COVID-19: Tenants & Landlords (Residential)

Armin65 on 17/04/2020 - 10:19
Last edited 21/04/2020 - 10:02

Good morning fellows

I'm renting an apartment and with current situation, my and my partner's working hours have been reduced :(
I tried to negotiate with property manager to reduce rent for 3 months, but they rejected and said you should pay in full; go and seek financial support from Centrelink, etc etc.

I am just curious why government is not stepping in to help out. I've got a few friends who have got their loan suspended (by just paying interest only) and they reduced their asking rent from their tenants accordingly. If that is the case for my landlord too, yet still forcing me to pay the rent in full, they are simply making a good profit while their tenants and other people are in financial challenges.

Let me do some calculations: The apartment I am living in worth around $400k. Even if 95% of it is on loan ($380k), below is the outcome from CBA calculator:

Interest Rate: 2.79%
Principal and Interest repayment: $1560
Interest only repayment: $1061
Original rent: $2100

So, as landlords are paying around ([$1560-$1061]/$1560=) 30% less, some leniency from landlord is expected.

My simple suggestion to Government is:
If a landlord ask their bank to put their investment loan on hold, they have to reduce their asking rent for their tenants accordingly.

This way, we are all sharing the pain together on this by helping each other; otherwise, it will end up with many broke people, and an unsafe/unhealthy community.

I am not working today, probably like many of you, so I thought it is good to share this with you. What's your opinion?

update1:

Thanks for those giving valuable insight on this thread…
To give everyone an update:
I finally found another nice place…well, smaller but much cheaper [apparently LL are desperate to find a tenant and I had enough room to negotiate for the rent ^-^] which is more than enough for us now. I gave my current property manager a notice that I'm vacating in 4 weeks. He called me straight away that LL is happy to offer 30% rent reduction for 3 months if you withdraw your notice.
And I said:

NAH MATE, TOO LATE … THANK YOU!!!

p.s. I also mentioned that due to current situation, I won't be comfortable to let other people in for inspection while I am still here :)))

Financial

Comments

  • randomusername2017 on 17/04/2020 - 10:21
    +99

    Would you be willing to pay extra rent in 6 months when the loan resumes at a higher rate?

      • dcep on 17/04/2020 - 10:28
        +54

        negative gearing is losing a dollar to recoup 30cents or so depending on tax bracket
        only works out in the end when there is capital gain aka property goes up which is going down now

        and you think landlord's job/income not affected ?
        when landlord forced to sell on negative equity , they'll be in debt of the bank (not just few thousands but tens of thousands)

          • dcep on 17/04/2020 - 10:42
            +13

            @Armin65: the loan that they're supposed to be paying but now deferred, are still remains to be paid after this

            bank only waive the interest on the deffered interest payment

            if you say their job is also affected but compensated with this loan repayment deferral , whilst you still want them to take further hit on behalf of you ?

          • Kail on 17/04/2020 - 10:44
            +53

            @Armin65: Their loan hasn't been reduced, it's been delayed. There's a massive difference.

            The landlords still have to pay the same amount for their mortgage, just at a later date rather than right now.

            • TilacVIP on 18/04/2020 - 09:51
              +8

              @Kail: Then that's how the rent should work too.. pay at a later date.

              • ghostdom on 20/04/2020 - 19:51
                +5

                @TilacVIP: Banks have the properties title as a secure bond for landlords to pay at a later date. What do you have as a secure bond to pay your rent at a later date? 4 weeks rental bond? Come on..

            • Mouthsmasher01 on 18/04/2020 - 13:54
              +5

              @Kail: I think people overthink the landlord as a different group of people back old time, however,these days for most of residential landlords are just normal working class, there might be very few people making living on investment properties, but most just got the investment properties because of job or family situation changes that they couldn't sell the property or doesnt want to sell at lost.

              Regarding current banks policy on suspend repayment or reduce loan payment to interest only, if you look close enough, there is a term called unpaid interest will be capitalised, which means any delay in payment during this period, that amount become principle and the bank is going to charge interest on it.

