6 Months Moratorium on Evictions (Poll)

Trying2SaveABuck on 31/03/2020 - 22:50
Last edited 31/03/2020 - 22:55

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
  • 868
    i dont support the ban on evictions for six months
Home & Garden

Comments

  • haemolysis on 01/04/2020 - 14:41
    +12

    It's a bit disingenuous to say this is "investment risk" or the cost of doing business. Tennant insolvency isn't new. There has ALWAYS been a risk of failure to pay, and contracts, insurance, law and legal precedent has always existed to deal with that risk.

    But scrapping all that with a sudden change of law IS new. It is totally unprecedented and unreasonable to expect landlords to be planned for it. It is absolutely forced charity. If the government wants to assist people they should simply do so, not demand landlords to pick up the slack.

    Worse still, I worry immensely for the impact this will ultimately have on the market. By which I don't mean "boohoo the poor landlords" but rather: if we are freezing rents, and excessively bumping up people's welfare at the same time, are we effectively locking in these high rents, when we could be LETTING this bubble pop like it was already way overdue? Housing is far too expensive. Maybe we should let people get evicted, and AirBnBs go back on the market, and watch landlords struggle to capture new tennants, reducing rents accross the board.

  • wimphrel on 01/04/2020 - 15:21
    +5

    I'm speaking from my own experience, not speaking for others. Make of it what you will.

    I am a residential landlord for 2 properties, and I'm lucky enough to still have a job, but I still have a massive loan.
    I'm risk adverse, I've overpaid enough to afford minimum repayments for a many months if I lost my job. As a result I've not had the luxury of buying my dream cars or holidays that my friends seem to enjoy :D.

    The tenants have been nice, and been reporting defects so I can fix them (i.e. helping to take care of my property).
    If they lose their jobs, I don't mind taking the hit until this blows over -> maybe in return I can suggest they volunteer to help deliver things to the needy or to do anything productive that's still safe for them.

    I don't mind the government's policy - in fact I've sent emails to my property managers to let them know I'm willing to negotiate rent-reductions early to avoid financial stress out the tenants (i.e. no need to go as far as being completely broke).
    So far they haven't lost their jobs, or seen any reduction in their hours (I think their professions are cleaners & security guard).

    I reduced my risk by only borrowing with 50% leverage, and I am only negatively geared for 1-2 years before I become postively-geared, because let's face it - you're still losing money with negative gearing and it's not something 'you want' to be doing for too long. I don't mind removing negative gearing, but if anything I think removing 50% capital gains tax reduction is probably worth removing first.

    Hopefully not all landlords are jerks - I'm sure jerky-landlords exist.
    But as someone mentioned, it is wise to only borrow an amount where you can deal with 'unpredictable' scenarios.

  • GoldenDragon888 on 01/04/2020 - 15:39
    +4

    at the very least! the government should say any losses inured can be used as a tax write off for future investments.

    They already do. It’s called negative gearing.

    • zealmax on 02/04/2020 - 01:40

      Significant portion of IP are positively geared. May also be liable to land tax. Negative gearing is similar to a business claiming tax on a business expenses, such as commercial vehicle lease, rent for shop or office.

  • sy8718 on 01/04/2020 - 16:42
    +1

    Because there are more people who are renting and the gov need their support to win in the next election.

    • zealmax on 02/04/2020 - 01:47

      Rental population is about 1/3 of the Australian population. While it is a significant number, it is by no means the majority.

      • tarb on 02/04/2020 - 02:03
        +1

        Thats not really an honest assessment, you clearly need to remove owner occupiers from the equation as they are not affected by this - then I imagine its pretty clear there are more renters then investers

        • zealmax on 02/04/2020 - 02:08

          Yes I agree, there are more renters than investors. Since most people only rent single residence, while investors can have multiple properties. I must of misunderstood the comment I was replying to indicate that rental population is larger than people thay own property.

  • PopCounty on 01/04/2020 - 16:48

    It would make more sense if the govt also said that when the ‘defaulted on rent’ tenant but not ‘evicted due to the policy’; gets job, the Next same/new employer of this tenant pay portion to the landlord directly for next six month.
    Sure tenants shdnt be evicted in bad time. They shd simply repay what they can When the time’s good for them. Tenant happy and landlord happy.

  • DiscoJango on 01/04/2020 - 17:15
    +9

    Tall poppy syndrome at its finest.

