The Greens

[geoffjennings79]

Not to mix metaphors, but can we say the Greens are pushing a barrow up a hill to die on?

Does a dead Pope swim in circles and sh1t in the woods?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I agree with what you're saying about running up the flagpole, but Albo has already come out and alluded to the fact that he doesn't want to do a deal.

Labor say lots of things. Albo said he wouldn't budge on his housing bill. Gillard said she wouldn't do a deal for minority government. To me the denial is a standard expected response from Labor, just political theatre.

My reference to dying on the hill was referring to whether they continue to push the barrow (threatening to block the legislation if they don't get their way). That would be dumb in my opinion.

Sure, if they refuse to budge then it's a bad move. But we haven't got to that stage just yet and I saw multiple people commenting as though it has already happened.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

By the way, it isn't just the Greens who are pushing Labor to make changes to negative gearing and asset-related tax breaks. The guy who co-created compulsory superannuation with Keating also wants them to do that.

‘Everything on the table’: Calls for tax overhaul to go beyond stage 3 cuts

As the Coalition argues the government cannot be trusted on income tax changes, independent MPS and a former Labor luminary are encouraging an examination of the entire tax system.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Gralin]

This is much better messaging



Won't happen but it's actually something that most people will be ok with.

They get a tax cut and dental care

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

We've begun the talking points.

Let's see how quickly the greens cave and how little they get but try and pretend it's a massive win

View attachment 1896337

Adam has the same issue as Dutton. He can't be seen as pandering to the rich.

 

[Gralin]

Adam has the same issue as Dutton. He can't be seen as pandering to the rich.

Don't worry Swannie and Van Bad Ham are there to poo poo the greens for Albo

 

[Chief]

I can think of bigger ones personally, not that I believe in sin specially but there are definitely worse things you can do that not go ahead with s**t economic policy

What if they promise was not to stab you? That would be a pretty big sin.

 

[Puddy]

The Greens do realise that abolishing negative gearing means renters will be paying $150+pw increase in rent?
They will be alienating their own supporter base

 

[Seeds]

The Greens do realise that abolishing negative gearing means renters will be paying $150+pw increase in rent?
They will be alienating their own supporter base

No it doesnt. Gees economics really needs to become a mandatory course at school.

the rent landlords can receive is a function of demand. It has nothing to do with their own costs.

If landlords cant get sufficient return without negative gearing it means landlords sell their houses to renters at lower prices and renters become owners.

 

[Seeds]

By the way, it isn't just the Greens who are pushing Labor to make changes to negative gearing and asset-related tax breaks. The guy who co-created compulsory superannuation with Keating also wants them to do that.

‘Everything on the table’: Calls for tax overhaul to go beyond stage 3 cuts

As the Coalition argues the government cannot be trusted on income tax changes, independent MPS and a former Labor luminary are encouraging an examination of the entire tax system.

www.smh.com.au

He goes further then that. He claims we should tax assets instead of income.

he is not alone.

 

[Puddy]

No it doesnt. Gees economics really needs to become a mandatory course at school.

the rent landlords can receive is a function of demand. It has nothing to do with their own costs.

If landlords cant get sufficient return without negative gearing it means landlords sell their houses to renters at lower prices and renters become owners.

This is fantasy.

In reality rents will increase to cover any losses. Landlords are already leaving the market, it's a big reason why rents are already high, because supply of rentals is low.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

This is fantasy.

In reality rents will increase to cover any losses. Landlords are already leaving the market, it's a big reason why rents are already high, because supply of rentals is low.

Do you have sources stating the low supply is due to landlords leaving the market rather than relatively few homes being built? What is happening to these properties taken off market, are they being sold or left vacant?

 

[Sttew]

Do you have sources stating the low supply is due to landlords leaving the market rather than relatively few homes being built? What is happening to these properties taken off market, are they being sold or left vacant?

Investors are deserting these States

Australia’s rental crisis looks set to worsen further as fearful investors offload their properties and abandon certain markets in Queensland and...

propertyupdate.com.au

Research from industry body Property Investment Professionals Australia (PIPA) shows 24.8 per cent of investors sold at least one property in Melbourne with 31.35 per cent selling in Victoria in 2022/2-23.

War on landlords sees mum and dad investors flee the market - Geelong Times

Investors are being further pushed out in the cold as the weight of regulation, taxes and unrealistic reforms mooted by government, sees mum and dad investors fleeing the rental market, leaving tenants in an increasing dire situation. Startling new research shows hundreds of thousands of rental...

timesnewsgroup.com.au

"Using 2021 Census as the baseline of 2.477 million private rental dwellings in Australia, it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of rental properties were sold in the past three years, with the majority of these bought by existing homeowners or first-home buyers."

