Do You Agee with The Greens 2 Year Rent Freeze

Trying2SaveABuck on 31/07/2023 - 21:08
Last edited 31/07/2023 - 21:11

So there is a 'real' possibility of a double disolution at the ALP try to push there housing affordability fund which they believe is a partial solution to the housing crisis

'Labor has just 26 of the 76 Senate spots and believes it could win two or three extra Senate seats with a double dissolution.'

The Greens do not believe the bill goes far enough and they are 'demanding the government spend $2.5 billion a year on housing and pay the states to implement a nationwide freeze or capping of rents. The government says the former is unaffordable and the latter unconstitutional.'

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/full-term-double-dissol…

The LNP has some what broke up as Bridget Archer has broken ranks and offered her vote in support of the ALP Bill potentially other MPs will as well
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/liberal-rebel-splits-wi…

personally - i am 100 percent behind this bill passing i think the idea of a rent freeze will do more harm then good and i do believe this bill will help some Australians, id like to see bipartisen support from the two majors the Greens are asking for too much. However i acknowledge im not a 'renter' and some renters will be feeling the cost of living pinch so much they might be on the verge of homelessness and they are looking for the Greens/LNP to push for a better deal to help them. I also acknowledged im in a wealthy enough position to not 'worry' about cost of living and that some voters would feel incredbiliy let down by the way the ALP have left them to struggle without much/if any support and any more cost pressures will see them hit breaking point.

Poll Options

  • 160
    Yes Freeze the rent for 2 years
  • 762
    No do not Freeze rents it not a practical solution
  • 25
    I dont know
Home & Garden

Comments

    • ForkSnorter on 01/08/2023 - 15:01
      -6

      You would have to concede that if rents rose too much eventually there would need to be a freeze, wouldn't you? At a certain point, people would be starving.

      In my opinion, landlords have got their cake and are eating it too. By buying up all the properties, they are putting more pressure on the housing market, thereby increasing the value of their own stock, thereby pushing house ownership out of the range of people on lower incomes (and taking more properties off the market) and forcing them to rent.

      Meanwhile the increasing number of people who can't afford to buy a house (partly because of low stock and investors pushing up prices) and increasing immigration rates are putting pressure on the rental market, pushing up rental prices too.

      Meanwhile, you can claim all your costs on your tax, and any loss you're making via interest on your mortgage can be claimed on your tax courtesy of taxpayers.

      • Panzer04 on 01/08/2023 - 19:04
        +3

        You're assuming an absurd situation to justify it. Prices can only rise so much before demand falls below supply and they stop rising.

        • ForkSnorter on 02/08/2023 - 06:26
          +1

          How could demand fall below supply with a rapidly growing population and insufficient housing development? Prices can rise until people can't pay and decide to camp in the wilderness or the government steps in. Price doesn't dictate demand. Necessity dictates demand.

          • pogichinoy on 02/08/2023 - 11:31
            -1

            @ForkSnorter: Income of renters in the rental market dictates price.

            • ForkSnorter on 02/08/2023 - 11:34
              +1

              @pogichinoy: Competition for limited supply of housing dictates price. In some places in Australia, there are hundreds applying for a single rental property, and rent has risen up to 50% in 2 years.

              • pogichinoy on 03/08/2023 - 00:14
                +1

                @ForkSnorter: You may have forgotten but also rent has dropped as much as 50% or more in the last 3 years.

                Prices are still recovering in many parts.

          • trapper on 02/08/2023 - 11:59
            +1

            @ForkSnorter:

            with a rapidly growing population and insufficient housing development

            It won't help to further decrease housing development. Which is what will happen if you remove investors from the market.

            • ForkSnorter on 02/08/2023 - 15:59

              @trapper: Data shows the majority of investors purchase established properties.

              • trapper on 02/08/2023 - 18:26
                +2

                @ForkSnorter: Because there are a hundred times more establish properties in Australia than there are new builds.

                We need to build more houses not less.

                • ForkSnorter on 03/08/2023 - 07:35
                  +1

                  @trapper:

                  We need to build more houses not less.

                  Correct grammar is: "We need to build more houses not fewer".

                  A house is a countable noun. "Less" is used for uncountable nouns like milk or dirt. Fewer houses, less dirt.

