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

      • Deals For Days on 01/08/2023 - 15:31
        +1

        Yeah sorry this is NSW specific

  • Seraphin7 on 01/08/2023 - 10:15

    If Labor goes for a double dissolution it will turn the Parliament, particularly the Senate, into an even greater $#*1show than it is now.

    Observe what happened in 2016 when Turnbull did it and the mess that created.

    All that will happen with DD elections in the current climate is to halve the number of votes needed to get a Senate seat and so open the door to those who are on "the fringe of the fringe" to get a seat for six years as they pass preferences between themselves.

  • 82norm on 01/08/2023 - 10:32
    +3

    I’m also curious to know how the greens can even come up with that suggestion for it to even have any merit whatsoever. I mean, surely, they would have internal debates, discussions and highlight the primary sticking point(s) of this idea and it would never fly? They can’t be all dumb and just use ideology as their foundational platform? It’s no wonder they’re never taken seriously. Do they ever look at themselves in the mirror and accept they’re just crazy?

    I’ve probably answered the question myself.

    • bhubb18 on 01/08/2023 - 12:54
      +2

      I guess its the same as One Nation etc, just make wild claims to woo people knowing its never feasible.

    • gromit on 01/08/2023 - 14:06
      +7

      It is very easy to stand on a pedestal and claim to be taking the moral high ground when they have no responsibility or ability to implement what they are proposing. They are looking to appeal to younger and poorer voters, many of whom don't care about the overall impact and only that they may benefit in the short term and hence vote for greens. They don't have to care about costs, impact or any such nonsense. really the greens have been that way since the beginning and unless they ever get to be a power in their own right where they have to actually be responsible for something (hope the day never comes) then they will never have a need to be sane in their proposals and instead focus on what will appeal to their target voters.

    • MrFunSocks on 01/08/2023 - 15:27
      +2

      If you make absolutely insane suggestions every now and then it all of a sudden makes your only slightly crazy suggestions look better. They'll be pushing for this crazy stupid thing with the hope of then getting a much less stupid but still slightly stupid thing passed instead.

    • LVlahov on 01/08/2023 - 23:18
      +2

      The Greens long ago kicked anyone out of the party that was not a pure ideologue.

      They wouldn't for instance even have a place for a Bob Brown type these days (who would put the environment in front of "got to import the world" social pressure).

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

    Any form of pricing control is bad policy full stop. I do agree that Australia needs to stop treating housing as an investment and treat it as a basic right but a nationwide rent freeze is ridiculous. Here are a few better idea's.
    1) Limit deduction from investment properties to income from the property.
    2) Provide government owned rental properties separate to department of housing. Department of housing homes have little impact on rental as they are unavailable to the majority of the population.
    3) Reduce stamp duty to increase liquidity in the market
    4) Provide better services in affordable regions.

    • xylarr on 01/08/2023 - 11:37

      On point 4 - perhaps a broad based property tax where there are no exceptions for the family home… oh wait, they dumped that idea in NSW. They're doing it in ACT, bringing it in slowly over 20 years

      • ssfps on 01/08/2023 - 12:56
        +4

        You want people living in their own home with no IPs to be taxed even heavier? Stamp duty, income tax, medicare levy, GST, fuel excise, car rego, capital gains (not inflation adjusted), etc, not enough for you??? And you think that will "solve" a supply + demand issue - MORE TAX???

  • Gdsamp on 01/08/2023 - 10:41
    +8

    if the Greens actually cared about sustainability they would oppose such ridiculous immigration policies (that are supported/introduced by both red and blue teams)

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 01/08/2023 - 10:42

      if the Greens actually cared about sustainability they would oppose such ridiculous immigration policies (that are supported/introduced by both red and blue teams)

      Greens want more migration not less

      nevertheless i agree with you

  • horseshoe on 01/08/2023 - 10:53
    +4

    I wouldn't be for freezing rents. The free market solution to this is both increasing supply and decreasing demand.

