Rents have been going up for a few years now, just wonder how everyone's going.
What Has Everybody Done since The Start of The Rental Crisis?
niknah on 06/06/2024 - 11:08
Poll Options
- 143Paying the extra rent
- 11Moved to a shared home
- 14Moved out to a cheaper suburb
- 8Moved out to another city
- 97Purchased a home
- 7Homeless
- 3Couchsurfing
- 20Back with parents
- 267No change / home owner / still with parents / etc.
Comments
Buy a new washing machine!
Actually I've gotten quite used to the two settings. 😁 The sofa is a much bigger issue.
Darwin is also an option
Were the prices in Hell too much?
10 seconds in and they start talking about lowering company tax rates. Clown shoes economics.
More money for Albo, more for his unions!
Embarrassed for you, posting drivel.
I for one can't wait to be blown away by the expert analysis of this first year economics student who's just learned about Milton Friedman
cause the LNP were such great economic managers LOL
Purchased a house during covid and now laughing.
I’ve been selling my used underwear
what about your bath water?
Shipping kills the profit on bath water. Panties are cheap(ish) and easy to grunge up then sell.
What are you doing for value add? Spin a decent enough line and you could be shipping just a few ml of water for big bucks if you get people to believe it's really special.
Farts next?
I took in my adult brother rent free for 6 months when his rental ended.
I topped up my offset account so now I no longer pay interest on my mortgage. I might pay it all off soon.
I'd keep the mortgage if you can, it's a great cheap loan to have access to provided it's not costing you anything/much to maintain.
I don't have any plans to go into debt again, unless I decide to buy a better house but I don't think I will.
A better car may be, may be the five is coming after four
@SnoozeAndLose: Nah I'll drive the two shitboxes I have into the ground then buy two more shitboxes with cash.
And 4 is way too many so no way I'm having another.
What are you talking about lol?
If tenants paying $600 a week get a 10% rise in rent then they pay an extra $3000 a year.
Your total land tax bill is probably $2500 or less, which means it went up $600 a year based on your estimates. Unless you own a property worth over $1 million.
In either case, why would anyone be sad about the landlord getting income that easily pays the extra land tax 5x over at minimum?
It's these sorts of landlords who make everyone hate landlords when they cry about how bad things are for them when they're not in any way. Boohoo you have over a million in assets and have to pay $600 extra in tax.
Well I can see why people don't like landlords if that's your response. Avoid my question and change the topic to suit your own line of thinking.
By the way, plenty of people are not as privileged as you and simply won't have the opportunity to buy a house. It's not something you just work hard for and get - plenty of people just have circumstances that prevent them from getting to that point.
Try to think about others and have empathy, otherwise you'll always be seen negatively, not just as a landlord but as a person.
@slipstreamexpress: Lol, I managed to get to where I am in my 30s without any of the usual privileges, more like. If you have any of those privileges and you haven't been able to replicate it (pay off house etc) then instead of blaming me or some other landlord, blame yourself for not being good enough at life. It's actually a very easy game if you have the right stats.
@justworld: no one believes you that you didn't have advantages.
Did your parents provide a roof over your head in primary school?
Did you frequently go to bed hungry?
Did you feel unsafe in your bed at night?
@Eeples: "Did your parents provide a roof over your head in primary school?"
Yes. Didn't most people's? Do you really want to call that an 'advantage'?
Let's play along and assume that, say, 65% of the population had the advantage of having a roof over their head (I'm sure it's higher than that).
Why didn't they all achieve what I did - especially the ones who were born here, or in any event born in an English speaking country?
@justworld: You deny your advantage.
Did you have a stable family life growing up?
Did your family support you at school?
You just can’t see your advantage,
@Eeples: Next you will say "were you paraplegic? No. You're advantaged."
Let's say someone with a stable family life screws up and ends up in a shitty situation. Would you then finally agree that it's their fault? Or would you immediately start finding excuses?
@justworld: Like I said; you can’t see your advantages.
There is no such thing as a level playing field.
Market forces are an aggregate of individual decisions, it doesn't absolve you of your decision making. If you truly think your attitude is good for the world, imagine swapping places with one of your tenants. If you don't care about being evil, then just embrace it and admit it rather than hiding behind such a lame excuse - nobody here is going to spank you for stepping a bit harder than average on some poor people to get ahead.
User name clearly inappropriate
Everyone sympathises with tenants getting a 10% rent increase but no one seems to care about a landlord getting a 40% land tax increase. That's Australian logic for you.