                  • franco cozzo on 03/08/2023 - 07:54
                    -1

                    @ForkSnorter: grammar nazis aint cool yall

                    • ForkSnorter on 03/08/2023 - 08:05
                      +1

                      @franco cozzo: Quite a few people don't know this. I'll be happy if this reaches some people and helps improve their knowledge of grammar.

                      • trapper on 03/08/2023 - 15:20
                        +1

                        @ForkSnorter:

                        Correct grammar is: "We need to build more houses not fewer".

                        That's not even correct grammar, you are missing a comma. lol

                        • ForkSnorter on 04/08/2023 - 07:22

                          @trapper: Please show me the grammar rule stating that a comma is needed here. Haha. Anyway, I just copied and pasted your text.

          • nujee on 04/08/2023 - 05:51

            @ForkSnorter: Fun fact- when you claim the loss on tax you are only claiming the taxable component of the loss, not the entire amount. And when someone claims the kids they are in affect subsidising the house for someone else to live in; you are making less money than it costs to hold the house even after the rent, so you dip into your own pocket to pay for a portion of it along with the government. End result- the tenant has a roof…you’re welcome.

            • ForkSnorter on 04/08/2023 - 07:30

              @nujee:

              you are making less money than it costs to hold the house even after the rent, so you dip into your own pocket to pay for a portion of it along with the government.

              "hold the house", you mean pay your mortgage (with help from the government, i.e. taxpayers). End result, you get to own a house and pay less than a first home buyer would.

              End result- the tenant has a roof…you’re welcome.

              End result, you have also taken a house off the market, reducing the supply of houses, and forcing one more person (family) to rent. It even outs.

              • nujee on 05/08/2023 - 07:49

                @ForkSnorter: Like I’ve posted before- it’s not just the mortgage costs people pay. There is home insurance, rates and a host of internet expenses that come with owning a home. There is one to one to say that is an investor sells, a home owner will buy- I purchased a house with a tenant in it.

                Proper investors are not altruistic people doing something or nothing in return but they are also not the devil that the politicians and media make them out to be just because hate sells and it’s politically convenient right now dump on one group in society.

          • Name on 05/08/2023 - 00:48

            @ForkSnorter: Demand can reduce as people start moving to shared accommodation to reduce costs / share the costs amongst a larger group. During covid there was a movement towards smaller households as everyone wanted their own space. The metrics are showing this is now reversing as people move back to shared housing / move back in with parents. I remember when I was a teenager sharing a house with 3 others, and most of my friends did the same. It took rent from $200pw for one person to $50pw each. Much more manageable.

    • TightLikeThisx on 01/08/2023 - 18:51

      "Why only punish the landlords."

      Because it is expensive for the governments to have to deal with homeless people and they only make up 20% of the population.

    • freedoom on 01/08/2023 - 19:15

      let the renters suffer, when they run out of money then the landlords will fold too

    • jatbinks on 02/08/2023 - 13:48
      -2

      Because landlords are prime scum of Australia

  • cauilfield on 31/07/2023 - 21:35
    +12

    the price is dictated by two things: supply and demand. To lower the rental price one would need to

    a) Increase supply by building more

    or

    b) Decrease supply

    Rent Freeze won't really do anything, as the LL will try to find a way to kick out tenants at the end of the term to get new, higher yielding ones in.

    • payton on 31/07/2023 - 21:49
      +5

      combine it with another eviction moratorium :D

      • cauilfield on 31/07/2023 - 21:53
        +3

        LL can always evict on the grounds of them moving into their property and claiming this as their PPR; A month later - oops they changed their mind. How's that?

        • Crow K on 01/08/2023 - 09:07
          -2

          Works great for landlords that only have one property, sure

      • ssfps on 31/07/2023 - 23:03
        +17

        Landlords refusing to lease out properties at a fair price falsely reduces the supply, which falsely increases demand, and then prices randomly increase for an area until people think it’s the price.

        You think that's a real effect? There have always been vacant properties sitting around. A lot of them aren't landlord trying to form a cartel, but are from people that don't want the headache of renting out when
        1) tenants might trash the place (happens all the time)
        2) tenants might refuse to leave and it may take you 6 months + to finally get them evicted + removed
        3) laws may change on a dime and prevent you from evicting/ non-renewing a lease.