    Think about all those poor aussie battlers and dole bludgers! Its not their fault they need to smoke a pack a day and drink a 6 pack a night!

  • truongster on 01/04/2020 - 17:59

    If this goes on, some, not all mum and dad investors will have to sell at a reduced rate, which would only benefit people with capital and/or overseas investments. That's the longer term play of the government. Making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

  • nzcoffeem on 01/04/2020 - 18:39
    +2

    Landlord loans out their residence to a tenant at an agreed cost. Tenant should pay the cost unless negotiated otherwise with the landlord.
    Bank lends money to a landlord at an agreed interest. Landlord should pay the interest unless negotiated otherwise with the bank.

    What some people are not getting is that Banks freezing loan payments does not automatically mean that tenants should live for free as the above two statements still are exclusive and still stand. Landlords still need to talk to their banks about their loan and tenants should talk to their landlords about their rent.

  • LFO on 01/04/2020 - 19:51
    +2

    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.

    Well, critical times require critical measures.
    For the common good.

    I guess the government is thinking of the alternative:
    Thousands of people evicted roaming the streets, generating violence and chaos. Unstoppable!
    Thousands of empty dwellings open to squatters and criminals, generating violence and chaos. Unstoppable!

    Remember how quickly they "banned" those overnight tents in Martin Place, Sydney? … and those tents were only during the night and perhaps they were just a few dozen … imagine hundreds of thousands !!!

    By the way, during the Depression destitute people used to go and camp (or live in tents at least) around the bushy areas of Malabar and La Perouse in Sydney'$ Eastern Suburb$.
    Amazing!!

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 01/04/2020 - 20:30
      -5

      So because our government didnt close the boarders and sold a large % of our country to the chinese lining there own pockets with gold us hard working individuals have t pay for it?

      cry me a fken river the MPs fked up royally and instead of owning up to anyone it they are putting it on us they have been selling this country to the Chinese for years i wont ever accept any BS the MPs put out for as long as they get there 200k a year pension when they retiree.

      Im sorry but they can give up a few dollars instead of bleeding the average joe

  • GiantGirl on 01/04/2020 - 20:46
    +4

    In Tasmania, the eviction moratorium is pretty much absolute. Landlords cannot evict for ANY reason, although the Premier today said criminal damage to the property was an exception.

    The policy in Tasmania is particularly flawed because is is far too broadly targetted. The tenants’ financial capacity to pay rent is irrelevant. You can have MORE income than pre-Covid 19, cease paying rent and the landlord has to just wear that for 6 months. The landlords obligation to pay rates, land tax, water charges etc continues.

    It is particularly a problem in share houses e.g. uni students. If two out of four tenants stop paying rent, the two who keep paying will still be still be just as legally liable for the arrears at the end of the 6 months moratorium. This is a huge problem for tenants in share households, as well as for landlords. The non-paying tenants in their household cannot be evicted, so the other tenants are stuck with potentially paying 6 months worth arrears accrued by their flatmates. And the laws about staying at your primary residence make it pretty difficult to move out somewhere else.

    Shared households have always carried a higher risk, because you may get stung by dodgy housemates. But previously you didn’t have a government indemnity on eviction tying you to a loser housemate who is happy to leave you holding 6 months worth of their debts!

    So what might a person in a share house do if some of their housemates stop paying rent for the full 6 months? I reckon they just might stop paying too.

    I think we might see a big increase in share households not paying ANY rent in Tasmania. Despite the extra $550 pf for full-time students. Nightmare for the landlords, nightmare for the co-tenants.

    • Tasmaniac on 01/04/2020 - 20:52
      +1

      Share house residents can still take legal action though ? I'd be surprised if the law is waiving all liability.

    • abc123z on 07/04/2020 - 20:09
      +1

      Glad to read someone else seeing the public is being lied to and this is basically a blanket ban on any evictions not just to stop tenants in hardship being thrown out by unreasonable landlords.

      Yes I saw they changed it from being ban all evictions in Tasmania to graciously allow a landlord to throw out a tenant who was deliberately damaging the property.

  • Powderhound303 on 01/04/2020 - 21:51
    +14

    So tenants sadly lose their job and landlord pays for them to live for free. There's no skin in the game for tenant now.

    This doesn't seem fair.

    The bank who lends to the landlord mortgage money doesn't reduce the interest rate to 0%. They don't reduce repayments and share the burden.

