Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[Gralin]

TBH, I tend to agree, but its hard for elected officials to legislate in all sort of areas without effectively removing themselves from many aspects of the real world. If they are in any way interested in improving their wealth situation, it's hard to do without owning shares in companies or property. And their salaries incentivises trying to improve their wealth situation.

its not an easy situation for sure and yes in our current societal model basically impossible but having housing policy on investments directly controlled by people that benefit from it is a massive conflict on interest that just gets ignored

of course, if residental housing wasn't an investment option that problem would go away because there couldn't be a conflict of interest

but who is going to turn that tap off for themselves?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

correct

incorrect

I also find that the people being in charge of legislation around home ownership and investments also being a group with one of the highest representation of property investors to be a bad thing

to fix the problem they have to legislate against their own self interests

How would one create a rental market for those who can't (or don't want to) purchase their own home if not for investment property?

Don't get me wrong, housing is a massive, massive issue and people with multiple investment properties are getting away with tax break after tax break to the point where I would call it a rort.

But we still need a rental market. It can't all be taxpayer funded social housing.

 

[Gralin]

How would one create a rental market for those who can't (or don't want to) purchase their own home if not for investment property?

Don't get me wrong, housing is a massive, massive issue and people with multiple investment properties are getting away with tax break after tax break to the point where I would call it a rort.

But we still need a rental market. It can't all be taxpayer funded social housing.

we used to have this thing called public housing that we mostly stopped building in the 90s, that wasn't free to live in, its still not free to live in, its just that rent prices are controlled and linked to your income

we've got a few issues currently

a shortage of public housing due to decades of neglect, they didnt keep up with population growth like they used to

they used to build public housing stock as a percentage of population growth

a growing percentage of housing stock being bought up by investors, pushing up the prices and meaning more people need to rent

the percentage of people renting isn't growing because people don't want to own

its that more people are priced out of owning and have no choice but to rent

the other issue is unlimited rent increase people can charge more in rent as a percentage of tenants income than banks can charge people with a mortgage

there is nothing linking rent to any income testing outside of public housing

community housing can do this but more commonly its set as a percentage of the local market, which means when the area goes up unchecked due to greed the social housing gets more expensive as well

 

[burge13]

Albo is a turd but we have people complaining about him selling his house? Go outside guys, bloody hell, there's more to life

 

[Gralin]

Albo is a turd but we have people complaining about him selling his house? Go outside guys, bloody hell, there's more to life

thanks for your input

have you considered going outside instead of complaining about reading things you don't want to?

 

[burge13]

thanks for your input

have you considered going outside instead of complaining about reading things you don't want to?

Stuck at work unfortunately so this will do for now

 

[Captivating]

Is Clare O'Neil the biggest failure as a Minister.,

Home Affairs - strike 1
Cyber Security - strike 2

When things get prickly, she disappears up her own sphincter.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

we used to have this thing called public housing that we mostly stopped building in the 90s, that wasn't free to live in, its still not free to live in, its just that rent prices are controlled and linked to your income

we've got a few issues currently

a shortage of public housing due to decades of neglect, they didnt keep up with population growth like they used to

they used to build public housing stock as a percentage of population growth

a growing percentage of housing stock being bought up by investors, pushing up the prices and meaning more people need to rent

the percentage of people renting isn't growing because people don't want to own

its that more people are priced out of owning and have no choice but to rent

the other issue is unlimited rent increase people can charge more in rent as a percentage of tenants income than banks can charge people with a mortgage

there is nothing linking rent to any income testing outside of public housing

community housing can do this but more commonly its set as a percentage of the local market, which means when the area goes up unchecked due to greed the social housing gets more expensive as well

I get all of that.

But social housing never has and never will provide enough houses to sustain everybody who wants/needs to rent. Also, there is a certain demographic that may well want to rent properties that are bigger and nicer than those that the government will build.

How do you propose to create a market for those people if you don't believe in the private ownership of investment property? Are you seriously suggesting that all residential rental property in this country by state owned and controlled?

 

[burge13]

I get all of that.

But social housing never has and never will provide enough houses to sustain everybody who wants/needs to rent. Also, there is a certain demographic that may well want to rent properties that are bigger and nicer than those that the government will build.

How do you propose to create a market for those people if you don't believe in the private ownership of investment property? Are you seriously suggesting that all residential rental property in this country by state owned and controlled?

