[VIC] Arrangement with Tenant - using Vic gov assistance

Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 13:13

So the Victorian government has announced some (minor) relief for parties affected by COVID-19

https://www.housing.vic.gov.au/help-renting/rentrelief

In order to access the $2000 benefit (paid direct to the landlord) - you must first provide a deferment and a discount to rent.

If I was to provide a permanent $10/week reduction and a $500 deferral for four months, with the expectation of a $2000 'make good' payment at the end of that time, and the tenant didn't have the capacity to pay that based on their circumstances, am I right to assume that the Vic government will directly pay the landlord $2000 (as per their policy)?

Financial

Comments

  • jimbobaus on 19/04/2020 - 13:17

    In order to access the $2000 benefit (paid direct to the landlord) - you must first provide a deferment and a discount to rent.

    In order to access the $2000 benefit (paid direct to the landlord) - you must first provide a deferment OR discount to rent.

    If you offer a rent reduction or you defer a portion of their rent
    and
    the tenants income does not exceed $1903 per week (i think thats the amount)
    and
    their rent equates to 30% or more of their weekly income

    In these case they could apply for the grant, the grant would go towards rent paid so if their monthly rent was $2200 then when the agent got the $2000 paid to them they would only have $200 owing for that month.

    the $2000 would not be used to cover the make good payment, it is required to be contributed towards their monthly rent amount for the month it is paid to the agent, if their rent each month is less than the $2000 then that month they would pay nothing and the following month the balance of the $2000 would be deducted from that months rent also.

  • Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 13:26

    See that's the part that's unclear. Assuming rent of 3k/month, you provide a $500 discount with the repayment of $2000 in month 4

    Contracted rent - $3000/m

    May rent - 2500
    June rent - 2500
    July rent - 2500
    August rent - 4500

    And if we take August as the test case - if the renter can't afford that, are they eligible for government assistance up to $2000 in August?

    • jimbobaus on 19/04/2020 - 14:31

      So in order for the tenant to be eligible for the $2000 to you then you need to reduce the rent somewhat and the agreement has to be lodged with the government.
      I would suggest just doing a rent reduction as opposed to deferring rent

      If they are eligible for the payment then you would get a single payment of $2000 within 2 weeks of lodgement which is to be used to reduce rent,
      So based on your example above and lets say payment comes to your agent in May it would be as follows:

      Payable by Tenant
      May Rent $500 ($2000 payment from gov)
      June $2500
      July $2500
      August $4500

      The tenant needs to agree in writing to the amounts set out by you.
      The tenant needs to be paying more than 30% of their income (combined if relevant) in rent per month
      The tenants income (combined if relevant) can not exceed $1905 net per week.

      OH.. and one more thing
      The August rent would still be $2500 as far as the relief package is concerned, the extra $2000 repayment would be considered in previous months if that makes sense

      As a landlord and home owner you would also be eligible for a 25% reduction on your Land Tax for 2020 if you reduce your tenants rent and the remaining 75% would not be payable until March 2021

      As i said, if you think they cant pay the $4500 in August, reduce their rent instead. This will if they meet the criteria make them eligible for the $2000 to be paid to your agent/you

      • Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 14:46

        I believe the average land tax bill is around $1000 per property. Given a 25% discount (not a true 25% because those are tax deductible dollars, so it's closer to 18%) you're being given a $250 carrot. That's a $25/week rent discount for ten weeks.

        Note that a lot of properties like apartments have zero land tax liabilities because the site cost is below the land tax threshold.

        Caveat - I'm not a tax accountant. If you're a tax accountant, please chime in.

      • Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 14:49

        Also bear in mind that if the tenant can prove that they can't afford it and have less than a certain amount of savings, then VCAT can release the funds (Vic gov to you) which is what I'm interpreting here

        • jimbobaus on 19/04/2020 - 14:50

          The main requirement for the payment is the 30% rule, which does have to be verified
          not just the savings rule. They could have no savings, but rent is less than 30% of their net income then they would not be approved for the funds

          • Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 15:03

            @jimbobaus: Which is a great outcome, which means they have sufficient income and are able to pay their rent and have enough left over for essentials outside of housing.

    • TheBilly on 19/04/2020 - 13:48
      +8

      Why not… It is rent assistance. Should it not go to the person who gets the rent?