    All risk and all financial costs rest on the landlord now. The landlord can't even try to rent out the apartment due to new eviction rules. If fact they need to pay for water rates being used by tenants.

    Politicians are morons and this is a sh*tty deal for landlords. ScoMo says banks, landlords and renters need to talk and negotiate - but there's nothing to negotiate, the landlord is screwed from what I can see.

    I'd also like to point out Landlords work hard, make sacrifices to buy the investment property, and have jobs and families at risk too.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 09:09
      -2

      All risk and all financial costs rest on the landlord now.

      That's what happens with investments. You take financial risk.

  • TSH on 01/04/2020 - 23:49
    +1

    She'll be right folks. Nothing seems fair at the moment but it will all sort itself out.
    Code for "Let me grab some popcorn and watch as 300 Billion unproductive dollars swirls into a sink hole".

    All it took was a virus to reveal the emperors new cloths.
    Our whole economy in a nutshell. Eating, Shi77ing, buying property, renting, retail.

    Landlords are some of the hardest working tax leeches in Oz.
    Life will only get harder for most looking for their next "deductable expense" ;)

    • LFO on 03/04/2020 - 22:59

      Yeah … this topic keeps me thinking …

      6 months ago we were told our economy was the strongest and more resilient of almost all economies.

      Then a virus that kills (in Australia) less than 30 sufferers and that it has about 5,400 of them is the catalyst to shatter the "strongest economy" to thousand and one pieces.
      And not only that, but one of the bigger GDP contributors: Real Estate dwellings is shaken with rent freezes and suspended evictions.
      What? Why?

      Clearly we were told lies.

      Big ones!

  • Bunnyburger on 01/04/2020 - 23:57
    +1

    Is there anything to prevent a landlord from commencing debt recovery when the time comes? I mean eviction and debt recovery are two separate matters.

  • Rolling245 on 02/04/2020 - 00:02
    +2

    The government merely stops the eviction for six months? Then why is the tax still collected for six months? Why are the banks still charging the interest for the deferred mortgages? It really doesn't add up.

    Both the (local) government and the banks aren't making any concession to landlords, yet the government is making the landlords to make a concession to tenants. This is just unfair.

    Shortsightedness of some people is just mind-blogging. Yes, tenants may not be evicted right now, but they will be kicked out anyway as many houses will be foreclosed and will be put on auction as many landlords wouldn't be able to burden all the costs. There is a ban on the eviction, yet there is no ban on making someone bankrupt.

    • Ash SA on 02/04/2020 - 00:29
      +2

      Some tenants might want to ride this wave of "rent free" 6 months. But that is wrong assumption as the LL will press for "late rent" from them as soon as 6 months are over. Someone, who is not able to pay rent for one month and hence accommulated 6 months worht of rent, will not be able to pay it back.

      Here is the problem in economic shortsightedness of scotty the fool. This gonna result in evictions then and negative references for next tenancy application for such people. Situation will get out of hand pretty quickly.

      Best approach would have been by government paying partial/half of rent for people OR helping out LL as they are helping other businesses. Anyway, this is another half-baked response from our superior leaders.Not.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 09:13
      -1

      Then why is the tax still collected for six months?

      Because you own real estate. You haven't stopped owning it.

      Why are the banks still charging the interest for the deferred mortgages?

      Because you took out a mortgage for real estate.

      aren't making any concession to landlords

      Landlords can apply for JobSeeker if they don't have a primary occupation. Just like everyone else.

      landlords wouldn't be able to burden all the costs

      Then they shouldn't have leveraged themselves so heavily with an investment which does not guarantee a return.

      • Rolling245 on 02/04/2020 - 12:55
        +4

        Because you own real estate. You haven't stopped owning it.

        Yes, tenants don't own my house and have no right to live in my house unless they pay for it. In fact, I can choose to stop owning it and put it on the market. What would happen to tenants? Have you thought about that? This is a lose-lose situation.

        Because you took out a mortgage for real estate.

        Yes, and tenants signed a rental contract. Do you understand how silly you sound? You force a landlord to honor the contract, yet you reckon it is okay for tenants not to honor their contract. Hypocrite.

        Landlords can apply for JobSeeker if they don't have a primary occupation

        This is just beyond stupidity. It is not that they don't have primary jobs. The problem here is that LLs are experiencing cash shortfalls because of accrued expenses and they may end up being forced to sell their houses.