              The residential landlord is just not like commercial which is running it as a company therefore lots workaround and tax avoidance can be done. In the end every landlord's finance situation is different, some are good and some are bad.

          • tsunamisurfer on 17/04/2020 - 11:13
            +28

            @Armin65:

            Their job could also be affected, but at the same time, their liabilities (investment loan) have been reduced.

            This shows how little you know about the way things work.

          • Ash-Say on 17/04/2020 - 12:22
            +18

            @Armin65: Their job could also be affected, but at the same time, their liabilities (investment loan) have been reduced.

            They are still paying strata,council and water bill. Deferring loan only means they will make higher repayment after 6 months.

            Will you be willing to pay higher than current rent after 6 months?

          • legendary-noob on 18/04/2020 - 11:37
            +10

            @Armin65: mate, probably time to do your own due diligence before making claims like that. my loan value doesnt go down. in fact it would go up if i choose to freeze my payment but interest continues to accrue. in fact, most of the posts (that you may have missed) are suggesting that landlords are the one thats gonna be stuffed.
            as a landlord, i cant hold back to express how disappointing it is if someone, who doesnt know exactly what they're talking about (liabilities reduced? show my bank the math please), attempts to provide financial advices to landlords or suggestion to the government based on flawed assumptions. totally irresponsible.
            having said that if i am your landlord, i would have happily reduced your rent because your request seems reasonable in that you are not just walking away from your obligation and have just asked for leniency for 3 months. so for that good on you.. i guess its all about being reasonable, both landlords and tenants.

      • randomusername2017 on 17/04/2020 - 10:31

        Sorry was referring to the higher monthly repayment after the pause.

      • brendanm on 17/04/2020 - 10:33
        +5

        You don't understand how negative gearing works.

      • arkie0 on 17/04/2020 - 10:33
        +87

        Hi I'm your landlord, sorry to hear you've had your hours reduced but I've lost my job.

        Yes I can pay interest only, but I still need to pay rates, land tax (no i'm not eligible to defer), insurance, water, maintenance.

        So to share the pain, we'll increase your rent by 20% to cover my shortfall. Thanks for understanding.

        Also I can't negative gear since I have no income to gear against, and even if I did, i'll be losing 70c for every dollar instead of the full amount.
        Also can you tell me where I can find a 2.79 rate investment loan?

          • arkie0 on 17/04/2020 - 10:45
            +9

            @Armin65: Depending on the property, rent may not cover all the landlord's expenses. The running costs might higher, if the landlord lost their job they won't be able to cover the higher costs even with reduced amount.

          • burningrage on 17/04/2020 - 12:44
            +28

            @Armin65: This is absurd talk.

            You are assuming the only cost that a house owner has is Mortgage Interest and thus, why you are asking if the rent can be reduced in proportion of that reduction in home loan repayment but you are missing the fact that:

            1. Mortgage repayment is not forgiven, but deferred. It will need to be paid later, at higher repayment.
            2. All other costs are at 100% and best of luck getting concessions on those. Water rates, maintenance, especially council rates. My council hasn't said anything about council rates relief/discount. Don't forget insurance as well at 100%.
        • DingoBilly on 17/04/2020 - 10:57
          +1

          Just to address your last point, ANZ is offering a 2.49% investment loan if you fix for 2 years with $4,000 sign-up bonus…?

          • arkie0 on 17/04/2020 - 11:20
            +17

            @DingoBilly: Possible sure, but will ANZ let me refinance if I've lost my job

          • Meho2026 on 17/04/2020 - 13:56
            +6

            @DingoBilly: Yeah with a comparison rate of 4.53%

          • miwahni on 17/04/2020 - 23:28
            +4

            @DingoBilly: wonderful! Here we are now with reduced incomes and tenants paying lower rent, bound to be approved by the bank!

          • arkie0 on 17/04/2020 - 23:46
            +51

            @Dubsys: Hey, seems like you rented something you can't afford. Maybe you should try finding a new place to live before the owners force you to, so they can get someone who can afford to pay rent.

            • sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 06:22
              +9

              @arkie0: Haha, the owners are gonna find a new tenant in the next 6 months? that's a laught

              • aspirepranesh on 18/04/2020 - 06:36
                +6

                @sarahlump: Maybe someone else out there who finds OP's apartment suitable and affordable to rent in this climate. You are assuming that everyone is unable to afford a place to rent just bcoz OP doesn't want to pay his bills.

              • simonjb on 18/04/2020 - 07:10
                -2

                @sarahlump: They will be able to get my tenants, as I gave notice to all my tenants on the 1st of April after it was broached by elected officials they would alter the tenancy agreement laws that I agreed to when signing the lease contract. I and all other landlords have been providing the public housing through private leases for years so the government doesn't have to. Be careful when rocking a boat you are on.

                • sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 11:01
                  +5

                  @simonjb: oh, deer, good luck evicting people in a pandemic. When you're up against the wall with the other collaborators I'll not look away.

                  • simonjb on 18/04/2020 - 14:08
                    +4

                    @sarahlump: Notice to vacate and eviction are different. Eviction is when you are so deplorable you are no longer wanted or entitled to stay. Notice to vacate is you know that property you are pretending is your home? I want it back as I own it.

                  • irony on 18/04/2020 - 22:35
                    +2

                    @sarahlump: Thanks Kim Jong Un

                    • simonjb on 19/04/2020 - 06:40
                      -2

                      @irony: I think you mean thanks boss.

                • callum9999 on 18/04/2020 - 11:57
                  +9

                  @simonjb: How utterly disgusting.

                  It's also hilarious that you feel like you're doing some kind of public service when it's beyond obvious you're just a money grabber.

                  • simonjb on 18/04/2020 - 14:13
                    -6

                    @callum9999: Case of the feels huh?
                    Providing housing to those that can't afford it is a public service. But I'm sick of helping out with more and more Draconian socialist over reach, I'd rather take my money and send it overseas where you can't tax it into the pockets of those that can't face individual responsibility.

                • Belts on 18/04/2020 - 13:28
                  +13

                  @simonjb: It’s not public housing if you stand to profit from it in the long run. You’re effectively a business, and businesses come with risk. Risk that you should have taken into consideration when you entered the investment property game.

                  • simonjb on 18/04/2020 - 14:53
                    -3

                    @Belts: I need to type more clearly. Landlords provide the public with housing. The Government has not kept pace for decades with the demand for public housing intentionally because they don't want the cost. They incentivise Landlords with negative gearing to provide this housing. You are right that being a landlord is a business. Therefore we should leave the moralising out of it. You could have SARS AIDS COVID a bung eye, red hair I don't care as it's a business with a contract that both agreed to. Both sides of that agreement should be upheld. I take into consideration the risks, but if you change the rules THE LAWS, during a contract then how can anyone mitigate that risk? I planned to sell off anyway because of other recent new entitlements given to tenants and have only been allowing month to month leases. So notice to vacate is my option and right and I served them all. Then I don't need to worry about anyone trying to renegotiate so the can keep their savings like the OP (how ludicrous) or squat or whatever nasty scummy pseudo logic thing these deplorables come up with. And if I can't sell (which I know I can) then I'd rather leave them empty than let someone take a free ride on me.

                    • Belts on 18/04/2020 - 18:53
                      +8

                      @simonjb: I don’t disagree with you on any of your following points and if you read what I wrote I clearly wasn’t moralising. But you can’t say that you offer public housing which is the point you have conceded. OP himself does seem to be too entitled and not willing to make any changes to his lifestyle or accept responsibility for “sharing the burden”, which is a term he keeps bandying about. In the end, you do what you need to do in order to attain the best possible outcome for your economic stability - I never said you shouldn’t and I absolutely stand by you on that - but don’t go telling yourself and us that it was because you were doing it out of the goodness of your heart in order to advance the public good. No. You’re an investor and this was a profit seeking venture that you have, or expected to, benefit from.