        • TheBilly on 19/04/2020 - 14:12
          +3

          Fair enough. Do you agree with the no eviction policies? If you don't agree then I think you are of the opinion that the government should do absolutely nothing and just let the market take care of itself. If so, I am of a similar opinion. However if you support the no eviction policy then your just a hypocrite.

          • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:17

            @TheBilly: Yeah that's a good point. On one hand, I can see the idea of no eviction trying to prevent homelessness. Which I said before, left alone even if a landlord tried to kick someone out, the formal process can be quite lengthy and finding a new tenant would be hard. I truly believe that's when they would come to the discussion table.

            On the other hand, it's just another government policy, banning items such as guns, increasing tax, banning products from certain countries that have an impact on some businesses. Is the government required to pay them then? I wouldn't say so. Government regulations are all part and parcel of business.

        • greatlamp on 19/04/2020 - 22:55
          +3

          Rent cannot fall. Rent has not kept up with house price inflation.

          If (or when) property prices stop increasing, negative gearing will not be viable and rent will go up while property prices stagnate.

          Real estate is not a natural free market. When prices go up, supply goes up, and demand goes up. When prices go down, supply goes down, which prevents (to an extent) prices going down further.

    • bs0 on 19/04/2020 - 21:45
      +2

      In the bigger scheme of things, the government paying a small amount for rent assistance probably reduces the larger costs that come from increased homelessness, social assistance, medical care if evictions/debt also increase.

    • ozhunter on 19/04/2020 - 23:57

      It's outrageous. They're giving more money to pay the tenant's rent.

  • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 13:34
    -5

    They shouldn't be paying anything to them

    • stratbargain on 19/04/2020 - 13:40

      why?

        • SnoozeAndLose on 19/04/2020 - 13:48
          +2

          What if the landlord is rentvester so they only own 1 house.

          • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 13:58

            @SnoozeAndLose: What's your point

            • SnoozeAndLose on 19/04/2020 - 14:02
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: In response to you saying every landlord had more than 1 property. Many don't as they are rentvester.

              • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:07

                @SnoozeAndLose: Again, it's an investment, what investment doesn't come with risks? It should just be accepted and move on

                • elgrande on 19/04/2020 - 14:15
                  +3

                  @[Deactivated]: Yes, it does come with risks, but it does not mean I should also take on your risk.

                  • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:17
                    -1

                    @elgrande: What are you referring to exactly?

                • SnoozeAndLose on 19/04/2020 - 14:17
                  +2

                  @[Deactivated]: So no need to sign contact then, when you signed any contact you are binding to the terms. It is like buying a car or even house, you can break the contact which incur consequences.

                  So now government trying to help the tenant to fulfill their obligation and you are saying tenant should break their contact without paying the rent specified and no consequences?

                  • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:21
                    -1

                    @SnoozeAndLose: If I buy a car, I'm supposed to pay them. If I don't have the money, what can they do? It's their right to take the car back but that's it, if I physically don't have the money, then what can they realistically do? Sue me?

                    Now consider the tenant who can't pay the full amount, the tenant has every right to kick them out because they broke the contract, you want to take them to court? Formally evict them? That's a lengthy process and if the landlord can't survive the next two months without any rent, he sure as hell isn't going to survive that eviction process. They can choose, kick the tenants out in the hopes of finding a sucker that will move in immediately and pay what you're after or negotiate.

                    • SnoozeAndLose on 19/04/2020 - 14:26

                      @[Deactivated]: Question is are you really down to every penny or you just claim you have no money?

                      The avoid going through all crap for both tenant and landlord, now government trying to help. You still doesn't get the point.

                      Now consider the tenant who can't pay the full amount,

                      Is that the whole point that government is helping?

                      You want landlord go broke and the bank has to take them to court and take ownership of their investment? Landlord can also make bankruptcy.

                      • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:35

                        @SnoozeAndLose:

                        You want landlord go broke and the bank has to take them to court and take ownership of their investment? Landlord can also make bankruptcy.

                        Yes, exactly if they can't afford it then sell the house.

                        Question is are you really down to every penny or you just claim you have no money?

                        Exactly, you can't so either negotiate something or break the relationship.

                        • SnoozeAndLose on 19/04/2020 - 14:37

                          @[Deactivated]: Tenant have a choice to leave too, do the need to ask for reduction.