        Then they shouldn't have leveraged themselves so heavily with an investment which does not guarantee a return.

        Tenants should not have rented a property that they cannot afford. However, I don't think tenants nor landlords are at fault. In reality, both tenants and landlords are screwed by the pandemic.

        All landlords are asking is not helping them to make a profit, but let them earn enough rental income to keep their properties, so they won't be forced into a position where they have to sell the rental property amid this crisis and put hundreds of thousand tenants on street. Since the government intervened and everyone is in this together, why not the government and the banks take some initiative and share the burden with landlords who don't want to turn this health crisis into a GFC-style financial disaster.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 13:23

          Yes, tenants don't own my house and have no right to live in my house unless they pay for it. In fact, I can choose to stop owning it and put it on the market. What would happen to tenants? Have you thought about that? This is a lose-lose situation.

          Incorrect. You gave them a right to live in "your" (cough the Bank's) house. Not receiving rent? Avail yourself of your contractual remedies available to you.

          You can put it on the market. The Lease remains on foot. Conveyancing 101.

          You force a landlord to honor the contract, yet you reckon it is okay for tenants not to honor their contract.

          They can't due to a global pandemic. Seems like every 1st world nation is implementing similar protocols to prevent evictions. Is every leading nation's government wrong and you're the one who's right?

          The problem here is that LLs are experiencing cash shortfalls because of accrued expenses and they may end up being forced to sell their houses

          Investment 101. Risk mitigation.

          Tenants should not have rented a property that they cannot afford.

          How did they know they would lose their income due to a global pandemic?

          why not the government and the banks take some initiative and share the burden with landlords who don't want to turn this health crisis into a GFC-style financial disaster.

          Haha. Good luck. Why would the banks help. You signed a contract with your bank. You deal with them. That's your problem.

          Landlords selling investment properties is the exact opposite of a GFC style distaster. Think of what will happen if the market is flooded with investment properties for sale. Macroeconomics 101.

          To sum up, you've ignored basic principles of property law, investing and macroeconomics. You're angry….why?

          • ozhunter on 02/04/2020 - 13:31
            +1

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

            Not receiving rent? Avail yourself of your contractual remedies available to you.

            Eviction???

            Possible before this moratorium.

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 20:25
              -1

              @ozhunter: Of all my post, that's all you focus on. Kicking someone out :)

              Showing your true colours.

              • ozhunter on 02/04/2020 - 20:31
                +4

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: That's the issue, isn't it?

                I don't why landlords should be force to allow the current tenant to remain in the house without receiving their agreed income on time.

                If I was forced to house people, I'd rather help friends and family.

  • TSH on 02/04/2020 - 00:26
    +5

    Sorry, property investment is a risk.
    Lots of entitled landlords hopped onboard the free market gravy train. And the train she never stops, right!

    I have shares that have sunk and am hoping against hope the government bails me out too.

    Actually scrap that, landlords work a lot harder then reckless share market investors
    so I'll go ahead and let em keep my share of charity!

    • tarb on 02/04/2020 - 02:17
      +3

      Honestly this is a pretty decent comparison.

      If I went out and borrowed 500k and invested it in good stable high dividend blue chip stocks I imagine this whole thread website would call me crazy.
      I could receive dividend payments regularly (rent), and see a stable increase in value on my principle investment (property increase). AND as a bonus my money would be positively contributing towards the economy and not propping up a bubble that actively hurts the life of millions of Australians (unaffordable house prices and rent)

      And in this moment my shares would have lost a heap of value and my dividends have been paused. As most businesses have been forcibly shut or reduced by the Government and or supply chains disrupted, this was not an organic response to the pandemic, there are ~5000 cases in all of Australia, this disruption was artificially done by the government for the benefit of fellow Australians health.

      So looks like the analogy is accurate to me - the only thing different is the entitlement and tears of the 'property investors'.

      • Ghost47 on 02/04/2020 - 11:33
        +3

        AND as a bonus my money would be positively contributing towards the economy and not propping up a bubble that actively hurts the life of millions of Australians (unaffordable house prices and rent)

        Well said. I wonder what the Australian economy would look like if less people had such a hard-on for property and instead invested the majority of their funds into the share market. I say majority because people's super are usually in the share markets, but I can imagine for property investors that they pour most of their money into bricks and mortar.

        • Danstar on 02/04/2020 - 11:47

          Investing in shares for most is a long term gain.

