Tl;dr: Netherlands cuties considering a ban on investors snapping up properties and renting them out.
33% of recent home buyers are investors in Netherlands. Does anyone know how much % of recent home buyers are investors or occupiers?
https://nltimes.nl/2021/09/02/dutch-cities-want-ban-property…
The biggest negative impact of property investors are all these crappy houses on tiny blocks.
No one actually wants to live there 'forever', so it's only investors who end up buying them.
No. You cannot tell me what I can do when spending my money, particularly in various investment vehicles.
Capitalism may be the best model, but here’s some insight into why it fails many… thinking like this just propagates inequity.
Ownership is a privilege, not a right.
You know in the early 90's it was possible to buy an 800sqm residential lot for $20,000 in Ringwood (now a middle ring suburb of Melbourne). I have seen sales records.
Now it's generally 400k+ in Melbourne for a 500sqm lot on the fringe.
One part of this I don't like is when they declare that a farm can be rezoned for residential it goes up a lot e.g from $1 million to like $80 million. First home buyers ultimately pay for the land value uplift. Does it benefit society at all for random farmers to become super rich multi millionaires at the expense of first home buyers? While most farmers are struggling.
If the Government rezoned land, but gave itself a legal monopoly on the right to purchase it for residential development, and then only offered say $2 million for the farm instead of $80 million, then this could somehow be used to provide cheaper new housing - ideally without the government being the developer (though that's one option).
One part of this I don't like is when they declare that a farm can be rezoned for residential it goes up a lot e.g from $1 million to like $80 million. First home buyers ultimately pay for the land value uplift.
So true… it’s as much (or more) about the land as the houses.
Yep, this is exactly what I commented before. Nothing wrong with the pricing but the government should be doing more to make sure the money goes to them so they can use it to provide more positive services to society.
I'm not saying turn into a communist society but the government needs to chase the money and be a bigger player in these sectors.
You know in the early 90's it was possible to buy an 800sqm residential lot for $20,000 in Ringwood
And now it is worth $1m. Ringwood is one of those places you didn't actually want to be back then. (Neither would you want to be now, I would suggest).
Haha it's not a bad place. Green and leafy. Big shopping centre. Good access to the freeway.
I am not sure why but Ringwood has a bit of an undesirable reputation from people who live there.
A bit boring - a bit.
Most suburbs are like that. The shopping centre is just for shopping, it isn't exciting by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is there much to keep teenagers entertained.
I am not sure why but Ringwood has a bit of an undesirable reputation from people who live there.
Because they wish they lived in Blackburn, Surry Hills, Mont Albert or Balwyn. Who knows. Everyone is just trash talking and wish they had more money.
I got a mate who said they wished they bought Clayton 20 years ago. I am like seriously, if money was easy to come by I'd have bought one everywhere and prices would have doubled or tripled eyes closed no worries.
I'm just tired of POS houses with no noise isolation being pumped out at stupid high prices.
+1
Double glaze isn't even that much more (<$10k). Guess builders would rather pocket that than give people a decent place to live in.
No, but we need to remove Capital Gains Tax discounts & add property taxes like most other developed countries.
The Capital Gains Tax Discount isn't really a discount, it is just making individuals pay the same amount of tax as companies. If you remove the discount, individuals would be paying twice the rate as companies forcing everyone to invest via a company instead of in their own name.
We have land tax already.
It will sort itself out after the older generation dies off, may be faster than expected due to covid being released into the wild after we reach the 80% vaccination target.
Houses, holes and serving lattes to each other is all we do.
After the past 18 months can we really still blame foreigners for housing price bubble ??
If anything the international developers were doing much needed building.
"After the past 18 months can we really still blame foreigners for housing price bubble ??"
No, it was never about "foreigners" but every poor idiot who was priced out of the market needed a scape goat and there is no better scape goat than blaming foreigners.
right wing news channels were always quick to blame foreigners.
Blaming foreigners is fine because they don't get to vote, and they don't share our space.
Can you imagine a politician trying to tell us it is us who is blowing our own bubbles? Oh yeah that guy was Bill Shorten who tried to take away negative gearing and franking credits.
Common sense already answers this question. A "business" is something you do with the intention of making a profit. If you don't intend to make a profit then its not a business, its a hobby. And it is established law that hobbies are not tax deductable. So you can still make a loss initially or in any given year if some circumstance occurred that meant you didn't make a profit, and its still a business. But if you went into it knowing that you wouldn't make a profit its only a hobby. If people buy and rent houses knowing they won't make a profit doing it aren't conducting a business, they are simply engaged in a hobby, and (should) have no right to negatively gear.