The states should be developing themselves through infrastructure projects/departments but then we don't have enough builders or apprentices to begin such a thing.

I don't see why the government at state, or council level, couldn't act as a building department. They would have land or have we sold every square inch of this country to private hands? I have NFI here but if they have land why not set up a quasi development business under state/council ownership and build 3 bedroom houses on their land selling direct to public?

I shutter to think how badly they'd eff it up in practice but in theory it works (if we had the builders to hire)?

 

[Captivating]

^ we had a decent rental market until governments decided to put their sticky fingers in forcing investors to sell, thereby reducing rental stock.

 

[burge13]

^ we had a decent rental market until governments decided to put their sticky fingers in forcing investors to sell, thereby reducing rental stock.

Government keeps adding taxes like land tax to owners which they just pass onto renters. It's such short sighted policy

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Government keeps adding taxes like land tax to owners which they just pass onto renters. It's such short sighted policy

Yes and no.

Owners get their share of tax breaks. And one of the excuses owners are making for rent hikes is the increased servicing costs of the loans on these investment properties.

Well I'll bet you any amount you like that north of 98% of owners don't drop rents when interest rates start coming down.

 

[Billy ray]

Something like half of the $36b is going on aged care, associated services and welfare supplements for healthcare.

Another $6b on NDIS


Leaving maybe $10b for pension, jobseeker, youth allowance etc

Raising welfare payments would improve health outcomes and downstream impact on health services

As would adding dental and mental health care

More should be spent on education and health for sure though

some of these numbers seem out.
all outlined in budget paper 1, statement 6, page 209 for social security and welfare (and before and after for other areas)

https://budget.gov.au/content/bp1/download/bp1_bs-6.pdf

 

[Vindicater]

Under the Constitution, education is primarily the responsibility of State and Territory Governments. Defence is obviously a Commonwealth responsibility.

I know that.

That's why it is an indictment.

 

[burge13]

Yes and no.

Owners get their share of tax breaks. And one of the excuses owners are making for rent hikes is the increased servicing costs of the loans on these investment properties.

Well I'll bet you any amount you like that north of 98% of owners don't drop rents when interest rates start coming down.

Conservative setting the figure at only 98% tbh, it's probably only fraction of decimals off 100%

Even still, adding more costs that will obviously get passed onto renters doesn't help so it was still short sighted.

Land tax = 1400 a year (made up), have a guess how much rent goes up a year now? Owners aren't missing anything, government gets some extra $ to piss away, renter screwed...

Rate hike goes up $2000 a year, have a guess how much rent goes up now? You guessed it

All this stuff solves absolutely zero without policy, something our piss weak governments never want to tackle on any issue. They only want band aid solutions to try and secure 51% of votes

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Conservative setting the figure at only 98% tbh, it's probably only fraction of decimals off 100%

Even still, adding more costs that will obviously get passed onto renters doesn't help so it was still short sighted.

Land tax = 1400 a year (made up), have a guess how much rent goes up a year now? Owners aren't missing anything, government gets some extra $ to piss away, renter screwed...

Rate hike goes up $2000 a year, have a guess how much rent goes up now? You guessed it

All this stuff solves absolutely zero without policy, something our piss weak governments never want to tackle on any issue. They only want band aid solutions to try and secure 51% of votes

Mate they don't even care about 51% of the votes. Both major parties have sold out to the crossbench. If 40% of the vote gets them in, they'll suck chode if they have to in order to gain the support of people they usually despise.

 

[peetoo]

I’m also wondering if existing investment properties were grandfathered and only new property could go into NG. Bill Shorten

Would the current slowness of producing housing still be there?

 

[QuietB]

Lots of politician bashing in here which is fair enough.

But, Australia had an election where the abolishment of negative gearing and changing capital gains tax for investment property was probably the central election issue - and Australian's voted Morrison back - they rejected the policy.

At what point do Australian's take responsibility for creating their own problems?

 

[Gralin]

some of these numbers seem out.
all outlined in budget paper 1, statement 6, page 209 for social security and welfare (and before and after for other areas)

https://budget.gov.au/content/bp1/download/bp1_bs-6.pdf

yeah i really shouldn't have been saying 36b it was 36% of the budget in that article

will update

 

[tandino]

Come on mate, he's been a good landlord according to his tenants. If his arrangements change and he wants to sell his investment property then why shouldn't he be able to? Are you really expecting him to hold on to the property just to appease the tenants he has thus far been very accommodating of?