    To increase supply governments have to actually get in the game of providing housing themselves. This sounds like the opposite of free market dogma, but here's the point: trying to increase supply by releasing land to for-profit developers has been useless. They hoard it and only build when profit is guaranteed. It's anti-competitive and just another way that the real estate bubble is inflated in this country.
    However the amount that would need to be built to make a difference is huge. The Greens are right on this point. The current supply of public housing is so tiny that those who get it are lucky, and otherwise it has no effect on pricing in the general rental market. I personally don't think increasing supply on its own is feasible. It's a nation-building level project that no government would have the guts to do, with all the potential for rorts and incompetence that come with that kind of stuff.

    The other side of the coin (demand) is having a plan for limiting population growth and/or encouraging people to live outside of the major cities. For the former, the major parties don't have a plan at all. Liberal/Labor like letting in rich foreigners while the Greens like letting in poor foreigners. It's all the same shit in the end, more bodies needing a place to live in this country.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 01/08/2023 - 11:00
      +1

      Liberal/Labor like letting in rich foreigners while the Greens like letting in poor foreigners. It's all the same shit in the end, more bodies needing a place to live in this country.

      might be harsh but there is a major difference - wealthier people are not taking up social services they are likely paying taxes and supporting the social services…. - the ALP/LNP are correct

      Where i disagree with the ALP in-particular is the 'numbers' of people they are allowing to come in - it doesnt matter how wealthy someone is infrastructure (ie hospitals/Roads/Schools) needs to keep up with demand and the current immigration policy is simply insane considering how outdated and under funded our infrastructure is…

    • horseshoe on 01/08/2023 - 11:05

      —edit—
      It just occurred to me, one trend that might make a dent in rental affordability is WFH. Dinosaur management notwithstanding, there are real benefits in WFH for employees in terms of working conditions, and for employers in terms of reduced costs. The outcome if it keeps going will be massive losses for commercial landlords (which is probably all of us who have superannuation accounts). These losses need to happen - after that, a very real possibility that commercial real estate can be converted into supply of inner city residential housing.

      • Gareth on 01/08/2023 - 18:50

        It's an interesting idea, which may result in inner city rebuilds.

        Unfortunately what the pandemic has shown us is that WFH results in fewer people living in each property. This is a huge part of the demand problem we have at the moment (If not the largest - I know the immigration narrative is more interesting).

        There is a need for hundreds of thousands more dwellings in Australia just to cover the reduction of people living in each dwelling.

        • SpainKing on 02/08/2023 - 12:48
          +1

          I say we just make polygamy mandatory

          • tonka on 02/08/2023 - 18:34

            @SpainKing: I'd bet it is under some kind of civil agreement. So what's stopping you.

  • neonlight on 01/08/2023 - 11:14

    Freeze not a solution. Landlords continue to pay high interest rates Loans cannot keep going with same 2 year rents, many will just default.

    How about Banks freeze their interest rates?

    • Gyr on 02/08/2023 - 12:18

      They would lose their funding and go bust

  • TheBilly on 01/08/2023 - 11:15
    +2

    I think the issue is there is not enough housing.

    More people WFH, more immigration, general population growth.

    So a rent freeze will not increase supply of housing.

  • mlburnian on 01/08/2023 - 11:20

    Rents in the big oz cities have been so cheap for so long, I am talking about yields under 2.5%. Finally there is a jump in yields and what does the govt do….

    • ssfps on 01/08/2023 - 12:58

      Plenty of people still invested in IPs so obviously the yield was good enough.

      • mlburnian on 01/08/2023 - 19:55

        All about capital gains my friend, low yield was dismissed due to NG benefits

  • PixelPaul on 01/08/2023 - 11:27

    Punishing the landlords with this.
    I think the ones making the profit need to be sorted, the banks. Or the larger corporate landlords.

    But that is a temp solutions which wont do much in the long term.
    The real thing needed is to increase supply.

  • KaTst3R on 01/08/2023 - 11:29
    -4

    First they want to take away the option of having a gas stove, now they want to freeze rent rise. Next thing you know, the government will dictate you cannot wear a blue shirt in public. We are slowly becoming North Korea.

  • GuitarXXX on 01/08/2023 - 11:30

    Is this vote the same as "if you have an investment property for rent"?

  • surg3on on 01/08/2023 - 11:56
    -1

    Paying for a rent freeze is just throwing MORE government money at the landholders. It sounds great but its ******* stupid. Close the ******* tax loopholes already!