                          How about government step in to help out?

                    • Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 14:54
                      +3

                      @[Deactivated]: Yeah, but now imagine the government says that you get to keep using the car despite you not being able to pay the owner for it, and to make up for the loss that the owner of the car, the government compensates the owner of the car.

                      Or you have the choice of giving the car back to the owner and moving on.

                      It appears you are advocating for keeping the car and not paying for the car. Thereby depriving the owner of the car of both the car, and income.

                      • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:56

                        @Choc0: Read my above comment, I didn't advocate for that. It should've been left alone. But let's say the car dealer was a parasite that tried to buy as many cars as they could so they could rent it and make a profit in the long run because they know how much of a necessity cars are. No sympathy there.

                        • Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 15:13
                          +10

                          @[Deactivated]: Nobody is asking for sympathy, just equitable government intervention.

                          1.No evictions - guarantees stability of housing. No people on the street in a pandemic

                          2.Tax breaks and subsidies to landlords - less for renters to pay.

                          They might have landed on a reasonable balance. You clearly like the first intervention but not the second because you want to see landlords suffer.

                          • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 18:41
                            -1

                            @Choc0: putting words into my mouth when I have said multiple times that I didn't support it. Your scenario one causes scenario two, scenario two being less for renters to pay because if they're on the street, who pays YOUR mortgage? Kick them out then if you think you'll find another renter soon enough without having to take a pay cut. Whether the government implements that rule or not, rent would eventually come down.

                            • od810 on 20/04/2020 - 12:28
                              +3

                              @[Deactivated]: I'm surely gonna kick the person out because who know what the person will do in the future. I suffer the loss of rent anyway but i get rid of the tenants who unwillingly corporate with landlords. And i'm surely going pursuit court action, if they intentionally don't pay it even though they financially can. They just abuse the situation to rip off other people.

                              My tenants and I had a negotiation in 15 mins, i gave 15% reduction of the rent. Everyone's happy about it.

                        • funnysht on 19/04/2020 - 18:38

                          @[Deactivated]: so? Doesnt mean the car dealer is forcing them to buy the car from them? The customer can go and buy another car from another dealer. It's up to the dealer to set the price not the customer to go in and ask for their preferred price.
                          Capitalism mate

        • CalmLemons on 19/04/2020 - 20:14

          Renting is risky too. You risk getting evicted by your landlord. Just saying. Can get evicted not only for not paying, but also if the landlord is demolishing or if the landlord is moving in.

        • bs0 on 19/04/2020 - 21:47
          +1

          In the bigger scheme of things, the government paying a small amount for rent assistance probably reduces the larger costs that come from increased homelessness, social assistance, medical care if evictions/debt also increase.

          Where does the Government get that money from? Us, the taxpayers. It would probably benefit everyone if those increased costs are all minimised.

          • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 21:51

            @bs0: There wasn't going to be homelessness if this landlord scheme wasn't there or if they didn't cut land tax. People who couldn't afford to be a landlord anymore would've just sold their homes/ are selling.

            • od810 on 20/04/2020 - 12:31
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: Trust me, there are number of people who won't be able to afford the deposit for the banks. what are the percentage of people who has 100K+ savings to buy house? your argument is such a joke.

              • Sinful on 21/04/2020 - 02:01

                @od810: @od810: That's why they should be saving more and not living outside their means.
                People want the lifestyle of flash new car, brand new bed, sofa and other furniture… They don't like the idea of saved money burning a hole in their wallet.

    • SnoozeAndLose on 19/04/2020 - 13:46
      +2

      If they don't ,then all jobseeker and jobkeeper shouldn't be pay out then.

      Government want to relief tenant and landlord would be in the same situation to the tenant, everyone have different commitment.

      Government hand out money to direct assist the tenant which it benefits everyone.

    • Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 13:47

      It's effectively money that a renter doesn't have to pay, so it remains in their pocket. How is that a bad thing?

      • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 13:51
        +1

        Because rent should fall. People have lost jobs and have had their hours cut. They can't afford it. Left alone, landlords have two choices: rent reduction or kick them out and hope to find someone who can afford it, good luck with that. It's the natural market of things. Lots of business are offering deals or even closing up shop.

        Now the government is saying they're gonna cover some of the costs, keeping the prices high. Essentially bailing them out.

