavant on 04/04/2020 - 21:15
      +1

      Yep. Without bailing out the housing market ( which is already happening with quantitative easing / increasing Centrelink flow throughs), the banks will be screwed. If house prices fell 40-50% like they should, then the banks would be in massive trouble.

      • bargainparker on 05/04/2020 - 00:14

        There was no reason houses to be so expensive in the first place. But people will be people and the show must go on.

  • Birdseye on 04/04/2020 - 22:08
    +7

    We bought a house at the start of the year, to live in. Tenants had a lease until July, so we knew we would have a few months as 'landlords' after we settled before moving in. But the plan was always to sell our house and move in.
    Along comes Covid, and with it the ban on inspections and auctions. So can't really sell the house.
    Then there's a moratorium on evictions. And less than a week later we get an email from our soon to be tenants, asking for us to cut their rent in half.
    We're doing it, because they've lost income and it's the right thing to do. But what we are also doing is moving in there as soon as their lease is up, whether we've sold our place or not. If it wasn't for this policy, we would have given them another six month lease. But now? We can (just) wear the 4k we are going to be down after three months of them at half rent. But we literally can't afford to do it all year, especially when they could just stop paying entirely at any time and never pay it back.
    So this policy is going to make my tenants housing less secure. We aren't fat cats or property speculators. Just people caught in a shitty situation, like everyone else. The difference, that has already been pointed out a hundred times, is that the government is supporting just about everyone else. People who provide housing (cause without landlords, there'd be no houses to rent) are getting told they have to provide that service for free. No other provider or business is being told that. So yeah, it's unfair.

    • bargainparker on 05/04/2020 - 00:12

      If it craps out, whether you provide housing or not, you won't have tenants anyway as there would be a few who could afford to pay. Yes, it's not easy, fair, but with the "great" government and people who can't really agree, that's what you got.

      • duluxe2000 on 05/04/2020 - 01:39
        +1

        Not really, if the non-paying tenants move out (to somewhere cheaper with gov assisted). What will happen is that landlords will reduce the price until its attractive enough to get new tenants.

        Goverment could rent out private houses to be public housing and assist who couldn't afford "any".

      • Birdseye on 05/04/2020 - 10:08
        +8

        Point is, that no-one seems to be responding to, is that for everything else, you still have to pay for goods and services. You still have to pay for your shopping at Coles. You still have to pay for your petrol at the service station. You still have to pay for your Internet, or someone to come and fix your toilet, or for literally anything else. If you don't, that's theft.
        The argument seems to be 'I hate landlords, so it's fair they have to give housing away for free'. Well, I don't like plenty of businesses, but that doesn't mean I get to take their goods and services for free.
        The other argument is that we need to make sure thousands of people aren't kicked out of their homes. And I agree with that - and we are. If a person loses their job now, they will get either twice as much support (Jobseeker) or three times as much support (Job keeper) than if they lost their job at any other time. Rent assistance comes on top of that. Requirements for documentation have been largely waived. Partner income tests have been doubled.
        Taking the case of my tenant, if they lost their job last year, they would have got nothing (partner is still working so wouldn't have passed the partner income test). And there would have been no expectation, let alone a government mandate, that they don't have to pay rent. Now, they will get at least 1500 a fortnight, which could cover their share of full rent with about 900 bucks a fortnight to spare. But as I said, I'm cutting their rent in half anyway.
        There seems to be an enormous sense of entitlement displayed here by people who are renting and may or may not have lost their jobs,and no conception that they are being looked after far better than anyone who has gone through the same thing at any other time in the history of our country.

        • Pratty on 05/04/2020 - 10:13
          -5

          Don’t start with the entitlement card, Mr/Mrs Landlord! How’s that negative gearing going for you?

          • Birdseye on 05/04/2020 - 10:15
            +8

            @Pratty: Based on some quick calculations, saving me a few hundred to about 1000 dollars off my tax bill this year. Or about one fortieth of what someone on Job keeper will get directly from the government.