        I have a friend that bought a place to live in and allowed the current renter to stay for a month or two to give them time to look for another place. Huge mistake, it took a long court battle and 7 months to get them out of the house, and for their kindness the tenant trashed the place.

        • miicah on 01/08/2023 - 12:45
          +8

          people that don't want the headache of renting out

          Why even own property then? Just invest in something else. A house's primary function is to house people, what did they expect when investing in real estate?

          • MrFunSocks on 01/08/2023 - 13:09

            @miicah: You're assuming that they bought a second property just to sit there empty, which no one other than rich people do with their holiday homes.

            People inherit houses. People move houses but might not have the money to afford 10/20/$30k to bring their old place up to scratch in order to rent it out, so it's easier to just leave it there empty and hold on to it.

          • TightLikeThisx on 01/08/2023 - 19:02
            +6

            @miicah: This is the heart of the issue. The government has allowed or even encouraged the primary function of housing to be transformed from a means of shelter into a financial asset.

          • supersabroso on 03/08/2023 - 11:00
            +1

            @miicah: This is exactly the problem with Australia! Too many negative gearing benefits & 50% capital gains discounts. Rich people are buying up all the property and the poor are left to be rent slaves/homeless because their houses were bought by people who don't need it. They only bought it because it benefits their bank accounts artificially, subsidised by the tax payer in a way that no other country has.

      • brendanm on 01/08/2023 - 11:48

        I agree comrade, they should provide the housing for free.

    • ssfps on 31/07/2023 - 22:59
      +12

      Well said, it's pretty simple.

      If we stop taking immigrants for a few years the "rental crisis" will entirely disappear, although plenty of people will be grumpy their houses haven't inflated another $50k equity in that time.

      • Ade99 on 01/08/2023 - 07:37
        +2

        Immigrants , like a lot of the population will be cashed up and looking to buy. This drives demand for buying which cascades into extra demand for renting.

      • FlyingMiffy on 01/08/2023 - 17:29
        +3

        Was wondering when the immigrant comments would come! I'd happily take an immigrant willing to take on any job over someone lining up for a handout because working for maccas is beneath them.

        • jellykingdom on 02/08/2023 - 11:07
          +2

          Not maccas. But Petrol stations, Ubereats, Uber. Ever met a non-immigrant doing those jobs?

        • ssfps on 02/08/2023 - 18:18
          +2

          You're right, talking about immigration should be taboo, along with believing in supply and demand affecting house prices.

          What we really need is a highly complex analysis that further obfuscates simple economic truths, then some ineffectual posturing from various political parties about how to "solve" it without changing the basic rules of the game.

      • TightLikeThisx on 01/08/2023 - 19:08
        -1

        The real issue is lack of long term vision by the government which is to blame because of the short elections cycles.

        We have an aging population that is living longer and longer so the only way to dig ourselves out of this situation is to grow the population but since it's already so expensive to raise a family the only option is immigration. Otherwise enjoy your cheap rental without medicare, the pension and a declining Super balance.

        • LVlahov on 01/08/2023 - 23:10
          +1

          Imported people grow old too. What you support is a ponzi scheme.

        • markathome on 01/08/2023 - 23:37

          Mostly agree. Be happy to have high immigration with intelligent, fearless and talented politicians in parliament. But the latter seems like a pipe dream, so I have to agree with those who say cap immigration.

      • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 09:47
        -1

        Is that why it disappeared after the Australian border closures during COVID?

        • ssfps on 02/08/2023 - 18:19
          +1

          Did you forget about the money printers going mad in that time? If you mint fresh cash, hand it to people to buy houses and charge them no interest for it, yeah that's going to increase prices.

      • jrowls on 02/08/2023 - 18:21
        +1

        That’s absurd. Why would the market suddenly supply enough or a surplus of housing just because demand decreased?

        New housing is constructed when developers can achieve a profit margin.

        A decrease in demand lowers sale prices, but insanely high land value and pretty high construction costs don’t change just because sale price goes down. The only outcome is that dwellings with thinner margins would simply not be developed.

        I really don’t know how land value or construction costs can be decreased significantly. As it stands, the market is simply unable and unwilling to supply housing at or near the level demanded. Such is life in the neoliberal economy!