Because a 10% rent increase for a tenant is, almost certainly, way more burdensome to that individual than a 40% land tax increase is to a person that outright owns two of their three properties? Not rocket science.
Tenant should get better at life then.
Tenant had 2-3 years during covid of absolutely nil rent increases. Overall, rents since 2000 have tracked wages. Which you can't say about land tax - it's gone up about 60% in the past 3 years.
Not raised my tenants rent with no plans to raise it for the duration of their lease. And if I was ever to raise the rent it would be something like an extra $20.
We aren't all greedy.
I was the same. One downside though, 10 years later after not raising rent, you kinda have a dependent you don't want. Speaking from experience.
increased my rent from $650 to $850. tenants left, advertised for $1k, got 3 applications on first open inspection, one of the applicants offered 1.1k. done deal.
Good job.
Did you just come back from the Bilderberg meeting?
I can neither confirm nor deny.
I purchased a home just as the crisis began. I saw what was to come and decided to grab the first place I could afford.
This. “First place to afford” is magic word to probably get home ownership. Even if this means moving 2-3 hours from work place.
It’s hard to own house where one wants. But it may not be that hard to own just house. Rent it and move closer to work place to offset if travel not feasible.
Indeed, sometimes taking the plunge and buying any property to enter the market is the way to go. I went for the least appealing house on the best street, and now I'm looking at a 1-hour drive to work or a 3-hour journey via public transport. Luckily, modern technology is there to save the day with entertainment. Plus, renting a single-bedroom place near my job would cost nearly twice my mortgage, so driving turns out to be the more economical choice.
Should include the option: "Contributed to solving the problem by building a property because the market and governments have clearly failed"
NON COMPLIANT !!!!
Took us 3yrs, 3 builders, 2 loans (no thanks to delays with the land developers causing our first construction loan to lapse), and tonne of effort with checks and applications along the way.
If it's non-compliant then this housing crisis is gonna get worse for decades to come.
how much did you make in the process? XD
@aboogee: Make? LOL.
Our costs went up every time a builder went bust or cancelled our build contract because they couldn't start due to the land developers being 6 months late. Our total costs went up by over 10% from this alone. We didn't get the house design we originally wanted because of this.
Make also implies we're seeing money in our pockets which usually doesn't happen till one sells. We're moving in to the house and it'll probably be our forever home the way things are going.
I built too and increased density. Never again.
They make it so hard for investors to build new housing then call you a greedy landlord.
Happy to let the renters figure it out themselves and chip in together to increase housing supply.
I downvote every YouTube channel I see telling people to move to Australia, it's a petty job, but someone has to do it.
Doing the Lord's work, son.
Put up the rent a few times as per REs recommendation
No change for me. solo in my own apartment for 3 years now, and no change in rent. Just renewed my lease for another year at the same rent.
Put up the rent $100 since pre-covid (same tenant) still below market rate so doubt they will leave.
Even with the increase, cashflow is lower than 5 years ago due to mortgage, land tax and other expenses.
I kicked all mine out (I have 7 IPs no mortgage) on no grounds. I've just left the places vacant though, I don't need any more income, and tbh it kinda makes me feel good to watch them all suffer and scramble over themselves like the scum that all renters are.
Have you checked on them? I thought I saw some squatters when I went past a couple of them.
Only 7, and all are still standing?
What a waste, I had 13 until i burned 2 to ashes while the tenants were home. "That'll teach them for being miserly" I said to myself, out loud, while lighting up the first of the two.
See this is why you need to get into a place with a tax evading landlord, lots of room for negotiation :) If they put my rent up any more than $20 I'd rat him out 🤣
I’d rather pay tax than let you blackmail me. I’m a “cut off my nose to spite my face” type of person.
Why wouldn't you declare rental income anyway - suddenly all the maintenance you do (whether true maintenance or improvements) gets a 47% discount plus any bank interest gets a 47% discount plus you have a lot of bargaining power when lease renewal comes up.
Plenty of landlords, the only reason they have a tenant is to declare the rent so they can claim for the interest. With the cost of maintenance, a tenant barely pays for their own wear and tear on the property. And they bring the risk of major hassles.
Lol you people are not seeing this for what it is. They are claiming rental income on one, they just also have another property on their lot they can't claim for… because they can only have one extra property. So all wear and tear for both gets claimed on the one, and they enjoy the extra tax free income from the other.
'you people'?? And how the hell would you know if they claimed 'tap washers' or whatever from their residence as IP maintenance. And sorry but most of that just didn't make sense.