            And we'll done ignoring every other point I made too.

            • Pratty on 05/04/2020 - 10:19
              -4

              @Birdseye: They weren’t ignored, just didn’t want to address. That’s a very unique circumstance to your own situation. It isn’t the norm. Regardless, what you have described is also an entitlement.

              You are however sounding like someone who has never rented or rented a long time ago. Out of touch and has forgotten what life is like for the asset-less.

              • Birdseye on 05/04/2020 - 11:16
                +8

                @Pratty: Expecting to be paid for providing a service isn't entitlement - it's the foundation of our entire economy. Expecting to have absolutely everything paid for you because you have lost your job, beyond anything that has been provided to anyone in the same situation in the history of at the very least our country, is entitlement.
                I agree with Job keeper, I agree with raising job seeker. I understand these are extraordinary circumstances. But if one group of people is being forced to sacrifice, then all should be. Rent will be, for a brief period, a large part of my income. I am being forced to sacrifice it. So let's raise taxes on everyone still working by 40%.share that pain around.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 05/04/2020 - 08:12
      +1

      There's no ban on inspections.

      There's a ban on open inspections.

  • [Deactivated] on 05/04/2020 - 00:03
    +15

    Before i would consider dropping the rent, id like a seperation letter from employer and bank statements to ensure you have no job/funds. Also would like to inspect property. Are you taking care of it and what possessions do you own. You cant like a king while pleading poor.

    If you are a excellent genuine tenant who needs help then I will asssist you in any way I can. If not you can live with freinds, family or homeless shelter. Id rather it empty than be taken advantage of.

    • duluxe2000 on 05/04/2020 - 01:33

      I like the idea. Or does what the public housing is doing right now: charge 25% of all tenants (in the same house)'s disposable income.

    • Pratty on 05/04/2020 - 07:08
      -1

      Haha just wow. Even if you own a lovely couch and a lovely bed for example, what is the value of that? Or is living like a king having a house full of food to eat? Sell it off to afford (potentially) not even one month’s further rent? Ridiculous attitude.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 05/04/2020 - 08:17
      -7

      Steliosinc before I would accept a Landlord's refusal to drop the rent, I'd like to see their tax returns and bank statements to ensure they have no funds/capacity to reduce rent.

      Also I'd like to inspect their PPOR to see what possessions they own or could sell to meet their investment property mortgage obligations. You can't live like a "Lord" whilst pleading poor.

      If you are an excellent genuine Landlord who is suffering then I assist in any way I can. If not you can beg for deferrals from your bank or sell your investment property. I'd rather avail myself of proposed government policy remedies than be taken advantage of.

      • [Deactivated] on 05/04/2020 - 17:56
        +5

        Did some landlord kick you out on street? Sounds like youre still bitter about the experience. Some scarring perhaps?

        If you decide to live day to day and not plan,work hard or save for the future, theres no need to despise those who do. You've polluted and trolled the thread with countless posts that landlords are basically evil incarnate, and tenants are poor innocent helpless souls.

        Im sure a nice termination notice and the disconnecting of utilities will be pleasant experience for tenants like you. No rental income, no running water.

        This is in addition to the legal bills for small claims court. I guess I could go tribunal to get the debt, but id prefer to add on the legal bills on top of unpaid rent in court. Since youre so full of spite for someone you have a legal and moral responsibility to, lets make the debt a even bigger one.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 05/04/2020 - 18:12

          You're a living, breathing, walking meme.

        • Pratty on 05/04/2020 - 18:57

          Worse than a meme… an unfunny meme. Head back to Facebook, Stelios.

      • Livert on 05/04/2020 - 18:27
        +7

        Refuse a landlord's refusal to drop rent? What planet do you live on? It's their house. The decision is COMPLETELY theirs. If you can't afford to live there anymore, have the decency to get lost.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/04/2020 - 20:53
          +3

          these two leeches, zeggie and pratty above are the exact reason why you should check facts of tenants claiming hardship. They want free rent because theyre opportunists.

