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

    • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 10:00

      Be weary of the shoddy flood-maps he refers to in his opposition of these homes being built, too. He uses inaccurate maps to justify the interruption.

  • loropy9 on 31/07/2023 - 23:08
    +5

    I don't believe freezing the rent will help anything in a free market capitalist society. Freezing the Greens on the other hand…

  • thatonethere on 31/07/2023 - 23:14

    Perhaps they should offer a property buyback scheme. Bail out rental property owners from mortgages and return housing to social.

    • Gervais fanboy on 01/08/2023 - 00:16

      wOt?

      Just keep printing more money?

  • Ghost47 on 01/08/2023 - 00:15
    +9

    I selected "I don't know". It's very easy to be on either side depending on your own situation without considering what the other side is going through.

    The issue is there is no easy fix to this entire mess, except of course to curb immigration. But we all know how badly Aussies want their properties to skyrocket in value so the government is just giving the people what they want.

  • tekisei on 01/08/2023 - 01:43
    +2

    Freeze rent, no. Cap rent.. maybe? Land tax is already calculated by the states based on your land value. Maybe a 'rent cap metric' based on land value, internal and external sqm, and average mortgage value/repayment for that amount of sqm, that would give a generous cap at the natural maximum in this current market - thereby giving room to rise for landlords who haven't increased rents yet, but will prevent landlords who are gouging prices from increasing them even further.

    Has the side effect of encouraging over-leveraged landlords (who cannot raise prices above cap) to sell, which I believe is a good thing, but if it sounds too much like kicking people on the lowest rung of the property ladder I guess you could give like a +30% cap (vs the 'normal' cap) for the first investment property each person owns.

    There are also many vacant properties in rural (primarily coastal) towns that are second homes for the wealthy. Introduce a vacancy tax for those that are empty more than 6 months of the year.

    • MrFunSocks on 01/08/2023 - 13:16

      The only way you can cap rent is by capping it to a percentage above the mortgage repayments. Anything else would be unfair. This would solve basically nothing, since most rent is barely covering most mortgages as it is.

      • quog on 28/08/2023 - 13:41

        so if the property has no mortgage, the rent cap is zero?

        • pogichinoy on 29/08/2023 - 17:10

          Exactly right.

          Such a silly theory/proposal.

  • hasher22 on 01/08/2023 - 02:03
    +13

    I hate bandaid fixes, so many people don't tackle the cause of the issue. Instead everything is a band aid fix which the wound is still not healed underneath.

    They need to tackle abandoned homes, vacant homes, foreign investors, rent bidding, negative gearing etc…..

    According to the recent census: 1,043,776 homes are vacant in Australia, 300k of them are in NSW. Of course we don't know exactly why for each one, could be they didn't fill out the census, abandoned home, investment home but doesn't want to rent it out, second home, air bnb, etc…. But a good starting point and finding out why these homes are vacant, and if it can be housed by someone then it should be. This would ease up the home pressure.

  • OMGJL on 01/08/2023 - 03:02
    +9

    I am both a landlord and tenant right now. I rent out my house in one state and work in another.

    As the landlord, rent freeze means no matter how the inflation and interest rise, I am doomed with the set amount of renting income.
    as a tenant, I probably do save a little in short term (say $50 weekly, works out to be about $2500 a year), with the risk of living in a dead market if I get requested to move out.

    it probably would kill the property market too, knowing there's little investment profit in the next 2 year.
    house market down -> building/renovation/tiling/lighting/finance (all housing related market) down -> worse economic -> more rent freeze?

    also how do they judge wither or not the rent price is freezed? If say I only started to rent out 1 year into the rent freeze, do I get to choose my price?
    If I do have the choice then what's the point of rent freeze for renters?
    if I don't get to choose the rent price how is it fair for other home owners? say if my house has worse condition than theirs at the same rent price?

    Also might be unfair for some renters, if all price is set, some may have no choice but to rent worse quality properties.

    this is a total non-practical bs trying to earn votes from short-vision people.