@tonka: Lmao keep your pants on, it's okay. Would you rather I said "you trucks?"
Quite frankly I'm not their accountant or the government so I couldn't give a shit what they claim and don't claim. He's clearly on to something here and it's mutually beneficial :)
Is wear and tear really that much? Say for a half decent shoebox in the city, really is about 1000pw, does it really cost 52k per year to maintain a house? That's a serious cost on top of a mortgage for a new home buyer.
Every property is gonna have a different ratio of expense. Something closer to the city is gonna have a bigger expense in land value so a higher cost in the cost of capital being passed to the tenant.
Rent values could run from say $300 a week upwards and types of expenses vary from units to houses.
Lets say someone purchases a new 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom unit for $800K and rents it out for $750 a week. Strata, rates, water, insurance and agents fee could easily knock off $300 a week. Take another $30 to cover an average 2 week vacancy fee per year.
Painting, carpet, blinds every 3-5 years/ $60 week, Plumbing/electrical Maint $20 week, Kitchen and bathroom depreciation + appliances maint $60 week. So that's $470 just in actual usage cost by the tenant, without covering the $800K purchase and risk etc by the owner. It also depreciates bathrooms and kitchens over 40 years and people expect them to be recently renovated in rentals and you'll get quotes at $100K for a kitchen and 2 bathrooms.
If it's a house you're gonna be paying less strata but way more maintenance and insurance.
If it's a $600K unit you rent for $550 a week these expenses will be similar but you will be paying less interest , same a $110K unit rented for $1K a week, same but more interest cost. Nothing here covers a bad tenant, with tribunal fees, unpaid rent, extra damage.
(also anything you put aside for renovation should cover the future cost, not the cost now, so you should really take 4x the $60 for bathroom +kitchen to cover inflation and the fact should be more frequent than 40 years and maybe 1.5x the paint carpet cost to cover inflation )..
Rents have been going up since the beginning of time. I bought about 1.5 years ago, seems to have been just before things got super crazy everywhere with rental availability. Some areas already had major issues.
Let out my spare room (as big house) got nothing but deadbeats that were filthy and who did way more damage than their pittance board ever paid for. Learnt that, as horrible as it sounds, some people are meant to live outside.
im in Victoria they jacked up the land tax here so i jacked up my rent to cover it - the Landlord haters and government need to realise renting out properties is a busy not a charity - i laughed when the nutters on reddit praised the increase in land tax then 6-mo later moaned they got hit with large rental increases..
the best part is the land tax is tax deductable so im probably better off overall
did you jack up your rent by 10% or more?
I don't buy that taxes are 100% passed on to renters. That suggests that before the extra taxes landlords could have charged more money that renters could afford, but generously decided not to. It's the property bubble and supply shortage that is responsible for higher rents, plus "weirdness" going on in Sydney and now inner Melbourne.We can deflate the bubble through policy and just increase supply, if we wanted to. Humanity can put a man on the moon, I think we can desensitise housing investment and build more properties if we really set our mind to it.
I don't buy that taxes are 100% passed on to renters. That suggests that before the extra taxes landlords could have charged more money that renters could afford, but generously decided not to.
this comment it your prime lack of basic economics, socialist mentality right there. - 'Landlords didnt increase rent because of the taxes' - actually yes they did, most of them by far more then the cost where possible some couldnt thus has to swallow some of the cost themselves in the end, it isnt due to generousity they didnt increase rent. It is just how market forces work. Those who couldnt/cant swallow the cost exited the market making the remaining rented properties even more scares
there is no 'generosity' the fact you thought that is why people wouldnt increase rent is laughable, it is a business it is there to make money - renters arent going to pay you rent if you they dont have too - landlords were renting out at what the market dictated the increase in tax increased rents [i think in the last 12mo by 14.6 percent, this is more then the tax and inflation] - this stastic allow tell us it has been thus past on to renters and then some [why and then some, because landlords can due to the lack of supply. Blame Andrews for a short sighted policy]
the current lack rentals in Victoria has made it a bit of a good and bad the 'remaining' landlords as the supply is essnetially dried up no one is investing but the number of people needing ren
Humanity can put a man on the moon, I think we can desensitise housing investment and build more properties if we really set our mind to it.
what…and wtf does this have to do with housing and rent
almost every country on the planet has an issue with housing im not saying we cant improve things but this just makes no sense
"weirdness" going on in Sydney and now inner Melbourne.