        What’s needed is a much higher proportion of housing being public - not just for the destitute and desperate. Market housing can then be the purview of those willing to compete for housing for their particular desires or location.

        • ssfps on 02/08/2023 - 23:53
          +2

          Why would there be more of a scarce resource available when demand on that resource decreases.

          You're joking right?

          Stopping immigration results in a decrease in population over time (look at the fertility rate). Less population, less demand on housing. Within a few years there would quickly be a surplus of houses and prices would fall.

          • jrowls on 04/08/2023 - 11:31

            @ssfps: I'm not joking at all!

            So just to preface this, I am in the industry. I understand feasibility and urban planning pretty well.

            My position statement is:
            1. We have a structural deficit of housing.
            2. Market forces seek to maintain that deficit at whatever rate of demand.

            Now, I want to tackle these comments around growth in the first instance. I work with demographics every day and it's complicated.

            Firstly, I don't think it's a safe assumption to say that if we cut immigration to zero, we would have immediate and sustained negative population growth. I think that governments would be extremely concerned with that outcome and would try their best to prevent it. A very slow (and decreasing) rate of negative growth would be my bet.

            Secondly, raw growth in population is not that only factor that determines growth in housing demand. Locational factors are important of course, but so is household size. Household size has generally been reducing across the country and would do so at a higher rate without immigration (as immigrant households tend to be significantly larger for various reasons). This would also reduce the likelihood that overall demand would decrease - if you have the same total population at a smaller average household size, you need more dwellings for that population.

            Now, onto the supply and demand stuff again.

            Why would there be more of a scarce resource available when demand on that resource decreases.

            On this comment, it's a massive oversimplification. And housing isn't a resource, it's a product.

            If we had a genuinely zero growth situation in housing demand (through stable household size and zero population growth (or negative growth)), we would still not see a surplus of housing or a fall in prices. Land value would not decrease significantly as it is limited by supply and would still be spurred by speculation, though some areas would definitely lose significant value if they had been seen as future housing areas. None of the other input costs would move in any direction other than up due to shortage of workers/materials.

            The equation remains the same. Developers will not build more housing unless they can secure a margin. That margin is predicated on a shortage of supply. The way our housing market is structured relies on a deficit. If your input costs are the same but you project lower sale prices due to decreased demand, that means your margin disappears. One you hit that theoretical point of zero housing demand growth, supply will not be added. Occasional exceptions due to changes in demand by location would occur, or perhaps some operators would take risks at more marginal projects. Others might come up with a method where they can reduce an input cost far enough to get a margin back, but it's difficult to imagine how they could do that without affecting sale price.

            • ssfps on 05/08/2023 - 01:39

              @jrowls:

              If we had a genuinely zero growth situation in housing demand (through stable household size and zero population growth (or negative growth)), we would still not see a surplus of housing or a fall in prices. Land value would not decrease significantly

              absolute codswallop

              To illustrate how wrong this is, take it to a semi-extreme and halve the population. Now what happens to the cost of a house?
              This doesn't even need to be armageddon, look at any areas with ongoing reduction of population, such as farming areas with long-term population decrease due to increased mechanization/automation. In some towns houses trended down (CPI adjusted) for decades, because more people left town than wanted to move to town. During covid lockdowns when more people wanted to move to rural towns, they saw quite significant and sudden increases in price.
              Melbourne or wherever isn't some special case where econ 101 stops being entirely relevant.

              I'm well aware there are subtleties at play, but while you believe those subtleties are important (bias due to being too close to the trees?), I strongly maintain that's crap - they are mostly irrelevant and the overall generalization gives a better view, and most of the effects we have seen for decades can be adequately explained by a simpler model of supply & demand.

              • pogichinoy on 07/08/2023 - 20:06

                @ssfps: It's not just a matter of population.

                But with supply and demand, it's supply of credit.

                e.g. if there are 1 million homes, and 1 million people, if the bank will not lend some of them the money to buy any of those homes, those people who cannot borrow and buy will be renting.