          There's still some jobs if you want them, Cleaners, shelf packers, drivers and many many more… that is if you want them.

          Lets not mention centrelink and rent assistance. Guess paying rent doesnt fit in with your lifestyle choices.

          Explains why they resort to "youre a meme" response, as they cant respond logically to the post about weaseling out of a signed lease without selling some prized possessions or give up uber eats and smashed avo breakfasts.

          They would rather try to blackmail and extort someone who saved scrimped and sacrificed for something than be responsible adults

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 06/04/2020 - 05:13
            -2

            @[Deactivated]: Steliosinc you're so offtrack. It's hilarious.

            I don't rent! Shock horror!

            Do you sling avocado leech slurs to everyone who disagrees with you?

            People are sick and/or dying and you're worried about your investment return. Very telling about your character.

            Like I said. You're a meme.

            • funnysht on 06/04/2020 - 14:49
              +1

              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Gee a person worried about their own source of income….what has this world come to !?!?!!?

            • [Deactivated] on 06/04/2020 - 14:55
              +1

              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: This is a complex scenario with two sides and you seem to be "authoritative" on such matters, even though you're supposedly unaffected. How are you so expert?

            • [Deactivated] on 06/04/2020 - 16:33

              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: People sick or dying has got nothing to do with living rent free in my property. The discussion is about tenants claiming hardship with no proof and having exhausted all avenues to get money. We all see who the leech is here…you and you bff petty prat

              @pratty its not a basic human right to live in my property rent free. What alternate reality do you live in?

              Since you are both so generous with my money, how about you move them in your homes rent free? Let us know your address and ill ship them there

              Example @Snoochem55 said his tenants hasnt been paying taxes as he gets cash, in other words defrauding the government, doesnt want to touch his super, and curiously cant get jobseeker as hasnt done his tax returns. As if a tax return excludes you from centrelink payments now.

              Exactly the tenant who needs hard dose of reality, abusing and manipulating the system.

              • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 06/04/2020 - 19:15

                @[Deactivated]:

                People sick or dying has got nothing to do with living rent free in my property.

                "I don't care if people get sick, die or if 2+ million could become homeless. GiMme MaH ReNt!"

                • [Deactivated] on 06/04/2020 - 22:11
                  -2

                  @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: not opening up your home to help the sick, dying or homeless?

                  Got your snout in everyones elses financials,telling them how they should live, but its do it what i say not what i do right?

                  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 08/04/2020 - 09:14

                    @[Deactivated]: Living, breathing, walking meme. Like I said.

                    The account you're using is clearly an alt. Try making an argument with your genuine account :)

          • Pratty on 06/04/2020 - 07:59

            @[Deactivated]: Right back at you Stelios. I’m not a renter! Not a landlord either. I have empathy and respect for basic human rights… weird concept, right?

            The potential memes are endless.

            • [Deactivated] on 06/04/2020 - 14:49
              +1

              @Pratty: How does "empathy" manifest in this scenario?

              Renter gets taxpayer money from Centrelink. Landlord pays taxes.

              Let's say weekly rent is $400 per week. Renter on Centrelink gets at least $500 per week.

              • Pratty on 06/04/2020 - 15:08
                -1

                @[Deactivated]: You aren’t seriously suggesting someone can live on $100 per week once rent is paid… I think you’ve proven my point.

                Manifest that empathy I was talking about!

                • [Deactivated] on 06/04/2020 - 15:53
                  +1

                  @Pratty: That was merely an example of basic math… That is not my suggestion; they actually get an additional $750 x 2 tax-free bonus, totalling $1,500. A household could potentially get more taxpayer money. And your point is what?

                  Let's say rent was $150. What then?

                  Is the landlord responsible for the tenant's budgeting skills?