two completely different markets Melbourne has taxed properties investors so much they are exiting or not entering the market thus stiffling supply it is a complete balls up from the state government resulting in less revenue collected, and more pressure on housing
Sydney has little to no where to build other then 50 plus km out from the cbd it is at a point where it is better to rent then spend 2 plus hours getting to work everyday, there is unfortnetly nothing Sydney as a City can do bar try and create high paying jobs away from the City itself which is very too hard to do as most high net worth individuals are concentrated around the easter suburbs and-the Northern Beaches - the state could 'stop' international investors but it would hurt revenue so they wont do that
But landlords, or property investors they should be called these days, overwhelmingly prefer existing properties. Those properties would be rented to people with or without the housing bubble. Even if rents were 1/4 what they are now, no one would leave a property empty. 25k a year is still worth collecting even if it used to be 100k a year. If you're talking about new houses and apartments, then sure go ahead and give them tax breaks for the first five years of whatever, incentivise new builds. And disincentivise existing properties as investments.
@AustriaBargain: im not talking about tax brakes im talking about the double of land tax in Victoria that Andrews introduced that has killed the market
on one had it is good property has taken a breather in the state for growth but on the other the rental market is f—ked
as a landlord i laugh, i dont lose either way but i'd prefer a state in which people can get access to affordable housing, but that is just me im not a socialist i believe everyone should be able to have and build wealth if they wish
NSW or more so Sydney is f—ked i dont have a solution for that mess perhaps all government jobs should be sent out to the rurel and regional areas
@Trying2SaveABuck: Killing the market is a good thing though. If you don't lose either way then you could have been charging extra rent all along, you must feel a bit silly for not raising the rent sooner in a market held captive in the bubble.
@AustriaBargain: Im going to echo my comments before you dont understand market forces
Its like saying Why doesnt Apple just charge 100k for an iphone? They can increase prices cant they? People just swallow the costs? Don't they? Competition and reality doesn't matter?
I'm pretty happy im getting more money an a bigger tax write off
Im unhappy the market is killing the ability for rents to survive and 1st home buyers to get into their own home.
But the same people voting for dumb government are being screwed by dumb governments so live and let live….
@Trying2SaveABuck: Right, because you own an investment property suddenly the ALP and Greens are dumb, and the Liberals and Sky News start making a lot of sense.
@AustriaBargain: So in your mind the Greens make sense? Lmao ok mate
Perhaps you need some sky news balanced all the extreme left wing views
On another note do you actually know a single person who watches sky news? I dont
@AustriaBargain: 'if rents were 1/4 what they are now, no one would leave a property empty'. Yeah they would. but it's gonna depend on how much they owe and depend on negative gearing. Median rent in Australia is around $600pw. 25% of that, $150 a week is not a lot to deal with the wear and tear, risk and hassle of having a tenant. I have a unit I just left empty for 12 months waiting for the rent to catch up enough to make it worth wear on carpets and paint.
@tonka: That's $7,800 a year, $78,000 every ten years. If the house prices are down 1/4 too, then just buy four houses to achieve the same result. But oh no that's four times as many toilets that are going to break after 30 years, how sad.
@AustriaBargain: My unit get $330 a week rent. I'd get less than $70 a week after agents fee at 25%. Paint cost $4.5 Carpet cost $4K, plumbing and electrical cost $300-500 a few times a year. I just paid $5k to reseal a shower. A kitchen or bathroom reno gets quoted at $30K. Much cheaper to leave it empty. If you think maint is after 30 years, you may as well just say you have no idea.
@tonka: If it's more trouble than it's worth, why not sell it? If the housing crisis was solved then the value wouldn't go up much over time, why not sell it in this hypothetical scenario? If you absolutely need rents to be high and for land values to go up up up, then just sell if if the housing situation changes.
@AustriaBargain: Why not keep it and visit sometimes. You don't sell unless market is right for anything unless you need to. My example is to show you, tenants are not the essential part of an IP that you think. Their main purpose is to permit the negative gearing for levaging, if needed. The investment part is about maintaining your wealths value by having assets against inflation. Tenants are not the little goldmines they think they are, at best they are a user pays equation.
@AustriaBargain: First up, I didn't say that anywhere. I'm closer to saying, no way are investors gonna supply rental properties at 25% of current rent. But if it happened and if that causes prices to drop it won't be by 75%. Do you think builders and laborers and suppliers who build houses are gonna take a 75% cut in their pay? And if things dis collapse like you describe, nobody would have a job anymore to buy a house. So it would be like the GFC in USA where big big investors with cashflow scoop them all up and rent them out at original prices within a couple of years. What is true is market forces control the price of everything, and if an IP was a bargain there simply would not be a rental shortage. Rents will keep going up because building and maintaining houses cost a freak load of money. So much of our industry is around housing, you're talking about something that will likely collapse the economy.