    • baggyred on 01/08/2023 - 12:10

      What loopholes?

  • seabombs on 01/08/2023 - 12:09
    +6

    I have one investment property (a 2br unit in Brisbane).
    It is currently rented for $420/week and the lease is up for renewal.
    My property manager says it's worth around $500-550/week.
    I said $500/week, but the tenant has asked to negotiate and I said $475/week. They're now asking if I'll accept $460/week.
    My loan repayments (on a variable rate) are now about $410/week. My costs are the body corporate (incl. rates, ~$3,500/yr) and some maintenance (~$2,000/yr I'd guess).

    I'll probably go with the $460/wk which is still a significant jump for the tenant and I don't really want to screw them. But it is a loss making investment.

    I guess my point is I think it's all (profanity) for renters and probably the majority of "landlords". The renters v. landlords debate seems like dumb left/right wing rhetoric.

    • ssfps on 01/08/2023 - 12:59
      +1

      The renters v. landlords debate seems like dumb left/right wing rhetoric.

      Yet another 'divide & conquer' against us idiot masses.

    • mlburnian on 01/08/2023 - 19:56
      +1

      It’s not an investment if you are subsidising your rent

    • jatbinks on 02/08/2023 - 19:59

      At the end of the day you own a massive asset for which you partially paid for. And yet you still find something to complain about lol.

      • ThithLord on 03/08/2023 - 14:03

        This is what LL's in this thread are completely glossing over. They are entirely focused on the short-term gains/losses/make-evens, without stopping to think that maybe, once their tenants are finished paying off the LL's property, the LL has a freaking entirely paid-off asset at their disposal?!

        They can't even register this in their brains!

    • dmac on 03/08/2023 - 11:30

      It's great you are a good landlord but from my experience you are not in the majority and 'career landlords' would never consider it. What do you suggest other than hoping landlords are nice people like yourself?

  • Chewy2221 on 01/08/2023 - 12:11
    +2

    It seems to me that a rent freeze is likely to prompt some landlords to sell their investment property - probably to a buyer who is an owner/occupier. Net result - one less property available for rent. This does nothing for potential renters & puts upward pressure on rents. This all but guarantees a large rent increase once the period of the rent freeze expires. My sympathy to those who are struggling with rent payments but I don't think a rent freeze will work.

    • ssfps on 01/08/2023 - 13:01
      +3

      LOL, i'm against a freeze for obvious reasons, but your "worst case scenario" is the best possible scenario. Majority of renters would love downward pricing in the market and would snap up a PPOR and become home-owners if given the opportunity.

      • ZloyKrys on 01/08/2023 - 17:42

        This only works when you have a fixed number of tenants. The projected intake of 1.75M people over 5 years and stalled construction will just reduce vacancy rates to zero

  • SpendLess on 01/08/2023 - 12:16
    +1

    this will go well with bank loan interest rate freeze

  • R4 on 01/08/2023 - 13:12
    +3

    This is a bullshit idea that will go nowhere - electoral suicide for a government that implements it.

    But no mention about how our socialist government is massively ramping up immigration into an already dire shortage of accommodation. This is social engineering on a scale not seen in modern Australia and looks like it's a government agenda that they're not telling us about and that many sheeple are choosing to ignore.

    • Bystander on 01/08/2023 - 20:42
      +1

      And yet people continue to vote for the same three parties. All of these elected party members knew full well this was a problem years ago but they made a conscious decision to make matters worse. It's blindingly obvious how to solve the housing affordability problem but politicians refuse to do so.

      Voters should be asking themselves "who are the politicians serving if it's not the mainstream people?"

      • R4 on 01/08/2023 - 21:19
        +2

        Spot on. We were not asked if we agree with massively, constantly increasing immigration - and because both sides of politics are in on the gig, they are getting away with it.

        There will be a backlash somewhere down the track and the fallout won't be pretty.

        • Bystander on 01/08/2023 - 21:37
          +1

          Unfortunately the backlash usually happens too late. People wake up after the water is already boiling.