Exactly the same should apply to gig companies - and afterpay is the most recent example - knowing they can't make a profit then its not a business and should not be treated by the law and the tax department as one. You shouldn't be allowed to run a business that by making a loss year after year drives people genuinely running a business out of business.
There is a common misconception that investors reduce the housing supply. This is not true unless the investor bought the house and kept it unrented which is not in the interest of the investor to do so.
Investors simply shift the ratio of houses that are owned and rented. If anything, they make housing more affordable by providing a low cost rent alternative.
Taking this suggestion literally, if all investment properties were banned, there would be no houses for rent. So what? Everyone just buys their own house? Yeah right - the average Australian doesn't have $1000 for a rainy day fund much less enough for a deposit.
And even if it was possible that everyone could afford to buy a house, you'd have massive mobility problems. Every time anyone needed to move cities they would need to literally sell their house and buy another one in the new city. Every time a kid wanted to move out, they'd need to have enough money saved for a deposit. And better hold off on that divorce or separation until one of you can afford to buy another house!
So obviously, the suggestion taken literally is absurd. But even if you go halfway and say you make it less attractive to own investment properties - you'll just get less investors investing in property and that'll only hurt people that have to rent because rents will just skyrocket. Every investment property on the market reduces the average rent price.
If you want houses to be cheaper or cheaper to rent, you need more houses - it's just basic supply and demand economics.
I think you are missing the point slightly. I agree that it is supply and demand, so if you take out the investors then that reduces total demand relative to supply which you would think should reduce the price.
reduce house prices but increase rent prices. Thus hitting the person who cant afford to buy the most
But that only works short term because the population is increasing (via births and immigration).
You still need to build new housing within a specific area if you want everyone to be 'able to afford owning a home in a specific area'.
You still need to build more investment properties in a specific area if you want everyone 'to have access to affordable rent in a specific area'.
I suppose it's up to each individual to decide for themselves whether it's more important for everyone to be able to afford to buy their own home or whether it's more important that everybody can afford somewhere to live.
Investors have the highest rates of unoccupied homes at 16%. For the state it's just under 5%. So more than triple the average.
Increases in investors has also not lead to an increased houses . I'm not sure why but that is what the data show.
Hoarding homes can drive up prices, artificially increasing demand by reducing supply. This causes house prices to go up. Investors are not the problem, the govt makes the rules and are responsible. Individual investors make decisions for themselves not the country.
"Investors have the highest rates of unoccupied homes at 16%. For the state it's just under 5%. So more than triple the average."
That is a surprising stat. Why do you think that is? Isn't the vacancy rate for rentals usually like below 3%?
What would be a reason that an investor purposefully not rent out their investment property? Are we counting like all the holidays homes that people might occasionally AirBNB out but people are really just buying to retire to at some point? Is there a corner of the country with some market peculiarity causing this behaviour?
"Increases in investors has also not lead to an increased houses . I'm not sure why but that is what the data show."
No it wouldn't, but that's not what I was saying - I was saying more investment properties leads to more rental properties. This will drive down (or prevent the increase) rental prices. The total number of houses overall is determined by the total amount of land that is zoned for residential.
Are we counting like all the holidays homes that people might occasionally AirBNB out but people are really just buying to retire to at some point?
It counted homes based on water usage. Anything below a slowly dripping tap meets the criteria. So unlikely to be Airbnb accommodation.
Apparently a rental knocks about 20k off the selling price because being able to sell straight away is worth that. The other reason could be that some investors would be multi millionaires and the 'small' amount of money for a rental might not be worth their time.
Considering our entire economy is based on construction and mining, if you limit house purchases to owners only, eventually you have no need for more housing, or the need is so slow, considering our piss ant population/growth.
Be careful what you wish for.
considering our piss ant population/growth.
That is why we keep on importing people so they can rent the investment properties. Then these immigrants can afford to buy their own, then they go and buy an IP we import more immigrants to exploit and pay rent.
Net immigration is down
Right now but our property prices have always been propped up by the idea there is population growth and not enough houses. It is all brain washing. Even now it is brain washing.
@netjock: I think immigration won't be as strong and people will start realising this. Immigrants got burnt with the border being closed so they couldn't travel so a fair few have left and they will tell people back home.