@tonka: You got too much common sense for this bloke he thinks the Greens and ALP talk a lot of sense
The ALP i might understand but the Greens lmao
@Trying2SaveABuck: My God, the Greens have been on par with Rik from Young Ones since they stabbed Bob Brown.
@Trying2SaveABuck: More and more Greens voters are born every year. One day we'll have a PM that doesn't give a damn about "property investors". Albo is already talking as if he doesn't, even if behind the scenes he probably does because he mates own a lot of properties. Property may be safe for now but we have a lot of land to build on. We can cut the red tape whenever we want.
@AustriaBargain: So in your mind being anti property investor means you're fit to run?
Wow just wowYou do realise a number of Greens MPs are property investors many of them have trusts that own 10s of millions of worth of real estate.
For the record i somewhat agree Australia needs to get away from its real estate obession but dead set your logic is actually funny you think the Greens are a better party then say the Nationals who are 100% for farming and agri business which move Australia away from just pumping up houses
Perhaps learn a little bit of economics
@Trying2SaveABuck: I would never run for PM. The entire might of News Corp pointed directly at you for years on end. The stress would take years of my life. And yeah I watch Q&A, I know plenty of Greens MPs own more than their share of houses. Doesn't it concern you though as an investor yourself that people are openly talking about this being a problem on the ABC? That you can probably find dozens of videos of Albo talking about it being a problem the same way the Greens do? The public attitude is different now than when I was a kid. When I was a kid it was sensible to invest in property, to do everything you could to get as many properties as you could as a path to wealth, every kid probably knew it because every adult was talking about it. But today every kid and their dog knows that the housing bubble is filled with toxic gas and is hurting them more than it helps them. If you have kids you presumably want them to own a house one day, so your two investment properties going up 1 million dollars means your four kids will have to pay a combined 4 million extra to buy houses of their own. As a family unit the 1 million dollar increase has hurt you more than it's helped you, despite owning two houses. Do you remember flicking on the ABC or seeing clips of the PM on the news talking about this as if it were a big problem when you were a kid?
@AustriaBargain: Lmao Q and A and you bag out people who watch sky news that is essentially the same rubbish on the otherside of the coin
As for property investing you are correct it is a problem but incorrect regarding the solution as it isnt to kill property investing but make it way eaiser and more lucrative to invest in other assets this is what the Greens and left in general dont understand
The ALP/Greens under Shorten almost pumped property to the moon with the removing franking credits would essentially ensure all investors moved into real estate
Make long term stock investing tax Free no one is investing in property and everyone is trying to publicly float on the ASX pumping money into business
@Trying2SaveABuck: You obviously don't have kids if you don't like the ABC. So I guess house prices doubling wouldn't hurt you if you own multiple houses already. You've got a selfish bias. But I think things will change. It's not rocket science to change things, just need political security. Rupert Murdoch is like 100 years old, when he dies the political landscape will change very quickly when his kids carve up his media empire to sell it for a fortune. His hands look like leather gloves, he is basically mummifying already.
@AustriaBargain: I have two kids and i have stated many times i agree housing apperication is an issue but the Greens and ALP and there management will and have made the problem worse not better - it already had in Victoria where renters are struggling to survive.
Changing negative gearing is probably the only thing i somewhat agree with but stocks/ETFs and starting a private business should be more lucrative then just buying a house and sitting on it and in most cases it isnt
The Liberal seem to understand this but also are in the back pocket of the banks so dont want to change
Nationals care about country business and seem to be the only semblance of a sane party in mordern Australia
I shouldn't be investing in houses I should be investing in other ventures but the numbers and risk for property is favourable co.pared to other investments that needs to change the Greens certainty do not understand that.
@Trying2SaveABuck: If your kids watch Bluey, then you actually love the ABC. Show me Sky News' version of Bluey that your kids watch, I'll wait.
@AustriaBargain: ABC kids isnt the same as the ABC HD mate
They are probably more Paw Patrol and Pepper Pig which we stream but sure they do watch ABC kids
I dont know what is on sky news I dont have the channel it isnt on in Victoria I think it is a QLD thing
Very true! 😁 Maybe when I finally go travelling I can change it to markonaplane!