    • Geoffreys on 01/08/2023 - 08:14
      +10

      I also think it would result in owners increasing the rent by the maximum allowed amount each cycle, effectively making housing costs even higher.

      If I can’t react to changes in the market and other costs you can bet I’m going to minimise my financial risk by increasing the max allowable amount.

      This policy suggestion isn’t the solution.

  • urahara on 01/08/2023 - 05:12
    +3

    Can we start with why it is happening and try to fix as Canada did.

    The new housing law, which went into effect on January 1, prohibits “the purchase of residential property by non-Canadians” for a two-year period.

    • tabitha731 on 01/08/2023 - 07:58
      -2

      if you havent been to Canada lately.. especially Vancouver.. i wouldn't compare us to them.. they have so many homeless people there, all pandered to by the Gov't. the Gov't is too soft and out of touch with making the country the great country it once was!

  • Kaz0551 on 01/08/2023 - 06:51
    +3

    Cut negative gearing, only allow australian citizens and residents to buy residential property. Why do trusts and companys need a residence? Make it individuals only.

    Start the above in 5 years and a 10 year window to phase out the current.

    I agree with Xi on this one “houses are for living in, not for speculation”

    • tonka on 01/08/2023 - 11:06
      +2

      Negative gearing doesn't only apply to real estate. Also people would never sell possibly pushing prices up.

    • cauilfield on 01/08/2023 - 14:04
      +2

      Cutting negative gearing will bring up rentals to the moon.

  • TheMindsetTraveller on 01/08/2023 - 07:06
    +21

    I passionately hate the Greens - none of their ideas ever make economic or sensible sense. They pander to a very tiny amount of people within the Greens voter cohort and do little but pretend to do good service to the public.

    The Greens have nfi how to decrease the cost of living and has come up with some wild ideas like this rent freeze nonsense.

    If the Greens were serious about trying to reduce cost housing pressure, then the first thing they need to do is get off their high-horse and allow highest densities in the areas they currently are dominant in .. such as the inner-suburbs of Sydney.

    • dealsucker on 01/08/2023 - 11:35
      +2

      Exactly. Utopian idiots is what I call them

      • tsunamisurfer on 01/08/2023 - 11:48
        +7

        The Greens only know how to spend for the now and leave the expenses for someone else and later.

  • exulted on 01/08/2023 - 07:45
    +1

    I couldn't get past "Agee"

  • tabitha731 on 01/08/2023 - 07:56
    +4

    I'm not a landlord… nor do i ever aspire to be… I would never buy a property to rent out to poor people! but if there are people who are willing to buy investment properties for people to rent.. why should they be punished for having the foresight & money to buy property for their financial earnings.. do peopel who rent think they're the only ones hit with the rising costs of everyday living?we all have teh same expenses.. its just how each one of us decided how we do those expenses.. like u chose to have kids.. make sure you can afford to raise them til they're at least 30 ( coz these days the kids are too delicate to get real life experiences). just coz you rent doenst make you any more poorer or more susceptible to risisng costs.. STOP PLAYING THE VICTIM!

    • OMGJL on 01/08/2023 - 10:08

      I agree with everything you said but raise kid to 30 seems to be a bit extreme, I'd say with today's education expectation(double degrees/honors/masters), 23-25 would be more sensible..

    • Ghost47 on 01/08/2023 - 15:10
      +5

      but if there are people who are willing to buy investment properties for people to rent.. why should they be punished for having the foresight & money to buy property for their financial earnings

      I frequently invest my money in the markets so that I’ll be financially secure in the future. If markets tank or I lose money should I expect to be reimbursed too? I don’t think so because I know there is risk involved with investing in anything.

      The thing is in Australia, people have the expectation that they will make money investing in property and can’t fathom losing money on it. It’s a completely warped perception.

  • 82norm on 01/08/2023 - 08:05
    +3

    This is the same Greens who now hold so many seats in local council/ government and prevent the freeing up of land parcels of housing development. Absolute hypocrites.