  • spal on 01/08/2023 - 13:20
    +7

    I will happily accept a rent freeze if the banks freeze the interest rates, the utilities accept the rate freeze. Personally, I had not raised rents for about five years, until last year. Mortgages were at low level and other cost increases were bearable. Now it is getting difficult to hang on to the investments. The rent increases woult not even cover the increase in land tax in Victoria, forget about the mortgage.

    The rental providers are part of the same market. For anyone talking of the exorbitant rent increases, the mortgages generally never cover the cost of holding an asset. That is why people get into negative gearing, because expenses are higher than the income. Most people put up with the losses made when they hold on to the asset with a hope that they will recoup these losses when they sell. When they sell, they pay taxes.

    On the flip side if specific disruption is introduced in the market making it difficult for an investor to hang on to a property, a larger number will be forced to sell. Yes, with more people selling the prices will come down and some persons currently renting will be able to buy their own home. However, a larger part of the renters will still struggle as the prices would still be out of their buying capacity, and the rents may be lower, but there would be increased supply shortage.

    Mind you, rent freezes would merely result in flight of capital from the property market into other forms of investments. An investor will make their money from alternate sources.

    In this political game there will be no winners.

  • yjun355 on 01/08/2023 - 13:33

    Sure, you can free rent. But then to be fair, should free expenses (water, electricity, etc.) and most importantly freeze the interest rate in that period. Then it is fair and works for everyone?

  • Storm2022 on 01/08/2023 - 13:36
    +2

    The socialist bottom-feeding dole bludgers say yes, while everyone else who has at least a little common sense says no. In saying that, Labor will cave into the Socialist Green's demands because they know they will never win another election without their preferences.

    • RolandWaites on 01/08/2023 - 14:40
      +2

      "Labor will cave into the Socialist Green's demands because they know they will never win another election without their preferences."

      Sort of flawed logic given Labor don't need to actively garner the Greens vote preference. Greens voters are going to vote Greens 1, and then for the most part it depends where they place either the Liberals/Nationals or Labor. No matter what Labor does, very, very few Greens voters would ever put Liberals/Nationals ahead of the ALP.

    • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 10:41

      The socialist bottom-feeding dole bludgers say yes, while everyone else who has at least a little common sense says no. In saying that, Labor will cave into the Socialist Green's demands because they know they will never win another election without their preferences.

      Pretty ignorant comment. The Greens Political party voters are some of the wealthiest voters in Australia.

      There's no political party in Australia that can come to power without preferential voting, if you look at the LNP objectively they cannot get in to power without the coalition.

  • lonewolf on 01/08/2023 - 13:51
    +1

    Instead of rental freeze, we need to stop people buying multiple investment properties and instead get them to invest in other areas. Housing should first and foremost be about someones home and not as a investment. First home buyers cant compete against investment seekers who have sometimes dozens of properties already and can easily get a much larger loan.

    • prahran on 01/08/2023 - 13:55
      +2

      If people did not buy investment properties to rent out, what would the renters do with nothing to rent?

      • lonewolf on 01/08/2023 - 14:32
        +1

        Renters will buy able to afford to buy a home rather than renting. And i said Multiple investment properties. There is too much incentive in using property as investments and basically the people who do are able to keep buying more and more as opposed to people trying to get into their market for a home to live in.

        • MrFunSocks on 02/08/2023 - 11:33

          According to the ATO:

          71.5% of investors hold 1 investment property

          18% of investors hold 2 investment properties

          9.7% of investors hold 3, 4 or 5 investment properties

          0.8% (or 19,895) investors hold 6 or more investment properties

          It's safe to say that no, people don't keep buying more and more. Most only ever have a single investment property. As with most things, the 1% millionaires are the only ones that take things to the extreme.

          • lonewolf on 02/08/2023 - 11:56

            @MrFunSocks: So by your own stats, people do keep buying more and more. Whats the no. of total properties that are investment properties? And how many of them could have been someones actual home rather than an investment property. There will also be the people who buy investment properties for their kids / parents etc, that will not fit into those stats accurately.

            I know people who have between 10-30 properties. These days some of them dont even see the property, they just buy sight unseen or a friend /family member sees it and tells them about it .

            • MrFunSocks on 02/08/2023 - 14:43
              +1

              @lonewolf:

              I know people who have between 10-30 properties.

              They're the problem, not the 90% of investors that only own 1 or 2.