                    • sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 23:34
                      +2

                      @simonjb: you don't provide public housing you snob. get your head out of the dirt, you're a fat cat business man who's afraid of loosing his high life.

                      • simonjb on 19/04/2020 - 06:35
                        -2

                        @sarahlump: What ever I have it's from hard work and sacrifice not handouts.

                        I've never been given anything.

                        It's below my dignity to even ask.

                        When I rented I realised how stupid it was paying towards the landlords mortgage. So I saved everything to buy a house. My Girlfriend (now wife) drove a beaten up old Camry we had to fill the radiator before she drove it for a year. I wouldn't even put a dollar in the coke machine. I'm only interested in your opinion if I know your background and what you've been through. From your attitude I know your tyoe. Best of luck changing.

                        • sarahlump on 22/04/2020 - 21:55

                          @simonjb: oh, you had 2 cars, and you made your wife drive the broken one endangering her life for a year….the bus is a real thing you know.

                          • simonjb on 23/04/2020 - 15:03

                            @sarahlump: No thanks, the few times I've taken public transport in my life I've found it disgusting. Filthy really I don't think people on it know how much it or they stink. She couldn't drive my car at the time as it was manual. We fixed that by teaching her to drive manual a few years later. A slightly blown head gasket or leaking radiator or whatever it was was not endangering anyone's life. I bought her a Mercedes after that because it drove nicely, then we sold it because everything about it was expensive and cars basically are tin cans with wheels nothing more and she drives a Corolla second hand which she loves.

                        • danishcapitalist on 23/04/2020 - 08:00
                          +1

                          @simonjb: , if you want to know a bit about sarahlumps background, this reddit page should explain a bit.

                          • simonjb on 23/04/2020 - 15:03
                            +1

                            @danishcapitalist: A ha! Now I see.

                          • sarahlump on 24/04/2020 - 02:21
                            -5

                            @danishcapitalist: Erm, hi stalker? You're walking a very very fine line between legality and illegality. I'd be very careful if I were you, I'm very close to walking down to the copshop so they can get a warrant for your IP and contact you about doxing, if any of my personal information was actually on that link you'd be in a lot of trouble

                            • danishcapitalist on 24/04/2020 - 11:55
                              +1

                              @sarahlump: So you are willing to go to the police to report someone putting a link to a reddit page with information YOU published for the world to see. Included in that information is your plans to destroy the government on a specific day. What sort of terrorist attack were you planning? I'm sure the AFP will be interested in finding the answers to this question when you walk into the police station and claim to be the author of that reddit post

                            • danishcapitalist on 24/04/2020 - 20:51

                              @sarahlump: Here's a quote from your reddit.

                              The australian govt. Im goimg to destroy it on new years day 2018/2019
                              Help me, join me. In the open. I'll help you. Stand with me.
                              Destruction of the criminal justice system and their temples.
                              Destruction of the legislative body and their institutions.
                              Destruction of the military.
                              Rebuilding.
                              Redistributing.
                              We'll do it all.
                              We'll rebuild a state of welfare. Freedom, one where we dont torture people on an island, one without churches, one where people can be who they want.
                              Help me, I'm doing it anyway. 1 year to plan, prepare, execute. We'll cut them down.

                              And here is a quote from the ASIO website

                              What is terrorism?
                              ‘Terrorism’ is a broad term that has only recently been defined in Australian legislation. When we talk about terrorism, we are referring to a specific set of activities defined in section 4 of the ASIO Act 1979 as ‘politically motivated violence’. These include:
                              acts or threats of violence that are likely to achieve a political objective, either in Australia or overseas;
                              acts or threats of violence intended to influence the policy of a government, either in Australia or overseas;
                              acts that involve violence or are likely to lead to violence, and are directed to overthrowing or destroying the government or the system of Australian Government;
                              acts that are defined as terrorism offences; and
                              certain other acts, defined in Australian legislation, relating to the taking of hostages or activities conducted on ships, offshore platforms or aircraft.