    • lechuck123 on 01/08/2023 - 10:20
      +1

      Exactly, If they want more people in the country and want to solve the housing problems, they need to free up more land. Plenty of National Parks to the North and South of Sydney that'd be prime real-estate

      • tekisei on 01/08/2023 - 17:38
        +1

        I agree with your premise but your example is ridiculous. We don"t have the money to build completely new infrastructure like hospitals and schools in "prime real-estate" in the national park.

        People need to stop being NIMBYs, and support local development of medium and high density residences around prime transport nodes.

        I'm gonna go one further and say the government should set up a public corporation to nationalise properties immediately next to train stations, build towers of residences (with 2 floors retail, 1 floor offices) above said stations with a 50/50 social/private housing proportion, thereby capturing "value" around the stations, sell the private housing to recoup some costs, but retain the retail/commercial to pay for upkeep and long term profitability.

  • billdsl on 01/08/2023 - 08:22
    +12

    Freezing rent is a ridiculous idea. I dont understand why in this time of housing crisis the government continues to chase hundreds of thousands of additional people to enter the country, surely thats step#1 to trying to slow down this problem?

    The government should be reducing migration numbers and reducing taxes on things to help with the cost of living pressures, chalmers just talks about helping the australian people while the RBA raise rates

    • [Deactivated] on 01/08/2023 - 19:41
      +2

      Grubberment claims it's because we don't have and so "need their skills" but if that's even true (I seriously doubt it is) why does that mean they should get citizenship!? Plenty of people travel to other countries for work but don't get to stay. Just pay them better than they get at home (the normal Australian wage probably already does that), make training 5 Australians over 4 years a requirement of their job, then they can renew their contract and start again or p_ss off back home. Our country then gets these supposed "missing skills" and their country gets to keep them too.

      • billdsl on 02/08/2023 - 07:27

        Gotta be something better than squeezing so many things with the addition of so many people, seems nuts

      • baldur on 02/08/2023 - 13:27

        Tell your entitled people to stop being so lazy then first. Then you wouldnt need skilled immigration my boy.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2023 - 15:05
          +2

          You just don't get it, do you. Do you seriously think SOMEONE in Australia wouldn't want to become qualified for a high-paying job, when we have people going to Uni for 7 years (and more) for other high-qualified jobs like brain surgeons, electronic engineers and technicians, etc? i.e. It's JUST A STORY - an EXCUSE that government spins, to both: a) Excuse their own ineptitude and determination over the last few decades in destroying Australian industry so we would wind up reliant on overseas "stock", and: b) to fulfill their retarded lefty agendas of shuffling people from one play to another to reduce the quality of life for all (while maintaining their own).

  • Sinnerator on 01/08/2023 - 08:42
    -3

    Australia is the way it is because YOU voted for Labor or the Coalition or Greens.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/08/2023 - 19:49
      -2

      Meh Labor Lite (Liberal) is just as bad… they just do the same evils to us a bit slower. Liberal had the chance to be real conservatives but ejected all of them - and they lost as a result. e.g. That woman I forget the name of now, who attended some women's protest which also happened to have some low-IQ racists turn up… So the Liberal coward, shaking in his boots every time the lefties screech like ill-tempered toddlers, kicked her out. It's a pity that same group didn't turn up at all HIS future news conferences until he was dumped too, the jellyfish-spined grub.

      • Deridas on 01/08/2023 - 20:28

        Moira Deeming is the name you're after.

        You're also really only talking about the Victorian Liberals.

      • SpainKing on 02/08/2023 - 12:14
        +2

        Liberals run us on a fast track to (profanity) the country equivalent to or worse than the Greens could ever dream

  • garddn on 01/08/2023 - 08:54
    +14

    Elephant in the room here is mass immigration that increases demand while supply is extremely tight.
    With an extra million odd people forecast to move here over the next two to three years, it will only get worse.

    • Creamsoda on 01/08/2023 - 13:09
      +2

      funny that no one in the main stream media is talking about this. It's always we need to build more accommodation ! build for rent apartments is the solution! more zoning for dense housing across the board! Developers needs easier funding options! Developers need fast track building approval!

      Yep, nothing dodgy is going on. no vested interest driving our property bubble.

