6 Months Moratorium on Evictions (Poll)

6 months moratorium on evictions (Poll)

Am i the only person who thinks this is stupid? essentially the government is turning landlords in the charities without giving them anything in return.

I get small businesses and commercial leases but im sorry that is the cost of doing business and the risk of starting a small business.

Why on god earth do landlords both commercial and domestic have to fit the bill?

WTF is the government thinking? how can they offer no reimbursement for landlord? at the very least! the government should say any losses inured can be used as a tax write off for future investments.

Poll Options

  • 425
    I support the ban on evictions for six months
  • 867
    i dont support the ban on evictions for six months


  • +96 votes

    I'm not a landlord, so don't understand why they're getting screwed over here. Don't they also have mortgages and bills to pay, mouths to feed etc? Why don't they matter?

      • +52 votes

        But some of them are now earning $0. A few have complained on here/Reddit already. Why are they treated differently than those that have lost their jobs? They've lost their income too, no?

        • +40 votes

          100% spot on landlords are not all rich people i would argue commercial landlords generally are but a lot of residential landlords are just regular working people or self funded retirees

          these people are falling on hard times as well why are they being punished too?

          • +125 votes

            @Ontheshred: I don't get the fuss from the landlords perspective.

            The gov are NOT saying that people should stop paying their rent. If you think of it that way, I don't think you're responsible enough to be in the property business. If you are a landlord, you are a business owner, it's the way its been since we lived in huts. This is the gov taking some responsibility action, that people experiencing hardships can "pause" their mortgage AND people experiencing hardships can NOT be evicted from their rental homes.

            Logically this is the right thing to do.
            If you have people going homeless, that's just going to cause infection/death rates to skyrocket. Ask yourself, do landlords really want that to happen? Because taking the stance you're taking means they would be (partially/majorily) responsible for death and illness. You don't care, fine, that is a legitimate stance.

            But what about when their homelessness affects you, and affect you far worse than no-rent for 6 months. Remember that if there is a social unrest, you can forget the police. The public outnumber and outpower the violence/force of the state (unless military, and even that's debatable). Increase in crime is going to indirectly hurt the finances of landlords anyway. Or it could directly lead to illness, danger, death of landlords anyway. Despite the isolation, even landlords rely on other people for goods, services, and order. Jeopardising that is foolish.

            Also in many ways, Australia has chronic (not acute) issues with the economy and housing. If we had a solid system, then a problem like the COVID-19 would be acute, and we would have pro-active measures in place to massively minimise financial and health impacts. Since this is chronic, it means issues were bound to happen by one means or another. It's like someone who is "relatively fit" not eating for a week, compared to a patient suffering from anorexia who will have far more complication if they don't eat for a week. People monetising other people's shelter is a bad idea. And the economy propped-up relying on that is even worse. We have some of the strictest laws protecting landlords in Australia, combined with one of the worst bubble/inflation of property prices.

            So what seems outrageous to us, because we have accustomed to these scenarios for so long, is seen by outsiders as nothing but a correction. So maybe we should put a positive spin on this, and look at it glass half-full? Maybe this will cause our economy to collapse a little, so that we may rebuild it stronger. And that it might deter "vultures" and allow legitimate people with greater means of owning their homes. Or you know, be pessimistic and think that the apocalypse is upon us, there is no hope, and now we're going to be ripped off in many ways than one. Forget about the millions who had it worse, and the millions to come who will have it worse.

            In a way, the government is loving the landlords getting pissed off. It means the spotlight is taken off them, and it is shone elsewhere, even if temporary.

            • +2 votes

              @Kangal: Nail on the head, especially the second half.

            • +6 votes

              @Kangal: Government is coping a lot of backlash I most of us accept measures need to be in place but all this policy does it rob Peter to pay Paul

              It is a lazy not well thought out policy if the government said evictions are to be band until the COVID19 Pandemic is resolved and land lords would be given a break on all out goings ie rates/body Corp etc that would be fair enough but essentially they have given a tone of $$ to people struggling and turned around and said 'Yeah live rent free' with land lords money. How can that be fair?

              I honestly don't see how putting a blanket ban on evictions helps anyone the honest tenants will pay rent but the dodgy ones would be taking full advantage if this….

              • -5 votes

                @Ontheshred: How is it fair for people to own houses and some people to sleep on the streets? If you can in some way balance out that question maybe you're worth listening to.

                • +7 votes

                  @sarahlump: It's not a question of fairness. It wasn't two people standing side by side and one person was chosen to own a house. It is a variety of issues. Fairness on who gets to own a house is not what is being discussed here.

                  If you want to answer to why that person owns a house, most of the time, it's because they worked hard at their job, saved a deposit and bought a house.

                  • -2 votes

                    @Gallifr3y: Sounds like mum and dad helped.

                    • -5 votes

                      @sarahlump: Sounds like we have an orphan here. I'm sorry to learn that.

                      We all still love you, but you may just have to learn to be entitled to less smashed avocado breakfasts moving forward if you'd like to own a home instead renting.

                      Instead of being jealous of others, go be the best version of yourself.