                              I'd say that your post fits the description of terrorism, and recruitment of terrorists. It will be interesting to see what ASIO thinks about this.

                    • Miss B on 19/04/2020 - 02:26
                      +3

                      @simonjb: Yeah, you sound like a real hero.

                      • simonjb on 19/04/2020 - 06:51
                        +1

                        @Miss B: That's the thing these days isn't it, you're part of the group that all want to be hero's. Your contribution? Virtue signals, a moral perversion.

                        • Miss B on 19/04/2020 - 11:17
                          +10

                          @simonjb: You act like you're doing the world a favour by buying up a bunch of properties to rent out. If you hadn't someone else would have. If people are buying less properties they don't cost as much. You act like renters are the scum of the earth while they pay off your investments. That's all my comment was about.

                          I don't care how many properties you own. Honestly, I don't even care if you provided your tenants with notices to vacate. It happens when you're renting and you deal with it.

                    • Hardlyworkin on 21/04/2020 - 08:33
                      +2

                      @simonjb: Red hair?

            • neonlight on 18/04/2020 - 20:25

              @arkie0: And he wouldn't because he would abuse the f#$& out of this law on eviction due to Covid-19. He wants to stay where he is without paying and without a care in the world what landlords need to deal with.

              Example:
              "Apparently it's none of my business. Getting something for free is great. This is the best opportunity even government is backing me! "

            • Dubsys on 18/04/2020 - 20:40

              @arkie0: I've never rented because I'd rather not support scumbag landlords.

            • Miss B on 19/04/2020 - 11:22
              +3

              @simonjb: You set the rent amount. Set it at whatever price you like. If people aren't willing to pay it, it's obviously too high. Blame other landlords for setting their prices too low.

              If there's public housing it makes no difference to how much rent you get, you're not renting to people on low incomes so they wouldn't get public housing, if they did you'd have no tenants.

          • SlickMick on 18/04/2020 - 12:06
            +2

            @Dubsys: I really thought OP was going to get my full quota of negs for the day, but congratulations, you must have got my last one

            • Dubsys on 18/04/2020 - 20:45

              @SlickMick: So you're all for leeching off the lower class to pay for something you can't afford? That's fine dude. All the power to you but you're running pretty low on the moral ladder there.

              • simonjb on 19/04/2020 - 06:59
                +1

                @Dubsys: Are they the lower class? My tenants and I've had many, sure don't live like the lower class. The only lower I see is saving. Spending they are definitely high class. You could even say first class.

              • SlickMick on 19/04/2020 - 09:03
                +1

                @Dubsys: This attitude seems really common here, yet I've never seen it anywhere else. A lot of my friends and family rent, a lot own a house, but as far as I can see landlords and tenants get my just fine in all of society except some dark droup of landlord-haters who lurk on ozbargain.

                Do you appreciate the low-moral leeching landlords for providing accommodation to those who want or need to rent?
                Or is renting not an option, and those that have relocating jobs should have to buy and sell each time they move?
                I presume that your view is that house prices would be so low that everyone would afford one?

        • j24bauer on 18/04/2020 - 01:05
          +6

          laughable…you live in a fantasy world…good luck increasing rents in this environment…

  • GG57 on 17/04/2020 - 10:24

    The Victorian state government announced support measures yesterday I think. Have you had a look at those?

      • Unorthodox on 17/04/2020 - 10:41
        +14

        Doesn't this mean you at least have a buffer?

        Not going to go through your budget but surely $5k could cover 2-3 weeks rent and necessities so you can organise Centrelink support or give you some time to review.

      • aspirepranesh on 17/04/2020 - 10:49
        +16

        If you are paying $2100 rent in Melbourne, you must be living in a decent apartment (ex victorian here) and must hold decent paying jobs! Even with a reduction in pay, if you cut back on expenses, I am sure you can afford to pay the landlord what he/she is owed!

        Plus, you do have a $5000+ savings which would give you enough time to apply for Centrelink assistance!!!!