              So by your own stats, people do keep buying more and more.

              Like I said - the "1%" millionaires are the ones that you're talking about. They're the outliers. They're irrelevant for what we're talking about. They're a whole other story on so many levels.

              There will also be the people who buy investment properties for their kids / parents etc, that will not fit into those stats accurately.

              Why wouldn't they fit in these stats? If they bought an investment property then it counts in these stats, if it's their first or their 10th.

              • lonewolf on 02/08/2023 - 14:49
                +1

                @MrFunSocks: Well, why are we including 2 investment properties the same as 1, I dont . There is a big difference and basically what it is , that will keep increasing as once you go 2, you are probably looking to keep increasing as time goes on.

                I said they wouldnt fit in those stats, because not everyone who has 1 investment property actually bought it themselves, So the people looking to buy a home for their family arent competing against someone looking for their first investment property but rather someone who has several. I came up against that at some auctions i went to looking to buy a home. People who were serial investors who had several in the suburb and were bidding against me and another newly married couple and completely went overs to get it. As no-one could compete.

          • SpainKing on 02/08/2023 - 13:05
            +1

            @MrFunSocks: So 0.8% of the population (19,895) have at least 119,370 houses

            Another 9.7% of the population owns (at minimum) 3 properties equalling at least 723,680 extra houses

            And the final 18% of investors with more than one investment property own 895,275 houses

            Totalling 1,738,325 houses rented out by people with more than IP. Australia has a population of around 25 million and these investors total about 10% of the population

            Not sure where I was going with this but I did the maths so it deserves a post

            • MrFunSocks on 02/08/2023 - 14:45

              @SpainKing: The figures show that the large majority of all investment properties are likely just people that bought a house, live in it for a long time, then bought another house and moved to that one. There's nothing wrong with that. Those people aren't the bad guys.

              The <10% are the problem, not the other 90%.

              • lonewolf on 02/08/2023 - 14:55
                +1

                @MrFunSocks: We will agree to disagree, Personally i feel properties and houses should first and foremost be about someone's home, and not for someone to look at as an investment. There are so many options for investments but people looking for a home for themselves and possibly a family rather than having to rent and also continuously move if the renter decides to go a different way . Its very disruptive for people especially if they have a family as well.

                Or even maybe make it that apartments can be used as investment properties but not houses? I dont know. I feel something has to change though. Except politicians have too much of their own money in these investments so they wont want it to change.

                • MrFunSocks on 03/08/2023 - 11:42

                  @lonewolf:

                  We will agree to disagree, Personally i feel properties and houses should first and foremost be about someone's home, and not for someone to look at as an investment.

                  We don't disagree though. I feel the same. What I'm saying is that most "investment properties" weren't looked at and bought as investment properties - they were bought to live in, and eventually end up being rented out due to the owners buying a new house. This is why I hate that the term "investment property" is used for 2 wildly different things - homes bought specifically to be rented out, and homes that were bought to be lived in and then eventually they become rented out.

                  I shouldn't be forced to sell my house that I worked my arse off to buy, and then lived in for 12 years, just because someone doesn't like that I can then rent it out. I do think that there should be zero foreign investment in houses allowed, and no houses being bought/built as purely investment properties.

            • lonewolf on 02/08/2023 - 14:50

              @SpainKing: Good maths :) This is what i was getting at, Thanks for putting it together in the no.s. Yes so Thats 1.7+ million people who would like to have bought a home but have to rent instead, thats not a small no.

      • Ghost47 on 01/08/2023 - 14:58
        +1

        They said “multiple properties”. This means there will still be properties for rent, just not as many. It shouldn’t be all or nothing.

  • RolandWaites on 01/08/2023 - 14:38

    The sky didn't exactly cave in during COVID when rent freezes were put in place. Why should it now?

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 01/08/2023 - 17:40
      +3

      The sky didn't exactly cave in during COVID when rent freezes were put in place. Why should it now?

      interest rates were literally 0.01 percent

      most investors where paying 1.9-2.2 percent on their loans …..opposed to 5.8-7 percent now

    • MrFunSocks on 02/08/2023 - 14:46

      Interest rates weren't increasing during COVID…….