      • tekisei on 01/08/2023 - 18:16
        +1

        No one talks about it because the politicians and the business leaders and media barons all understand that Australian prosperity and economic growth in the last 30 years (besides the resources boom) is due to migration.

        Australia cannot produce constant and lasting growth just based on productivity and technology with a birth rate of 1.6-1.7 and dropping.

        If you cannot produce it, you must import it. Constantly. You must import money to invest in local businesses, you must import skills to produce goods and services and taxes, and most importantly, you must import consumption to balance all those things you just created. Migrants are the injection to the Australian economy that provide all of the above in spades.

        Liberal and Labor both understand this and have consistently applied this in varying degrees - to get re-elected, a strong economy is key.

        As each wave of migrants age and become a burden on the state, more and more migrants are needed to generate taxes, support those elderly, and grow the economy further.

        It can't go on forever. But, who can stop? Who dares stop?

        • LVlahov on 01/08/2023 - 23:15
          +2

          The ponzi growth you support leads to low per capita income, not higher. A bigger economy because there are more people in it, where the average income is lower than it otherwise would be, is stupid growth, not smart.

          We are a resource economy. Loading more in to sell coffees to each other and give each other haircuts LOWERS our per capita export earnings, and per capita taxation earnings from mining, it doesn't increase them.

          • tekisei on 02/08/2023 - 01:08
            +1

            @LVlahov: I'm not saying I support it, I'm saying why it happens. I would appreciate you not putting words into my mouth, just like how I don't claim that you love that Australia is a banana republic and can never develop its economy to do anything else.

            The average voter pays much more attention to total GDP rather than per capita GDP. The reason is… that the media constantly talks about recession (we must fear it), and as we all know, recession is technically based on total GDP numbers… which will keep going up as Australia continues to import young skilled migrants.

            • SpainKing on 02/08/2023 - 12:17
              +2

              @tekisei: I'd like if we could just instill some education and work ethic in to our Australians before we resort to pilfering people from other countries

              • garddn on 02/08/2023 - 14:00
                +1

                @SpainKing: Yep, I would almost suggest that pilfering labour from other countries is neo-colonialism.

  • Cheaplikethebird on 01/08/2023 - 09:21
    +11

    Freeze immigration

    • tsunamisurfer on 01/08/2023 - 11:49
      -6

      We have a skills shortage, so immigration (SKILLED immigration, NOT sob story refugees) are required.

      • Cheaplikethebird on 01/08/2023 - 11:52
        +1

        Pretty sure sob story refugees make up a fraction of our intake, only 18k refugee visas were planned for 22/23FY . All for skilled immigration as long as we're actually importing people with skills that don't exist here and not just tapping into cheap labour.

        • Ghost47 on 01/08/2023 - 14:49

          There have been stories in the news of immigrants who are skilled who can’t get a job because they don’t have local experience.

          It’s all a big lie. The government wants able bodied people coming over, but they don’t want complete morons.

      • [Deactivated] on 01/08/2023 - 19:53
        +1

        People can work in another country without becoming citizens. Make part of their job training someone (if it's even true). A few years later they can nick off back home. Wages here are already some of the best in the world - so there's their incentive.

      • LVlahov on 01/08/2023 - 23:16
        +3

        Mass immigration INCREASES the skills shortage, as it delivers an infrastructure deficit and a need to retrofit to accommodate the growth. This is why the gap has grown in pace with immigration and never shrunk.

        Imported bodies come with a need for more schools, nurses, road workers etc. It is ponzi economics and it is dumb.

      • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 10:11
        -2

        We have a skills shortage, so immigration (SKILLED immigration, NOT sob story refugees) are required.

        Spot on, Tsunamisurfer.

        People whom have 0 idea about immigration are happy to point to it as being the crux of the issue.

        They do not understand how reliant Australia is on immigration.