      • GG57 on 17/04/2020 - 11:27
        +6

        You stated "I am just curious why government is not stepping in to help out", but you were aware of the state government stepping in?
        Or is it that that assistance doesn't help in your particular circumstances (which don't seem too bad to me).

      • ozhunter on 17/04/2020 - 12:14
        +52

        So you have the money, you just don't want to pay your rent…

      • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 01:23
        +8

        So you have more than $5000 in savings and still want to renegotiate your rent? Why?

        FYI, in Vic, you can be evicted if you are able to pay rent, but willfully do not.

      • simonjb on 18/04/2020 - 07:13
        +7

        Five plus thousand you will use to pay rent. Or are you saving for a holiday, gold bracelet or a BMW?

      • Choc83 on 18/04/2020 - 12:24
        +3

        Great, this means you have savings!

        When I lost my job back in 2015, I had savings so I wasn't eligible for centrelink support.

        Looks like you fall into the same category. If your savings fall below a certain threshold, then you will become eligible for support. That's how it works.

        • Miss B on 19/04/2020 - 16:34

          No assets test since the end of March.

      • tessel on 19/04/2020 - 07:18

        Yes, I see it all the time. The "why should I have to spend my money when I've been paying taxes for so long".

  • [Deactivated] on 17/04/2020 - 10:24
    +50

    You souns a bit entitled. You dont know the landlords financial circumstances either. Sure it sucks at the moment, some state gov are introducing mediating perhaps look into that.
    You havent mentioned how reduced your household income has dropped

      • Hardlyworkin on 17/04/2020 - 10:54
        +14

        So your partner's take home wage is yet to decrease?

        If you're earning less now you may then get some extra tax back at tax time.

        Do you guys find that your spendings are a lot less at the moment? I'm pretty much only paying for rent, food and utilities so not spending nearly as much as normal. That helps to close the gap.

        • Donaldhump on 17/04/2020 - 13:12
          +12

          its dam scary how much you save at the moment…. where the hell does it all go

          • funnysht on 19/04/2020 - 10:55
            +2

            @Donaldhump: Hes saving it for his end of pandemic gap year- by the look of his previous posts

      • alikazi on 18/04/2020 - 15:29
        +15

        @Armin65 Dude after reading your comments I have to say you're acting entitled. I lost my job recently because of Covid, Centrelink has been very slow to respond and my claim is pending. I am paying rent through savings right now. I got 20% reduction in rent but that's after losing 100% my income, not just some percentage drop in income.

        So if a person who loses 100% of their income can fairly only get 20% drop in rent, how can you think you are entitled for any reduction? Your partner still has a job and you might even qualify for Centrelink assistance which in total has to be more than enough to pay full rent. As soon as I can pay full rent I will be paying it.

        The only thing that makes sense to me is you must be living way out of your means even when you and your partner had full income. I have a lot of friends who live out of their means too.

        • legendary-noob on 18/04/2020 - 17:40
          +18

          sorry - putting the debate aside, i do hope things get better for you.

          • alikazi on 19/04/2020 - 04:29

            @legendary-noob: Thank you.

          • funnysht on 19/04/2020 - 11:29
            +4

            @legendary-noob: me too..i hope things go well..as a landlord i respect tenants like you. I would be more than happy to give 20-30% reduction if someone lost their job. However if this isnt enough then I would expect them to move to another place which is cheaper.

      • Zonty on 19/04/2020 - 00:24
        +2

        Are you eligible job keeper or job seeker?
        If yes why hack wasting everyone time? Job keeper you get $6000 month and job seeker around $5000 per month for couples and where hack you will use this money? You want advantage rent free and keep government money too?
        I understand if you international student but when I see up agent ask you go centrelink then simply register. landloard is rich or not it's not your concern. He did not invest property so people like you want live free. You know how much land tax, council bill, water bill and corporation bill so people like you want dig in free?

      • ghostdom on 20/04/2020 - 20:24
        +2

        Why the landlord to be the loser? Not the bank, not the tenant, not the car loaner, not the council, not the utility supplier? Just because they have a spare property to rent out doesn't mean they are rich. Even though they are rich, non of your business. Grow up.