                  You haven't answered the question. How does "empathy" manifest in this scenario? Can you explain how empathy would be displayed (in your view)?

              • 91rs on 06/04/2020 - 17:03
                +2

                @[Deactivated]: "Renter gets taxpayer money from Centrelink" - An assumption that doesn't apply to millions of people who live in Australia.

                • [Deactivated] on 06/04/2020 - 17:54

                  @91rs: Assuming your numbers are accurate, who are they and who is responsible for them?

                  Note that my question does not imply that there is no role for both landlords and tenants to act.

                  • 91rs on 06/04/2020 - 21:35
                    +1

                    @[Deactivated]: Based on news articles I saw over the weekend about temporary visa holders and other residents who are not eligible for government assistance, claimed over 2 million. Half million students, similar number of New Zealanders and the rest people who are in the process to obtain bridging visa's and planing to try live in Australia. Given they were telling people to "go home" thats a lot of empty rentals which will hit LL's just as hard.

                    I agree that one side should not be bearing the weight of it all, I'd like to see any of these govt assistance packages include having rents negotiated (where needed) and paid directly to the RE or LL so we know it's not just going to be drunk or smoked up. This is in no way an excuse for a free ride and I think most are very aware of that.
                    This is changing day to day for people, A week ago I was not impacted, before week ended I've lost 10% of my salary, today Wife found out they're reducing days for all staff and pushing them to take holiday leave to reduce the amount owing for the company, holiday leave was almost like an emergency fund if the job is lost (assuming there is money to pay it out) so we're now having to again reassess the next 3, 6, 9, 12 months.
                    This is going to ruin a lot of people.

                    • [Deactivated] on 06/04/2020 - 22:00

                      @91rs: Agreed, and fair reply.

    • popsiee on 05/04/2020 - 08:22
      +4

      I can have my mil $ TAB account and driving my Ferrari without any income the PM states I can play hard ball and demand free rent and you can’t evict me .
      KEY is no income for you to note !

      • Pratty on 05/04/2020 - 10:12

        @popsie, your comment really isn’t helpful.

    • Levathian on 05/04/2020 - 15:00
      +6

      Yes. This. I'm hoping the government releases more details on this rent moratorium because you can't expect landlords to just take a tenant at their word when considering rent relief. Otherwise every dodgy tenant and their dog will be claiming it.

  • bargainparker on 05/04/2020 - 00:09
    +1

    If things go from bad to worse, you won't have to worry about non paying tenants even if there was no ban on evictions, as you won't have tenants who could pay rent anyway. What the government should have done is freeze everything and after all this is finished decide what to do.

    In the event of many more jobs lost, many will be unemployed. That means a few will be able to afford to rent and that also means a lot of vacant properties.

    There is no right or wrong answer here. Instead of complaining you should all work together to get through this, not like the PM saying retail stores have to stay open. Don't you know what a jigsaw puzzle will mean to kids in lock down. https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gWQaGPwFmac/WLsJNkaGfCI/AAAAAAAAU…

  • leiiv on 05/04/2020 - 10:12

    Now, imagine what would happen if all landlords agree to protest and decide not to pay any interest or repayment to the banks?
    The banks will repossess a lot of properties, that they may not be easily sold without incurring losses. Will the banks be alright then with tenants not paying the rent? Then I assume something much worse than the GFC will happen..

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/04/2020 - 11:53
      +1

      The country would be 120% fcuked opposed to the 100% fcuked it is now

  • luffyex2010 on 05/04/2020 - 10:13
    +2

    759 vs 359

    Ozbargain have more landlords than tenants.

    That's a healthy ratio.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/04/2020 - 10:14

      I would argue that isn't true and that the neutral vote (ie not a LL or a tenant) probably agree that the policy is stupid/poorly done

      If anything i even think some 'good tenants' would probably think the policy is unfair because it doesnt directly help tenants that do the right thing.