  • Geoff01 on 01/08/2023 - 09:23
    -3

    Thing is interest rates rise 0.25% and landlords raise it 5%. There isn't a landlord out there that isn't making a fortune off rentals at the moment and still pushing for the increases. Once upon a time owning a rental was for the long term gain in the house value rising and being able to reduce annual tax. Now it's almost and second weekly income from the increased rental prices vs costs.Supply and demand is the killer in all transactions which technically shouldn't increase prices but it does because someone will always pay higher. Should be freezes on tradies ripping people off as well. The wealth divide is growing bigger in Aus.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 01/08/2023 - 09:26
      +5

      Interest rates have rise a hell of a lot more then 0.25%

      Also land taxes in Victoria have also been increased by a lot…

    • spc12go on 01/08/2023 - 09:35
      +7

      Making a fortune? I paid 800k for my place back in 07. My current rental income is $750. My rent is below market rate of $920 currently. The tenant is good and I am happy with them so I don’t need to put my self at risk with new tenant for a small gain. So that is $39000 a year.

      Now take away interest, council, water, land tax, insurance, repair, pest control, maintenance cost.
      I’m left with $18000. Which is a return of 2.25%
      However if I calculate it against current house value, I’m left with 0.009% return on investment.

      This is hardly a fortune.

      • OMGJL on 01/08/2023 - 10:25

        @spc12go I admire your generosity but with your scenario it is you who decided to not raise the rent so can't complaint for what you decide to do.

        @Geoff01 per 1% interest raise for $100k loan means $1000 dollar out of pocket every year, or $19.23 per week. we raised from 4 ish to 6 ish in the past half year, meaning per $100k loan cost you $38.46 per week.
        say you have a median mortgage of $599k, that's extra $230.39 per week out of no where. AFAIK Rent price didn't raise as insanely as interest.

        • spc12go on 01/08/2023 - 10:39
          +5

          @OMGJL
          I’m not complaining, just stating the fact that it is NOT a huge profit.

          Also need to pay tax on rental income as well. The one that makes the most are the banks.

          • ssfps on 01/08/2023 - 12:54
            +2

            @spc12go:

            The one that makes the most are the banks.

            The banks should be small go-between for financial transactions, but they have become a cartel and they always win.

            Just posting as a comment to you because of your succinct stating the banks walk away with the lions share.

      • Ghost47 on 01/08/2023 - 18:03
        +3

        How much has the house appreciated since 2007?

      • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 10:23
        -1

        Making a fortune? I paid 800k for my place back in 07. My current rental income is $750. My rent is below market rate of $920 currently. The tenant is good and I am happy with them so I don’t need to put my self at risk with new tenant for a small gain. So that is $39000 a year.

        You literally made $39,000 …. you made $39k. You seem to have a very poor grasp on this situation. $39k was paid to you, you did not have earn that income. The tenant/s paid you $39k towards your mortgage. You did not work for that, all you did was assume debt. That's $39k less than you'd have to pay if you got the loan and moved into the house yourself.

        You made $39K that year extra. Regardless of where your expenses went (ie to servicing your loan), you made 39k profit.

        I don't go to my boss and say mate I didn't make any money this year because my pay packet went to x, y and z expenses do I?

        • MrFunSocks on 02/08/2023 - 10:44
          +3

          You made $39K that year extra. Regardless of where your expenses went (ie to servicing your loan), you made 39k profit.

          That's not how profit works. If something costs you $35k a year and it returns $39k a year, the profit would be $4k, not $39k.

          You did not work for that, all you did was assume debt.

          They worked to be able to afford to take on that debt. Saying they "didn't work for that" is dumb.

          • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 10:49
            +1

            @MrFunSocks: So you assumed debt, that means you are entitled to profit? Is that how it works?

            Once your property is paid off, literally every single dollar the tenant paid to service your loan is a realised profit. You now have an asset worth $800K (going off the original commenters house price). You just didn't make a 'profit' in the year, but the equity you gained was $39k every year.

            • tomfool on 03/08/2023 - 10:04
              +1

              @ThithLord: That income was "earned" via investment. That investment was purchased with the purpose of making a profit long term. Just like any business owner does. They assumed risk and that risk may or may not pay off.