    • dizzle on 17/04/2020 - 10:45
      +10

      Agreed, OP does not know of Landlords circumstances and has based ideas on assumptions particularly that the landlord is not only saving money, but making a profit.

      • kml22 on 18/04/2020 - 10:08
        +20

        This is why renter will never be able to buy their own place, with this thinking in mind. Trying to pass on their problem to the Landlord without any consideration of other financial circumstances. Purely selfish.

    • neonlight on 17/04/2020 - 22:42
      +12

      More renters believe landlords are rich. Rich enough to have a property on their own. But not thinking banks do not defer payments without higher interest later. Tenant asking for reduced rent but owners can't ask reduced mortgage.

      • parsimonious one on 18/04/2020 - 10:57
        -1

        Obviously everyone’s circumstances are different but it not unreasonable to presume that landlords are generally financially well off.

        Firstly to be in a position to get a mortgage for an investment property you have to be in a sound financial position. (As assessed by the lender)

        Secondly if you are own an investment property outright you are clearly better off than the vast majority of people

        • SlickMick on 18/04/2020 - 12:18
          +7

          It is always unreasonable to presume.

          For example, what if someone is retired with rent being their sole income?

          (I won't use the example of someone who invested in property while the going was good but have now lost their jobs, because too many haters here would jump on that with "you deserve to suffer".)

          I don't see why being better off should now mean you have to be financially destroyed so that someone else isn't inconvenienced.

          • parsimonious one on 18/04/2020 - 13:00

            @SlickMick: Ah mick, there are many circumstances where it is necessary to presume. This being one. When making policy the government can not reasonably, or possibly look at ever individual situation and tailor the policy to each individuals circumstance.

            Clearly as a group landlords are better off financially than renters. Particularly renters who now can’t afford their rent.

            Allowing people to negotiate and expecting people to have compassion isn’t unreasonable.

            Realistically as many people have pointed out reducing the rent isnt just the compassionate thing to do it’s also likely to be the best thing financially to do as in recession when unemployment is climbing and businesses are shutting the chance of maintaining the current rental income is negligible.

            The most reasonable thing to do is to encourage a situation which means some relief is provided to the hardest hit. In this situation, rather than forcing people on to the street to look for more affordable housing only for landlords to take reduced rent with a new tenant the govt is trying to create a situation where common sense prevails and landlords reduce rents for their current tenants to minimise people needing to move house during a pandemic.

            The attitudes expressed here by the entitled “little landlords” show precisely why govt intervention is needed to force landlords to the table.

            When recession strikes everyone takes a hit. Landlords will too one way or another. Better to let people stay in existing homes than play musical chairs during a pandemic

            • SlickMick on 19/04/2020 - 09:07

              @parsimonious one: lol planning is very different from refusing to let go of a narrow-minded preconceived idea

          • sangohan on 20/04/2020 - 00:11

            @SlickMick: It's the same line of reasoning for progressive taxation. It's not wrong generally, but in this crisis, it's asking a lot to have landlords cop the cost of the rental drops.

        • neonlight on 18/04/2020 - 20:02
          +7

          Incorrect I personally know some people have investment property but they are not well off. They also rent somewhere else. They simply try and see if the capital gain is worth something in the future or use it plainly for tax purposes. It's usually at a loss. The rent doesn't cover the loan and monthly they are out of pocket. At times like this landlords can also lose their jobs.

          So when that happens, and renters stop and reduce their rentals payments the landlord has less income but the banks simply defer but make they pay interest later at high rates accumulated…. While renters just get away without penalty.

          How is that fair?

          • Killerbala on 21/04/2020 - 07:45

            @neonlight: That's called risk which comes with any investment but for some reason many LL assume that renters should cover all the expenses and anything less is forbidden. LL's had their time in the last 5-8 years, enjoying the unsustainable housing boom and banked $$$ with capital growth. Many seem to think its good not to have any tenants than renting it with reduced prices. I would dare them to be with the same mindset in the next 12 months.