                • +4 votes

                  @sarahlump: @sarahlump: The better question is "from a government perspective, does it make sense to have a large number of vacant properties and a large number of homeless people at the same time?". the obvious answer is "no" because you would prefer people to stay at home as much as possible during a pandemic and not on the streets spreading it. Since there is a fairly obvious imbalance of power between tenants and landlords the government is trying to force landlords to the negotiating table so that both parties can come to a compromise. The majority of people will still pay their rent as usual, and provided that landlords have done their due diligence on the tenants they'll be able to negotiate with the few who have suddenly lost a significant part of their income. I doubt most tenants will completely stop paying rent for the wrong reasons because come 6 months time they'll be out of a home and nobody will want to take a tenant with bad rental history. The moratorium on evictions really should have applied only to people who have lost their jobs or hours.

                  It's not all bad for LL's either, if there were a sudden increase in vacancy rates around the city, the rental yields would plummet.

                  Though i agree the gov could definitely do more to help. Small to medium sized LL's should receive a tax break for the value of the lost rent as a minimum and the government should stop banks from charging interest on properties that are housing unemployed Australians.

                  • -1 vote

                    @deal seeking missile: landlord already get a tax break on lost rent.

                    • +1 vote

                      @sarahlump: If the landlord lost their job too then they have no income so the tax deduction has no value.

                      Also a rental property must be income producing and rented at market rates (not rented for a 70% reduction like another landlord's tenant here was demanding) in order to negative gear (or landlord is actively seeking a tenant for a vacant property). This is according to currently accepted principles by the ATO. When all these tax returns come in with massively increased negative gearing claims the ATO could disallow such deductions.

              • +1 vote

                @Ontheshred: I agree. Literally another divert the blame, in this case divert the responsibility of solving the problem onto landlords.

            • +26 votes


              This is the gov taking some responsibility action, that people experiencing hardships can "pause" their mortgage AND people experiencing hardships can NOT be evicted from their rental homes.

              People simply don't understand the situation that landlords are currently in. The banks said they will deferred the mortgage payments up to 6 months, but they will still charge the interest on the halted payments. The landlords can't afford that. Therefore, they are practically forced to continue to honor their loan repayment obligation to the banks. On top of that, the landlords are still expected to foot all taxes and expenses such as land tax, council rates and other maintenance fees. The federal government irresponsibility encouraged renters not to pay their dues by taking away the last resort from landlords when the local governments are still collecting money from landlords. Landlords, especially residential landlords are basically told to sacrifice alone without any compensation. This is unfair and morally repugnant.

              I will tell you if this situation persists for next six months. Many houses of "mum and dad" home owners who only have one or two investment properties and limited cash-flow will be foreclosed and put on auction. As a result, many renters will be on the streets anyway. Many banks that fail to recoup their loans will go bankrupt. Construction & real estate industry will collapse. Many guys will lose their jobs permanently. It would not be an orderly market correction, but a GFC-style chaos.

              Only rich few who have enough cash to buy many bargain houses outright will be richer. Poor will be poorer by losing their jobs. It would be a worse economic disaster than currently we are experiencing at the moment.

              • +10 votes

                @Rolling245: Few very vocal minority are pissd-off, because they fear they are going to lose profits. That is thinking that arises from selfishness and greed. They're attacking this policy not because of logical reasoning, but via subjective bias. To top it off, they fail to think up alternative policies that help everyone.

                If the govt decided from Day 1 that all tenants were going to get 6-months free rent, it's probable the same people will complain. This time from the perspective that they're incurring all the costs for housing/investment and the tenants are getting all the benefits. So there's no winning with these people. They are not happy that they're getting govt help with mortgages, but want the help exclusive to themselves and to leave tenants hung-dry. That's pathological thinking.

                And I tried to make it clear, that the best interest for property investors is to make sure that tenants are taken care of. If not, then it's simply biting the hand that feeds you. And if things deteriorate, the police are not going to protect you, the person responsible for making others homeless.

                I mean let's think about the situation rationally, what is the worst outcome?
                (Worst) You have everyone becoming homeless and all mortgages default
                (Horrible) You have 100% of tenants homeless
                (Very Bad) You have 20% of tenants homeless
                (Very Bad) You have 100% of mortgages default
                (Bad) You have 5% of tenants homeless
                (Bad) You have 100% of property investors default (+2 houses)
                (Manageable) You have 20% of property investors default
                (Manageable) You have 1% of tenants homeless
                (Negligeble) You have 5% of property investors default
                (Untraceable) You have 1% of property investors default

                With the above considered, then postulate the low-hanging fruit in how to deal with this situation. Now where you are (investor vs home-owner be tenant) dictates your biases (mortgages vs neutral vs homelessness). I get it, if you came from ghetto, but you worked hard, studied hard, gave up many comforts and pleasures, etc etc. And you managed to buy three houses, with two of the tenants ceasing payment. That stings. But you still have a roof over your head, and you are poised to recover after 2 years.

                Now think about someone who is renting, and in a similar predicament. If they're evicted and jobless, that could mean they go hungry, they go without a warm bed, and are stressed/immunocompromised. They're projected to die. Either from illness, or hunger, or hypothermia. Not to recover in two years. You can't avoid death by putting your life on pause/stop.

                So all the property investors that are complaining "but we got it worse", first of all that isn't the case, second of all I would urge you to practice some humility and gratitude. Otherwise, you might survive the epidemic but your humanity might not.