          • nujee on 05/08/2023 - 13:28

            @ssfps: Correct. But there needs to be a balance- the immigration tap needs to stay open but probably not as much as it is right now. This pace is unsustainable and I am a property investor saying this. Our moral obligation is not to provide for everyone who holds their hand out but the system should not be so pegged against poor people that they can’t afford to live

            • ssfps on 05/08/2023 - 21:35

              @nujee: Why do you think we need immigration? All the reasons given by politicians over the years have been bullshit, as anybody can plainly see by the fact they are still kvetching about those problems after 30 years of high immigration, if anything the original problems are merely worse. If immigration solved their "labor shortage", why are we at all time high shortages? Perhaps you can construct some theoretical scenario where some form of immigration solves some problem, but that's not corroborated by any actual evidence, it's pure theory.

              All immigration does is contribute to continued globalization, which necessitates putting everyone in the world on the same level playing field. Of course, when you have much of the worlds population in comparative poverty, this necessarily means we are all on the road to relative poverty and much lower standards of living. If equality is more important to someone, then kudos, but most people are neurotically in denial about two conflicting beliefs - that we need global equality and trade and free immigration, and average Australians should maintain a high standard of living, being able to afford homes, etc.

              • nujee on 06/08/2023 - 09:32
                +1

                @ssfps: Honestly I haven't looked at the political narratives around it. I am more looking at it from a socioeconomic level and for the record- I think immigration is the bandaid wound because no one will tackle the real problem(s) at hand: low fertility-

                1. Our cost of living is significantly out of whack that despite being on relatively high incomes, less and less people can afford to have a child- which is fueling a fertility crisis.
                2. We are continuously consuming things that actually negatively impact fertility as well- no one holds big firms to account to see if what they are putting in our products is actually harmful or not- this is everything from the way we farm to what goes into the pharmaceuticals
                3. This is fertility but successive governments have just kicked the housing supply can down the road; we would have a shortage even if we didn't have a massive immigration but it would have no ways been this bad.

                Both these contribute to an ageing crises akin to what is happening in Japan. If we want to avoid it- we need to import more people. Ofcourse the right steps would be to to tackle 1-2 but that's in the too hard basket.

                • ssfps on 06/08/2023 - 17:35

                  @nujee: I somewhat agree with your points, except I think you're putting the cart before the horse re fertility.
                  I agree there are plenty of endocrine disruptors in our houses and food, and other agents that are likely affecting our fertility, but I think one of the biggest factors is stress. People are under more economic and social stress are less fertile - both biologically (hormonal) and due to economic planning (psycho/social).
                  So, really, to tackle the fertility problem we need to improve the standard of living, not the other way around. (…and eat less pesticides and have less plastics in the house, etc).

                  despite being on relatively high incomes

                  That's the thing - calculating inflation on real necessities like housing and food, our incomes are far lower than they were decades ago, we're continually getting a lower income for necessities while being able to more easily afford trinkets, so on paper our average inflation "looks like" ~2%. So if low fertility is partly due to financial stress, and the financial stress is coming from increased population and decreased currency value (money creation), a good part of low fertility then comes back to immigration and the fiat money printers.

                  Both these contribute to an ageing crises akin to what is happening in Japan.

                  I don't actually believe there is an "ageing crisis" as it's commonly framed, and IMO the dynamics of the different sized age cohorts could be made healthy without importing more people.

                  • nujee on 07/08/2023 - 09:12

                    @ssfps: Interesting debate. I'll have to think about this a little more but I appreciate the different perspective. Overall though I think we agree- this current approach is not working and we are living in a society where there is no balance. The whole reason the wife and I got an IP is to simply give my child a chance of owning a home or having a house when they are older which doesn't have the full amount left to pay on it (if I don't manage to sort it out before my time is up).

                    It's not to get rich and flaunt a lavish lifestyle- if anything it impacts our current lifestyle but it's a sacrifice we will have to make if we want to see them with a roof on their heads and even then it might not be enough.

                    • ssfps on 07/08/2023 - 19:52

                      @nujee: That sounds like a good move. If i'm ever in a position to buy an IP for my kids, i'll be doing that too - unless there is a drastic change in society (for the better) I doubt the next generation will have much of a middle class left at all, and most without inheritance/support won't be buying a home.