          • SpainKing on 02/08/2023 - 12:24
            -3

            @MrFunSocks: It's called gross vs. net profit so it can still be considered profit

        • spc12go on 02/08/2023 - 15:49

          You don’t go to your boss you go to the ATO and lodge it against your tax return. If your expense is work related.

          • Ghost47 on 02/08/2023 - 18:17
            +1

            @spc12go: How much has the house appreciated? I mean you can focus on all the negatives but if the house has appreciated in that time you really can't leave that fact out of the picture.

        • spc12go on 02/08/2023 - 15:57
          +1

          @ThithLord

          Literally made 39k, this is not how it works in real life and not how accounting works. Using your analogy no business will ever loose money and incur expense.

          When you incur expense for work you can go to your boss it’s either a direct business expenses which will be reimbursed or you can logged it against ATO against your tax return at the end of the financial year.

          • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 16:22
            -1

            @spc12go: Sorry, when I said expenses I wasn't referring to work expenses. I meant general life expenses, like food/fuel/car maintenance etc.

            That $39K paid towards the LL's mortgage is $39K the LL did not need to pay, and is $39K in equity. All money paid towards a loan (sans interests/fees, ofc) is realised as equity.

            Just because the yearly accounting shows no "profit", doesn't mean at the end of the serviced loan there's no profit. They get a freaking $800k asset but paid virtually single-digit percentage of that out of their own pocket!

    • Hoofee on 01/08/2023 - 10:32

      In a scenario where interest rates goes up by 0.25% and rent by 5%. Some rough math with hypothetical figures:

      600,000 mortgage. 0.25% increase = $1,500 additional interest the landlord needs to pay each year.
      700 rent. 5% increase = $1,820 additional rent tenant to pay.

      Difference between the two: $320 per year, or $6 p/w (before tax) . Not a huge amount.

      The landlords other costs are going up too, it's not just the interest they pay.

      Obviously the figures can be mix/matched, but what I'm trying to get at is that it's not necessarily the goldmine you think it is and you can't expect rent to only go up by the same percentage as the interest rate increase.

    • pformag on 01/08/2023 - 13:42

      Do you even Maths.

    • cauilfield on 01/08/2023 - 14:06

      have you been living under a rock? The interest rates went up by 2% over last 13 months.

    • MrFunSocks on 01/08/2023 - 15:21
      +2

      I made about $3000 last year on my rental that used to be my PPOR. Pretty sure that doesn't qualify as a "fortune" in anyone's books.

      • Geoff01 on 01/08/2023 - 22:46
        +1

        But someone's paying your house off and you made money

        • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 10:26
          -2

          I'm sure once they pay off their IP they will drastically reduce their rental amounts. Surely?

          • MrFunSocks on 02/08/2023 - 10:50
            +1

            @ThithLord: I'm already charging significantly less than market rate, much to the real estate agents annoyance, so yeah I'd have no issue reducing the rental price when there's no mortgage left. I'm not a "career landlord", I didn't buy it as an investment property - it was my home for about 12 years.

            • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 10:54

              @MrFunSocks:

              I'm already charging significantly less than market rate

              Oh, wow, majority of LL's do raise their rent, however, because they don't want to pay for their own property out of their own pocket, colour me shocked?!

              Yeah, and I'm the one that has the mortgage on it, not them.

              Soooo if your cost of servicing the loan goes up, cover the difference yourself? It's pretty simple. You assumed the debt, so your responsibility is to service the loan - not the tenants. LL's will hide behind these arbitrary "market rate" as if that means absolutely anything - it's the LL's who raise the market rate!

              • MrFunSocks on 02/08/2023 - 10:58

                @ThithLord:

                Soooo if your cost of servicing the loan goes up, cover the difference yourself? It's pretty simple.

                I have something people want. If my costs go up and I can recover the costs I'd be an idiot not to. It's pretty simple, and the fact that you don't understand this says a lot.

                You assumed the debt, so your responsibility is to service the loan - not the tenants.