        Again, why is housing seen as so special from any other investment? Some companies and businesses are (profanity)

        • Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 13:55
          +1

          Rent HAS fallen by $2000 over the Corona period-

          Impact to renter - $2000 less rent to pay

          Impact to landlord - no benefit. Some loss of cashflow

          • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 13:57

            @Choc0: Exactly, there's nothing wrong with that. People are earning less. Why does the government feel the need to cover that gap? It's just business

          • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 13:59
            +3

            @Choc0: If the landlord can't take the reduction in rent then they should sell the house. They shouldn't have over leveraged so much. We're essentially paying for greed, for this already inflated house prices that are trying to be kept propped up by the government. Do you remember what happened to flight prices when they were still running? They plummeted

            • Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 14:01
              +3

              @[Deactivated]: Please don't go providing financial advice to landlords. I hear there are large fines for that sort of behaviour.

              • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:05

                @Choc0: This is OzBargain and we actually have people saying, let's give money to landlords? That's ridiculous.

                • Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 14:08

                  @[Deactivated]: It's $2000 of rent that a tenant doesn't have to pay. Think of it like an Amex statement credit.

                  • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:11
                    +1

                    @Choc0: It's $2000 of rent that a renter probably couldn't pay.

                    Think of this way. You run a coffee business, why wouldn't you charge $1000 a coffee? Because people can't pay that much. You charge what people can pay and if peoples incomes drops, then so does the price of your coffee before it becomes unprofitable. It's ridiculous to try and get the government to cover some of reduced profits.

                    Investment: the action or process of investing money for profit

                    There are risks and it's not the government's responsibility to bail them out when things go south

                    • Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 14:23
                      +3

                      @[Deactivated]: The purpose of the subsidy is to promote confidence and security, and it's also an acknowledgement that landlords also have bills that need to be paid (and won't be reduced). Not every person who owns property is well off.

                      Most people would say the Victorian policy is heavily favoured towards the tenant. Tenants can break a contract early without penalty and leave if they don't wish to continue the lease.

                      The $2000 is just scraps. The discount on land tax is going to be well under 4 figures for most people.

                      • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:32
                        +13

                        @Choc0: Then maybe you shouldn't have taken out a $800,000 mortgage you can't pay without a tenant for a few months? That's the problem here, we're bailing out recklessness that was done out of greed. No one buys a house and says 'I want to provide a rental service'. They do so in the hopes of holding onto it and the price will rise. Essentially preventing some people from entering the market. Australians already have inflated house prices and the second largest debt to income ratio in the world. Exactly what landlords are trying to profit from. The Australian Dream and way of life is exactly how it's said, just a dream now. Housing, a basic necessity turned into an asset for profit by those who can afford it because they already have a home and can afford a second one since the tenants will help them pay off their mortgages. Yet we should help them out?

                        Even though I already said they shouldn't have done anything, sure let's say it's heavily favoured towards the tenant. PayPal, eBay and the banks is heavily favoured towards the customer, I can easily get my money back and keep the item. It's pretty unfair for the business owners but that's just how it is.

                        Scraps that's going to cost millions among millions to landlords who have benefited for years from negative gearing and increasing house prices.

                      • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:50
                        +4

                        @Choc0: Oh sorry, didn't realise you were OP. The 'you' wasn't directed at specifically you. I just find it laughable that those who bought a second home needs government assistance because it turns out their 100% risk free investment wasn't risk free after all

                      • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:58
                        +3

                        @Choc0: As I said before, I feel sorry for hopeful young people trying to buy their first house trying to compete with those trying to buy it as investment who can afford to pay more because they will have most of their mortgages paid by rent.

                        • aboogee on 19/04/2020 - 15:39
                          +5

                          @[Deactivated]: totally disagreed with you initially - but i think after reading ALL your comments you meant, government shouldnt be subsidising landlords for lost income. i think this is reasonable, as long as they dont enforce moratorium. As a landlord myself, i rather manage my own affairs by negotiating a lower rent which i think most landlords could afford (probably some who cant are over-geared). If tenants and landlord cant reach an agreement then landlords can have the option to seek for their next better alternative. But to enforce moratorium and not consider any impact on landlord is just absurd.

                          • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 15:47

                            @aboogee: yep it's very hard for government policies not to be biased and when they aren't, it just creates awkwardness.