  • samyall on 01/08/2023 - 15:15
    -1

    Instead of a rent freeze we should limit the rate of rent rise/fall to something like 5% in each direction per year - this gives landlords certainty of their income as they know within 10% what their income will be.

    Then at the same time we institute a rule that tenants which want to be renewed must be approved unless landlord goes to tribunal or the property cannot be rented again for X months.

    This gives a penalty for kicking people out to rise the rent while ensuring that the landlords have a stable income.

  • mrvaluepack on 01/08/2023 - 15:22
    +2

    If there is a rent freeze, no worries - ill just say i want my property vacated after my 6 month term then find new tenants with increased rental prices.

  • PopCounty on 01/08/2023 - 15:56

    Refund the registration cost of house to owners. Sure, then go ahead and freeze rent.

  • squaredonut on 01/08/2023 - 15:59
    +4

    I am on the fence and a little divided about this.

    Traditionally speaking, every time the govt gets their hands into markets, they seem to mess it up even more.

    Naturally if we had an abundant of supply of places to live, I would say let the market do it's thing, i.e. landlords hike them up, people shop around and don't rent crazy priced ones, just let supply and demand and market do it's things.

    But I feel like having a roof over someone's head should be at the very least a right so that we aren't some third world country.

    I mean yeah I get it, landlords over leveraged, rates going up, they need to rise rents to make ends meet or they have to sell, triggering the market to go down, but why is our society so fuelled on rewarding and protecting people who make bad financial decisions versus looking after people who just want a roof over their heads?

  • MessyG on 01/08/2023 - 16:12
    +1

    I think rent control makes sense for certain groups who need to be near their workplaces - ie essential services because its getting harder and harder for many to live close to work because of the rampant land banking going on, especially in the SE suburbs.

    But…supply? We need to stop approving horribly expensive buildings that look like appendages that sit empty or cater to an international market with lots of cash and build a lot of good quality housing. This is a bandaid solution from the Greens and I appreciate the urge to do something now but it would be better if the government bought some buildings and improved social housing. The wait list is currently years long. And if we have to maintain some kind of unemployment rate above zero, then we need to support that small percentage regardless.

    I just wish all political parties (especially the Greens and Libs, but also Labor) would have some vision for what this place is supposed to look like in the future. Tinkering with regulation and policy might get some feels but does nothing to account for our cities rapid expansion.

  • LFO on 01/08/2023 - 16:19
    +1

    "Freezing" rental payments have been used by many governments on many different countries.
    Usually was an abysmal failure as it creates obvious unpleasant inequalities.

    For the Australian case IMHO the solution is a MASSIVE expansion of housing commission dwellings.
    This by itself, even just the announcement of massive housing, will naturally bring the markets to a reasonable level; fair for those leasing fair for those offering for lease.

    And to answer the perennial "who will pay for all those dwellings?" the answer is: Who? … the same one paying for nuclear submarines … and everything else!

    • baggyred on 01/08/2023 - 16:40
      +1

      I do agree public housing needs to be part of the solution.

      The issue of course is that the massive build spend will force cost of construction up for everyone else, including those whom can only marginally afford it. That would have impact on house pricing and perpetuate the problem.

      The issue with a lot of "but it feels good" policy - is it treats all decisions in a vacuum and doesn't consider the natural flow on effects.

      Another option is rather than simply build more homes, is incentivise strategies to allow more people in the same homes. The downsizer super rule is largely ineffective.

      It's seen as a right of passage for a struggling student to live in a share house, I've lived in my share of 8 to a house accommodation in my time.

      Not that I am suggesting that level of density - but we do seem to have a belief everyone is entitled to a property on their own. I am not sure that is the case.

  • Kiro on 01/08/2023 - 17:47

    2 year rent freeze, 2 year no interest rate rises for mortgages…. Oh and no rate rise shock after 2 years.

  • Cluster on 01/08/2023 - 18:45
    +1

    Price freezes of all kinds do not work. Here's why:

    • Supply and demand is completely broken in our big cities. Too many people chasing too few properties. Price freezing causes even less properties to be built. Why invest in property if your costs far outweigh the income? It leads to even greater shortages down the line.

    • People come up with all sorts of subtle ways to get around them. Extra fees, surcharges, 'key money', etc.