                • +32 votes


                  they fear they are going to lose profits

                  No, there is a large number of people who fear they are going to lose money for simply owning a property. Forget about profits. They are worrying that the house might turn into a financial burden on their shoulders.

                  They're attacking this policy not because of logical reasoning

                  No, they are attacking the policy because it is not very well thought out policy

                  they fail to think up alternative policies that help everyone.

                  No, obviously you have failed to listen to their suggestion. Landlords are happy to reduce their rents, but in return, they want the government to give them tax breaks and the banks to give them heavily discounted interest rates for their mortgages. Landlords want other involved parties to share the burden in this crisis.

                  I mean let's think about the situation rationally

                  Yes, let's think about the situation rationally. Why would landlords keep the properties if they are losing the money for simply owning them and why wouldn't the banks make those insolvent investors who can no longer afford properties? It doesn't make any sense. Once the houses are on the market, tenants will be on the street regardless.

                  And you managed to buy three houses, with two of the tenants ceasing payment. That stings. But you still have a roof over your head, and you are poised to recover after 2 years.

                  This is the heart of the problem. Some people just don't get it. Many landlords simply cannot afford to own properties unless there are some concessions made by both the banks and the government. 2 years? I doubt many of them actually can last 6 months without getting their rental income. Therefore, they have no choice, but put the houses on the market for sale. As a result, tenants will be on the street anyway. You see, it does not only hurt landlords, but tenants and the whole economy. It is frustrating that you can't see a bigger picture here.

                  "but we got it worse"

                  No, nobody is saying that. I have never implied that landlords "got it better" than tenants. However, I have repeatedly pointed out that all involved parties including the government and the bank must make concessions rather than demand landlords to sacrifice alone as it is not sustainable and it will have a huge negative impact on landlords, tenants and the economy.


                    @Rolling245: If the house im renting goes into default and is seized by the bank my rental contract carries to the bank, I'm not "on the street"

                    I think the reason tenants are seen by you as not caring is because for me at least my primary care most days of the week are "have I eaten this week, can I afford to eat today? should I eat tomorrow instead, do I have something on that I need the strength to do, I should eat then" and when I live like that I honestly couldn't care about the woes of somebody who literally has hundreds of thousands in assets.

                    I think that maybe OP was saying that the two situations are so disparate that it's hard for both parties to see each others side. And I think that's true. I think the govt can see the 2 sides though and is trying to find a best fit. "negotiation" is the name of the policy, not just "WE'RE NOT PAYING RENT"(read that like the song from rent)

                • +7 votes


                  If the govt decided from Day 1 that all tenants were going to get 6-months free rent, it's probable the same people will complain. This time from the perspective that they're incurring all the costs for housing/investment and the tenants are getting all the benefits. So there's no winning with these people. They are not happy that they're getting govt help with mortgages, but want the help exclusive to themselves and to leave tenants hung-dry. That's pathological thinking.

                  I think you haven't done your research.

                  As an owner occupier the bank will give me 6 months without payments but the interest still accrues. It isn't free. The government on the one hand have protected bank profits on the other protected tenants and someone has to pay that interest unfortunately landlords. You just pray to god your landlord has enough cash flow to keep you in your home. If I was a renter I would check whether the landlord drives nice cars or just a banged up 10 year old Japanese / South Korean car.

                  It is situations like these where I'd rather be owning shares. At least the company can sort itself out, worst case it goes bust and they won't chase me for debt. You have property you get nothing, still have to pay out and if foreclose the bank is after me for whatever I have left.

                  • +1 vote

                    @netjock: Share investments have taken a far bigger hit than property investments. Bank investors are similarly taking way more share of the economic cost.

                    If you get foreclosed on then you owe money on your investment property. If you own money on the loan financing your shares the same people are going to come after you for debt collection.

                    You own your house fully, no debt collectors if the value goes to zero. You own all your shares, if they go bust no debt collectors. Again the same.

                • +10 votes

                  @Kangal: The lack of humanity some landlords are displaying honestly makes me not want to associate myself with landlords.

                  The way I see it, all investments are getting hit. Our supers are hit. Our shareholdings are hit. Everything. Why would property investment be exempt from taking a hit too? It's better to try and work with your tenant as opposed to flat out freaking out and assuming the worse from everyone.

                  • -11 votes

                    @shazzadabazza: Cos with shares and super, it's only the individual getting hit. With property, landlords are getting a hit and renters are getting a free pass so to speak.

                    • +12 votes

                      @Danstar: Property is still an investment. There are risks associated with any investment. With property, it would always be the possibility of a tenant not being able to pay. If a landlord is living purely off the rent and has no other streams of income, I chalk it down to bad planning and bad investment acumen.

                      Also renters aren't getting a free pass. If a tenant was employed prior to COVID 19 and lost their income as a result of the pandemic, what do you propose they do? Especially if they have a family. Do you propose chucking them out?

                      In addition to all of that, the tenant will have to show that they were affected financially by COVID 19. The ban of evictions does not include renters that have destroyed properties, been behind in all their payments prior to the pandemic etc.

                      It would be better to be more pro-active and offer a lower rent so you can keep good tenants who are in a bad situation. ALL of us are struggling.

                      • -2 votes

                        @shazzadabazza: As a landlord we have considered the risk, including loss of rent for a few week but who would expect government ban eviction for no payment of rent for 6 months in Australia. Is Australia a free market economy or socialist country!!!