    • CommuterPolluter on 01/08/2023 - 18:45

      supply is artifically lowered by speculation of housing price

  • [Deactivated] on 31/07/2023 - 22:09
    +20

    I feel like this will just be another “renters vs landlords” thread.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 31/07/2023 - 22:10
      +25

      if i posted this on r/australia id get a life ban for not being a communist….

      • Sal in SA on 31/07/2023 - 22:15
        +3

        AT least r/AusFinance has less riffraff.

        • CommanderCrumbcake on 31/07/2023 - 22:25
          +8

          It’s getting pretty bad.

          r/FIAustralia seems to have the best discourse on actual finance and investment.

          • echelon6 on 01/08/2023 - 11:05
            +1

            @CommanderCrumbcake: maybe a few years ago - all the ausfinance noobs are moving over to fiaustralia asking questions that really belong in a personalfinance type sub

        • AMLagonda on 02/08/2023 - 23:30

          they are the high end riff raff… still complain the same way

      • initiateit on 01/08/2023 - 19:28
        +2

        Yeah funny lot over there. Say anything remotely pro landlord and the cockroaches mash that downvote button.

    • Forth on 02/08/2023 - 02:12
      +1

      The Government (State and FED) love pitting people against each, it takes onus of blame from them (the bureaucrats) because the damage is due to over taxation.
      In the end over taxation means, no one owns property in the end because we ALL end up renting off the Government regardless.
      It's that one "Simple trick" that Green love to exploit because it works, that until no one has any money and the investors flee. Just like Cuba.

      We get these “renters vs landlords” threads, because most people never learn, nothing is EVER free. Free is never really free.
      It has to be paid back some how, this axiom can never be evaded.

      • SpainKing on 02/08/2023 - 11:57
        -5

        You're speaking a little crazy right now. The government does encourage us to have petty squabbles about what day to celebrate our country and whether gays should marry but it's not to sneak higher tax rates in under the rug. When anything to do with taxes comes up, people/corporations go ballistic (eg. Carbon tax, capital gains tax, stage three tax cuts, Medicare levy)

        The least I've seen people get riled up over taxes is when Australia decided to pursue the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research (CICTAR) which the rest of the world seems to think is pretty cool and commends us for

        So in that sense yes the government is trying to get more taxes, but from corporations purposefully abusing the system to give nothing back to our economy. If they paid their fair share we might not need such high taxes

        • Forth on 13/08/2023 - 23:02
          • "You're speaking a little crazy right now"

          Real crazy I can spend my own money with more efficiency than any Government department can, crazy right?!

          • "yes the government is trying to get more taxes, but from corporations purposefully abusing the system"

          'Abusing the system' = Doing your moral obligation to reduce ones tax, is tax evasion in your eyes. OMG hilarious.

          • SpainKing on 15/08/2023 - 13:21
            -2

            @Forth:

            Real crazy I can spend my own money with more efficiency than any Government department can, crazy right?!

            When it comes to running the country I'm pretty sure the government outperforms your spending choices. Unless you want to set up all your own roads, power lines, hospitals, garbage collection systems etc.

            Blaming the Greens when the only power they have is colluding with the LNP to stop meaningful reform is a little crazy. So is stating that the government wants to take everyone's money so they can't buy houses. Countries want a good GDP and if people can't afford to buy houses homelessness will go up, productivity will fall and this will coincide with a drop in GDP which means less money for the government/country than if they hadn't taken everyones' money

            'Abusing the system' = Doing your moral obligation to reduce ones tax, is tax evasion in your eyes. OMG hilarious

            If Rupert Murdoch's moral obligation is to pay $0 in tax when he had an income of $1.6 billion he must be first in line at the pearly gates

            Maybe BP are the saints in your eyes with $17 billion in income but no tax paid

            Chevron earned $113 million in profit off $9 billion in income and paid $30 in tax

            If all these companies are so poor at managing their money that they make no profit every year even with their accountants that get paid millions of dollars, I think the government could spend it better. Better than you even. Or maybe they're abusing the system

            • Forth on 16/08/2023 - 21:16

              @SpainKing: "If Rupert Murdoch…"

              Give it a rest with conspiracy theories Alex Jones your blocked!

              • SpainKing on 16/08/2023 - 23:09
                -1

                @Forth: That reply is so ironic and funny. I'll miss your downvotes 😔

  • tsunamisurfer on 31/07/2023 - 22:14
    -1

    Anything that comes from the Socialist Greens is an awful idea.