                          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 19/04/2020 - 16:19
                            +1

                            @aboogee: Why does everyone, including yourself, think impacts on landlords were not considered when governments enacted the moratorium? It's exactly the purpose of a moratorium….to temporarily prevent something that could severely impact millions whilst the impacts are addressed and a policy is formed…

                            • aboogee on 20/04/2020 - 07:10

                              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: When it was first announced there was definitely alot of the details missing
                              Till today i dont know what are we entitled to in NSW - but thats me not following the update closely as work got really busy for me
                              If it had fully considered the impact on LL then there wouldnt be that many discussions around them (which you are aware of and participated in)
                              If the moratorium HAD considered impact on LL then again it wasnt a thoroughly thought through one, if not unfair.

                    • greatlamp on 19/04/2020 - 23:11

                      @[Deactivated]: I understand your point, one of the rules is that the landlord has to reduce the rent first. So there is no way for them to charge above market rates at taxpayer expense.

                • funnysht on 19/04/2020 - 18:42
                  +5

                  @[Deactivated]: so…

                  Gov gives $1500 a week to businesses
                  Gov gives $550 supplement to jobseekers

                  Gov attempts to give $10/week to landlords (another form of business):
                  bkhm outraged. Why are they getting special treatment Isnt real estate another business?? It's ridiculous

                  • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 18:44
                    +1

                    @funnysht: This implies I support it all the other stuff.

                    • boostpak on 19/04/2020 - 21:00
                      +1

                      @[Deactivated]: while I own an investment property, I agree with you.. it is what it is - an investment. Investment of any kind comes with risks highs and lows. If you didn't want any risks, then don't invest plain and simple. It's this Australian way that's happened over the past say 10 or so years that property has zero risks and everyone can invest in it and become a millionaire and drive around in their brand new hilux with a jetskii on the back and a luxury SUV. Everyone thinks they are a property expert in Australia. I own one property and it's an investment property at the moment till I am ready to move into it, so I'm renting it out to help pay the mortgage. If you can't handle losing some rent for a few months then you shouldn't have purchased the house in the first place… but again everyone was an expert and thought they could become bill gates overnight so they went to mr bank and bought properties.

                      • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 21:28

                        @boostpak: Thanks for your insight, hope things work out :) !

    • SnoozeAndLose on 19/04/2020 - 14:21
      +1

      What is your position and situation now to make suck claim?

      It is more like you are suffering and getting government subside and doesn't want others to be beneficial.

      • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:33
        +1

        Your sentence is incoherent and difficult to understand. Others can be beneficial if they want, just try not to do it off tax money yeah? I mean you're paying for this fyi.

        • SnoozeAndLose on 19/04/2020 - 14:35

          All benefits are doing off tax money, so what is the point of saying this?

          • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:37

            @SnoozeAndLose: Because one is for vunerable people who need it, lost their jobs never made any investments. The other is people who try to benefit of increasing house prices and could just sell their house right now. The other people on benefits, what can they do?

            • SnoozeAndLose on 19/04/2020 - 14:42

              @[Deactivated]: Can they also look for a job?

              How about renter who lose their job and invest in shares? There are thousand of different situation.

              But your blanket statement is government should not help landlord to assist tenant on rent, because as an investment they should stuffer whatever lose it come to them.

              • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:46

                @SnoozeAndLose: Yes cause they're going to gamble what's left of their current saving in shares that might not see any decent return in years, are you a moron?

                You don't think they're looking for a job? It's not that easy, selling a house, just sell it low enough and someone will buy it instantly.

                But your blanket statement is government should not help landlord to assist tenant on rent, because as an investment they should stuffer whatever lose it come to them.

                Correct, otherwise why not bail out the stock market while we're at it? Let's bail out all those people who've lost tens or hundreds of thousands from their super.

                • SnoozeAndLose on 19/04/2020 - 14:49
                  -1

                  @[Deactivated]: Perhaps you would never buy investment property. Just dont do it.

                  End of my argument.

                  • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:52
                    +5

                    @SnoozeAndLose: I won't, it's ridiculous, greedy and evil to try to profit off a basic necessity. Imagine hoarding water in the hopes of selling it for more 10 years from now. I want the next generation to be able to afford a house like I did.

