We Should Use Our Collective Wisdom to Suggest Solutions, Not Blame Landlords or Tenants

aboogee on 18/04/2020 - 18:58

Recently we saw many topics that focused on financial impacts from various lens due to COVIC-19.
However, I note that we havent really tried to be make sure that everyone is coping OK during a difficult time like this.
Frankly, it started because I saw a few people who said they lost their jobs yet are still committed to pay their rents. Very selfless indeed. I do feel for you guys.
Would just like to take this opportunity to say:
- For those who have unfortunately lost their jobs, please hang in there. Hopefully things would improve soon.
- For those who are fortunate enough to still keep their jobs, please be mindful that there could be others that are not doing so well so any kindness is appreciated
- If you are feeling overwhelmed, please reach out to get any form of support that you may get, counselling, opening up to a close friend etc

We should use this forum to do things that are more productive rather than blaming landlords or tenants.
Maybe we should all pool our ideas together and see if there are more effective ways that can be deployed by the government to help those really in need
Collectively maybe there might be ways that cause less strain to the economy yet making sure everyone stays afloat….

Financial

Comments

  • tsunamisurfer on 18/04/2020 - 19:16
    +14

    I don't blame Landlords.

    They are still willing to house tenants at the rates as stipulated in the rental agreement, they are not the party that is wanting to change the terms.

    All Renters should have savings.
    All Renters should have Super to draw on.
    All Renters should have chattels to sell.
    All Renters should try to get another job.

    No renters should be seeking the Landlord to subside their life.

      • ozhunter on 18/04/2020 - 20:42
        +7

        The tenant is the one who wanted to move into the LL house…

      • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 20:55
        +14

        The tenant isn't subsidising the landlord.

        The tenant is paying for the use of the premise.

      • brendanm on 18/04/2020 - 21:02
        +7

        Tenant isn't subsidising anything, they entered into a contract from their own free will. Are you another of those that seems to think negative gearing is free money?

      • tsunamisurfer on 18/04/2020 - 22:56
        +2

        It's concerning that there are people that think all IP's are negatively geared. Furthermore, that negative gearing is some money printing machine.

  • Halo375 on 18/04/2020 - 19:33
    +3

    This is an internet discussion forum - “collective wisdom” is not exactly gonna happen.

  • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 19:38
    -1

    Collectively maybe there might be ways that cause less strain to the economy yet making sure everyone stays afloat…

    End lockdown. It's not evidence-based and it's not sustainable. Protect those who are most at risks only. Let the restof us go about our daily life.

    • ozhunter on 18/04/2020 - 19:50

      Exactly this. Should have never gotten to this stage or at least should have started easing restrictions a couple weeks ago.

      • sangohan on 19/04/2020 - 23:59

        i dont' agree - if australia did that, it would've followed the same trajectory as the USA.

        The lockdown was needed. The economic damage is necessarily a result that is unavoidable, and in fact, would do more damage if not locked down. Releasing too soon as the same effect as not locking down (just time delayed).

        Tracking down every single case, and quarantining all contacts, is the way to go. The gov't isn't quite prepared for such, but i think that's the ultimate step in how to ease the lockdown. China, and the asian countries are doing it, and it seems to be working out OK. I don't see why australia can't do tracking (that app on your phone, for example).

    • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 21:23
      +1

      Protect those who are most at risks only.

      Aren't we all at risk though?

      Cases of COVID-19 were reported across all ages.
      •The median age of all cases is 47 years (range: 0 to 101 years).
      •The median age of deaths is 78.5 years (range: 42 to 95 years).

      Coronavirus (COVID-19) at a glance

      • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 21:36
        +3

        I meant those who are most at risk of dying from it:

        • People aged 65 years and older
        • People who live in a nursing home or long-term care facility

        • People of all ages with underlying medical conditions, particularly if not well controlled, such as:

          • People with chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma
          • People who have serious heart conditions
          • People who are immunocompromised
          • People with severe obesity (body mass index [BMI] of 40 or higher)
          • People with diabetes
          • People with chronic kidney disease undergoing dialysis
          • People with liver disease

        They are the ones we need to protect and send to lockdown. The vast majority of us will be just fine.

        • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 21:56

          That's the thing - 'Rona doesn't discriminate, exclusively.

          And what is with the asymptomatic 'Dicky Wilsons'?

          Discussed return to the office yesterday and a colleague suggested that everyone should be tested & provide evidence that they are 'Rona-free prior to employers allowing employees back on company premises.

          Just a few unknowns atm.

          • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 22:36

            @[Deactivated]: How long would you like us to stay in lockdown?

            • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 23:14

              @[Deactivated]: Not a fan of lockdown & leaving it up to the experts as to how/when restrictions will be eased.

              • brendanm on 19/04/2020 - 10:11

                @[Deactivated]: The same experts that said that human to human transmission couldn't occur?

                • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 11:31

                  @brendanm: You have to query such statements when it's a new strain & knowledge is being acquired on the go.

                  • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 13:04
                    +1

                    @[Deactivated]: History will show you that the a panel of experts can be wrong if they approach ongoing evidence incorrectly or if ego/politics gets in the way.

                    Having studied under and worked with many whom are now the consulting experts on these matters, I know that there are some brilliant minds and some who have failed upwards to where they are.

                    Don't forget the most recent case of organized misinformation and incompetence by a panel of experts, the WHO.

                    (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the WHO are in general incompetent but in this pandemic, they absolutely have been.)

    • nomoneynoproblems on 18/04/2020 - 22:51
      +1

      It is evidence based and locking up those at risk off a mile long list is most of the country anyways. It is what it is…and evidently it's working for us.

      • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 23:12
        +2

        No, it's not. We're just delaying the inevitable. Granted, it did buy us some precious time but we know the vaccine is not coming any time soon. So, we are heading towards a staged re-entry and towards creating herd immunity the old-fashioned way.

        The old, the frail and those with co-morbodities will stay in lockdown until the rest us, those 60-70% of the population at lower risk of hospitalisation from COVID, have already been out and exposed. They will be the only ones in lockdown for the full 6 months. The rest of us, we'll be out in a matter of weeks, if that.

        Edit: Didn't neg you.

  • arkie0 on 18/04/2020 - 20:06
    +2

    I think it's only because it's an internet forum that brings out the worst. I've managed to negotiate with my tenant, so I'm sure there are people working together out there.

    I'm on a repayment pause with the bank, so yes I'm still clocking up interest.
    Commercial tenant is also on a repayment pause with their bank.

    Tenant still paying outgoings (approx 15%) of the total annually they would have to pay.
    Rent is deferred at CPI (approx 2%) interest. Yes it's low but it was what was set in my contract, so I have to accept it. In some way works out well because it's like we're splitting the costs of the deferred bank interest.

    Tenant used to be retail, but is now actually sewing masks to get by.

    • sangohan on 20/04/2020 - 00:01

      That is a very equitable way to do it. I wish the gov't could've just stipulated this sort of thing, and save the hassle of individual negotiations.

  • holdenmg on 18/04/2020 - 20:32

    What is COVIC-19 anyway?

    Sounds like a music festival in Melbourne last year…

  • randomusername2017 on 18/04/2020 - 21:35

    Can't the govt just keep printing money and hand it out to both sides.. then each time we pass GO…

    • ssquid on 18/04/2020 - 22:21

      The problem is Scomo's pinched the dice, we're not going anywhere.

  • Cheeper on 19/04/2020 - 00:49

    Welfare or benefit predators that are scheming and sometimes succeeding to get access to benefits being provided to help those in genuine need are the scum of the earth and if caught need to be severly dealt with. They would have come out of the woodwork when all the benefits were announced.

    Aside from renters spare a thought for those paying off a mortgage. They may be able to negotiate a pause in their payments with the banks but they still have land rates, water rates and home insurance to be paid.

  • capslock on 19/04/2020 - 13:17

    I think that the ban on evictions ultimately benefits landlords so they should stop complaining and be more supportive of it.

    If tenants could be evicted then it would force unemployed tenants to live with family members or share houses. This would leave a lot of investment properties empty and rents will start going down as landlords compete for any remaining tenants. If rental yields drop then property prices will follow.

    So really the ban on evictions is just trying to preserve property prices which means more property tax income for the government and no loss in equity for existing property owners / voters.

    • ozhunter on 19/04/2020 - 16:11

      LOL

    • sangohan on 20/04/2020 - 00:06

      why would ban on evictions prop up property prices? If people can't be evicted (meaning, they stay for free without having to pay rent), then the property is as good as netting zero income but incurring costs. It decreases property prices if anything!

      The ban on eviction is to prevent people from becoming homeless during a pandemic. Moving can cause the virus to transmit. It's a public health measure. The side effect is that tenants now can rort the landlord, even if they aren't really in hardship. The gov' has provided little to no official guidance, and is leaving the negotiations to individuals. I think that's a bad move - i'd rather them setup some sort of official guidelines and make this automatic (like a template contract).

      • capslock on 20/04/2020 - 07:47

        It decreases property prices if anything

        Would you buy a house with a non paying tenant in it that you can't evict? If the landlord can't sell the house then there will be no change in prices because no property sales have occurred.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join