No. I'm not a landlord, landlord hater or a tenant.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-25/should-heating-and-co…
Heating and Cooling Be Mandatory for Rentals? This May Cost Landlords Money
CurlCurl on 26/07/2024 - 00:31
Comments
Renters will pay for heating and cooling regardless. But this way they will pay less. If renters could buy split systems themselves and take them with them to all the rentals they'll have over their lives, they would. But they can't because they need to be installed in and through walls. If all rental properties had split systems then it would be the same difference, the life cost of the split system would be spread over 15 years or whatever. If every rental property had split systems and the actual cost of them was passed on to renters, then it would be as if renters did have their own and took them with them to every different rental they had. Renters would save money compared to using standard electrical heaters or trying to run inefficient single hose portable coolers.
the life cost of the split system would be spread over 15 years or whatever.
Nah, most property owners would increase the rent to recoup the cost over the first couple of years.
Maybe initially with some of the landlords who don't rent it like a real profession. Over time it'll be a predictable cost, if they tend to last about 15 years or whatever. Will probably make property investors more money, if they pass on the actual cost of the units then it would cost them nothing, but renters would be paying less for heating and cooling compared to portable ACs and inefficient heaters. Which means more money to save for an investment properties of their own which pumps up house prices, or just have more money to spend on rent. Unless the housing bubble was popped, but c'mon, does anyone end a Ponzi scheme when it's making you money, you only end it right as you're about to be caught. And if everyone with power is in on the scheme and profiting from it, the housing bubble may never get "caught". Just deflated a little every now and then to make sure it doesn't pop.
If renters could buy split systems themselves and take them with them to all the rentals they'll have over their lives, they would. But they can't because they need to be installed in and through walls.
It's not just that.
When we had our splits installed, I asked the guy how much it would cost to remove, and he said around the same as installation
There is no way a renter is going to pay 2x installation every time they move.
I do think Landlords should install splits where possible. An extra $5/week would cover the costs, and most likely an annual service.
$250/yr isn't covering the servicing for more than a couple of splits.
There are plenty of portable A/C units and heaters you can buy if you're renting, then just take with you, for a few hundred $.
They aren't as powerful or as energy efficient as a Reverse Cycle Split System A/C though.
Wouldn't seeking out and moving into a property which has an existing split system reverse cycle air-conditioner by the prospective tenant make more sense?
The more bells and whistles the rental property has the more the weekly rent is going to cost, some tenants might not want this.
Should the landlord be made to install a pool and jacuzzi as well in case the tenant wants one down the line as they need to be installed also and can't be moved around from house to house - would be a shame if a tenant misses out on such items.
Let's think about things reasonably for a minute, if the tenant wants a pool, air-conditioner, spa bath, home theatre room etc, etc, etc, why not seek out rental properties with these amenities and rent them instead before thrusting more cost onto the property owner who is only going to increase rent accordingly?
yes it would
but who's using logic here?I've mostly lived in places without aircon, but it's been very difficult over summers and getting worse each year, whereas those other things you mentioned are completely unnecessary.
You could argue rentals don't need toilets, running water, windows, etc, and tenants will just seek out the ones that do. But there's a limited supply and the community sets rules on the minimum requirements to sell a product, otherwise you need to sell up and get out of the way for somebody else to do it. People aren't guaranteed a house to rent out.
@CodeExplode: No, you couldn't argue that rentals don't need toilets, running water, windows - that's just plain wrong.
@shutuptakemymoney101: I was using substitution examples for your logic to show how you could similarly claim that landlords don't need to provide things and tenants will simply look for houses which have them. I wasn't saying that's how it should be.
@CodeExplode: If you feel you have a valid argument, I suggest using valid substitute examples instead of making fanciful things up as you did.
With the property market so tight and rentals so tight, there are older properties without a/c.
But also the climate is changing and a ceiling fan may have worked before, now may need an a/c unit.
Also some places may have older style gas heaters. These may not be a good idea anymore either.
But if you move into a property with a ceiling fan and an old heater, it is up to the property owner to make these changes.
Some places don't have the right spaces to intstall a reverse a/c.
It varies from state to state what is required.
not true unfortunately because the installation heating and cooling in older homes is often neither possible or financially viable. If it was, those homes would already have it because having it would increase the achievable rent.