          A lot of investing in property is also for long term gain, but for many it's a means of a regular income….

          • Ghost47 on 02/04/2020 - 11:53
            +1

            @Danstar: I do agree that rental income (if any when the mortgage is being paid off though) is a good thing for investors. Rent can certainly be more regular than dividend payments. Nothing wrong with cashflow, and it is an advantage of investing in property.

            Doesn't negate the fact that it's a house and doesn't do much for the economy except prop up construction companies.. which can be argued have become more greedy lately due to shoddily built OTP apartments smh.

  • Odin on 02/04/2020 - 00:32
    -2

    Here's the situation:

    1. Landlord has an asset - the property.
    2. Tenant has nothing

    Tenant requires a home, too (profanity) bad for the landlord.

    That's part of the risk you take when you "invest"

    • zealmax on 02/04/2020 - 02:02

      The last time I checked, bank had the title deeds to my home. Landlords/owner occupiers have debt. Tenants have trust from their landlords. Enough so that they agreed to have the tenants live in their homes for an agreed rental amount.

    • Ghost47 on 02/04/2020 - 11:05
      +1

      Landlord has a mortgage, it can be argued it's more of a liability than an asset. It would be an asset if it was paid off (sorry to all LLs who thinks their half-paid-for property is an asset).

  • lgacb08 on 02/04/2020 - 06:04
    -3

    Wow, lots of of self-entitled landlords here, tough luck

    • one man clan on 02/04/2020 - 08:18
      +3

      If i could do a venn diagram of landlords complaining and people complaining about welfare it would probably look like one circle

    • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 13:21

      Yeah completely, it's like buying a car and then forced to let other people use it for free guzzling your petrol costs etc…how absurd!

  • cdkane on 02/04/2020 - 08:04
    +2

    A lot of people think that rent goes to the mortgage and if mortgages can get suspended then same same yeah? But it’s not always like that.

    My Dad owns his apartment, it’s his only asset, however the rent is used to help pay for his care in a nursing home and he has dementia.. Aged care costs a mint for those who are not in the know.

    There is no spare cash for luxurious bs that people think that landlords are spending their sweet rent money on.

    All the usual costs of maintaining the property, rates, management fees etc still need to be paid too. If the tenant stops paying then it’s going to be very difficult to afford to pay for the care that he needs and maintain the costs of owning the property.

    In case people are wondering I am not a landlord, I don’t have a mortgage and I pay rent.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 09:15
      +3

      Then you need to consider if the investment is viable and liquidate when required. Just like any other investment.

      • Damiola on 02/04/2020 - 11:18
        +9

        Who are you to make this suggestions? Looking at your comments you are just another communist - my suggestion for you is to go and live communist state like North Korea or Cuba.
        Discussion is NOT about damage done by coronovirus to investment property but damage done by government's very controversial declaration of no eviction policy. I think if government introduce this policy they have to cover for all losses this policy incurs

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 15:40
          +1

          ^ Calls someone a communist. Doesn't even know what communism is. You actually think North Korea is a communist country?

          Why should the government cover all your losses? Why are all other investment streams not covered?

          Maybe you should just sue the virus?

          Or maybe you should sign up another alt account?

          • Damiola on 07/04/2020 - 17:17
            +3

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Rights of all people is protected by law and constitution . Right of private property is one of the key human right. Government act to take property right from people by temporary confiscation for 6 month is violation of landlord property right. Forcing landlord to have tenants for 6 month without rent is confiscation of property right, forcing land lord to reduce rent outside of market is confiscating property right. Only communist states do this.
            Yes i have experience life in communist state and what you declaring here is exactly communist agenda!

      • cdkane on 02/04/2020 - 11:38
        +1

        You are assuming that in this climate people can treat investment properties just like they always have with investments. Just sell yeah? With that mindset we should just find new tenants, cause that’s how investment properties work yeah?

        Not sure how easy it’s going to be to liquidate an investment property with current tenants that don’t pay rent.

        Point is because you are getting screwed it doesn’t give you the right to screw others. Each scenario is different and support needs to be given across the board to get everyone through, not just those with rent paying mortgages.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 15:42
          -1

          You act as if there is always a perfect climate to sell property. There isn't. It's an investment with the associated risks.

          • cdkane on 02/04/2020 - 16:12

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: You act as if this climate is a predictable risk that someone takes on when considering renting out a property.