                Do you not understand how mortgages and rentals work? I am servicing the loan, the tenants aren't. The tenants pay me money, I pay the bank money. I'm the one servicing the loan, not them.

                it's the LL's who raise the market rate!

                Yes and no. The renters contribute to the market rate being raised just as much. If there weren't a dozen people all outbidding each other for the same property the market rate wouldn't increase.

                • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 11:03

                  @MrFunSocks:

                  I have something people want. If my costs go up and I can recover the costs I'd be an idiot not to. It's pretty simple, and the fact that you don't understand this says a lot.

                  Yes, I am well aware of how the rental market works. You just cannot comprehend what I am saying.

                  Do you not understand how mortgages and rentals work? I am servicing the loan, the tenants aren't. The tenants pay me money, I pay the bank money. I'm the one servicing the loan, not them.

                  I'm going to continue using the $800k price for simplicity.

                  All said and done once your $800k IP is paid off including interest of course, how much of it came out of your pocket? Do not include the rent paid.

                  Yes and no. The renters contribute to the market rate being raised just as much. If there weren't a dozen people all outbidding each other for the same property the market rate wouldn't increase.

                  Wow the renters, who are beholden to the rental market out of sheer necessity, have only got themselves to blame? Solid logic

                  • MrFunSocks on 02/08/2023 - 14:35

                    @ThithLord:

                    You just cannot comprehend what I am saying.

                    I comprehend what you're saying, it's just dumb. You don't think people should be allowed to rent out a home that they don't live in.

                    I'm going to continue using the $800k price for simplicity.

                    That wasn't me so I can't comment on that situation, but I'll say this - technically all of it comes out of my pocket, every single cent. The tenant isn't paying off the mortgage, the tenant is paying me to stay in my house. I could be using their rent money to buy my groceries, therefore I'm using 100% of my own money to pay the mortgage off. The argument you're trying to make is a bad one.

        • MrFunSocks on 02/08/2023 - 10:48

          Yeah, and I'm the one that has the mortgage on it, not them. They're welcome to go take on a mortgage and all the risk that involves if that's what they want to do.

          It was my primary place of residence for 12 or so years, it wasn't bought as an investment property, so you're not going to guilt me in to thinking I'm the bad guy here. I'm also renting it out at over $100 below market price because as long as it covers costs I'm happy.

          • jatbinks on 02/08/2023 - 19:55
            -1

            @MrFunSocks: You have 0 risk and someone is paying your mortgage off for you. What are you even taking about. Another entitled landlord.

            • MrFunSocks on 03/08/2023 - 11:35

              @jatbinks: 0 risk? I'm the one with the mortgage and a random family living in my property.

              Another entitled landlord.

              Explain the supposed "entitlement" please.

              • jatbinks on 03/08/2023 - 12:11
                -1

                @MrFunSocks: Yea.. you have a mortgage, but its being payed off by someone else. Your other "random family" risk is offset by a house and content insurance, which again is being payed indirectly by the renter. So what risk are you taking personally?

        • tonka on 02/08/2023 - 18:32

          Depends how much equity they have in the property. Maybe they own 300K of it and make $3000 that's a 1% return with the risk of a bad tenant, major maint or housing downturn.

      • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 10:25
        -2

        Your asset is being paid off by someone else. You get that asset paid off by someone else, dude.

        Man it shocks me how LL's have such a ridiculous grasp on assets.

        • MrFunSocks on 02/08/2023 - 10:54
          +1

          My asset is being paid off by someone else now, correct, but I'm the one that had to take the risk and the mortgage and scrape by for the 12 years or so I lived there.

          It shocks me how so many people just seem to hate everyone that is doing even slightly better than them.

          Not sure why you say I have a "ridiculous grasp on assets" either. I have an asset, people want to use it, so they're paying me to use it. I'm not making bank on it and I'm charging well below market rates. Let me guess - you have no assets and that's why you're so against anyone that has some?

          • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 10:58
            -2

            @MrFunSocks:

            It shocks me how so many people just seem to hate everyone that is doing even slightly better than them.