                        • +2 votes


                          Is Australia a free market economy or socialist country!!!

                          Oh that’s hilarious.

                          How is the housing market in Australia an example of a ‘free market economy’ exactly?

                        • +1 vote

                          @jowu15: "but who would expect government ban eviction"

                          Are you saying you WANT the right to evict people during a pandemic? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying. Halting evictions is not a socialist thing, that's a safety for the people of our country thing. Including your safety. If they can't pay you, then they can't afford to live anywhere else either— and if asymptomatic carriers are as bad as they say, a wave of homeless asymptomatics are not really great for the country and can make things much much worse. For everyone. And six months is just the time it might take to get the economy to uptick again.

                          Or, think of it this way: Ok so you kick out your tenants for non-payment. Guess what? You're probably not getting other tenants any time soon. You're not going to instantly get another revenue stream as everyone is in dire straits in terms of income. It is not a landlord's market right now. So you think that you evict them, and then what? Another family immediately takes their place and pays you your money??? Aint happening. At best, you would probably take six months to even get another tenant anyway. Maybe less— if you're lucky. But probably not. So, that's six months you would get diddly squat zero money anyway and close to no renters and your property would sit vacant.

                          So essentially why not just let them stay until we're all in a better position? I don't see the problem, except that people are so heartless they would rather leave properties totally vacant(!) rather than be kind and let people live there for a while without fear of losing their home, while we get through this.

                          Sorry but if you want sympathy because your revenue stream has been cut down, then so do tenants who's revenue stream has been halted too. We're all in this together, we can only get through it together and helping each other.


                        @shazzadabazza: Do you see you double standard on one hand you say landlord only have rental income is as bad planning and bad investment but in that case the same is true for people whose only income is wages but you use completely different tune, even emotional blackmail like whole family chucking out, you jump so quick from tenant—-only income is wages—-loss wages—-family chucked out.


                    @shazzadabazza: I actually think the major difference here is cashflow - For most, super/shares don't provide a cashflow so there's no argument to say that people need that money right now and not in 2 years time. The only exceptions to this are people drawing on their super already (who will be getting royally screwed and I think we should help them too) and people who have invested in dividend paying shares with a need for the cash payments (which won't really be affected anywhere near as much as the rest of the market).

                    If you need the cash to live, whether it be from Super or from being a landlord you shouldn't be getting royally screwed by the government and banks and tenants.

                    • +2 votes

                      @sakurashu: I don't disagree that you need cash to live. I know that SMSFs also tend to tie their retirement savings to properties so it's a double whammy for them.

                      HOWEVER, choosing to invest in property comes with its own risks. If you decide to put all your eggs in one basket, I fail to understand why people think it's a good idea. Just like how I don't understand how banks are giving over leveraged loans to people who clearly cannot pay them. The whole buy as many properties and then leverage them against each other investment mentality is going to come and bite a lot of people.

                      • +4 votes

                        @shazzadabazza: @shazzadabazza

                        • It is not about putting your eggs into one basket. If you are a landlord you should have the right to put notice and evict those who do not pay rent as you need to look after yourself and pay your mortgage/interests on the loan. The banks give you 6 months freeze but they charge an average of $15,000 interests in 6 months. Where will the money come from?

                        • No risks likes this, if tenants don't pay up, you need to do what you need to do to evict them. BANKS DON'T SHOW ANY COMPASSION AND WILL TAKE YOUR HOME IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO PAY INTERESTS.

                        WHERE IS THE BANKS COMPASSION?

                        • +1 vote

                          @MrNice: Erm, if the legislation says you don't have the right to put notice and evict a tenant you don't have the right.

                          the law is the law. For decades the law has been made by property owners to protect property owners. I believe in 2020 the law was also made by property owners. Believe me if you think for some reason you're getting screwed you aren't. you can't possibly have decades of support taken away, it isn't possible. What you are seeing is a blip on the conservative policy era. They'll go back to screwing over poor people again in 6 months and you'll have your podium and your crown back.

                  • +1 vote

                    @shazzadabazza: Because the government wants tenants to stay at landlord's property. Why would landlords with limited cash flow keep their properties when the on-going costs to keep their houses become unsustainable? They have no alternative other than selling their houses. Landlords will lose tens of thousands in the process. Tenants will be evicted either ways.

                    Landlords are also victims of this crisis. Show some empathy to them. Not all of them are mega-rich who can take this hit and cope with a cash shortfall for 6 months. All involved parties, the banks and the government, should work together and come up with a sustainable solution instead of expecting landlords to burden all the costs. Otherwise, the system will crumble within a few weeks. It is inevitable.

                    • +4 votes

                      @Rolling245: I'm a landlord too. I'm not without empathy for those who have to do it tough, whether they are a landlord or not. I, however, think it's really telling how quickly some landlords are thinking the worst about their tenants without even talking to them first.


                      @Rolling245: When a house is defaulted or sold with a tenancy agreement the tenancy agreement isn't voided. It just continues over to the bank, the bank owns the house and the lease and gets the rent payments. Nobody gets evicted.

                • +5 votes

                  @Kangal: This is a really good summary, it sucks either way but the government are choosing the lesser of two evils.

                • +2 votes

                  @Kangal: I only partially agree with some of your points but where this is going to decide my position, is whether or not the few that can, are going to push the limits of being able to weather the storm or end up defaulting.