It will take a while to reflect in prices
@Tleyx: Don't worry it will be strong because it is all poor economic migrants searching for higher salaries to send back to their families. Rich ones get travel exemptions.
COVID or not they'll be coming. They are hard working people. Not like people here who flunk out and end up working a $45k job and want to buy where they grew up in million dollar suburbs.
Straya: get out, were full!
Defines the term "investor" first, then you will know the question itself is not well-thought, at best.
I think before you ask ", should" we is "can" the government actually do it.
Government can do anything if the will of the people allow it. In reality, we’re not going to get any kind of revolution — consensus almost always results in watered-down reform. Welcome to democracy.
While those of you trying to spread the wealth, lower the gap, equalise everything, in 1-2 generation time, you all will be steamrolled by China from their peak competitiveness. When you have hundreds of millions of people trying to outcompete each other every single day by being smarter, here you got these snowflakes in Western wold trying to drag people down and creating safe spaces, hindering progress, etc. This is a race when one competitor on high gear and the other one is on reverse. Get ready.
Why the hell would you even think China is a good system to replicate?
Who said anything about replicating, I'm just saying we in Western world slows down when they and their citizens are racing.
So we should be racing like the Chinese?
What's the implication here?
No!
Why do people always want to limit people's freedoms!? Goodness me, what you are suggesting is more government control, in a world where we are seeing more an more government micromanagement by the day. …. What you are suggesting is that someone should not be allowed to freely choose to buy a property with the fruits of their labour, and freely agree to let someone else to have use of it (for a relatively small amount of money as a return), so they have somewhere to live without needing hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy in their circumstances.
E.g. it allows houses for people who are just starting out and have no capital so need to rent, or need to live in an area temporarily, or even if they could borrow some people even prefer to rent and investment their cash on the stock market / elsewhere.
Plus, property investment encourages more supply of housing. Often free markets more efficiently provide such things than government housing - that should be a last resort.
shakes head
(And no I don't have an investment property)
Instead of saying ban negative gearing or investment, why can't we have negative gearing allowed for 2 properties only in your lifetime. In this way investors have incentive but not lifelong to screw up the system to their benefit.
Please stop your communists ideas - it doesn't work.
If negative gearing will be scrapped from this kind of investment - prices will go back to affordable level.
I'll never understand the grudge people hold against property investment.
I can only imagine that it's sour grapes.
I can imagine a young couple trying to get out of renting and into their own home would be pretty upset towards some guy who owns multiple homes who's renting those out. Can't buy what isn't for sale.
Some people just want a home to live in without turning it into an "investment".
Me and my girlfriend just bought our first house last year and we're 26 years old. We never had that mentality and seeing people with multiple properties just motivates us to work harder.
Looking forward to purchasing another 4 properties and then retiring.
The key, now that you have your 1st property, is to keep pushing until you get to your 4. If you snooze, the market can get away.
The other thing is that once you have 4, the 5th is pretty easy to get too.
I can understand that, but nobody is stopping them doing that.
Also, there are so many ways to get into property, it's really not that difficult.
Laziness and entitlement is the enemy there.
I earned $32,000 p.a. gross when I bought my first place.
I just bought my first property by myself. No help from anyone (and i was paying rent on my own before that). So not freeloading anywhere with the excuse of saving.
People want their first property in expensive places.
I can't wait to buy my next place.
Ah NO. Love just how much wishful thinking occurs in a conversation like this. You're disconnected from reality if you think that these kind of measures would have the impact you desire AND believe that government action is somehow the solution to any of these kind of issues.
In the context of our cities, the issue is not investment but council zoning imo. If you have Super then you likely already have some money in property investment, and its silly to scapegoat investors who are trying to secure their future. Where there is a problem is where councils allow blocks to be subdivided into high density dwelling in areas that it really shouldn't be. Investors then tend to pay more for an individual property than its worth, knowing that they can build it out and turn a profit. I would target Local Council zoning to correct some of these issues, as I think that has a higher impact on prices than anything else.
Yeah nah, no way.
I want to be successful and then afford investment properties and other things to look after myself and my family.
Witnessing the prevalence of extreme greed in the comments here, just…. wow
Lots of selfish un-Australians living in Australia, making a good buck while many suffer in this pandemic.
No doubt we are not all in this together.
At least not those who got the spare cash to drive up investment property prices, and want to splurge on exotic cars while others do it tough.
That's a curious comment.