                    Your arguments were laughable and in the end, you just say 'end of my argument'? Do you still believe you are right? I'm always prepared to have my mind change if I'm proven wrong. What about you? Clearly not.

                    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 19/04/2020 - 15:01
                      +2

                      @[Deactivated]:

                      Imagine hoarding water

                      Don't need to imagine. It's happened and happening right now. Water entitlements are being held ransom in rural farming areas and under investigation by the FIRB.

                      Then you only have to look into the actions of former agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce…

                      • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 15:06
                        +2

                        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Yeah and it's shit, but when it comes to houses it's okay? Not only that, we try to help them out.

                        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 19/04/2020 - 15:14
                          +2

                          @[Deactivated]: Definitely not okay in relation to houses. I agree with nearly all your posts above :)

                          • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 15:21
                            +2

                            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: haha thanks, I thought I was going a bit crazy, maybe I am wrong but good to see I'm not the only one who thinks that way.

                            I remember reading about that a while back, many farmers were screwed.

                    • funnysht on 19/04/2020 - 19:00

                      @[Deactivated]: " I won't, it's ridiculous, greedy and evil to try to profit off a basic necessity"

                      ….yep sure is ridiculous just like woolies/coles doing the same, even then they get$1500 week bonus from the gov but still wanting to make profit!

                  • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:54
                    +4

                    @SnoozeAndLose: I feel sorry for hopeful young people trying to buy their first house trying to compete with those trying to buy it as investment who can afford to pay more because they will have most of their mortgages paid by rent. Tell me I'm wrong?

                  • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 15:03
                    +2

                    @SnoozeAndLose: I don't really understand people like you, I've addressed every point you made but instead of backing up your claims, either you can't or you're too lazy, you say 'end of argument'. What did I say that you didn't agree with that I couldn't get you to change your mind? How can you hold onto the same belief when you can't back it up now?

        • Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 15:01
          +1

          Yeah, we pay taxes. Some people benefit more than the amount of tax dollars they pay. Some less. Swings and roundabouts.

          Maybe we will need to raise taxes to pay for all this, but the federal government can look after that.

          • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 15:05
            +1

            @Choc0: Yes but you will be benefiting from house prices increases whereas others just simply pay taxes. You're being very selective to what you reply to and being quiet otherwise.

            Don't get the wrong idea, I can buy an investment property. However, I did it through hard work and living frugally. I just can't morally justify doing it through this way. Stocks I can understand, but not housing. And even if I did, I don't expect government handouts. If you can change my mind, I would love that. I actually love being proven wrong. I'm not like the other guy who just goes 'end of argument'

            • Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 15:30
              -1

              @[Deactivated]: You're providing bad financial advice which you would never do outside a forum.

              Sell property? That's not a first point of action. Why is the investment under performing? It's a temporary shock to an otherwise stable system. Addressed via lots of ways less extreme than dumping property en masse into a depressed market.

              I also don't think anyone should be pulling money out of their super FYI - selling devalued shares in this market is a bad move, as is selling property. The government is socialising losses, some losses (such as jobs) to a different degree. Housing investment loss subsidies are capped, but the government has other curves to flatten, not just infections.

              • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 15:38
                +1

                @Choc0: I'm saying, if a landlord was at their ends, tenants can't pay, they can't pay the mortgage, they've sold off everything and still can't pay then they'd have to sell.

                As mentioned before, house prices in Australia are over valued due to greed and bad policies and evidence shows it's definitely not stable. Now's a good chance for a correction instead of wasting money trying to keep it up.

                • Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 15:53
                  -1

                  @[Deactivated]: In normal times, the remedy for non payment is eviction. It's not right to evict someone during a pandemic, so we need to seek alternatives.

                  I'm just saying it's a fair outcome that if eviction is taken off the table, the government also takes some of the pressure away from landlords who still have bills and mortgages to service. This is achieved by a combination of increased payments to people who have lost their jobs so that they can keep meeting their obligations, as well as subsidies to landlords to cover those who can't meet their obligations on their own.

                  • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 18:03

                    @Choc0: Wait, you say it's not right to evict someone during a pandemic but you're annoyed that eviction is taken off the table and think you need to be reimbursed?

                    • Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 19:17

                      @[Deactivated]: It's a package of change for the pandemic.