It's an outrageous thing to hang the PM on when you have so much more credible material.

Both things can be right, you know. One of the risks of being a landlord is your tenants are going to hate you if you kick them out of their homes.

I've been there many times. It sucks.

 

[nut]

When you have an economy completely reliant on house prices increasing, there isn’t much you can do.

When people wake up and realise the real issue is how money is created, how our banking system works.

 

[peetoo]

When you have an economy completely reliant on house prices increasing, there isn’t much you can do.

When people wake up and realise the real issue is how money is created, how our banking system works.

It would work better with a larger population, less reliance on trade and supply chain resilience

 

[Gralin]

I get all of that.

But social housing never has and never will provide enough houses to sustain everybody who wants/needs to rent.

never has is a choice as is never will

Also, there is a certain demographic that may well want to rent properties that are bigger and nicer than those that the government will build.

they can also build their own like they can now, but this is just creating a problem that isn't a problem compared to people being homeless without a choice like we have now

How do you propose to create a market for those people if you don't believe in the private ownership of investment property?

i don't care about creating a market for people that want to rent luxury housing

Are you seriously suggesting that all residential rental property in this country by state owned and controlled?

we have less than 4% of dwelling in this country be public or social housing

compared to 1981 housing stock as more than doubled and social housing has gone up about 50%

England has 17% of dwelling be social housing

netherlands is 29% which would almost exactly cover our rental requirements here currently

What is the right level of social housing for Australia? | AHURI

In the 40 years between 1981 and 2021 the percentage of all Australian households living in social housing has ranged from 4.9 per cent in 1981 to 3.8 per cent in 2021. Such a drop in the proportion of social housing raises the question of has Australia achieved the balance right, and also just...

www.ahuri.edu.au

there is so much more than could be done than what we have done and continue to do

and yes it is possible to have all the rental stock be government owned if we chose to go down that path

stopping people turning residential stock into short stay accommodation is a relatively simple one

removing the incentives to have investment properties that cost tens of billions every year and putting that money into well run and maintained public housing instead would be great, including buying existing stock where appropriate

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Both things can be right, you know. One of the risks of being a landlord is your tenants are going to hate you if you kick them out of their homes.

I've been there many times. It sucks.

I'm struggling to see what Albo has done wrong here...in a private citizen sense. He's shown compassion to his tenants by keeping rents at much lower than market value. He now wants to sell the property and has given the tenants 90 days' notice. I wonder whether the tenants would have run to the media with it had they been paying market value over the past 4 years. I suspect they feel jilted in part because the relatively sweet deal they are on is about to expire.

I get that 90 days' notice is not long in this heated rental market, but I am struggling to understand (if I remove the notion that he is the PM) what Albo has done wrong.

 

[peetoo]

never has is a choice as is never will

they can also build their own like they can now, but this is just creating a problem that isn't a problem compared to people being homeless without a choice like we have now



i don't care about creating a market for people that want to rent luxury housing


we have less than 4% of dwelling in this country be public or social housing

compared to 1981 housing stock as more than doubled and social housing has gone up about 50%

England has 17% of dwelling be social housing

netherlands is 29% which would almost exactly cover our rental requirements here currently

What is the right level of social housing for Australia? | AHURI

In the 40 years between 1981 and 2021 the percentage of all Australian households living in social housing has ranged from 4.9 per cent in 1981 to 3.8 per cent in 2021. Such a drop in the proportion of social housing raises the question of has Australia achieved the balance right, and also just...

www.ahuri.edu.au

there is so much more than could be done than what we have done and continue to do

and yes it is possible to have all the rental stock be government owned if we chose to go down that path

stopping people turning residential stock into short stay accommodation is a relatively simple one

removing the incentives to have investment properties that cost tens of billions every year and putting that money into well run and maintained public housing instead would be great, including buying existing stock where appropriate

Too much govt money is propping up the mum and dad rental market. Often the properties are uneconomic and the NG stuff is keeping it going. The snake oil being sold by the NG industry keeps suckers coming in

Redress the balance and have some of the money at govt disposal to have more state housing.