Am I understanding you correctly when I say that you believe that, because we're both Australian but I have worked hard, saved my money, got an education, sacrificed, built a lucrative business by navigating the constant challenges it brings but also creating employment and paying taxes, that I am extremely greedy and should help those who sat on their arse despite them never helping me (or indeed anyone?).
Wouldn't that make them extremely entitled?
I earned my way to where I am. Nobody gave me anything ever. While my peers went on holiday twice a year, I worked and saved. While my peers bought nice cars that they couldn't afford, I drove a busted up car which literally had bits held together by sticky tape. When I planned and saved to get my business off the ground, my peers were hitting bars and putting powder up their noses. When I worked 100+ hours a week to build, my peers were working 8:30-5.
Tell me again why anybody else is entitled to my blood, sweat and tears. That's as un-Australian as it gets.
The commenters here need to look at the real problem It's the suppression of wage growth by big business that is making housing unaffordable over time. Many other things have increased in price as well. Gold, shares and many other prices have increased well ahead of housing. It's just inflation.
This is how communism starts.
Why don't we ban all investments? Band shares and crypto. When people make money on the market they have too much expandable income and turn up to auctions bidding above the reserve.
We should also take away any incentive for people to do better, and achieve happiness. These people that go above and beyond end up with too much money and they should be penalized for it.
P.S. Sarcasm.
Don't ban property investors, set the environment so that property isn't such a great investment.
What ya reckon raise interest rates on residential real estate investors to 10-15% would work, and take away negative gearing.
you just got to move out further and upgrade when you can.
There are affordable houses…. but people don't want to live in them or think they're too good to live in them.
A lot comes down to the city. In Sydney even the cheapest houses are not available to people on lower incomes. And not everyone wants to move to Adelaide or Perth - albeit that is a decent option for those who can.
Start in a cheap unit in Sydney then. Can be found under $300K. Many under $350K.Mortgage repay prob under $350 pw. Or if you don't want to live in a cheap place (like I did to get ahead), be greatfull to the landlords that subsidise the more expensive housing by offsetting against their tax.
Im surprised it is possible, but yeh 300k for an older 2 bedder in Liverpool checks out.
Why don't we give everyone a free acre of land ?
In Tas the population size has more or less stayed the same for the past 20 years (currently 540k) while the amount of dwellings available has grown in the same time (now around 240k), yet the cost of housing has been on a crazy high trajectory that whole time. What's driving the demand? It's not population growth.
My MIL tried to buy a 40 acre block of land in the centre of Tas on the weekend as a place to retire in, offered 120k, only to be told that three mainland investors were currently outbidding each other over it and not to bother.
It's pretty shite. I'm all good, got my house plus 1, but I worry about the next generation coming up who'll have no hope. At what point do people start rioting over this?
What's driving the demand? It's not population growth.
People from interstate who looks at it and say "it is cheaper than where I live" and start ploughing in. People are all value investors, but their idea of value is based on their home state prices therefore it looks like value.
As you rightly pointed out population hasn't gone up so it is just these people taking a gamble.
What is the crazy high trajectory though. How does it compare to inflation over say 20-30 years?
No more government programs that heat the market
No more interest only loans
No more tax concessions for investors
Raise rates to neutral rate and stop debasing currency through QE.
Incorporate assets into the official inflation index. Asset inflation is a thing and affects us all.
If all of these took affect, just watch property come crashing down to more affordable levels.
Too bad all of of these environmental factors are with us for the foreseeable future, meaning property will remain unaffordable for the foreseeable future.
Guys,
I don't quite understand the purpose of this thread…
There are plenty of places to buy property that is affordable. Lets take Sydney for example, buy out west, down south, upper north. There are new suburbs being created in the west to provide more housing solutions.
Oh sorry, you want to be near the city, near the water and also make it affordable too right? seriously?
Lets take a step back. Do you know why property has gone up so much in recent times? I'll give you a hint. Economics 101. Look up how much the government has printed money in the last 18 months. How much jobkeeper, jobseeker, incentive schemes were provided to the populace. Do you know how inflation works? you don't simply print this much money without having an adverse impact to the economy. Sure, your groceries aren't that much more expensive but guess what? asset prices have inflated significantly as a result. Not only property but equity markets are at all time high as well. It make sense too. There is so much capital floating around at the moment - it has to go somewhere. Surprise surprise…. property is on that list.