                      Non pandemic - eviction and get new tenants at market rate

                      Pandemic -

                      Option A - tenant breaks lease (no penalty, landlord has to form a new contract at market rate

                      Option B - tenant wishes to stay. Landlord and tenant come to arrangement at lower or deferred rate and the state government helps out somewhat.

                      What you want - option B But with no help to the landlord.

                • greatlamp on 19/04/2020 - 23:23

                  @[Deactivated]: This benefits the tenant far more than the landlord.

                  A landlord might negotiate a lower rent with their tenant, but they aren't going to accept $2000 less, it would be closer to $200 less.

                  Tenants gets a huge discount when they actually need it.

                  There is no evidence that rent prices have anything to do with house prices, and you already accept that landlords buy property for capital gain, not rental incomes.

                  To stop house price bubble you need to cut off the access to credit. They could make a law requiring 30% deposit for all residential real estate. This would make it difficult for speculators to overextend, but thr risks to the lender is actually less so mortgage rates won't rise.

                  Instead they make laws that give free money to first home buyers so deposits are not needed. You can see the results of that

  • Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 13:59
    +6

    People are getting 1500 a fortnight for not going to work. It'll take decades to pay off, and I still think that's good policy.

    You're up in arms over a once off, $2000 rent subsidy?

    • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:03

      Oh the jobkeeper payment that gives some casual earning a couple of hundred bucks a fortnight before the coronavirus $1500 now?

      The jobkeeper payment that screws anyone who changed jobs within the past 12 months?

      The same jobkeeper which is basically <$200 less than someone working full time at Safeway and Cole's risking their lives, working like crazy and getting abused ? Which basically pays the same amount for someone to stay at home and do nothing?

      The same jobkeeper plenty of companies aren't applying for because they can't afford it?

      That jobkeeper?

      • Choc0 on 19/04/2020 - 14:07
        +5

        Still one of the best safety nets in the developed world, despite a few edge cases.

        Helps people put food on the table and pay the rent (in conjunction with state subsidies of course)

        • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 14:13

          Edge cases which could have easily been prevented with some extra conditions (i.e up to $1500 rather than flat), scrap the 12 month thing and reduce it to $1050 like jobseeker so people working full time don't feel screwed over. Did you forget Newstart was $550? That anyone who lost their job prior to this was expected to survive on a third of what is given now?

      • Sbah22 on 19/04/2020 - 17:28

        Sir…it has been fascinating watching you on this forum…
        Because you speak on many topics, I would be very grateful if you could consider summarising your thoughts…
        How Do you think investment properties should work when everything is functioning - please outline your thoughts on negative gearing and if this should be abolished
        Please outline how the government could have implemented the jobseeker . Job keeper incentives better….obviously you have raised concerns about certain cases slipping through the cracks and I am looking for a responses which is flawless….
        Also I would love hear how you think not paying landlords a small subsidy will ensure house prices will correct and normalise.

        For the record, I agree with only one sentiment of yours…which is housing is expensive….at 11x median wages at times, it is more than what developed would would think expensive.
        I do not agree with taxing as a way to deliver the great Australian dream. I think investing in infrastructure to allow for people to live anywhere while commuting to cities without impacting their lifestyle AT ALL …is the answer..

        • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 17:56

          Please outline how the government could have implemented the jobseeker . Job keeper incentives better….obviously you have raised concerns about certain cases slipping through the cracks and I am looking for a responses which is flawless….

          I already outlined above how a few simple measures could be used to improve it. $1500 flat rate for the employers to pay for the government to pay back is just outright lazy. Again, it's not my job. If a doctor treated a patient wrongly, you can tell, you can say to the doctor that doesn't look right. The doctor may ask you 'well then how do you do it?', you won't be able to answer it but your statement still holds.

          For the record, I agree with only one sentiment of yours…which is housing is expensive….at 11x median wages at times, it is more than what developed would would think expensive

          Good, then going back to your 'how should investment properties should be run', it's not my area of expertise but when you agree with me that housing is already well beyond what it should be, then clearly our current system isn't working and giving landlords MORE money isn't going to solve the issue. That much I can tell you without needing to be an expert. The specifics though? I'd need to go study and then maybe come up with something.

          I think investing in infrastructure to allow for people to live anywhere while commuting to cities without impacting their lifestyle AT ALL …is the answer..