                  If they default because of these current policies, on one hand you have hard working people that have made sacrifices to try and get ahead so that they're not in the renters position. While on the other hand you have the renters (I can assume these are the ones struggling here as you have also stereotyped/assumed the position of the investor/landlord) have enjoyed their smashed avo and lavish holidays. THIS is where the outspoken landlords are mostly coming from.

                  The "rich" investors with multiple properties to their portfolio are going to be laughing all the way to the bank when the hard working Aussie trying to get ahead defaults, and the wealthy come through and clean up leaving Mr and Mrs investor in the same position as tenants.

                  It works both ways in my eyes and isn't as cut and dry as people are making it out to be.

                  To allow people to judge my position, I'm early 30s and have what I would call a small portfolio - 1 PPOR, 2 Investments but reasonable/serviceable debt.

                  As a smart investor, I never committed more than I was prepared to weather. It could be a bigger portfolio but I would be heavily leveraged even without the pandemic or a recession. Instead I'm in a position where I could go without work for 1-2 years but basically zero every buffer I've worked (very hard) for.

                  How is that fair? The people already on welfare have managed to survive (separate argument of whether it is enough) to this day, now the people renting haven't planned for ANY shortcomings AND they're being bailed out.

                  I think where I'm going to be annoyed with it, is if they aren't forced to go without life's current luxuries before qualifying for any handouts. It should be a 2 way street in my book. For the record, I'm not against the moratorium, I agree that it doesn't help anybody but I think their should definitely be some extra measures put in place to assist everybody! At the end of the day, the wealthy benefit regardless, so it only makes sense that you try and help the landlords that are actually hard working and just trying to better their own lives.

                  Just my 2c ramble.

                  • +1 vote

                    @db87: As a renter (and I still pay my rent in full each week), here's the difference.

                    As a landlord/investor, even if you were forced to sell off your current property, you still have a roof over your head, and selling your property, will at least gain you a few dollars, enough to feed yourself for a few months, at the very least. That is not to mention that you could restructure your loan so that, although you may end up paying a bit more interest in the long term, it will make very little difference to your periodic cash flow.

                    A renter who has lost their means of income has no roof over their head. The money they used to pay for rent and food with has dried up.

                    Everybody's losing something in this crisis, but look at the big picture here. Those who can afford (and benefited off others) in the past, i.e. landlords, investors, businesses - are being asked to give back to the less fortunate.

                    • +1 vote

                      @jatyap: You are making a lot of assumption that landlord owns investment and their own home which is not true in many cases. Second you assume property always sale for a profit, that is not true, there is 10% transaction fee involved in selling and buying, not mention holding cost.

                      A renter should have some saving in the first place and no to mention government support, no excuse not to pay rent, also eviction process need as well so there is a lot of time to catch up

                      • +1 vote

                        @jowu15: Well, that's the thing that sort of gets me. A person that does not even own his/her own home yet is willing to gamble it on another property? Sure it's an educated gamble, but once again, every investment has its risks.

                        Secondly, if they sell the investment property, the (Owner-occupier) home is still theirs, albeit no longer encumbered by a second property.

                        The main argument I get from this thread is, "I worked hard for my investment, why should I risk losing it because some poor bloke can suddenly not afford to pay rent?", and the answer to that is, ultimately, worst case scenario, the best tack for the government to take is to make sure everybody (and that DOES NOT MEAN ONLY THE PEOPLE CAPABLE OF WORKING HARD) has the "essentials" - a roof over their heads, clothing, and a bit of food and water. Everything else comes secondary.

                        Everybody's losing a little bit of something in this crisis, make no mistake. Even scaling things up, you will see that those who were gaining/making more before this crisis, are also losing more right now.

                      • -1 vote

                        @jowu15: Where are the landlord's savings? Why don't they just get a 2nd job.
                        The savings argument fails every time.

                • -1 vote

                  @Kangal: You should not talk about something you know nothing about. First and foremost, Rent is not profit, its not even close.Even you say landlord is conduct the business, which I do not agree, then rent is at the best is gross revenue.

                  Which some tenants on government benefit before will now get much more money than before, they are still protect from eviction for not paying the rent and ask landlord to suffer the loss but at the same time no deduction for all the expenses incurred, especially government tax etc.

                  All the options you put there is nonsense assumption.

                  Tenants call all landlord who is not be able to give them free rent selfish but what those generous tenants have done: ask for free rent and ask for more income. etc


                @Rolling245: You are almost 100% correct but I am not going to poke any holes here.

                Government did everything the wrong way.

                They should have announced their income support measures JobSeeker / JobKeeper then memorandum on eviction with a minimum bar that at least some rent is being paid.

                In theory it is possible to have gone to landlords and say I've lost my job and agreed zero rent then next week JobKeeper was announced and boss calls up and it is back to work.


                @Rolling245: if a house goes into forclosure renters don't get evicted

            • +9 votes

              @Kangal: @Kangal the reality you are saying is incorrect.

              • How I read your vendetta against landlords is shocking. You are basing it on your personal experiences, while talking about compassion for others is ironic. The reality is, if tenants stop paying rent or reduce their rent significantly will ultimately impact on landlords who may not have be cashed up to deal with this kind of pandemic.