            You would think that a pandemic and a moratorium wouldn’t be a risk that is generally considered when renting out a property.

            “Hmmm will I rent this place out? What if there is a global pandemic and the tenants can’t afford the rent and we are not permitted to evict and find paying tenants?”

            Any examples of where this climate has been taken into consideration with property investment?

            If it was a considered risk then there would be stronger safeguards (insurance, stringent background employment and financial health checks etc) available for investors and after all this you can be sure there will be.

            Your simple solution of a pre-covid19 tactic is not the answer, in a similar way that “pay or get out” solution isn’t the answer.

            In the present Covid-19 world just selling your investment isn’t an easy option considering you would need to find a buyer willing to take on an investment that pays no return.

            The bigger problem is likely that if suitable solutions are made available for all then people will make up their own solutions.

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 16:16

              @cdkane: Who said predictable?

              Most of the key risks with investments are the unpredictable ones.

              The predicable ones you can plan and mitigate prior.

              • Damiola on 07/04/2020 - 17:21
                +2

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: risk of investment by market forces, or illegal act of tenants or other person, natural disaster etc is all accounted.
                what we have is illegal act by government to confiscate property right from people. Yes there is risk of communist revolution in some states and nationalization of property but this is different story

      • longhaul84 on 03/04/2020 - 01:43

        Sohai

  • TailsK on 02/04/2020 - 08:36
    +1

    This is quite literally a global crisis and everyone has to do their bit. If you look at it objectively, simply kicking out someone who can't afford to pay their rent during this extraordinary time isn't going to make it any easier to find someone else who can pay rent to occupy your newly vacated investment. There is already relief for landlords, and in turn, landlords should provide relief for their tenants.

    • drprox on 02/04/2020 - 10:42
      +1

      Just to be clear on this. Relief is available to landlords in "hardship". The Bank can still apply judgement to this process. There is nothing to suggest the landlord hasn't lost more income than the tenant but the tenant. I'd suggest at this time it's easier for the tenant to claim hardship as they deal only with a property manager and cannot be evicted. The landlord still needs to deal with the Bank who may/may not seem their situation hardship.

  • boostpak on 02/04/2020 - 09:14
    -3

    Hey guys I'm thinking of posting a new deal on Ozbargain let me know what you guys think.

    I am in my 30s and was able to buy my first property. My parents were able to buy one at 20 years old with little savings.
    I've worked my ass off my whole life to be able to save and purchase a property out in the suburbs of Melbourne. I've even had two jobs at points of my life doing back to back shifts just to keep saving. I bought the house to move into and start my life and have a family. However I'm still unable to move into it as the repayments are high and I need to save a bit more to have some capital before I move in to be able to both live and repay the loan in full along with all the rates/bills associated.

    So I had tenants renting the house in order to help and be able to service the loan. Those tenants are now gone.

    Due to the new Govt Moratorium on evictions I'm now offering 6 months free rent. All you have to pay are your own utility bills. But a whole house for free for 6 months!!!
    It's okay though, I've lost my job, I have to service the loan, pay my council rates, my water rates, my land tax, my landlords insurance and any maintenance fees which can be in the thousands per year. But don't worry, because I'm having a 'fair go'. So should I post this in freebies of the deals section? What do you guys think?

  • payless69 on 02/04/2020 - 09:25

    Morrison has a near impossible job. Too many envies but no real takers. Playing hardball trying to show the world that he can be little Trump in a Ahern like competitor kicking dust to get this country virus free at all cost. This stunt has simply pulled the carpet under Albo's legs. I thing it may still backfire at him in the long term.

  • gstfree on 02/04/2020 - 10:26
    +2

    Currently I am working 12 hours everyday trying to pay off my mortgages and support family. I can defer the loan repayments but interests are continue accruing and capitalized into the loan. Financially I am unable to relief the rental 50% simply not affordable.

    Government should grant interest free loan to people in difficulty and recover in similar manners as uni loans.

  • ziggy1312 on 02/04/2020 - 10:42
    -2

    Seriously everyone has lost thousands super shares even cash holders will loose with the QE due to inflation. Property owners are going to be the only winners as the property come the end of all this will inflate heaps - if they can hold on.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 02/04/2020 - 11:59
      +1

      Property owners also have super and shares and have lost money so they should lose more money because ? Reasons?