That presumes that landlords could be charging more now, but are holding back.
It's fallacious reasoning.
Exactly. You could reduce the cost to landlords by 50% tomorrow and 90% of it will just go into their pockets
I find it interesting that your comment is so popular, yet when I explain that removing negative gearing will not increase rents the response is always "that's unpossible!"
Increased rent prices are very good for landlords. The government is very thoughtful and caring this time.
we are entering recession, people do not have money to play for builders and renters do not have extra money to pay for housing.. Food is the priority, if you look at the current rental market higher value homes are not renting well, and dumps are getting tens of dozens of renters attending inspections because of cost pressures. We cannot afford to have luxury changes like this mandated on Australians as these costs mean people can't afford to rent the homes.
I think people need to understand what this really means… It states clearly that minimum requirement is for heating cooling in the main living area which does not mean bedrooms…
Nope.
This is for VIC just fyi. I’ve lived in brand new apartment before and none of them units had heating cooling for bedrooms.
Victoria requires all rental properties to have a fixed heater (not portable), in the main living space that meets energy efficiency requirements.
Depends which state.
I would not have thought bedrooms were included in the past.
Victoria and Tassie used to be much colder states once upon a time.
Tassie used a lot of LPG heating.
Also Vic. had more generous rules and concessions in the energy market.
These rules may now be coming to the other states.
Ducted heating and cooling systems need a lot more maintence than simpler reverse a/c and need certain requirements to retrofit.
I think getting houses propery insulated and better designed to efficent energy standards would have solved the problems in the first place.
But Australia has always had "cold and drafty" houses with poor energy efficency.
Good at "losing" heat during our hot summers.Ducted heating and cooling systems need a lot more maintence than simpler reverse a/c and need certain requirements to retrofit
This is not the case. Simple system means you'd need more than one unit to cover all separate areas that means more maintenance cost. If you want to install a single system that can support entire house heating cooling, it will be a huge upfront cost for both installing or upgrading an existing system. There is no way LL's would be happy to spend 20-30k for an upgrade like this and expect rentals to remain at same figure. After all they're doing an investment, not running a charity.
I used to work in Singapore and rent and I remember that on going maintenance (cleaning of the unit / not repairs) of air/con unit was tenant's responsibility and failing to provide proof of the cleaning invoices performed at regular intervals as per rental agreement would affect your security deposit. If more and more new apartments and houses go towards all electric systems, I'd see the regular cleaning of aircon unit would eventually become tenant's responsibility as well…
@kaleidoscope: And I used to work in a leading Vertically Intergrated Energy Retailer.
So the points you make are moot.
Both our points are accurate and correct. Though your viewpoint and experience are hampered and negated by my experiences.
A centralised system means only one very large heating/cooling unit needs servicing only. It heats the whole house/apartment.
But the collection of ducting going throughout the house/ceiling/flooring does require regular cleaning and maintenance and due to safety requirements it is likely that the Landlord will be required to pay for it.
A simple split system in a central area can provide adequate warmth and heating for a living/kitchen area.
An additional 2 split a/c units in separate bedrooms may, if strucually possible, resolve the problem simply and cheaply.
No landlords don't run a charity, but habitable places do require landlords to take up their responsibility and tenants to do their part too.
Cleaning infrastructure and for example guttering falls on the LL.https://www.dust-doctors.com/blog/entryid/38/heating-hazards…
https://www.rsandrews.com/blog/can-your-duct-work-be-a-fire-…
nah.. the proposed laws cover bedrooms. they aren't agreed yet but if they go through it cover bedrooms.
As they should, but most landlords also get tax deductions for property expenses, so they should moderate that cost against the property savings, (exempting retiree landlords who don't have any other income, of course).
In Tasmania you had to have a heater installed in August 2016. Rent prices didn’t go up
Renters will just end up paying…
More in rent, but hopefully less in running costs. Should balance out over the lease, use less electricity, and save the need to buy some sort of portable heater/cooler.
In the longer term, it's wins all round.
In the longer term, it's wins all round.
Nope, electricity prices will keep rising…
and if landlords are left with no choice but to either sell out or increase costs beyond what people can afford right now. is it a win all round?
if humans thought longer term the world would be so much better
But after the Landlord has collected various tax benefits and fulfilled legal oblagations.