I think the average person thinks COVID has had a negative impact to most people. Let me burst your bubble - it hasn't. I can you tell you most white collar workers have benefited from it. I won't go into my personal situation but I know plenty of peope who are 3-5x more well off because of it. Sad reality of the dispersion of wealth in society. The rich, only get richer.
I concur
I have made so much money during covid via property, crypto and other investments - its embarrassing. Even the cars I own have appreciated. In fact, I feel guilty enough to give a big chunk of it back via donations and food banks
Life is unfair during the best of times and Covid has accentuated that
haha yeah its crazy and a noble gesture by you. Admittedly I haven't given back as much as you no doubt.
I think people don't see this side of society. I can assure everyone that the rich got A WHOLE LOT RICHER in the last 18 months.
Economics 101. Look up how much the government has printed money in the last 18 months. How much jobkeeper, jobseeker, incentive schemes were provided to the populace.
It is what people want you to think. Economics 101 isn't economics 101. It is just over simplified.
The government doesn't print money. The government has to borrow via bonds issued by the treasure. Like all debt it has to be paid back.
Printing money is the reserve bank, which is independent of the government. The billions created as part of QE is used to buy government bonds on the markets (which all the interest payments by the government is given back as dividends), the 0.1% lending facility to the banks which made it into property depends on having credit worthy borrowers (who can pay the money back).
The inability to travel international have trapped $60bn to be spent locally within Australia, a lot of that also made it into property.
Problem with any assets is prices are set by the last sale price but not all of the assets can exist at the same value. If you think about property prices. For example Commonwealth bank shares if the last transaction was at $100 then it is the implied value of all shares. But if all shareholders was to sell at once you won't get anywhere near $100.
a couple of things in response.
1) perpetual debt pretty much means no debt at all. For example, if I owe you $100 and promised to pay you back next year with interest. You would chase me for it next year. But if I owe you $100m dollars, $1Bn, whats the point. i'm never going to pay you back. Thats the issue at the moment, so much debt has been created but its never going to paid back within our generation.
2) Your $60Bn cash trapped domestically I concur with and I have seen this statistic too but we're effectively saying the same thing. If everyone's wealth has "increased", its inflation. Guess what, asset prices have to go up because the guy that makes less than me suddenly has more money but so do I. In a simple example, we both compete for the same property, what do you think happens.
3) lower interest rates have also helped right. Its lower than prior years so makes it more affordable for the populace.
Bottom line is, asset prices have to be higher than prior unless a black swan event happens like WW3.
1) perpetual debt pretty much means no debt at all.
Politicians don't care. You know the saying about spending other people's money right? You can spend other people's money very easily. If it was your money you wouldn't waste it like that.
2) Your $60Bn cash trapped domestically I concur with and I have seen this statistic too but we're effectively saying the same thing. If everyone's wealth has "increased", its inflation.
Actually not. If you couldn't spend $10k on a holiday and put it against a property you need to borrow $40k (80% LVR) along with the other 1m people who didn't take a holiday and put it into the housing market. Everyone has an extra $10k of equity and $40k of debt. Those who get in first make more in theory but taking out the timing aspects of it, it is just people playing the game. If I got in at start of the year with $10k and $40k loan and it goes up 20% in 12 months before you get in. I made $10k of paper profit. But I can't really spend it.
3) lower interest rates have also helped right.
and a lot of people have signed 30 year loans. Government is going to come to us for money in form of higher taxes which is a defacto rate risk (takes money out of the economy). I just don't see interest rates going up at all. Can't see banks taking from mortgage holders and the government taking more in taxes and people surviving.
@netjock: I think you missed my point in 2)
If we all feel more wealthy, then we all have the ability to pay more for the same property all else being equal. That naturally drives property prices up. It’s effectively short term inflation.
I think you missed my point in 2)
You have a point.
It is the false sense of wealth central bankers and governments have used to keep the consumer economy going. Theory is that if you go and buy property then you'll go and buy furniture to go into it therefore it is good for retailers and also good for construction industry because an extra house purchased there must be an extra one built elsewhere to replace the perpetual demand for property. It is the cheap way out.
Without any meaningful industry that provide jobs on a perpetual basis trying to create jobs that only lasts 12 months (time it costs to build a house) and that house stands for 30 years minimum is just foolish. To also believe people will buy goods made overseas to furnish the house to give the sales person a job is also foolish.