            • Hardlyworkin on 21/04/2020 - 08:32

              @Killerbala: I agree, it's been great for landlords in Melbourne the last few years. I've gone to inspections with 80 registered for pretty average properties.

              With less renters (international students, people moving back with parents), the tide has turned. If you have a decent property for a decent price you should be fine, a lot of dumps will sit empty though.

            • neonlight on 21/04/2020 - 12:44

              @Killerbala: Yes there's risk in investment. There's also a risk to rent instead of buying. So renters are also in the risk of getting evicted when they can't pay rent. It it the same as the landlord if they can't fulfil their mortgage they would have to be forced to sell their property…

              So it's still doesn't makes sense why renters have an advantage here to not leave and live somewhere else they can afford rather ask for major reductions (small discounts I can understand) and not even paying rent when they feel having rights to do so in a pandemic. The announcement from government simply fuels up renters thinking they can take advantage of the situation where as residential landlord can do absolutely nothing at all.

              I hope that makes sense.

              It needs to be fair on both sides.

              Renters are in a lucky country where the government already provides rental assistance if you are eligible. If you are not eligible then you have the risk of losing job and can't afford renting the current place you are living.

              Yes investment is a risk but many people talk about how landlords get profits. But the world works like this, everything goes up and down not just buying a property, renting is also a risk itself.

              It is not justified to pass on this burden to someone else just because you feel you got the rights to do it.

              Would the banks let landlords get away with stopping loan payments? Would they let landlords get away with no penalty? Renters can probably do so but not landlords.

              It's never a fair game

              There are people out there who would take advantage of the situation on both sides. But generally speaking right now renters have an edge

  • [Deactivated] on 17/04/2020 - 10:28
    +1

    Nah, get some Centrelink if you're not earning enough to pay the rent.
    Just imagine it was before COVID-19 except a double centrelink rate, easily affordable.

    I am of the belief that everyone should be able to afford their life in accordance with the job seeker payment, so if/when you do lose a job you can keep living and afford your situation.

    • Dontdoit on 18/04/2020 - 02:04
      +2

      Wow. Thank you for your beliefs!

    • sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 06:23
      +2

      sounds like somebody's never visited centrelink

      • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 13:00

        Used to visit everyday when I was an APS4. When I was unemployed I went in once to hand in POI than claimed it for another year.
        What's your point?

        • sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 23:37

          Nah, get some Centrelink if you're not earning enough to pay the rent.
          Just imagine it was before COVID-19 except a double centrelink rate, easily affordable.

          there is not currently a double centrelink rate.

          "just get some centrelink"
          centrelink's main priority when somebody goes in is to say no.
          then they say no again.
          and after 3 months if you're still alive they might say yes.
          it's not as simple as "get some centrelink"

          • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 23:50
            +2

            @sarahlump: I've claimed it twice and it was as simple as an application.
            They are there to give people who are eligible for payments a payment and at the current moment the staff members are processing each claim in 5-10 minutes which will result in a lot of robodebts but no one is really getting denied at this point in time.
            It's definitely as simple as "get some Centrelink"
            Not double, but within the next fortnight it's getting an additional $550 on top of a current $670+ (with RA) I just didn't feel the need to explain that previously.
            $1220 is more than enough per fortnight to survive, so is $670.
            I did it and still had money leftover.

          • Zonty on 19/04/2020 - 00:28
            +1

            @sarahlump: It's been change they giving everyone and very less document required to claim because they scare if people will not have bough money it will be huge recession in Australia so they want simply want give miney to everyone who do not have saved money.

    • SlickMick on 18/04/2020 - 12:23
      +15

      People have their priorities so wrong these days. They aren't suggesting losing the expensive mobile phone plan, or the pay tv, or hocking off some assets they really couldn't afford but bought anyway. Keeping a roof over your head should be the first priority bill to be paid. Then you can see what you can afford to eat.

      I'd like to see the budget of these crying poor.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join