The Greens
- Thread starter Herzog
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
No Gralin, just responding to arguments that there is no net loss of rentals when a landlord sells an investment property. I quoted a stat that for every 10investment properties sold only 6-8 return to the rental market and the 2-4 that don’t return are not necessarily purchased by people who were in the rental market
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
Lazy white Australians won't be buying them. It will be the hard-working new Australians who will be buying.
Any four of them can offer me fulltime hours if I desire
- Feb 21, 2006
- 21,369
- 20,500
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles NYJets Celtics Fake Sports
Working full time is a poor work ethic now? Perhaps we should just go back to feudalism and be done with it hey?
In this age yes it is. Make the sacrifice if you want to buy a house.
If your not willing to work hard enough for it you don't want it bad enough.
It's why new Australians are going to buy property and lazy white Australians are getting left behind
Ghost Patrol
Incognito Moderatore
- Sep 17, 2019
- 25,995
- 39,933
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #4,733
Plenty of lazy white Australians already own multiple properties.
The Greens should change policy to accommodate that imho.
Two extra dwelling places with no loss of space is surely a win.
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 23,397
- 28,618
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
How long do you have to work these 80 hour weeks to be able to afford a home?
That is a fair call
When someone critiques a mixed raced woman, you label them racist.
When you critique a Pakistani woman, it's not racist.
You are a fascinating beast.
Am I wrong?
Definately. We should start taxing them a lot more instead of taxing workers who have no properties.
You'll find the 40 hour week became standard back in the late 1940s. For at least another 40-50 years after that, homes were so cheap that the average Australian family could buy one on just one of those 40 hour week salaries. Are you saying this actually isn't true and all those people were actually working multiple jobs at 60-80 hours a week?
When you consider how much more of everything society can produce now with the advent of better machinery, better techniques and the IT revolution, everything should be cheaper relative to the average income than it used to be. Or at least more affordable for a family, since dual income households have become standard, whereas they weren't for many decades. But instead, a basic necessity like housing is more expensive than it ever has been.
If you think it's good and fair that people should work that long to be able to afford a secure roof over their head, well, don't be surprised when the birth rate continues to fall. What's the point in having children if you can't spend time with them?
Last edited:
Do you have a family/wife?
Or are you saying the decision now is home ownership or children?
On SM-S711B using BigFooty.com mobile app
Cute that you took a day and a half after responding to me to give me a laugh react. But even more amusing is that:
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
You've parroted the figures from an article without reading and comprehending what they're actually referring to. Those figures aren't percentages of all property investors, they're percentages of all the property investors who responded to the PIPA survey and had sold a property in the past 12 months. The entire sample was from people who had already sold, and they were simply asking them where the property they had sold was located. It tells us absolutely nothing about whether the lack of supply is due to landlords selling up en masse or whether it's down to a low number of homes being built.
This article too is mostly PIPA propaganda. It does at least give a more accurate percentage of investors who have sold a property in the past 12 months: 12%. But I notice it's still only based on whoever bothered to respond to PIPA's survey. With political pollsters, I know there's a lot of care that is taken to ensure they're polling truly representative sample of the electorate, but what guarantee is there that PIPA has taken a representative sample of all property investors? These figures should be taken with caution.
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
The part you've highlighted, while literally true, has deliberately been worded by the property industry PR person it's quoting, to convey a misleading impression. She says every property that isn't sold to another current property investor is being removed from the rental market. What she fails to mention is that the purchases by existing homeowners or first home buyers are likely to lead to more rental properties coming on the market.
An existing homeowner who buys a new property to live in will either rent their old property out, or sell it. Renting it out adds to the rental supply market, and selling gives someone a chance at buying their first home. For those who have bought their first home, many of them are renters who will free up the rental property they're vacating.
There is only a net loss to the rental market if the property is being sold to a kid who was living with their parents, or to someone coming from overseas. Now if the article had broken down the sales to estimate what percentage were being sold to those categories of people, that would have really been something worth reading.
Without understanding the overall net increase or decrease of rental supply, we can't tell. Again, sales of rental properties to first home buyers who were previously renting doesn't matter because it frees up the rental property they were using while subtracting them from the rental market. Sales to existing homeowners enables them to rent out their old place or sell it to a current renter.
This is where I'd like the government to intervene, to ensure more homes get built, and if need be, buy up homes for sale and rent them out as public housing. Leaving it up to property investors ensures renters will get screwed so investors can get rich.
No, it's not, as a landlord I can't just up the rent willy nilly at my behest.
There are certain rules and regulations that must be followed. The property manager must advise the owner and the tenant of rent rise and at what limit according to state legislation, I'd be advised on whatever rent rise I'm allowed to impose. and it's not just the maximum. More than twice, 3 times I have not increased rent to maximum, in fact I never have approved rent increase to maximum.
You can't just call up your property manager and insist on whatever rent rise you want. That is a ludicrous notion.
The situation is completely different now. Complaints about how the previous generation had it easier will not get you into your own home
I don't have children, however half of my friends do, almost all are home owners, early 30s.
You can have a family, just means you have to work long hours to support them.
Rents are negotiated when the lease is renewed.
Correct, and there is rent rises at varying levels advised from the property manager, the tenant and the property manager come to an agreement to what that is.
All of this is in legislation.
It's not like landlords can just name their price and there's no if buts or maybes.