It is true that a cheap old shack attracts less rent than than a new place with better amenity.
If a renter rented my home without the aircon at $X rate then demanded I added air conditioning, the rent would also increase by $X rate - that’s just how it works..
The problem is we also have landlords jacking up rents in line with "market prices" all over the place with zero improvements being done.
I'd be fine with passing on costs to tenants if landlords were also restricted in raising rents above cost of living unless there was a material improvement to the property. Instead they tend to want it both ways.
The market dictates it both ways. The market price goes up as amenities go up.
The market price can also go up independently of that as the value of housing goes up or as demand for housing goes up. That's not having it both ways.
Leave it all to the market and it'll sort itself out.
I don't get the love affair with unregulated markets, people need a place to live - leave it to the market and the market will normalise at the majority of people paying a huge portion of their income for a place to live and a small number of people buying up more and more control of land and buildings to ensure prices stay as high as possible. Capitalism in action.
Much like healthcare, when the option is "not dying" the amount people are willing to spend is high. Same as with "not being homeless". Result is we have land banks, needing to ban property developers from donating to political parties and lines for people wanting to buy vacant plots of land.
At some point we should probably consider a home a human right and stop pretending that rent seeking is a perfectly acceptable part of life.
@freefall101: This isn't a problem with unrelated markets nor this abstract idea of "capitalism" (which doesn't exist in practice), your complaints are valid and fair but they are a result of the regulations and policy around housing, mortgages, taxation, etc.
If the banks didn't loan money for mortgages using money printers, if income tax was abolished in favour of wealth tax (including property value as an ordinary wealth store), and if immigration wasn't used as a tool to destabilize our society and further class stratification, then there would be a much truer free market and we (the common man) would all be drastically wealthier. Just about every "ordinary" and accepted aspects of our economic system has been manipulated over the last century (and further back) to be in service of the richest few, more regulation is never going to fix this.
@ssfps: Those things you mentioned but dislike are very much the character of the "free" market. Simply, people will do things that will benefit them.
If you want to stop them, because say societal costs of letting everyone doing whatever they want is too great, you need regulation.
All the examples you stated, I don't know if you're aware or not, would require massive regulation.
Stop banks from loaning money using money printers (aka 100% reserve ratio) - massive regulation required, as well as destroying the business model of all modern Australian banks.
Changing the flavour of tax from income to wealth - massive regulation required, as well as empowering privacy invading government agents to snoop all over your total financial assets.
Restrict the natural movement of people via immigration (aka white australia policy) - massive regulation required, likely resulting in tremendous backlash from Australia's neighbouring countries, accusations of racism, societal destabilization, destroying Australian business sectors of tourism and higher education, as well as severely damaging the sectors of mining and agriculture.
Putting aside how the "free market -> ???? -> common man wealthier" underwear gnome meme would actually work, just implementing your view of how the country should be governed and enforcing it is by definition regulation.
Those things you mentioned but dislike are very much the character of the "free" market
We're talking about economic regulation. Sure, that exists in a legal framework, so your "gotcha" is essentially pointing out that completely lawlessness would result in anarchy - big surprise there.
Stop banks from loaning money using money printers (aka 100% reserve ratio) - massive regulation required
The "regulations" for this are inherently far simpler, and in fact that was the default for most of civilization until a few hundred years ago. Calling that "highly regulated" vs the current status-quo is insane.
as well as destroying the business model of all modern Australian banks.
Wow, destroying a business model based on an oligarchy of private institutions that manipulate money to extract wealth from people surreptitiously, will someone please think of the poor bankers? How could they possibly survive if they had to lend their own money!??!?
Changing the flavour of tax from income to wealth - massive regulation required, as well as empowering privacy invading government agents to snoop all over your total financial assets.
They already have the visibility to enact this, so it's disingenuous to characterize this as "privacy invading" as if that's more of a concern. In fact, the major assets that would make up the bulk are already semi-wealth-taxed in many parts of the world, in a half-hearted way, it's hardly revolutionary.
Restrict the natural movement of people via immigration (aka white australia policy) - massive regulation required, likely resulting in tremendous backlash from Australia's neighbouring countries, accusations of racism, societal destabilization, destroying Australian business sectors of tourism and higher education, as well as severely damaging the sectors of mining and agriculture.