          Yep I don't disagree with this, maybe we could do this with the money we're giving to landlords?

          • Sbah22 on 19/04/2020 - 18:24
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: I disagree with the hypothesis that greed is driving the house prices up
            It is supply demand dynamics. Less houses are being built than required to cater for interstate and offshore migration. Poor infrastructure ensures people are making a 1.25hr commune from Melbourne outer fringe developments. Imagine a worker travelling 2.5hrs to work for 8….what a great waste
            Greed is a by product (I would personally not use greed but opportunity). People see an imbalance and wager their Curren expenditure in order to gain a larger return at another time.

            Taking investors out of the equation may have many undesired consequences which may be dire…it takes rental stock out in a market where vans y rates were sub 1.5%….
            You may find people who are unable to buy a house due to lack of savings or borrowing capacity and equally struggle to rent as not many investors are incentivised to buy an asset that does not give them any decent returns..
            Anyways….I do not think landlords should get a free kick but I am supportive of a portion of rental loss, which was contractually payable to them but because of government intervention any potential recourse available to a landlord is now unavailable, is recoverable….
            Anyways….I think our very way of life is at stake here…far greater than a few thousand dollars now…

            • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 18:37

              @Sbah22: Everyone sees how much house prices have risen and everyone wants a piece of the action (greed). If I already have a house and I can get $3000 a month from rent, then maybe I can borrow whatever the amount is for $4000 a month since it's only an extra $1000. Now this house is worth whatever the repayment of $4000 a month is but how can the average person who can only afford 2-3k a month compete? They're going to have to pay the FULL amount. Couple that with the belief that housing will continue to skyrocket, you've got increasing house prices. If I was buying my own home, I don't care whether it increases in value in the future or not.

              You may find people who are unable to buy a house due to lack of savings or borrowing capacity and equally struggle to rent as not many investors are incentivised to buy an asset that does not give them any decent returns..

              Yes there is no doubt this would be a problem, but right now, the returns are so big, EVERYONE tries participate. However, if returns were small enough such that the average person wouldn't risk buying a second house but large enough that if an investor would be incentivized to build infrastructure then that's what we want.

              • funnysht on 19/04/2020 - 18:48

                @[Deactivated]: But this is trying to achieve financial freedom for your family. Nothing wrong with that. Sure it pushes prices up but who do you think are selling at high prices? Your everyday mum and day or the baby boomers that bought 20-30 years ago?

              • Sbah22 on 19/04/2020 - 18:54
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: I think I understand the crux of your gripe with the system…you do not think a house should be deemed a financial asset whilst a business investment or shares can be…
                That would work for so long as there is a government willing to build housing for everyone (like Singapore)…
                If not, the consequences will be catastrophic in my view…
                So ask yourself the question….can the government do it
                Also, rental yields in Vic and NSW are sub 3% generally…

                • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 18:58
                  +1

                  @Sbah22: I mean housing shouldn't be an asset that increases that much. Building is not the same as someone else buying it and keeping it. Companies who build houses don't keep them to make a profit 20 years down the track. They build houses, make their quick buck and move on just like any other business. It's the fact that people then buy these houses to rent them and expect them to increase indefinitely is the problem.

                  There can definitely still be profit made from building houses, otherwise how do other normal businesses run?

                  • Sbah22 on 19/04/2020 - 19:11
                    +1

                    @[Deactivated]: Building is a depreciating asset
                    Land, getting increasingly scarce, is an appreciating asset. Hence my emphasis on infrastructure and unlocking the vast expanse we have….
                    Look I agree on housing being expensive…European Central a bank publication, for memory, deemed house price at 5x median wage as expensive so we are very very expensive
                    I guess every generation is presented with opportunities….the baby boomers were presented with opportunity to invest in land that would grow beyond imagination…(I am not a baby boomer by the way)..
                    The current 20 something don’t have that opportunity but are presented with opportunities in another manner…in technology and create an asset that is more intellectual property in nature…or others…
                    We just have to find make do with what is in vogue at the time I guess..

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 19/04/2020 - 14:57
    -1

    It's good policy, but once again it fails to address any of the population ineligible for jobkeeper or jobseeker.

    • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 19:28

      My understanding was that new migrants, including international students, are eligible. They weren't eligible for jobseeker or jobkeeper.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join