    What's the solution? There is no silver bullet, but more high density housing built by government that cannot be snapped up by investors will help. The problem is it's so easy for tenants to turn the housing into a crime filled slum.

    • peekabooo on 01/08/2023 - 19:24

      That will force people to buy rather than trying rent. I don't think we'll build less properties.

  • CommuterPolluter on 01/08/2023 - 18:46
    +4

    Labor’s policy is absolutely ridiculous. $10 billion slush fund. Talk about corruption.

    If you want to build houses then do it, you don’t need an investment fund.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 01/08/2023 - 18:59

      i do agree - i personally dont think their will ever be 'enough' social housing to meet the demand the key is ensureing 2 things
      1. housing on 'some level' is affordable
      2. people can get the financial stability to purchase their own house

      alp is ignored both since they got into power

    • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 10:46
      -2

      The HAFF will perform like all the other Future Funds - exceptionally well, and will ensure money is allocated in every budget in an area that is sorely neglected when Labor are not in power. LNP are in power 70% of the time and they woefully under-allocate for building. The HAFF will ensure a steady stream of income to supplement the States housing projects. The amount the HADD generates is a supplement. The Federal gov mainly relies on the States to build Social Housing, as it is far more in their jurisdiction, naturally, to build social housing.

  • shangoz on 01/08/2023 - 19:00
    +3

    You should tell the bank not increase interest rate first, then tell them not increase fee, then tell council not increase council fee, then tell Sydney Water not increase price, then tell insurance not increase charge, then tell Politician reduce their income, then tell all petrol Station not increase petrol price etc etc, once all that achieve, then you can demand Landlord not increase rent, Can you do it ???

    • baldur on 02/08/2023 - 13:21

      Some think those who own 2 or 3 houses are the only culprit to blame for this housing crisis. Very easy to blame them.

  • UFO on 01/08/2023 - 19:16
    +7

    Renters are getting exactly what they've asked for… investors are selling their investment properties leaving less stock available to rent.

    Less available rentals = higher rents, it's a simple supply/demand issue.

    There isn't enough housing in Australia, but they keep squeezing landlords to take up the slack. Less and less rights for them to choose what to do with their own properties.

    Greens are pandering to their voter base… those that keep putting their hands out for public housing, tax payer funded handouts and concessions, and generally looking at everyone else (ie people who actually pay tax!) to pay for their sorry lives.

    As a consequence they will continue to remain on the fringe for the majority voting public. And knocking back Labor's plan for additional public housing?!?! What in the world are they thinking! (oh I know, just like with their carbon tax policies 20 years ago… best to throw the baby out with the bath water then achieve ANY progress on their ideals)

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 01/08/2023 - 19:18

      Greens are pandering to their voter base… those that keep putting their hands out for public housing, tax payer funded handouts and concessions, and generally looking at everyone else (ie people who actually pay tax!) to pay for their sorry lives.

      same lefty bums vote ALP infariness….

  • peekabooo on 01/08/2023 - 19:23
    +1

    Freeze it and make them everyone sell. We need to make property investment very less attractive for a higher quality of life.

    • UFO on 01/08/2023 - 21:56
      +3

      And that's exactly what's happening. Less and less rental properties available. How's that helping renters, when they are competing against more applicants for each property available? Rents are going through the roof, because landlords can pretty much charge whatever they like due to the huge demand for their properties. It's not helping renters to force investors out of the market.

      • peekabooo on 02/08/2023 - 07:09
        +2

        The current crisis is due to capacity limitations.

        • tonka on 02/08/2023 - 18:46

          Investment properties are a big slice of new builds (ie. investment).
          Discouraging investors is just as likely to reduce building activity, increase rents and push many renters into the buyers market increasing demand and price for pre-existing homes. With the renters that can't compete just ending up on the street.
          Actually giving landlords MORE tax breaks (but for new builds) would probably fix the whole problem.

          • peekabooo on 02/08/2023 - 19:04

            @tonka: Renters don't appear out of thin air. They are people moving out or moving in those who can wait 6-8 months (or shorter since there's less demand for new builders) and score deals with the builders. It's a false assumption that existing renters won't build.