Calling limiting immigration a "white australia" policy is 100% disingenuous propaganda. We have a below-replacement fertility rate, and a steady immigration rate of mostly non whites could bring that up to a replacement-level rate without increasing the population, thus without increasing the burden on housing and infrastructure, stabilizing all our markets. The only people above-replacement level immigration benefits are the wealthy.
If you truly believe limiting immigration to a lower level is racism, why are we not racist for limiting it to current levels? Why not allow 50 million immigrants a year, to not be racist? Your argument here is completely asinine and inconsistent.
societal destabilization
This is the biggest joke out of your whole response - our high immigration rate is contributing to societal destabilization, not improving it.
damaging the sectors of mining and agriculture
You're implying paying people fair livable wages for eg fruit picking is inherently bad for the common man, and importing cheap brown labour is somehow not racist or imperialist? Absolutely insane.
@CaptainJack: This is roughly not very useful when I'm arguing relying on the markets is a bad idea.
Markets like this can fail all the time. Sometimes the best outcomes require longer term thinking, regulation, incentives, and penalties can encourage the best case behaviour.
There is currently a housing shortage. free market economics textbook thinking is irrelevant in this situation.
In normal circumstances this regulation would do very little to rents since most homes will already have heating. Competition would prevent rent increases.
In the current situation this regulation could increase rents for the lowest segment of the market (low quality housing which doesn't have heating already). The median and average will not move, and people who suffer will be gasslit and told it isn't happening.
To be clear I support the regulation regardless, the costs to heat a home with a portable heater are much higher
@greatlamp: You get what you pay for - there's no free lunch, nor should there be. As a homeowner, I had to install my own heating at my own cost - why should anyone else get a free ride?
@justworld: Who said anything about a free ride? Tenants are paying rent. They shouldn't be subjected to extortionate rent increases, that's part of the 'free market' principles too. When buyers and sellers don't have equal bargaining power it isn't a free market.
The free market keeps getting repeated, but seems like only the parts that benefit the rich are focused on.
@greatlamp: They are paying rent and rent is subject to the vicissitudes of the market; improved conditions means more rent.
Nothing is 'extortionate' - it is market driven. If it is extortionate the tenant will have no difficulty finding a place at market rent and moving accordingly.
Ironically, many of the reforms hurt good tenants by preventing from having access to free market advantages. Landlords in Victoria can no longer accept rental bids, so even if a tenant likes a property and is willing to offer a higher rent, the tenant is banned from doing so. All this does is prevent good tenants from rising to the top. Protecting the weak always comes at the cost of allowing the strong to flourish.
@justworld: There is a housing shortage, there is already a significant advantage afforded to landlords. The strong are flourishing.
There is no free marketGood tenants don't need to 'rise to the top', people just need a place to live. We demolished the slums in Melbourne and Sydney in the 40s and 50s, now we have people arguing that preventing slums to redevelop is harmful… to who? Corporate landlords that own blocks of apartments?
We aren't talking about squatters rights or eating the rich, we are talking about having a heater installed. Amortise the $1000 split system over the life of the unit, it's a rounding error.
Improved conditions does not mean more rent, the price of anything is based on market forces until you reach the cost of production.
@greatlamp: Why should I amortise an expense but a tenant can't amortise rent? In your view everything is a rounding error for me, even a $3000 rise in land tax, but no doubt, a $10 increase in rent to a tenant is not a rounding error.
It's this sort of thing which goes against the principles of a free market.
"Cost of production"? So is Apple meant to sell iPhones only for the $80 in materials and labour that it costs to make them in China? Don't think that's how it works.
@justworld: You profess that the free market is a solution without understanding what the free market is and isn't. Tenants are not in a free market when there is a housing shortage and there is the possibility of homelessness. You keep ignoring this because you know accepting it means you have no argument.
Why should I amortise an expense but a tenant can't amortise rent?
I don't think you understand what amortise means. This statement makes no sense, rent is already amortised.
So is Apple meant to sell iPhones only for the $80 in materials and labour that it costs to make them in China?
You are mixing morality and economics. I didn't say what should happen, I explained how it actually works. You are the one adding morality to the discussion.
There is no law stopping you from charging more rent after you install a heater. I explained whether you are able to, if you scroll up you will see I expect rents will increase as a result. You are assuming I'm having an anti landlord rant.
