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


      • +1

        They can go and find the box they're living in or bridge they're living under on the way to work and hassle them for some money and tell them how much money they owe to them if it makes them feel any better.
        If you've not got the means to pay then what can be done? I'd like to see the payments from govt to be made to RE or LL on behalf of the tenant to make sure its being paid but well that's even less control for what are usually functional adults.
        This just feels way blown out of proportion as to how many LLs will be impacted and by how much.

  • +8

    So my tenants just pulled the COVID card when asked why they have not paid rent for 4 weeks. They ignored our communications until we sent them the termination notice. Looks like they're gonna stick to their plan and not paying rent for the next 6 months, which is over $15,000 out of my pocket. Rental insurance covers up to 6 weeks of rent and only be paid after the tenants have been evicted.

    Sure, some trolls up here have been saying tough luck, investment carrying risks and so on. For me, this is just downright illegal since the tenants know about the eviction ban and decided to stick it to the landlord, completely ignoring their contractual obligations to pay rent when they entered the tenancy agreement.

    We'll see how this pans out when they are brought in front of the tribunal, with debt collector chasing their a** and their names being put in TICA.

    • +1

      Yeah, it's bollocks. While tenants shouldn't be harassed and forced to access super, they need to substantiate their situation. If they're receiving JobKeeper, they should have to pay at least half of it towards rent before crying poor.

    • +5

      Sell the house, won't be your problem then

      • Sure, if only the tenants move out so I can have a vacant house to sell. I'm happy to compromise for a rent reduction, payment plan or whatever works for both sides. But not paying rent while receiving all these government benefits with the blanket eviction ban is something I will not tolerate.

        • You can sell a house with a tenant in it. Go for it. It’s an investment like any other.

        • +2

          You need to understand, anyone can claim the government benefits, including property investors. The assets limit has been removed so everyone can survive this. Thats the whole point, to pause the economy for 6 months so no one loses.

          Tenants will also need to pay their rent, its not free rent. Its 6 months of no homelessness. The only people who lose are people with multiple negative geared properties, and its hardly even losing! IMO if they're crying of lost profit when everyone is out there losing equally, i call that greed. Mom and pop investors will be fine, because there is no asset limit on centerlink.

    • We feel your pain. Our commercial tenant pulled the COVID card within 12 hours of the stage 2 restrictions coming into effect, despite those restrictions not even directly affecting their business. They're still trading.

      • Sell your land

        • +2

          Why would he have to do that?

          Why not just kick out the tenants?

          • +1

            @ozhunter: He doesn't have to do anything, if he is in strong economic pressure due to the current circumstances he should apply for centrelink - there is no asset limits so it protects everyone during this time.

            The tenants do not get free rent, they will need to pay it back.

            • +1

              @Truthbe: Tenants can apply for centrelink and use that money to pay their rent.

              The tenants do not get free rent, they will need to pay it back.

              No but they do get less incentive to pay that rent on time on the contract they had agreed to and cannot be evicted until the moratorium is over.

              • +1


                No but they do get less incentive to pay that rent on time on the contract they had agreed to and cannot be evicted until the moratorium is over.

                I disagree that it incentivises bad behaviour, especially for a commercial property.. the business signed a death wish if they think they're going to get away with not paying. They've taken a loan out on the landlord.

        • Why should we have to sell because a shit tenant?

          And how do you propose we even sell if open houses are banned?

          • +1

            @DisabledUser224598: This whole thing was meant to pause the economy for 6 months, anyone can claim centrelink for this reason - the assets test was removed to basically act as a universal income until the economy kick starts so no one loses their livelyhood. Your tenant is shit, but they've signed a deathwish if they think they're not going to have to pay all that rent once 6 months ends. I don't think it incentivises bad behavior, because they basically have a loan to your name now.

            What it does protect though, and not for commercial leases, is prevents homelessness for 6 months.

            • +3

              @Truthbe: Oh I'm absolutely in favour of avoiding homelessness. No doubt about it. Definitely don't kick people out of their homes.