  • initiateit on 01/08/2023 - 19:29
    +3

    As long as they freeze food, petrol, gas, electricity as well. All for it.

  • [Deactivated] on 01/08/2023 - 19:30
    +3

    EVERY TIME government interferes with property, prices INCREASE.

    • SpainKing on 02/08/2023 - 13:16

      What about that one time?

  • jli789 on 01/08/2023 - 20:21
    +3

    Rent freeze is not a new concept, many countries tried it and the result failed miserably. With this data in hand, people in power come out, literally saying, our rent freeze is different, it's going to make a positive difference.

    • UFO on 01/08/2023 - 21:56

      yep!

  • sir-screwball on 01/08/2023 - 20:43
    +1

    So when inflation is low, the property increases in value and the landlord increases the rent in line iwth property value. Then inflation increases and they increase the rent due to rising costs?

    Where do landlords see any risk in any economy?

    • Ghost47 on 01/08/2023 - 20:56
      +1

      Not quite. Rents are dictated by supply and demand. In 2020 rents in major CBDs decreased because there was no demand, immigration was down and people were moving out to the regions or interstate. Now that migration is back on and the shine has worn off living regionally (obviously this would've happened), people are moving back to cities.

      Landlords simply think property investing is risk free. I think there's a comment in this thread comparing it to owning a business. Landlords are lucky they're selling what is basically an essential good, because even as the price goes up people will need to pay for it (like electricity). Eventually though if prices keep going up we'll see more homeless people, that's for sure. It seems people want this kind of thing for our society. I stay out of it by investing in the stock market.

      A bit off-topic but the RBA has a very careful balancing act ahead of them because of how leveraged Australians are in property. Too many increases and people will lose their homes, but not enough means our dollar weakens against foreign currencies, which results in imports increasing in cost. It's a total mess of a situation. The total value of the housing market is 9.5T and the total value of the ASX is 2.5T (or something), it just goes to show where the country's priorities lie.

  • Oz em on 01/08/2023 - 22:07
    +2

    I don’t think you can tell people how much rent they can charge on homes they own.
    The government needs to find its own solution to the rental crisis.
    It’s a great fairytale of rent will be x amount but unless the government owns the houses they don’t really have the right to dictate.

  • dbun1 on 01/08/2023 - 22:24
    +2

    Renters are the current flavour of the month and the Greens are just sprouting nonsense policies to get the popular vote.

    Surprised they didn’t start with profit caps on the major supermarkets to cap the rising cost of groceries.

  • CowFrogHorse on 01/08/2023 - 22:25

    Say a big thank you to the government for trying to internationalise any bit of Australia that they can…

    and by the way tax payers will get the bill for everything, eg the new Sydney Airport.

  • RatBargain on 01/08/2023 - 23:37
    +2

    How about instead of a short term rent freeze / price ceiling - (a band aid)

    1) We allow negative gearing for PPOR's
    2) Grandfather clause or limit IP Negative gearing to 2-3 years maximum
    3) Retain PPOR CGT exemption
    4) Sunset the post-12m cap gains 50% discount on IPs

    This provides a long term sustainable solution to disincentivise housing a speculative investment or storage of wealth. It will mean housing speculation is less lucrative, shift funds and household risk towards savings, bonds, mutual funds and equities.

    A tiny step back from the extremes of capitalism, which exacerbates wealth and housing inequality; giving our succeeding generations hope and opportunities that we & our folks may have had.

    For fellow landlords out there, what good is wealth if the cost is societal degeneration?
    When hope, passion & ambition is not there, it's a breeding ground for destructive behaviour.
    You will see this with rising youth crime, aggrevated burglary, substance abuse & motor vehicle theft.

    Anyway, just a thought

  • Bangers on 01/08/2023 - 23:51

    Yet to see a well supported argument in here for why housing investment should be treated as a business activity.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 02/08/2023 - 07:04

      Yet to see a well supported argument in here for why housing investment should be treated as a business activity.

      buildings, land, maintenance isn't cheap…. someone has to pay for it - Although i support the notion everyone should be able to put a roof on their head they are not entitled to own a property.

      you go to the supermarket to buy food you need to live but you do pay money for it - it is a 'business' there is a margin of profit that is needed to make that business 'worthwhile'

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join