Perhaps because you know your position is likely to be distasteful?
@greatlamp: There's nothing distasteful about being a landlord - if someone can't handle that, it's on that person to deal with the reality of life. Apple sells iPhones and landlords sell the ability to live in a rental property.
'Housing shortage' is no more or less a thing than an 'iPhone shortage'. People will always claim there's a housing shortage. Even if there is, what then? Move into a share house or live in your car or something.
@justworld: Improving the property's amenities should make that property more attractive to potential tenants than other properties in the market. The value of this amenity over the system's life is relatively small, and there are much larger forces in the market contributing to costs. (And meeting a minimum requirement isn't going to make an individual property stand out)
Removing flexibility in the market can result in negative consequences for some but your example suggests that those who can afford more are better tenants - can't agree with this.
there's a market price for house without aircon, and a market price for house with aircon.
Everything is going up, hell the last packet of potato chips I bought had less in the packet for the same price.
Why do people think being a property investor should be a philanthropic endeavor?
Here's a big tip for a lot of the 'young ones' struggling with rent:
Your iPhone 12 is completely fine, you do not need to pay $2K everytime Apple releases a new phone pro/max/super/duper so you have the latest.
Because having a roof over your head should be more important than someone maximising returns.
The same arguments apply to healthcare too, we could scrap the PBS, allow pharmaceutical companies, private health providers, shareholders and doctors to maximise returns. They work a hell of a lot harder than landlords and take more risks, why is that less rewarded in this country? And yet a house raises quality of life so much, and we seemingly don’t care.
Congrats on updating the old avocado on toast meme though. Are you truly so out of it you think young Australians just need to save a little more on luxuries to buy a house?
@freefall101: So Coles/Woolworths should be made to drop food prices, because without food people will die and won't need a roof over their heads?
People need to drive to work to make a living, all petrol stations should reduce the cost of fuel?
Tradie's are charging more for material and labour, that's unfair to renters as the price is put onto them, they should drop their prices too?
Where do I need to stop before you realise that singling out landlords is a stupid way forward which will only hurt renters even more.
People won't die without an a/c unit, or pool, or whatever else - chances are your parents lived without it anyway.
A lot of young people want it all, to be able to live in a palace in the inner ring of the CBD, guess what life aint like that - you make do and then upgrade as you go through life working for what you want not having it handed to you by government decree.
So Coles/Woolworths should be made to drop food prices
Where they are rent seeking and manipulating prices to maximise returns, absolutely. The pair control almost two thirds of the food market, they should absolutely be prevented
People need to drive to work to make a living, all petrol stations should reduce the cost of fuel?
Fuel has the difference that there is a competitive market, if you don't want fuel from one place you go somewhere else. If your landlord jacks your rent up for fun then you can't just move house in 10 minutes.
I also lived without a car for my entire 30s. Not sure how it's a requirement to make a living.
Tradie's are charging more for material and labour, that's unfair to renters as the price is put onto them, they should drop their prices too?
I suggest you go back and read my other posts on both pushing on costs as well as ramping up pricing in line with the market.
People won't die without an a/c unit, or pool, or whatever else - chances are your parents lived without it anyway.
You won't die without owning an investment property either, my parents lived without owning one. Is that really where your priorities lie? Better to protect the returns because of your trust in the invisible hand?
A lot of young people want it all, to be able to live in a palace in the inner ring of the CBD, guess what life aint like that - you make do and then upgrade as you go through life working for what you want not having it handed to you by government decree.
Better eat some less toast to save that $100k deposit while earning $40k a year and paying $20k in rent.
People won't die without an a/c unit, or pool, or whatever else - chances are your parents lived without it anyway.
My parents grew up without electricity. But believe it or not, living standards have changed.
Based on your argument, landlords shouldn't need to have basic utilities because chances are someone somewhere is living without them.
Also, I like how you've seemingly equated having heating and cooling to having a pool. Seriously are you that out of touch?
@freefall101: This maximising returns is for the building industry, sustainability and affordable housing maximises quality of life and the environment, there is no relationship to the latter with these changes.
Have a talk to the property agents next time you go looking for homes as how many people are now able to pay for more "new" homes in the inner suburbs and how many months the "better" homes have been sitting vacant this year.