              I think what this tenant was expecting was free rent for the whole six months. Which is untenable.

    • +1

      Are you still claiming negative gearing. If you are still in the positive over the years, 6 months of rent loss should not be a biggie. I have seen no one question the share market loss of more than 50-70%. Also just pass the buck to the bank, ask them to reduce to interst only at 2.09% , tell that's all you can pay. Also heard that it is going to be no foreclosures from Banks for 12 months, so you will get to terrorise the bank if you are getting it from your tenants

    • This is the issue with the knee jerk announcement of the policy and the framework around it yet to be released.

  • +4

    I suspect shit is going to hit the fan in 6 months time - when people can't pay their bills…

    • +2

      This is the unfortunately truth of the situation.

      If the tenants can't pay rent now and are living paycheck to paycheck for whatever reason (good or bad), they aren't going to magically come up with a stack of spare cash to pay off the rent debt.

      If the government doesn't do anything to address this, landlords will be the one out of pocket.

      Government/banks needs to offer the tenant a way to take responsibility for themselves and offer them a loan to cover the rent and living expenses.

    • +1

      if the mentality of too many on ozb is anything to by. it'll be treated as a freebie and more.

  • +12

    "but im sorry that is the cost of doing business and the risk of starting a small business"


    This is the problem, people just see rental properties and no risk cash cows and don't care one bit about the tenants.

    Investment properties carry the same risk/reward as all other investments.

    P.S i am impartial as im neither a landlord or Renter.

    • Exactly right. Apparently landlords are owed something more than everyone else in circumstances like this. Wild!

      • -1

        Nope. They're asking that they be treated like OTHER BUSINESSES owners and be given an allowances etc.

        • -1

          Your not a business, you don't employ people, you don't pay taxes like a business does, GTFOH.

          • -1

            @DisabledUser41709: Really? So the income a landlord makes is tax free?
            The landlord doesn't hire a real estate agent to look after the property?
            The landlord doesnt pay council rates?

            Sure mate

            • +1

              @funnysht: don't forgot the LL, employs contractors to make repairs (urgent or not) to the property where needed.

              • +1

                @godofpizza: I was waiting for this reply.

                Really? So the income a landlord makes is tax free?

                Oh please, enough is claimed back as a tax deduction + Negative gearing

                The landlord doesn't hire a real estate agent to look after the property?

                ONE rea handles 100 or so properties. Barely contributing anything to the workforce here, also no on flow of jobs like manufacturing.

                The landlord doesn't pay council rates?
                LL, employs contractors to make repairs

                All of which would be done regardless of who owns the property, & Being an electrician, the amount of LL's who want work done on the cheap and subpar quality workmanship far far far out weighs those who have work done on their own homes.

                Go start a small business then hit me back, income tax 27.5%, payroll tax, superannuation, gst, unsecured creditors (Tenant) go broke all the time of which you have no recourse to recover ANYTHING they owed you.

    • -1

      P.S i am impartial as im neither a landlord or Renter.

      I'm neither either, but anyone can still be impartial.

      When buying a house, of course it can go up or down in value. That's not the issue. The issue is being forced to house the current tenants without receiving their rental income based on the contract signed.

      Tenants are children who the LL are responsible for.

      • +1

        Disagree here. The rent that makes the house viable is all part of the investment risk. You can’t pick and choose when it suits.

        • +3

          Can't edit other comment but meant to be Tenants aren't children who the LL are responsible for.

          Disagree here. The rent that makes the house viable is all part of the investment risk.

          LL know that and almost, if not always, plan to have a tenant in there to help pay the mortgage.

          You can’t pick and choose when it suits.

          Of course you can pick and choose, but you still need to live up to your contract. So if you agree that someone else can live there for 12 months for sum of money given on a set basis, then they can live there.

          • @ozhunter: Apologies. I think we’re on the same page.

  • +3

    Everyone's doing it tough, you gotta contribute to keeping Australia going. Some people complain 'rent is many investment landlords livelihood', well sell up then? Renters don't have that privilege and I'm sure they're in worse positions than someone who has equity to sell.