      • ziggy1312 on 02/04/2020 - 13:27
        +3

        And property is immune to risk because , reasons?

  • cloudy on 02/04/2020 - 10:53

    Let’s not forgot the first thing the government and the bureaucrats did when this crisis exploded was to cut interest rates, sole purpose is to help wijth with debts, mostly landlords.

    So it’s Bs to say there is no govt help.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 02/04/2020 - 11:01
      +3

      Fact check RBA is totally independent of the government….

      • cloudy on 02/04/2020 - 12:01

        Lol, I know it is. But fact check again, they are meeting regularly on how to work best in managing his crisis in conjunction with all organisations including banks and our government.

        You are in a bubble to think there is no influence or collaboration

  • Ononono on 02/04/2020 - 11:14
    +7

    Landlords are throwing a fit because for the longest time in Australia, owning property was guaranteed to make easy profit. The idea of not turning a profit off an investment property is incomprehensible for them, I hope this is a reality check for people, no investment is risk free

    • Damiola on 02/04/2020 - 11:27
      +7

      i think i have stress it !
      this discussion is not about bad things happened to real estate investment by coronovirus IT IS NOT ABOUT IT !
      This discussion is about damage done to real estate investment by government's very controversial declaration of no eviction policy.

      • TSH on 02/04/2020 - 12:30
        +6

        Gov has always, always intervened in the housing market.

        Negative gearing which so many accept as a given thing was an intervention by Gov back in the day, which was never lifted.

        If you're in a market where the government constantly intervenes, sell up and move to a real free market to park your money.

        Happy to collect negative gearing from gov?! Then suck it up with a smile and take it up the backside while they ride you.

    • ozhunter on 02/04/2020 - 12:30
      +2

      It's because landlords can be expected to provide free housing to others without the option of eviction.

    • [Deactivated] on 03/04/2020 - 19:33
      +1

      ownership of land/property is the investment. leasing it out is goods/services.

  • Nuclearvodka on 02/04/2020 - 12:23
    -3

    If a landlord can't afford the mortgage and needs a tenant to pay for it, maybe they shouldn't have purchased the property in the first place…

    • Danstar on 02/04/2020 - 12:29
      -1

      You're missing the point of an investment

      If people only invested with disposable income, not much investing would be happening in our economy

      • Nuclearvodka on 02/04/2020 - 12:31
        +1

        You're missing the point of an investment

        Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

      • Ghost47 on 02/04/2020 - 13:03
        +2

        If people only invested with disposable income, not much investing would be happening in our economy

        I don't know if I agree with this. I only invest with disposable income. My investing occurs mainly in the market though, which doesn't exactly require a massive amount of capital (e.g. the size of a 20% house deposit in the current market).

        Plenty of investing can occur in the economy with disposable income, it's just that a lot of Australians have a propensity to invest in property.

        • Danstar on 02/04/2020 - 13:25

          Plenty of investing can occur in the economy with disposable income

          And plenty (especially in property investment) is done with loans.

          • Ghost47 on 02/04/2020 - 13:55

            @Danstar:

            And plenty (especially in property investment) is done with loans.

            You're saying that not much investing would occur if people only invested with disposable income (let's say for example $5000).

            I disagree because $5000 can be put into an index fund or shares, you don't need the amount equivalent to a house deposit which could run up to the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to "invest".

    • Rolling245 on 02/04/2020 - 12:57
      +1

      So landlords should put their properties on the market? Geez, I wonder what would happen to tenants who are already in those rental properties.

  • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 13:13
    +10

    So i see a lot of ppl supporting the ban on evictions.

    Ok so lets say you own a food market, and then people who lost their jobs and cannot afford are now allowed to come and take food from your market without paying would you be happy as the food market owner?

    Or say they're allowed to use your car, fuel to get to important destinations like do the food etc, would you be happy? (I may be hppy with his..but what if you're imagine losing hundreds of dollars to do that- would you still be happy)

    In these 2 situations i suppose most people wouuld just close their business down..now imagine the gov forcing you to keep them open and you're losing money?

    Yes investment is a financial risk, but then what isnt? There are limits to what can be expected for financial risk. It's like planning one day that the government can take over your investment for 6months and not pay a dime…

    I do not want anyone to be evicted because of loss of job so the better option would be to ask the banks to cancel the interest rates. That way the landlord (also probably have families and may have lost their jobs) do not lose anything but not make profit either…

    people here just automatically assume your said landlord is rich family with $$$ who made millions on the property boom…but most are just your everday aussies who work hard and rather than holidaying, boozing, expesnive cars they looked to invest in their future..but i guess the government is in the bank's back pocket even in crisis situations.

    • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 13:47
      +3

      People are also forgeting there are 2 types of landlords:

      Ones who have paid off their mortgage ( so theese people won't make any money but not lose any either)

      and those who havent paid of their mortgaeg (these people will actually be losing money- so imagine paying for someone else to live in your property for 6months?

      • [Deactivated] on 02/04/2020 - 14:03
        +3

        All will lose money because they still gotta pay rates, insurance etc

        • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 14:05

          *except the banks, councils, insurance firms.

          Proudly in the PM's back pocket

    • sarahlump on 02/04/2020 - 14:27
      +2

      Erm, if people dont have a job and cant afford food and you're the only person with food, you have an obligation to give that food to people. I'm sorry but if you say "i was just doing my job" while people die of starvation you're gonna hang.

      • sarahlump on 02/04/2020 - 14:28

        Oh and btw, exposure to the elements(homelessness) increases the likelihood of dying by a lot!

      • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 14:47
        +2

        Or the government can give the peopple money to buy food, or can pay the shop keeper to give out free food….just sayin.

        or do you think everyone who lost their jobs should be entitled to walk into coles right now and take things from the shelves without paying.?

        • sarahlump on 02/04/2020 - 14:53
          -3

          That depends on how things go. I'm not going to write it off as a possibility. I think people's lives are always tangible and important. Money isn't. Ownership isn't.
          (when I say you in this, I don't mean you funnysht, I mean landlords)

          At the moment the government is giving businesses and people who lose their jobs a ton of money. $1500 a fortnight!! that's well above the poverty line. The thing is, if you aren't living below the poverty line as a landlord then I don't think you're really at risk. If you own a giant investment like a house, you're not at risk. As a landlord you can go to centrelink, and the govt, for an income payment. The asset test is $400k if you don't own a house, and $200k if you do! so I don't think any landlord is legitimately at risk of going hungry. And tbh if you're not starving and you have a warm house to go to. I've got no pity for you.

          The people who are sleeping on the streets, the people sitting in queen st in Brisbane on a rag with nowhere to go, I pity them. I am really doubting you're struggling as a landlord like they are. Your system says they deserve to suffer because they can't afford your plan. I say they shouldn't.

          I dare you to argue that it's unfair for you to not get money for rent and fair for them to have to sleep on the street. You can't.

          • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 14:56
            +1

            @sarahlump: Nope.read my post..

            I said that instead of freezing rent payments..why not freeze mortgage interest payments..so that way the tenant, landlords don't lose out..and only the banks do..

      • [Deactivated] on 03/04/2020 - 11:06

        Farmers will slowly reduce production or stop if they don't have anything to gain.

      • abc123z on 07/04/2020 - 20:24
        +1

        You do realise that before this people died of starvation and completely preventable causes all the time in developing countries, and we had homeless people in our own country, how much of your stuff did you give to help these people before this, every time you bought something you didn't really need you were killing someone or leaving them homeless when you could have been giving your money to them

    • Entheogen on 03/04/2020 - 07:27

      Your analogies are not correct for the point you're trying to defend.

    • Truthbe on 03/04/2020 - 14:22

      Sell your house then?

  • ZloyKrys on 02/04/2020 - 14:14
    +7

    Just in case anyone missed it, clarifications from the minister for Housing https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/forward-planning/investm…

    Bsically, tenants have to pay rent, now or later or face the consequences

    • pegasusx on 03/04/2020 - 18:49

      The evictions were an outcome of an enforcement. Removing that basically takes the bite out of the bark
      6 months means most landlords will have to absorb the costs for those 6 months and recover those funds later from the tenant when they can afford so.

      If worse case the tenant does a runner, the landlord will spend another 4+ months and legal fees to recover that debt, and a garnishee order to recover. All up the landlord will get next to zero.

      • ZloyKrys on 04/04/2020 - 13:36

        The landlord is unlikely to get anything beyond the standard 4 weeks bond, insurance benefits after the tenants are kicked out which will be probably a bit less than the entire 6 months rent, but the tenant will have debt collectors chasing them and their name in the tenants database for 3 years. Good luck getting a decent home in the next three years.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join