How can anyone say the exodus of landlords is not impacting? There is no doubt fewer homes are being built and compounding this is the influx of immigrants, but with Melbourne this is partly offset by people leaving the city for interstate or regional Victoria

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Investors are deserting these States

Australia’s rental crisis looks set to worsen further as fearful investors offload their properties and abandon certain markets in Queensland and...

propertyupdate.com.au

Research from industry body Property Investment Professionals Australia (PIPA) shows 24.8 per cent of investors sold at least one property in Melbourne with 31.35 per cent selling in Victoria in 2022/2-23.

War on landlords sees mum and dad investors flee the market - Geelong Times

Investors are being further pushed out in the cold as the weight of regulation, taxes and unrealistic reforms mooted by government, sees mum and dad investors fleeing the rental market, leaving tenants in an increasing dire situation. Startling new research shows hundreds of thousands of rental...

timesnewsgroup.com.au

"Using 2021 Census as the baseline of 2.477 million private rental dwellings in Australia, it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of rental properties were sold in the past three years, with the majority of these bought by existing homeowners or first-home buyers."

How can anyone say the exodus of landlords is not impacting? There is no doubt fewer homes are being built and compounding this is the influx of immigrants, but with Melbourne this is partly offset by people leaving the city for interstate or regional Victoria

Carn bro

If landlords are selling houses to first home buyers, the result is even.

If landlords are selling to existing homeowners, they're either becoming a landlord or selling their first property. The result is even.

 

[Gralin]

Carn bro

If landlords are selling houses to first home buyers, the result is even.

If landlords are selling to existing homeowners, they're either becoming a landlord or selling their first property. The result is even.

We've got something like 57k Air BnBs in Victoria alone

imagine if they regulated that as well

all the landlord and real estate agent lobby groups would meltdown hard

 

[Sttew]

Carn bro

If landlords are selling houses to first home buyers, the result is even.

If landlords are selling to existing homeowners, they're either becoming a landlord or selling their first property. The result is even.

Not if they are people who have been living at home with the parents. And how many “first home buyers” are migrants.

I can’t believe people saying landlords selling up will have zero impact on the rental market. It is delusional

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Not if they are people who have been living at home with the parents. And how many “first home buyers” are migrants.

I can’t believe people saying landlords selling up will have zero impact on the rental market. It is delusional

After a landlord sells a house, what do you think happens to the house?

 

[Millky95]

After a landlord sells a house, what do you think happens to the house?

This is what annoys me so much. "But if a landlord sells 3 of their 7 houses, how will people rent?!" They don't. Because 3 new families own their own house for the first time

And people think that is a bad thing for some reason

 

[Ghost Patrol]

This is what annoys me so much. "But if a landlord sells 3 of their 7 houses, how will people rent?!" They don't. Because 3 new families own their own house for the first time

And people think that is a bad thing for some reason

And those 3 families move out of the houses they rent, which frees up 3 more houses for renters.

 

[Sttew]

After a landlord sells a house, what do you think happens to the house?

You tell me Oracle. To sell a rental property it needs to be vacant. Settlements take how long? Average 60-90 days? So at a minimum that property is off the market for 100 - 120+ days and then there’s no guarantee it goes back into the rental market. Little Johnny who has been living at home to save up for a deposit might buy it.

If you bothered to read the article I posted it said;

“About 43 per cent of respondents in this year's survey sold to an existing homeowner, while 30 per cent sold to a first-home buyer. “Just 24 per cent sold to another investor – down from 33 per cent last year – which means the majority of those investment properties were likely removed from the rental market.”

 

[Sttew]

This is what annoys me so much. "But if a landlord sells 3 of their 7 houses, how will people rent?!" They don't. Because 3 new families own their own house for the first time

And people think that is a bad thing for some reason

It’s a great thing! But it over simplifies. Firstly the majority of landlords exiting the market are not multi property owners and secondly, for every 10 properties sold by landlords only 6-8 go back into the rental market, so there is a net loss.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

You tell me Oracle. To sell a rental property it needs to be vacant. Settlements take how long? Average 60-90 days? So at a minimum that property is off the market for 100 - 120+ days and then there’s no guarantee it goes back into the rental market. Little Johnny who has been living at home to save up for a deposit might buy it.

If you bothered to read the article I posted it said;

“About 43 per cent of respondents in this year's survey sold to an existing homeowner, while 30 per cent sold to a first-home buyer. “Just 24 per cent sold to another investor – down from 33 per cent last year – which means the majority of those investment properties were likely removed from the rental market.”

Renters that buy houses are also removed from the rental market.

Turns out, it's the same amount of houses. Just different owners.

 

[Millky95]

It’s a great thing! But it over simplifies. Firstly the majority of landlords exiting the market are not multi property owners and secondly, for every 10 properties sold by landlords only 6-8 go back into the rental market, so there is a net loss.

Landlords selling to existing landlords is another part of the problem.

 

[Sttew]

Renters that buy houses are also removed from the rental market.

Turns out, it's the same amount of houses. Just different owners.

Trust you to see it as such a simple equation

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Trust you to see it as such a simple equation

That's because it is a simple equation.