      I will say this it is ez to criticise the government in what is an impossible to manage time and i dont want to be seen doing that i just think this policy is poorly thought and doesnt necessarily help decent people that are renting trying to do the right thing. But just helps the free loaders of this world

      • WinstonWithAY on 05/04/2020 - 13:54
        -6

        Being a landlord isn't a job champ. You're a leech on society, literally stealing the paychecks of others who are actually working. The "job" of a landlord is no different to anyone who owns the home they live in, and no one would consider "homeowner" as a profession or job title. I heard of some bloke named Mao who had some good ideas when it came to landlords, might be worth looking into

    • brendanm on 06/04/2020 - 18:59

      I'm not a landlord or tenant.

  • godofpizza on 05/04/2020 - 14:39
    +2

    i think this is the burst of the property bubble that everyone being taking about for years

    i wondering how these guys are going to manage in the near further?

    https://www.realestate.com.au/news/fourteen-properties-and-4…

  • bargainparker on 05/04/2020 - 15:18
    -1

    This is how they did it. https://imgur.com/gallery/HXEjkvZ

    But at the same time human nature is that they don't really work together unless they have no choice. The fact is if something is wrong, you should support the wronged. It is like people don't want a drug dealer or a drug addict living in their neighborhood and they are happy if the police moves them, not realising that the problem is still there, just not here. But that's humans. Instead of solving a problem, it is easier to move it for someone else to deal with it. Yet in the end everyone pays for it, because while humans are social beings, they are not that great at working together to actually make this a better world. Most are just happy to have a few coldies and watch a game, go to work, have kids, retire and die. Not really doing anything apart from making this capitalism go round and round. As they said give people bread and circuses and they won't make problems.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/04/2020 - 15:25

      Sadly if the bank took my properties i dont think the community would be that nice ….

      • bargainparker on 05/04/2020 - 16:00

        Yep, as humans have always been that way. If it is not my problem, it is NOT my problem, not thinking that it may become their problem down the track. In their selfishness it doesn't cross their mind that everyone is in the same boat. If the boat sinks, so will they, regardless that they are on the top and everyone else in the hull. It is just going to take a bit longer.
        Yet, humans are still spending a lot more on the army in a pretense of freedom, than to actually spend money to advance this world. But history shows that times change, humans do not. Even in a million years, if humanity is still around they will just be crude cavemen.

    • brendanm on 06/04/2020 - 19:01

      Pity the government took all our guns away.

  • Snoochem55 on 05/04/2020 - 15:54
    +6

    My tenant called up over the weekend to ask for help since him and his wife both lost their self employed jobs. I asked him if he has applied for the Jobkeeper allowance to which he said yes, but doesn't have high hopes because he hasn't been doing tax returns. He said he does have super but does not want to use it so wants me to help him out. He knows I have no choice because I can't evict him.

    I understand not all tenants are like this but I'm sure a lot of landlords would be dealing with selfish people like this.

    • bargainparker on 05/04/2020 - 16:02
      +1

      As they say, give your little finger to other people and they take the whole hand.

    • funnysht on 05/04/2020 - 18:39

      hasnt been doing his tax returns???

      • Snoochem55 on 05/04/2020 - 19:48
        +2

        Apparently he was dealing with cash only in his business so maybe he meant he wasn't including his business income in his returns.

        Regardless, its not my problem and the government is to be blamed for putting landlords in this sort of messy situation.

        • funnysht on 05/04/2020 - 19:49
          +2

          so he's scamming ATO and the gov then wants you to reduce his rent…

          • Snoochem55 on 05/04/2020 - 20:05
            +2

            @funnysht: Yep. He has got himself in a sticky situation and looks like I'll be paying the price.

            • OzCheapo on 06/04/2020 - 12:42
              +1

              @Snoochem55: Maybe it's time to look for an alternative tenant. He sounds like trouble. And try to get Landlord Insurance because it might become a nasty fight at eviction.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join