    Overall Rent Freeze is a bad idea.

    ALL Renters understood that their cost of accomodation can go up and down the day they chose to be renters. Same deal for owners and mortgage repayments.

    You cannot all of a sudden just have the good times (pre-COVID rents had dropped 20% to $360 from their previous high $450 in WA) and then spit the dummy when it goes the other way.

    Rents will normalise when demand drops off and supply catches up, it always has. Everyone just needs to let that happen organically.
    Eastern States attempts at helping renters which in the end hurt renters.

    1) Ending No Cause evictions in periodic agreement - the Queensland REA's rightly issued every new tenant with a notice to vacate upon a new lease (at lease end), thereby greatly reducing the chance of a properly negotiated renewal.

    2) Limit the amount of rent increases - Again tenants were told that the agreement will not be renewed from the beginning so they will have to leave, that way the LL can find a better tenant in 6 months.

    Tenants want to play games, so can the other side.

    • MrMcHairyHead on 01/08/2023 - 09:24
      +15

      Nobody 'chooses' to be a renter. People aren't born with enough money to buy a house. In fact, even a financially responsible person with a full time job can't afford a house anymore. Landlords shouldn't be able to just charge whatever they want.

      • Scantu on 01/08/2023 - 11:19
        +13

        I'm choosing to be a renter currently? So… that's wrong.

        Landlords can't charge whatever they want. The market dictates what they're able to charge.

        • dmac on 03/08/2023 - 11:15

          How do you feel about price gouging during extreme events i.e. charging $200 for a bottle of clean water - are you happy for people to exploit free market for essential life items (home and water). Covid an extreme event, undeniably increased rents beyond normal and home owners have not had the same increase in costs - therefore it's the same type of price gouging as stated at the start of this post. Surely there has to be a middle-ground not just "free market".

          • Scantu on 03/08/2023 - 12:36
            +3

            @dmac: So who should get it then, in your opinion? What's your alternative to the $200 bottle of water, are you just going to wave your wand and all of a sudden the supply/demand issue is fixed?

            Opinions like yours are just lofty BS - It's very easy to sit there and simplistically say "well everything should just be fine and dandy" but you need to provide an actual solution. If there is a limited supply, yes, price goes up. You can't break the laws of thermodynamics here, as nice as it would be. If you could I'd be on board with you.

            increased rents beyond normal

            No - they didn't. They increased exactly as much as people were willing to pay for them given the demand, which is highly normal.

      • tsunamisurfer on 01/08/2023 - 11:39
        +10

        Nobody 'chooses' to be a renter.

        Yes they do. There is no cosmic chocolate wheel that one spins and determines your financial status. YOU are in charge of your financial position.

        People aren't born with enough money to buy a house.

        I was born with 'not enough' money to buy a house. I had to ……you know, plan for it, budget for it, work for it. Things grown adults do.

        Landlords shouldn't be able to just charge whatever they want.

        Landlords cannot charge whatever they want, why do people even think this?

        If a Landlord has repayments of $1000 a week and the market rent is $750, they cannot demand $1000 (successfully).

        Rent is determined by the market, NOT the LL's interest rates, NOT greed, NOT Anthony Albanese.

      • gromit on 01/08/2023 - 12:36
        +8

        Bullshit, many people choose to rent. Hell I have friends that own multiple properties but choose to rent themselves.

        • ssfps on 01/08/2023 - 12:45
          +7

          You and a few repliers to MrMcHairyHead are being obtuse. Of course some people choose to rent - but the vast majority of renters do so because they are locked out of the housing market. Financial success and the diminishing ability to buy a house is simply not attainable for every hard worker.
          I'm not in favor of more regulations which will only (profanity) everyone further, but it's ludicrous to defend the current situation by saying "renters chose this".

          • gromit on 01/08/2023 - 12:48

            @ssfps: not being obtuse. the OP stated "Nobody 'chooses' to be a renter. " that simply is false. you can say most people don't choose to rent. Not suggesting the current shit show that is rental market is right or good, it is a disaster created by lack of supply for which both federal and state and local government is responsible for.