    This is towards people who have property as investments, not people who live in their homes.

    • +4

      So there's no mortgage on investment properties then?

      Interest on loans? Repayment of principal? Rates? Maintenance costs for the property? Insurance expenses? Tax?

      Renters don't have that burden either.

      Let's hope that landlords are in such financial distress that they must sell off the property so that no renters can have a roof over their heads. What an ideal outcome.

      • +10

        I'm having a hard time following this woe is me investment property landlord stuff. Do you not have an asset you can sell for money? If you sell at a loss - that's the risk of investment.. but sell now and you'll make some decent dosh - something renders don't have an opportunity of.

        How can someone WITH an asset ever be compared to someone WITHOUT an asset, makes little sense imo. I agree banks should pause interest, but if they do - renters should also write off tenant debt as someone said below. The next 6 months will be shit for everyone equally. Banks are responsible for making this right.

        • -1

          It's not all black and white. If you've bought a tenanted property to live in, you shouldn't be exposed to this risk, especially not without the tenant substantiating in detail.

          • +3

            @JohnHowardsEyebrows: Which is ever more reason for banks to pause interest. Frankly the whole of Australia should be on pause for 6 months if this is to do the least bit of damage. They should remove the assets test for getting centrelink and pay EVERYONE just enough to survive this tough time. Then everyone would come out alive after this.

            It's up to the banks though.

          • @bananamacbook:

            in the eyes of a tenant, that must be a win.

            Don't be so ridiculous, how about you read what I wrote again.

            do renters not have eligibility for Centrelink payments

            Actually, investment landlords can have access to the same payments believe it or not. According to: https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/news/more-f...

            It says "We’ve waived asset testing for 6 months from 25 March 2020, except for Farm Household Allowance and Special Benefit. We’ve also waived the liquid asset test waiting period, newly arrived residents waiting period, and seasonal work preclusion period."

            So whats the problem.. I still think banks are responsible for this mess and making it better as stated in my other comments above.

            • @Truthbe: I still don't get what you want. What do you want, then?

              • @bananamacbook: Why do I need to want anything, I'm saying this is the situation - everyone has access to the same stimulus payments and everyone has risk of ending up homeless on the street because of sudden loss of income. Blame the banks, and hold them responsible

                • @Truthbe: So everyone should dip into the public funds pool and capitalise on this crisis?

                  Government support is a last resort. If you need it, then access it… It's to prevent people ending up homeless on the street because of a sudden loss of income.

                  Everyone wants something. So, what do you want?

                  • @bananamacbook:

                    So everyone should dip into the public funds pool and capitalise on this crisis?

                    I'm not sure if you're up to date on the Keynesian form of economic management but.. RBA has been flooding the market with open market operations for the tune of billions and billions of dollars. If you aren't dipping into government support it literally does not matter, banks and corporations still will. If you as a investment landlord needs government support as it risks your livelyhood then it is not wrong to access it, but if you're here complaining about your loss of profit during one of the most economically challenging times in history.. well I have a tissue for you?

                    • @Truthbe: I'm afraid I'm not. Can you kindly explain to me like I'm 5? What are the implications of open market operations?

                      • @bananamacbook: I'll try summarise but I should start with how governments normally print money, called quantitative easing. So there are two parts of the economic system, there is the Government and the RBA, both are separate institutions. Governments can't print money - central banks can. Governments however can produce Bonds (which are simply IOU's with interest), which they can sell to the RBA for cash. Governments can make money that never existed before in this way.

                        Now the open market operations is similar, except its banks selling treasury notes (Or whatever Australia's equivalent is called, again, IOUs with interest) to the RBA which in turn gives banks money. Now remember, in 2008 America had a housing collapse because Mortgage Backed Bonds were actually bundled as Treasury notes! If you watch the movie the big short you'll understand how worthless these mortgage backed bonds were, so what do you call selling worthless assets to the central bank in return for cash? IMO I would call that a BAIL OUT. And when banks collapsed in 2008 guess what, governments stepped in an saved them! Crooks, absolute crooks.