Australia relies on mom and dads to invest their hard earned money into rental property for a good portion of our population to have homes and bare in mind most run these at a loss (called negative gearing) with a hope of future returns on capital gains.
If the building industry continues to force those investors to commit more and more money into ongoing property changes those people that ultimately cost mums and dads too much and they will sell and move their money back to shares or other better investments. If there is no mums and dads owning these rental homes, then there will be no properties to rent. As renters that's not what we want.
This latest proposal I see as the final spear through the backs of mums and dads of this ridiculous government we have.
I cannot see how older properties can be retrofitted to have whole of house type heating and cooling at the level of efficiency they are demanding. The cost would be tens of thousands and the ongoing maintainace of the higher efficiency brands would put the properties further into loss. Renters and landlords would also have to deal with regular repairs and maintenance associated with that technology.
Reality is the share market is now looking so much better than property, with the major tenancy act changes in 2021, huge issues with VCAT backlogs and negligence and compliance company scams, land tax doubling this year, and interest rates sky rocketing, that balance of risk / reward is gone for mum and dad investors.
If the building industry continues to force those investors to commit more and more money into ongoing property changes those people that ultimately cost mums and dads too much and they will sell and move their money back to shares or other better investments.
So this and similar regulations might decrease the demand for residential real estate.
If there is no mums and dads owning these rental homes, then there will be no properties to rent. As renters that's not what we want.
Renters would prefer to own a home, but cannot afford to. Since the government is unable to increase supply, they can act to decrease demand and give renters what they actually want.
@greatlamp: Govt shouldn't be intervening in a free market. Tenants (and landlords, and everyone) get what they pay for and don't get what they don't pay for. Leave it be.
@justworld: The government's role is to intervene when markets fail, not to intervene in a free market. The rental market is not a free market.
@greatlamp: It is a free market. Just because you don't get what you want as a tenant doesn't mean it's not a free market.
The job market is a free market too, even with the presence of unemployed people. That's what makes it a free market.
@justworld: It is not a free market. Just because you don't agree with government intervention in any circumstances does not mean a lack of government intervention defines a free market.
Here is a definition from the corporate finance institute
any one individual can take part in it. The decision to produce or consume a particular product is totally voluntary. It means that companies or individuals can produce or purchase as much or as little of a product as they want.
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/fr…
When there is a housing shortage a free market no longer exists. Similarly healthcare can never exist in a free market. The fire brigade service cannot operate in a free market. When there is no option to refuse to participate, the free is not present.
This is not open for debate, you just choose a definition of free market that you ignorantly believe suits your interests.
@greatlamp: zzzzz by your definition the employment market is not a free market either since there are unemployed people. In the real world, you either earn your keep or you make whatever choices you can to get by. Any individual can take part in the job market - some however don't have the skills to be employed; that's the nature of a market.
Fire brigade isn't a free market because certain households subsidise others by paying for a fire services levy. I'd be happy to move to a private insurance model. Likewise, health insurance isn't a free market because the healthy and rich subsidise the unhealthy and poor. What makes them not free markets is the largesse of the rich, frankly.
If you want more and more largesse, that's fine - vote for it or accept the system as it is. Australians have more than enough welfare; you'd have to be completely (profanity) to be struggling in this country. Life here is really Super Easy Mode.
by your definition the employment market is not a free market either since there are unemployed people.
No, you are just having a made up argument with yourself.
I've explained the definition of a free market, again you choose your own definition.
Fire brigade isn't a free market because certain households subsidise others by paying for a fire services levy. I'd be happy to move to a private insurance model.
Of course you prefer the model that has higher expenses, and higher costs for virtually all participants including yourself. You don't understand economics, you only understand the distorted religion of 'free markets' fed to you by propaganda that suits billionaires who prefer not to pay taxes
@freefall101: I do think any interference in any markets does cause a certain "bow" of behaviour.
The way of housing and health are different, though both are regulated.
Reliance on the Public Health system used to be okay.
But now all things in health cost a lot more, with more gaps and pressures like never before.
Even in private health.
In rentals, both for offices and homes, long term issues have played out over different crises, whether people stayed home during COVID or whatever.
So things are tinkered with a bit, but costs, shortages and labour all have had an impact.
Tradies are in short supply to fix things, repairs and upgrades take longer.