              • You are saying that tenants if evicted will have no roof over their heads and will basically die. Guess what, reality is a landlord can go bankrupt. This will damage them even more as its on the books and they will find it difficult to open a business, get a loan or have anything at all. Travel ban for them will me implemented through no fault of their own.

              • Yes, landlords should show compassion to an extent where they feel comfortable to do so financially. The government should not have placed the 6 month eviction ban. Look at it this way, why should a landlord through no fault of their own be charged an average interest of $15,000 over 6 months through no fault of their own and tenants get to live rent free?

              • Your idea of compassion and fairness is warped based on your personal experiences being a tenant yourself. What you need to do instead is try and work hard to build your own nest rather than a sense of hatred towards others who are entitled to their share of rent being paid as they have worked and made so many sacrifices to get where they are at this point in time.

              Think before you say such hurtful things to landlords, because reality is one day you will be a landlord and have to deal with people who create excuses not to pay. I know some are genuine, but they will receive centrelink money and rental assistance. Get a Jobseeker or Jobkeeper allowance.

              Life goes on, everyone should be compassionate YES! but think for others, not all LANDLORDS are CASHED UP COWS

                @MrNice: I'd never charge people money for a place to live, I have 2 people who were homeless and cant afford to pay rent living in my house atm. You can be a sellout all you like.

              • +1 vote

                @MrNice: Most people have lost their jobs through no fault of there own, but because the government has put restrictions on the economy. Land lords are just as entitled as anyone to get jobseeker payments to help them through this crisis. Or should landlords get a bigger handout than the rest of Australians doing it tough?


                @MrNice: MrNice, your username does not checkout.
                Apologies for late reply, I got busy and didn't want to send a short reply. I figured your post required a lengthy reply to straight out somethings.

                Firstly, what I said was true. You have failed to bring up any points to the contrary. Now if you do, I will gladly listen and learn.

                Secondly, I am in one of the worst positions. I worked really hard and have provided for my parents and siblings. I also saved up a decent amount to buy myself a property with no help from others. I recently switched jobs with a period of no income. I was fighting the bushfires, and helping those that lost their homes. I've used up all my savings to help bail my family's mortgages. So I am not on a vendetta against landlords. I have been working to become one, and had my plans/dreams taken away before the pandemic and with it, it's ensured that I won't recover soon. And in case you're wondering, at one point in life I was homeless. But you know, I am still alive and healthy, I try to take gratitude in the small things of life. So maybe you should think before you speak? You've made assumptions in your head about me which are plainly false.

                A landlord won't die. They already have a roof over their heads. It is not worse for them, it is better.
                Those with risky loans, should they default? Yep. They would have faulted pandemic or not. Why should hardworking taxpayers pay for them? You do know how the system works right? The People (theoretically) hold all the power, yet the Bankers (practically) hold all the money. I don't think all landlords are cashed up cows, you're putting words into my mouth. If you have a PPoR that puts you in a similar position as a tenant, just with more savings. If you are a property investor, then it means you have multiple properties, with the position of them generating income, equity and profit.

                My idea of compassion is biased based on my experiences. As are yours. You can become less impartial by increasing your life experience and by reading. I'm not going to have a phallus measuring contest with you about who here is more impartial, that get's me nowhere but you do you.

                In ideal scenario, an investor (+2 houses) should have enough savings to weather the storm for 1-year. And a tenant should have enough savings to weather the storm for 1-year. However, it is exponentially easier (and more prevalent) to be born and put into a situation where you haven't yet built-up that savings and you are a renter. So this isn't simply about fairness, as you put it. It is about fixing an unlimited problem with limited resources. So how do you do it? Well, as I said previously, you have to go for the low-hanging fruit and look at the big picture.

                Closing borders is the first, preventing infections is the second, reducing mortalities is third (hence No Evictions), and lastly it is to control the economy (hence Mortgage Pause). My initial position was that in a time of war/famine/need, luxuries such as profits and investing have to take a backseat to basic necessities. Hence the needs of the many renters far outweigh the wants of the few investors.

            • +3 votes

              @Kangal: Total agree, property investing is not a safe haven. Same as any other investment vehicle, there are risks such as rare events that we are facing now.

              To add to that, with less demand the increase of supply of rental properties because of an influx of evictions will likely drive rental rates down and most landlords will struggle to find another tenant.

              In essence, if the government didn't put a ban on evictions and we saw a huge influx of evictions its likely the property bubble will finally pop

            • +4 votes

              @Kangal: I agree there's an elegant symmetry with allowing landlords to pause their mortgage payments while allowing renters to pause their rent payments. What is not adjusted for is - tenants are terrible credit risks, whereas CBA will always be able to get their 6 months interest out of me when the time's over.

              I can imagine, if a tenant who was in a position to need to pause my rent for 6 months, at the end of it they'd likely be around 15k in debt to the landlord - and just pack up and ghost. What can the landlord do then? They can sue, get judgement - that's the easy part. Enforcement is the hard part. Can't recover debt from these types, will just be throwing good money after bad.

              I think it would be fair if the government would also guarantee and pay for tenant defaults, otherwise it just unfairly exposes landlords to a really shitty credit risk.


                @echelon6: But you also have to consider CBA investors have already lost 30% of their capital and massive profit downgrades. Landlords like yourself are enjoying record low interest rates and high asset prices. As a bank shareholder I would rather go back in time and be a landlord.