Interesting fact I read the other day is half of the world's solar panels installed uses a version of technology developed at University of NSW, that is the kind of thing we should be looking at.
we should ban negative gearing first
That would only be fair if you ban claiming the cost of other investments as well like buying shares, running a business etc. Do you think it would be fair for people to deduct the cost of their investment from the taxable eventual profit though. If so what is the difference then. The only problem I see is that I think there is no capital gains tax on bequeathed investment properties.
wait are you saying I can claim my education on tax as it is the biggest profit maker out of anything I will ever get my hands on?, deductions should be removed on investments unless we raise the tax on profits from investments X10
It feels as if people buying them up are so rich that they can just afford to take the risk, and if you look at the charts you'd find that there was actually no risk involved as prices have grown significantly. It's gotten to a point where people can add another investment property on with the knowledge, rather than risk, that in time their investments will pay off.
Wealthy people can at least afford to take a risk, where as others do not even have the option to take that risk.
There always exists risk. There are plenty of cases where people have lost money on property investing. You just don't read about it much on the media because it does not play to their narrative.
Wealthy people have been poor at one point, which is when they took a risk.
Most property investors own 1-2 properties and are on a taxable income of $80k. They've taken risks.
Can't change tax laws like negative gearing etc just for ip. Although I own a ip myself, going forward perhaps there should be a recurring annual levy on ip , similar to stamp duty.
Start at 2%, gradually change it to 5% of the value of the property. That may deter people from buying property as an investment.
And it should be 4-10% for anyone with more than 1 ip.
i agree
Capitalism is failing. We're killing the environment, GDP per capita has fallen over the last few years, and it started before covid…. The wealth gap is widening.
This will ultimately lead to an apocalyptic wasteland. Not in our lifetimes, but think of our children's children.
Australian families need to start building Generational Wealth if you want to "think of our children's children". Therefore, you can't just kick out your kids from home when 18+ years but prepare them with plan and financial knowledge.
Yes, and there's a good argument that generational wealth made is what makes us a successful species and allows us to survive. The drive to leave progeny with improved circumstances. Accumulating assets, tools, knowledge over time and passing them on is what distinguishes humans.
However the redistribution of wealth through socialism has stopped this trait having a fast track into the genepool.
generational wealth made is what makes us a successful species and allows us to survive
Don't think cave people survived because they kept a lot of gold bars or crypto.
It is actually intellectual property and know how. Generations seem to care for their descendants by wealth accumulation (ie Rupert Murdoch and his money) rather than giving them intellectual property and know how to be successful (Bill Gates is only giving a few million to his kids).
This is exactly the problem with society. We're pilling up wealth in current dollars at expense of the environment. Like they say, you can have all the money in the world but it isn't going to make the crops grow when the farm land turns into the desert.
System needs to change but that would be when people stop giving more money to those who don't need it (the rich) or alternatively the rich realise it is better for them to spend most of their wealth (billions) and only leaving maybe $100m to their kids rather than $10 billion. Because the $10bn circulating in the economy.
@netjock: You realise the actual topic is wealth in housing, not crypto. And yes good shelter was very valuable to survival and the skills to possess it would have been a key evolutionary driver.
You realise the actual topic is wealth in housing, not crypto.
Cave people didn't survive because they had an investment cave. It is passing down of intellectual property (how to make tools, improvements / inventions passed down). Not because they had a stock pile of caves.
@netjock: I guess you've managed to narrow down the evolution of humanity to just one specific thing. I'll get that nobel prize sorted for you.
"you can't just kick out your kids from home when 18+" Dumbest thing to do IMO. 30 years ago maybe. Not now.
Capitalism is fine, crony capitalism is ruining the world.
But this is better than Socialism.
Who are you to dictate who I can/cannot sell my house to?
All they need to do is change capital gains tax( CGT ) slightly.
If you have more than 1 property you own and don't reside in, then you loose your 50% CGT discount if the property is over 3 years old when purchased, or if over 3 years old and you don't spend at least $75,000 on refurbishments before you sell it.
That way investors add actual value to properties via building new homes, or renovating existing homes. They make money from producing/improving living spaces rather buying and reselling for more.
also rental properties should have alot more minimums set to them, like solar and grey water and a tax fine for every year that a rental property doesn't meet the standards
Only Australian citizens and permanent residents should be allowed to buy investment properties. No overseas investors.
Each investor is limited to one investment property.
Land size of two countries is not comparable, enough said.
Yes, I believe housing is a human right, and it shouldn't be an investment, so you should own only properties you plan to live in. Renting should be possible through public housing offered through the government that does not need to chase profits.
Sadly, that will never happen in Australia with the current mindset.