The circles of things is costlier.
There is a spiral upwards for everyone.
This means the cost of living is a lot harder.@freefall101: Certainly I agree the healthcare sector should be privatised - public surgeons don't earn enough .Base in VIC is around $350k a year which far undervalues the training and skills involved.
I'd be fine with passing on costs to tenants if landlords were also restricted in raising rents above cost of living unless there was a material improvement to the property. Instead they tend to want it both ways.
What? How is cost of living defined such that you can't raise rents above it?
Wait a sec, you would increase the rent from $X to ($X + $X) ? Doubling the rent seems a bit extreme….
Why only $X and not 3 times $X? Gotta show em.
Do you also increase rent in line with the market?
Government imposts do not hurt landlords or corporations, they hurt tenants and customers. I suspect that may be the whole point.
I suspect that may be the whole point.
?? And the point of that being what?
I suspect that there are more voters who rent than are landlords.So the whole point of good government is merely to 'get votes'?
Sadly I suspect you are probably right on that score.
But no, that wasn't what I was thinking.
So the whole point of good government is merely to 'get votes'?
No, it's to benefit their constituents with positive, progressive change. As evidenced.
@ThithLord: By forcing their rent up?
Reminds me of the old axiom: "Government, if you think the problems we cause are bad, wait till you see our solutions."
@EightImmortals: Rents might go up, but hopefully living standards go up too.
Also, tenants might save money in running costs, and don't have to buy portable heaters/coolers.
A small split system generally doesn't cost that much, generally a fraction of a percentage of the value of the property. They are a capital expense and should be depreciated over its expected life span as well, which means it's much cheaper for a landlord to get installed than an owner occupied home.
Except most of the politicians are in on the ponzi scheme and have multiple investment properties. I remember some figures were released on how many investment properties are owned by politicians a few years back.
Tenants are already hurt so its all good.
thats a sensible view, landlords can reinvest to the share market and dump the properties.
Where is that gas cooker in the lounge and brick guy when you need him right
rip
Yeah I think it should be mandatory, places that don't have this are shit. Same with making things like flyscreen mandatory. I'm a landlord and all of this stuff is just basic stuff you should be doing. I've had thing improved at no cost to tenant before.
Also (profanity) all the people here who say as landlords they'd just increase the prices by whatever it costs. If the request is reasonable there's no reason to increase the rent. Just reflects a real lazy and shitty attitude.
Just reflects a real lazy and shitty attitude.
New to OzBargain, mate?
Been around longer than yourself.
Still happy to call out crap behaviour. Just because it happens doesn't mean it should be accepted as fine.
'Twas a friendly jibe, fren
Amazing. you own one home and think your property is the model for all properties. Double hung windows which is the most common around in my area cannot take flyscreens, they either have to be mounted outside of the home spoiling the look of the property and being exposed to the elements or a detachable flyscreen is used. (the latter is what I see most people do without needing the landlords involvement)
With HVAC if you have a flat roof architecture or certain roof design whole of home heating and cooling cannot be done, its extremely difficult to simply retrofit a 100 year old home that is common in the inner city. Also good quality whole of home systems don't necessarily have high efficiency, there is a balance against reliabiliity and cost, for renters.. having the system fail and take 2 months to repair vs having it work but be a little less efficient is a no brainer decision, same for experienced landlords.
If the government wants to mandate something, mandate some money gets invested in research to find retrofit products such as improvements to window material in those double hung windows to reduce heat loss, help bring to market products landlords could affordable add to older homes and renters would be able to see environmental benefits.Most landlords are about ensuring their tenants want to stay there and keep paying the rent, no one wants good tenants to leave because of small fix. This legislation has nothing to do with affordabiliity, sustainability or caring about the renters or landlords.
Next thing renters are going to be expecting four walls and a roof. It's only going to drive rents up. /sarcasm
luxury. I rented a tent on the top of a hill once.
it did include a poop hole shovel at least.
You got a poop hole shovel? That must have jacked the rent up.
It used to be if you wanted a rental with air-conditioning you paid more for it. If you couldn't afford the extra you got a rental without it. Now renters will have no choice but to pay extra for something they don't want.
Stretch
People need heating and cooling. They also need houses with proper insulation.
They should mandate this for all houses then, not just rentals.
They'll just increase rent prices…