          • +11 votes

            @Ontheshred: I’m not saying they’re all rich people - I’m saying the statistics show on average they have much higher income then their tenants

          • +3 votes

            @Ontheshred: I agree with this statement but I had a chat to my landlord after we left. He said he was extremely sad to see us go as we were good tenants and he will struggle to find anyone now.

            He mentioned the ban and how he now has no income. He is certainly young enough to work and has another property and his house. I suggested he apply for work and the look I got was something else. Given the state of disrepair and him explicitly mentioning he is waiting for a developer I don't see why he couldn't hold down even a basic job while having 2 properties to supplement his income from rentals.

            I don't really understand negative gearing etc but I think there are many people who are like him, own property, use it to fund house and lifestyle with no other income.

        • +29 votes

          Investment properties are an investment. Investments sometimes profit. Sometimes they lose you money. Landlords seem to think real estate is a guaranteed "win" for some reason.

          Blame the virus. Not the tenants. Everyone is suffering here.

          • +65 votes

            @zeggie: No one's blaming the tenants. It's the policy that's in question.

            Absolutely agree with you if there was no demand and the place was empty for a period of time then yes, that's part of the investment risks.

            However, this is an artificial scenario that has been introduced to benefit one party over another which is baffling.

            You don't get to go into Coles, grab whatever you like and not pay for it just because you lost your income.

            • +3 votes

              @Hybroid: 100% spot on

            • +1 vote

              @Hybroid: This

            • -23 votes

              @Hybroid: Poor comparison.

              This is housing. Millions would potentially be on the street in 30 days time if policy wasn't introduced.

              Landlords simply pay a little more interest.

              Obvious which "party" needs more protection.

              • +1 vote

                @zeggie: Plus the landlords will have no income anyway if people are on the streets…
                The long queues, people offering more than the requested price to make sure they are "approved"… this will be over for a while… Forever, I hope, because the housing market in Australia is ridiculous…
                I do think that owners are often spoiled and think they have all the rights… Tax subsidies are just a small part of this… Tenants pay a lot of money and don't have any rights… Only recently states have been slowly changing this scenario…

                So, I understand why people are a bit sick of seeing owners being treated as if they were actually lords…

                I do believe that the owners and tenants should sit to find a reasonable solution, but the circumstances are unprecedented and a lot of people who have been financially safe for many years are now struggling. Many people will be able to access benefits and keep some income for a while, but some individuals just won't be able to pay.

                Coronavirus is affecting everyone and people who are more vulnerable require more protection (equity).

            • +3 votes

              @Hybroid: Wow! Isn’t negative hearing artificial manipulation as well ?


              @Hybroid: And the renters lost their job due to just as artificial scenario. But they should wear 100% of the economic pain?

          • +2 votes

            @zeggie: Amazing that when it comes to paying for a service it's suddenly "sOmeoNe eLsE's inVesTmeNT."

            The investment aspect of providing housing is irrelevant to a tenant. The tenant isn't paying the appreciation of the investment; he's just paying for housing.

            • +4 votes

              @freakatronic: Amazing that when it comes to Landlords that it's suddenly "I bought an investment and was naive and/or stupid to not expect any risks"

        • +8 votes

          Investing in property is a risk. It's an INVESTMENT. Why should taxpayer dollars subsidise risky investing? If we start providing additional welfare to landlords then can I get welfare for my share portfolio that has tanked?

          • +14 votes

            @TheGiantTomato: That is just complete nonsense. The government is stopping the owner receiving any revenue on the investment but still asking the owner to pay land tax, council rates and mortgage payments. So the governments and banks get money for absolutely nothing - as the owner is getting nothing. Why are owners expected to pay land tax if the property can't receive any revenue.

            I guess you would be happy if a law was passed that said your employer could stop paying you any money but you would still have to work every day - and it's your problem because you has a job at the time the law was passed.

            • +8 votes

              @dave999: You pay land tax because you own real estate.

              You may be surprised to learn that receiving revenue isn't the primary purpose of real estate :)

            • +8 votes

              @dave999: Imagine considering yourself an investor but not knowing what legislative risk is.

              I guess you would be happy if a law was passed that said your employer could stop paying you any money but you would still have to work every day - and it's your problem because you has a job at the time the law was passed.

              Uh, state-of-emergency legislation (state/territory controlled) have exactly those type of clauses in them…

            • +1 vote

              @dave999: not only he has to work for no pay but also have to pay tax as if he is working

          • +2 votes

            @TheGiantTomato: So is opening a retail store and the taxpayer is subsidising that right now.

          • +6 votes

            @TheGiantTomato: Yes but the real risk of property investment is capital growth - not being forced to let people live there for free. This is completely unprecedented and ridiculous. If property prices plummet (which they will), I doubt you'd see landlords complaining in the same vein as they are now for this nonsense policy. Also Covid didn't directly cause this issue - the new policies have, which makes it distinctly different from a tanking economy and sharemarket in general.

            • +6 votes

              @sakurashu: There are many property investors out there with little money in their hands after paying all the bills. Sure, they can pause their mortgage for 6 months, but those repayments are going to be higher afterwards - which in some cases WILL mean they will have to sell or go into bankruptcy.