            • ssfps on 01/08/2023 - 13:21
              +1

              @gromit: There was enough context from his post to deduce he's talking about the huge majority of renters that don't own property and must rent, not the few % with bags of cash that like to rent, or people renting out their PPOR while renting elsewhere for work.

              • gromit on 01/08/2023 - 13:42
                -2

                @ssfps: or the 10's of thousands that like the ability to move or those that work in jobs that are highly mobile or those that simply don't want the responsibility of being financially responsible for a house. It is not just the rich that make that choice.

            • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 09:49
              -1

              @gromit: Congratulations, you picked apart their hyperbole. Solid argument

      • MrFunSocks on 01/08/2023 - 13:11
        +6

        Nobody 'chooses' to be a renter.

        Lots of people absolutely choose to be a renter. They like the "not tied down" lifestyle. They like being able to move anywhere at any time. They like not having a huge mortgage hanging over their head.

      • RiseAndRuin on 01/08/2023 - 13:12
        +1

        Nobody 'chooses' to be a renter.

        What's stopping them from living with their parents?

        • SpainKing on 02/08/2023 - 12:00
          -1

          Could be Batman

      • Deridas on 01/08/2023 - 20:24
        +1

        MrMcHairyHead, there are many places in the world where lifelong renting is a real option - in Europe for example.

        As others have said, some may wish to rent to not be tied down, some like to rent-vest, and some people would rather rent and wait for the market to drop before entering…

        There are most definitely a lot of people who "choose" to be a renter. I definitely did for many years.

      • Forth on 02/08/2023 - 02:23
        +2

        You do choose.
        There is free will and you do have choices.

        Even swatting is a choice. I'm not recommending it.
        The point I'm saying there is always a choice, like you reading this post.

      • garddn on 17/08/2023 - 11:04
        +2

        Landlords absolutely should be able to charge what they want. It's their property. Not yours or the states.

  • noideaa on 31/07/2023 - 22:18
    -2

    Isn't it better to lower rent based on tenant's income instead?

    • Sal in SA on 31/07/2023 - 22:20
      +11

      So only rent to thoses on decent income..got it..

      • noideaa on 31/07/2023 - 22:36
        +7

        Yeah, sorry you're right. I didn't think.

        • Nugs on 01/08/2023 - 09:12
          +13

          user name checks out
          .

        • brendanm on 01/08/2023 - 11:50
          +6

          I think there's a similar problem with most greens policy.

  • sane on 31/07/2023 - 22:25
    +1

    Given the poor performance of Labor in dealing with the insane increases in all costs (which really aren't justified by increased input costs) I don't think that a DoubleD would do Labor any favours. Sure the coalition is led by an evil potatoe, but all they have to do is promise policies that don't expect all lower income types to suffer and they WILL pick up seats.

    Plus any such vote would be impacted by Labor's 'voice' referendum - which hasn't been the vote winner I'm sure they thought it would be last year.

    The Greens are calling their bluff, and Labor look the weaker for blustering.

  • Malik Nasser on 31/07/2023 - 22:28
    +6

    It's a proposed band-aid solution that does not solve the underlying issue. This is not the way.

    • Ade99 on 01/08/2023 - 07:39

      The idea was tried in Berlin a few years ago . Lasted only a few months before being reversed…….but why would the teals / Greens, ALP learn from others mistakes?

      • Malik Nasser on 01/08/2023 - 08:54

        Trying something for only a few months is pointless. It takes much longer for things to actually change and make a difference.
        Whilst I don't agree with it, if they did give it a go, they would need to stick with it for at least a few years before assessing to see what it actually accomplished (did it accomplish its intended purpose? What unintended consequences were also experienced? Overall did it provide a net benefit?).

  • miwahni on 31/07/2023 - 22:55
    +12

    The Greens can ask for pie in the sky as they know they'll never be called to answer for their policies (at least not in the foreseeable future). I think they should cut their losses on this one and accept what they can get instead of holding out for more. As the saying goes, don't let Perfect stand in the way of Good Enough.

    Also Max Chandler-Mather, the Greens member for Griffith, is "fiercely opposing" a redevelopment that would provide 1300 homes in his electorate. Hypocritical much?
    https://www.afr.com/rear-window/greens-housing-spokesman-opp…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join