                        • +1

                          @Truthbe: Thanks for the summary. Yes, I've seen the movie. So the 2008 crisis was a financial one. The 2020 covid-19 outbreak is a health-related one, which has economic implications. I'm struggling to see the connection between the 2008 government actions and the 2020 health crisis.

                          It just still seems like you're trying to argue that tenants should get a free pass, just because.

                          From a very rough understanding, Keynesian economics advocates the active role of government in creating demand for economic growth, which assumes that people will consume. Tenants demand and consume tenancy. The government has given out more money to tenants via Centrelink. What's the money in your pocket for?

                          What do you want?

                          • @bananamacbook: That's where I disagree, this is a financial crisis. Corona will be blamed but the Australian economy was in rough shape long before the coronavirus outbreak started. Household debt in Australia was one of the highest in the world. Corona just kick started the collapse, this was going to happen regardless. Repo operations started back in September 2019 actually.

                            This will be in the history books. This is 2008 part 2, fortunately for the Liberals corona happened in the right time.

                            Call it for what it is, Banks are claiming centrelink after they've collapsed the economy and lost peoples jobs. Banks are to blame, if a tenant loses their job they dont get free rent for 6 months. They owe all the rent back and will occur penalties for a lifetime like maybe never being able to rent again. They just don't end up homeless in this situation.. 6 months is nothing. Like I said, if a investment property owner is in dire straights because of this decision then they SHOULD go on centerlink until this blows over, this means its a pause on mom and pop landowners and a pause on tenants. Everyone survives. If they're not in dire straights and are complaining that they can't make a profit in this devastating time.. that tells me they're just greedy - and again, I have a tissue for them

                            • +6

                              @Truthbe: If a tenant loses their job…

                              If you are on JobSeeker, for the next 6 months, you get $565.70 + $550 bonus = $1,115.70 fortnightly.
                              On top of those regular payments, you also get $750 x 2 stimulus payments = $1,500 total.
                              Over the course of 6 months, you get $14,888.40 of taxpayer money. Landlord pays taxes.

                              You're telling me that you can't afford housing?? At $557.85 a week (excluding the $1,500 once off payments)?? For doing… what?

                              That's a single person, no kids. If I'm mistaken, I'm happy to stand corrected.

                              Well, I hope you get your wish and that your mortgaged-landlord ends up selling their property.

                              Who's the greedy and entitled one? Obviously the landlord who is making a loss.

                              • @bananamacbook: What part of 'its not free rent' dont you understand. They have to pay it back. And what part of 'anyone can claim centrelink as the assets test was removed' dont you get also. It just prevents homelessness for 6 months thats all. Its a deathwish if people try to abuse this as they will stuff their own self up, they'll basically be setting up a loan owed to the landlords.

                                • @Truthbe: Income testing still applies. Not all landlords may be eligible.

                                  I'm all for the additional payments going to those who need it. I concur, my issue is with the people who want to abuse the system. Not with those who are financially struggling. If a tenant is a particularly good one and is on good terms with the landlord, it doesn't hurt to ask the landlord for adjustments if it's genuinely needed. The onus is also on the landlord to be compassionate and fair.

                                  • +1

                                    @bananamacbook: I agree the people who abuse anything like this are scum. I hope the risk of massive debt for not paying and impossible difficulty finding rent ever again is enough to scare off any potential idiots.

  • This is good and bad: https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumer-protection/covid-19-...

    "There is no decision yet on whether tenant debt will be written off during the COVID-19 recovery phase. How the banks handle relief in relation to investment property mortgages, such as a potential mortgage freeze for six months, will feed into this decision-making process."

    Also the possibility to sell the investment property, the article doesn't provide a clear yes/no answer.

    • So basically if banks pass on relief to investors, then renters will have relief too

      Who can say that's not fair, sounds fair to me

      • +2

        Banks are passing relief? my bank have made it very clear any freeze on repayments will be added on with interest….

        if anything the banks are disguising relief to profiting….