            Not sure why you say I have a "ridiculous grasp on assets" either. I have an asset, people want to use it, so they're paying me to use it. I'm not making bank on it and I'm charging well below market rates. Let me guess - you have no assets and that's why you're so against anyone that has some?

            Nice double strawman, it was so good you had to use it twice? I don't own an investment property, nor am I jealous or envious of those that do, nor am I looking down upon those that do. We are here discussing the profits. See my point below

            I'm not making bank on it and I'm charging well below market rates

            Once the asset is paid off by >>someone else<<, not you, you now have $800k asset to your name that you did not use your OWN MONEY to pay for besides incidental costs. Is an $800K not a bankable asset?

            • MrFunSocks on 02/08/2023 - 14:39
              +1

              @ThithLord:

              I don't own an investment property, nor am I jealous or envious of those that do

              Oh but you very clearly are. You're upset that other people have assets that they can earn income from while you don't.

              that you did not use your OWN MONEY to pay for besides incidental costs.

              I paid the first 12 years of my mortgage by myself actually. You seem to think that every single person that has an "investment property" is taking out 100% mortgages to buy the home purely as an investment property. People that do that are a tiny minority. Most rental properties were peoples homes that they lived in, and they've now bought another house or are renting somewhere else. You're complaining about the 1% as if they're the 99%.

              • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 15:52
                -1

                @MrFunSocks:

                I paid the first 12 years of my mortgage by myself actually.

                Let's everyone give this guy a round of applause for actually paying towards some of the loan for their own asset. You are an angel amongst heathens.

                & If your only argument is that I am jealous of you, well - cool story, bro.

                • tomfool on 03/08/2023 - 10:17
                  +2

                  @ThithLord: Every time you purchase something you are paying down that business owners asset. The business owner, often not a worker, is paying off an asset with $ you spent in their business.

                • MrFunSocks on 03/08/2023 - 11:37

                  @ThithLord: Your entire argument is that no one should own more than 1 property because………..reasons? As I said, the painfully obvious reason is that you don't own one and are angry/jealous.

                  I "own" a property that I am no longer living in. I'm allowed to rent it out. I'm under no obligation to sell it. I'm the one with the mortgage. I'm the one with the risks. Someone else is paying me to use my asset. This is how the world works.

                  • ThithLord on 03/08/2023 - 13:51
                    -1

                    @MrFunSocks:

                    Your entire argument is that no one should own more than 1 property because

                    I have not ever said that, nor have I ever inferred that.

                    I'm allowed to rent it out. I'm under no obligation to sell it

                    Again - I never said anything differently.

                    Every single sentence and paragraph is a strawman - well done.

  • franco cozzo on 01/08/2023 - 09:29

    seems like short term band aid solution that may do more harm than good…imagine the increases that would occur after the 2 year lapses and landlords recoup their losses?
    …housing is (profanity) in au on every level. the housing crisis is here and is only going to get worse….see: canada

    • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 15:52
      +3

      seems like short term band aid solution that may do more harm than good

      Greens Political party summed up in one sentence.

      • franco cozzo on 02/08/2023 - 16:12

        not just the greens.
        see: our current holders of power

        • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 16:19

          The HAFF is literally diametrically opposite a band-aid solution, bruh.

  • Deals For Days on 01/08/2023 - 09:40
    +2

    I think rent freeze is unrealistic, granted I’d support it because the situation for renters is so dire. However I think much more realistic helpful policy would be:
    - ban all rent bidding. Landlords are intentionally listing low prices to get price wars which is unfair on renters due to information imbalance. Property has to go at list price
    - ban no fault evictions
    - stronger enforcement for maintenance etc, allow pets (damage to be paid by tenants obviously) by default

    • kaleidoscope on 01/08/2023 - 14:46
      • need much more stronger enforcements to support lls for all forms of abuse by $hitbag tenants. (including damage from pets as u said)
    • MrFunSocks on 01/08/2023 - 15:25

      allow pets (damage to be paid by tenants obviously) by default

      This is already a thing, at least in Queensland. Renters just have to ask if they can have a pet and the landlord basically can't say no unless it would break some law/rule of the area.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join