              You can paint that as a win, as property prices fall (or plummet, depending on how severe it gets), but that's not going to help anyone who is currently without work and burning any meagre savings, to buy a place in 6-12 months time.

              Yes, buying an investment property is a risk, but like any investment, we roughly know what the risks are. In this case, the government has significantly altered the risk profile for one side of the equation and doesn't appear concerned about the ripple of effects this will have across the economy in times to come.

              The reality though this is most landlords and most renters will try to do the best for themselves and each other. Some - on both sides - will be bastards.


              @sakurashu: It’s not different at all. The economy is tanking because everyone is forced to stay home. It’s government policy which has put everyone out of work, to save the lives of tens of thousands of Australians.


          are they getting any exemptions during this period?, ie land tax, council rates, utilities charges, etc…

    • +6 votes

      I assume they are assuming that the landlords will apply for the 6 month mortgage payment freeze from their bank. Not that this helps with the accrued interest, or in getting back 6 months worth of rent.

      • -1 vote

        any tenant who has lost their job could pay rent equal to that of the interest thanks to the jobseeker program. It's pretty simple

        • +2 votes

          So they should be in a position where they are financially better off, but the landlord is worse off? Why?

    • +2 votes

      It's just the government being pre-emptive:

      Of course a lot of people who now are unemployed cannot pay the rent any more, and the landlord would have to drag them to court to evict them.
      Because of the circumstances no jury would allow such an eviction.

      There is is: saving landlords, tenants and jury time.

    • +2 votes

      Because they have been negative gearing on good days not paying taxes. Time to pay back?

  • +74 votes

    turning landlords in the charities

    Interesting response considering the generous subsidy afforded to landlords by the Australian tax payer in the form of negative gearing.

    Landlords have had it too good for too long. Time to pay it forward to the general populous.

    • +27 votes

      Then reduce or discontinue negative gearing, don't force them to give the current tenants a free/cheaper place to live.

      I think tenants would still be liable for all the rent due, but it would be hard to go through the system to get it off them. In that case, that could be seen as the risk of being a landlord.

      • -18 votes

        ozhunter is 100% if negative gearing was so bad get rid of it then see what happens to the cost of rentals dont f*** over good people that have worked hard saved a bit and tried to get ahead for the deadbeats in the world who simply sponge off the system

        • +48 votes

          ozhunter is 100% if negative gearing was so bad get rid of it then see what happens to the cost of rentals dont f*** over good people that have worked hard saved a bit and tried to get ahead for the deadbeats in the world who simply sponge off the system

          Oh, you’re going to try and be one of those people who believe that removing negative gearing will cause rents to skyrocket, on the mistaken belief that LL’s are currently doing all tenants a favour by not charging as much rent as they possibly can already. The rent prices are set by what the market will bear, not what LL’s want to try and charge.

          What would a LL do if they kick their tenant out and no one else is able to afford to rent their house for that 6 months? 12 months?

          Buying residential real estate is a risk, there’s more than enough incentives already given to property ‘investors’ what else do you believe they deserve?

          • +1 vote

            @Porthos: A basic understanding of negative gearing would show you that having a lower rental income would actually increase your tax liability, so charging top dollar isn't the be all, end all you're making it out to be.

            Your opinion shows your hysteria in that you're blindly looking at only one side of the situation.

            Ontheshreds aggressive choice of words are likely the only thing finding him negs. His earlier responses are very well measured and perfectly understandable.

            It's (gearing) unfortunately a necessary evil at the moment given our current economic climate. Without it, the bigger picture is, your wealthy(ier) investors would tie up their cash and slow construction thus creating an even bigger shortage of supply. Smaller supply, more competition = ???

            ……. Higher rents.

            • +4 votes


              A basic understanding of negative gearing would show you that having a lower rental income would actually increase your tax liability, so charging top dollar isn't the be all, end all you're making it out to be.

              I'm more than aware of what negative gearing is, thanks. I was merely refuting Ontheshred's inference that removing negative gearing would cause rents to rise - which has been debunked numberous times.

              Your opinion shows your hysteria in that you're blindly looking at only one side of the situation.

              Nothing I said was hysteria at all, the only hysteria I see in this thread is from a number of LL's showing their true colours about how little they think about tenants.

              Ontheshreds aggressive choice of words are likely the only thing finding him negs. His earlier responses are very well measured and perfectly understandable.

              They're getting negged simply because in many ways they're just outright wrong and building up hysteria (as you put it). Plus a number of other people with anecdotal 'evidence' saying 'oh I know x amount of people who have said they're just going to stop paying rent' as if that proves a point.

              It's (gearing) unfortunately a necessary evil at the moment given our current economic climate. Without it, the bigger picture is, your wealthy(ier) investors would tie up their cash and slow construction thus creating an even bigger shortage of supply. Smaller supply, more competition = ???

              ……. Higher rents.

              Please do cite your source for such a claim. Sounds like the typical scaremongering that the real estate industry and people with a vested interest love to spruik, same as the NG claim :-)
              Investors attribute roughly 40% of new builds, with the majority of their cash going to existing housing stocks - pg 41 (2016 source).

        • +42 votes

          deadbeats in the world who simply sponge off the system

          Oh the irony.

        • +3 votes

          Pollies have property portfolios so it's in their best interests to keep it.

          If they did it would likely make property more affordable.

  • Top