        • +1

          He said "How the banks handle relief in relation to investment property mortgages, such as a potential mortgage freeze for six months, will feed into this decision-making process."

          So IF banks pass on relief, renters will get passed on relief too - future tense

          • +4

            @Truthbe: Banks have already said interest will still accrue…. so you IF** is they are not passing relief if anything banks are profiteering they know they cant default 100,000 in 6 months so they are making themselve look like they are helping when really they are saving there own ass. If the banks said all interest for the next 6 months on all home loans would be frozen THAT IS A DIFFERENT STORY

            I and probably other LL would have no problem if loans stopped gathering interest 4 6months sharing these savings with my tenants but as it stands i am just being hit by both the bank and tenants

            I actually think banks have acted appallingly and they arent being called out on it

            • @Trying2SaveABuck: I think this will only get worse so we may very well see them freeze interest. I agree banks have acted appallingly.

              • +2

                @Truthbe: I tell you want if the bank says to me on your home loan you dont have to pay interest i would be happy drop my tenants rent for 6 months or however long my interest is frozen for.

                However i dont think the banks will give up a single $ thus is why the current ban on evictions is a bad policy

                • +1

                  @Trying2SaveABuck: How they've not been made accountable to date completely baffles me.

                  Numerous royal commissions, bail outs and overpaid CEOs and the taxpayer (not just landlords!) are still being left to foot the bill.

                  There's so much still yet to play out so we can only hope that everyone is made to come to the table on this. I honestly think there is enough backlash from all parties at the moment that the government will have to enforce some decent policies to cover off all bases.

                  Just a side note as I've noticed your position in other posts.

                  The majority in this thread seem to be quick to hammer the landlord for supposedly taking profits and complaining during a downturn but not the banks/government.

                  It would be nice to see the banks, government and other highly profitable multi nationals finally take a hit for all THEIR years of profiteering. They make more than enough year on year profiting off the consumer, yet NEVER give back to society. If there was ever a time someone should start giving back, it should start from the top!

                  • +1

                    @db87: Because the banks give money to the liberal party like the Unions give money to the Labour party

                    Corruption at the highest level

  • hey guys

    i'm currently in victoria and I am on a month to month lease.

    the landlord has served me a notice to vacate on 10/03/20 as they wish to come back from overseas and to live in their property and its coming up soon.

    given the current situation i wanted to know what my legal options are to try and request the landlord to let me stay

    • Assuming the landlords request is legitimate how about you let them return to THEIR property rather than trying to manipulate the system.

      • manipulate? just asking whether i can legally request for to extend my stay

        not looking for a loophole or anything

        • just asking whether i can legally request

          Is that different from a normal request? They kept you on mtm lease so they could move back in with short notice.

      • Haha what a laugh. Manipulate a system? To have a roof over your head during a crisis?

    • +2

      IANAL but 10/03 was well before the policy announcement and NTV is not an eviction notice, it's a termination of the contract. Crappy time to do this but fully within the legal framework of the time.

      I believe in Victoria you can't even dispute termination of a contract of landlord is returning to live in their PPR after the fixed lease expires

      • tanks for your constructive reply:)

        it is definitely a shitty time for this to happen

    • +2

      given the current situation i wanted to know what my legal options are to try and request the landlord to let me stay

      You ask, otherwise you leave. There are still places to rent, if anything, you might be able to get a cheaper rate.

      • yeh i'm about to lose hours at work, and may lose it entirely, i'm not entirely sure if i will pass any rental checks without a stable source of income. shitty time

      • but definitely am looking at other places. fingers crossed. thanks

      • This

    • -1

      Why don't you request to lease a room while you find another property?


      That, or move to an area with much lower rent. People shouldn't be travelling (unless necessary) at the moment so location shouldn't be an issue.

      If income is an issue, can you relocate with friends or family in the short term?

      These are both genuine suggestions too. Assuming all of the above is genuine, everyone really does need to start showing some compromise in this very testing time.

      • hey mate

        thanks for the concern and suggestions

        the landlord is moving back in and i have furniture that i will need to sell/get rid of in coming weeks if i was to move into a share house.

        No family here.

        Trying to find another place to rent now, however unsure what i'm going to do with bond as i wont get my bond until i move out of my current place. and losing hours at work means my income may not be enough to pass all the checks required to afford to rent

  • +5

    I find it hilarious how people expect the average "Mum and Dad" landlords, who contrary to popular belief, are not swimming in pools of money, to be compassionate. Yet at the same time make no mention of the fact that banks, who make billions of dollars in profits every year, will still eventually get paid in full. Tall poppy syndrome much? Maybe I'm being too cynical, it might just be financial ignorance. In any case, this policy could end up reducing the size of the middle class and further enlarging the gap between the "1%" and those who are really struggling. Which, according to many proponents of this policy, is exactly what they want to avoid. Fingers crossed it all works out for everyone.

    • +6

      Cmon, everyone knows banks are bullshit, EVERYONE. You're deluded if you think any tenant is actually cheering on the banks - they got us in this mess in the first place. People seem to forget history very fast, 2008 was a blink away..

    • +2

      Not to mention all the insurance companies who put a clause to f*** over all business if something like this ever happens they have as much blood on there hands as anyone and not a drop of help from them

      • Then maybe the banks and the real estate insurers are who you should be going after

    • +7

      Meh. Work it out mum and dad. Sell the property if it isn’t a viable investment anymore. Tough, but if that’s what it takes…

      • +7

        Mom and pop investors can claim centrelink, there are no asset limits. It there to keep everyone afloat for 6 months

        The only people you'll hear complaining is investors with multiple negative geared properties crying their investments are taking in money when everyone is losing equally.

        • +1

          Agree completely.

    • +6

      Investments are a risk. The economy is going to shit. How about Mum and dad tenants under hardship? You expect them to be homeless if they lose their jobs? This isn’t a policy telling tenants to stop paying their rent. It’s ensuring anyone who undergoes temporary hardship isn’t thrown out of their house for missing a few weeks rent. 6 months accrued interest is easier to swallow as a society than an increase in homelessness. Also should banks swallow the costs? How about the “poor” Mum and dad investors who hold CBA shares who will see their retirement fund decline as bank revenues slip. No one wins, so you prioritise what’s more important as a society.

      A lot of people are taking a hit. Your dream retirement investment is not entitled to come out of this crisis unscathed.

  • +3

    There's a small short term repreive for Queenslanders


  • +8

    it seems really fair that I have to pay government fees such as rates, land tax, (in addition to insurance, interest, repairs etc) while my tenants have the option not to pay rent without significant consequences.

    If I didn’t have to pay land tax for the duration I dint get rent, I would understand everyone sharing the burdern but this policy is stupid!

    • +3

      No tenant has the option not to pay, it wont play out like that especially if they're getting government assistance which would be used to pay the rent, if its full amount or a negotiated amount.
      It seems like 90% of OZB are LL's and upset they're about to loose all this money

      • +6

        No tenant has the option not to pay

        Of course they do, and not be evicted for it. That's why people put rental payments at the top of their list of bills to pay. There's incentive to pay it.

        Seems to be so many entitled tenants on here who need to put their big boy pants on.

      • +11

        Lol, it IS playing out like that! 3 of the 4 housemates at my property already are refusing to pay rent. The 4th won’t be far behind. Perhaps they could cook something rather than spending 20-30 on Ubereats but why sacrifice lifestyle and pay a portion of your rent just to help out your landlord…. what’s he going to do in 6 months after you go?

        Sorry but I’m not going to apologise for skipping out on things to get ahead in life. My boss earls 20-25k more than me a year and makes conscious decisions/purchases that lead him to being a renter! There are genuine cases of people who aren’t in a position to save, but there are a lot of people who are and prioritise new cars, latest gadgets, eating out, their cup of coffee over saving for a future. That’s their choice, but it’s unfair that they get to cry poor as well as the genuine cases and then expect people who have sacrificed to help them!

        • +4

          yep that's what im pissed about. reckless renters have the money for rent but spend it on luxury instead, even in times like this.

          btw im don't own any properties, i just hate people who spend all their money on friday nights and buy luxury products, then whine when financial hardship hits. they've enjoyed life while responsible savers endured life, it's all fair what they get in the end.

          • +1

            @Gerry H: The funny thing about your post is they don't see it that way - not just renters, I should add.

            I think you'd be amazed how many people (living paycheck to paycheck) think buying coffees, lunches, groceries at full price because they only eat "this brand", new cars etc is normal/a basic right and not the contributing factor to them being unable to save.

            I know friends in CC debt, paycheck to paycheck who always say they budget but in their weekly list allocate things to "coffee $20, lunch $80, takeout dinner $100 etc.

            The same thing will apply now.
            The money coming in may change for worse (or better) but the lifestyle will not, so now rent cannot be paid.

    • Don't your rates insure that you have like, running water and that you get to lease the property from the govt? Becuase don't ever be under the impression that you own your land. You are leasing it from the govt, the govt owns the land not you.

      • What does Land tax - you know the thing that I clearly took issue with in my post - get me.

        And don’t the renters get water etc… shouldn’t the government be helping them, or is it only the landlord’s job

  • +5

    I don't know how you image landlords to look like, but in my country they are owners of many apartments that they earn money from rent. You can't always feel sorry for someone that didn't feel sorry for those can't always pay on time. We all in the same boat, if they respect their tenants they shouldn't kick them out strait away in this situation.

  • +5

    The ban on evictions is purely in place to stop people missing one paycheck and being tossed out onto the streets. It's to stop people who are being done rough from being evicted. It's got nothing to do with hurting landlords. If you can't see it you're blind. Get some glasses.

  • +8

    I have minimal sympathy for landlords who

    1. Use negative gearing to socialise their losses
    2. Borrow egregiously to outbid each other for properties with pathetically low yields
    3. Treat tennants like second class citizens
    4. Have such little in reserves that they cannot go for 6-12 months with no rental income.

    the reason it is minimal and not no sympathy is that they have got a lack of common sense as they have been convinced by the herd and banks that they are wonderfully sophisticated investors who have been so smrt (thanks Homer).

    Take losses like other members in society.

    • +10

      Might as well say you have minimal sympathy for tenants who don't bother to save up that they cannot go 6-12 months without paying rent.

      • +2


        But their rent isn't tax deductible, there is no first home renter grant.

        Also the reserve has stupidly been dropping rates to prop up house prices, and the government has started QE to protect house prices and hence banks.

        So, please explain who is getting the raw deal out of this.

        • +1

          "there is no first home renter grant"

          How misconcived is this reference?
          There is no "first home investors grant" If you get a "first home owners grant" you need to live in the property.

          The RBA don't drop rates to prop up house prices, they do it to stimulate the economy. As they dropped rates they in fact put conditions on banks to limit the amount they could lend to investors and, for example, put up Interest Only loan rates to reduce the effect on the housing market.

          You have no knowledge of the ecomony or how this works, move on.

          • +2

            @irony: The first home vendors grant raises the price of property, which is a sugar hit ro FHB and investors alike.

            The RBA have dropped interest rates in part because a large part of our economy revolves around flipping houses to each other and using the wealth effect to consume more.

            Please, it is embarrassing explaining this to you.

            You might not think I have any knowledge of how the economy works, but I know that you don't.

            • -1

              @mdavant: Ahhh, No, the RBA held back rates cuts for fear of housing price increases. They want to increase economic activity by cutting rates. They fear large house price increases. Equally they fear rapid house price drops and negative house equity because that is a recipe for disaster. They want steady growth, they target inflation in a zone of 2-3%

              To quote:

              "The RBA has been reluctant to cut rates further due to a fear that additional cuts would add fuel to the rapid rebound in Sydney and Melbourne property prices."


              "RBA keeps interest rates on hold, stuck between a slowing economy and surging house prices"


              and wow, the age old primary school line "I know you are but what am I", excellent point.

Login or Join to leave a comment