Is Housing Affordability Really a Problem?

Why not just rent? Isn't it common in other countries for years and it is never a problem?

Edit:
Thank you all for your reply. I think it is now clear that it is not a problem.

closed Comments

                  • @DisabledUser225214: That's ridiculous damn commi what he should actually do is buy all of the PS4s then have people pay him to use them and since all the kids couldn't buy them in time they will have to come to him so he can charge whatever he wants, at the same time he can also also sell a small amount of them with a massive mark up to other rich people. its just supply and demand so its fine.

            • +4

              @AustriaBargain:

              So rich kids should get the good life and other Australian kids shouldn’t, merely because their parents are rich?

              What's a good life? We all have equal rights and very few people in Australia are suffering from malnutrition due to lack of food.

              Sure richer people live in nicer houses and drive fancier cars. Surely that's not a crime given most of them work very hard for themselves and their kids. Are you also appaled at the fact Roger Federer has won 20 grand slams while Andy Murray only has 3?

              If you worried about your kids future then work towards encouraging better decisions from a young age. Don't smoke, don't drink, get a job, be honest, and your child will grow up more than ready to tackle the world.

              Poverty is virtually impossible as long as you follow these 3 rules - finish school, get a job, and don't have kids out of wedlock or a serious comitted relationship.

              • -2

                @SlavOz:

                All around Australia there are people who don't know where their next meal is coming from. In fact, in the last 12 months, more than four million Australians (18% of the population) have been in a situation where they have run out of food and have been unable to buy more.

                If Roger Federer won every single tennis match he ever plays, then absolutely we would change the rules of tennis. There's plenty of examples of rules for sports being changed for the benefit of the sport, just because one person or one team has had unbeatable success. A sport doesn't exist unless the fans are happy, if all the fans switched off then Roger would probably quit tennis because there'd be no prize money in the first place.

                • +3

                  @AustriaBargain: Rules of games and sports do not change because there is no change in victor. They change if the strategic options seem limited, ie loopholes that everyone exploits or strategies that cannot fail hence every team does it.

                  You're confusing tennis with racing games where the losers get a speed boost for them to remain competitive.

                  When I played basketball, the rings were the same height at both ends. They didn't get the black (African American) kids to wear ankle weights either.

                  • -1

                    @tshow: If one person or one team wins every single match up, then there is no sport. People tune out and watch a different sport instead, suddenly those "winners" at that sport don't stack up when they go to play the new sport. Their 20th century skills don't quite cut it and younger, more agile people are now winning at the sport. "No, you can't do that!" the rich people, and you, cry. "We need to make a law to ensure my sport is the only national sport, we need to ban the possibility of the majority of people in the nation choosing another sport to watch!".

                    It would be fair if voting was based on your tax return do you think? Where each dollar you declare in a year is worth one vote. That would be true equality in your eyes, because every candidate is free to declare however many dollars they wish if they can afford the tax bill.

                    • +1

                      @AustriaBargain: By your logic, we should make sports winnable for those who don't train and are grossly out of shape.

                      Usain Bolt keeps winning the 100m and 200m. To make it interesting, we are going to introduce rules that allow Clive Palmer to win sometimes. Mix it up a little.

                      It would be fair if voting was based on your tax return do you think? Where each dollar you declare in a year is worth one vote. That would be true equality in your eyes

                      Lol. What?! That's as silly as me claiming - "You want all rich people to be gassed in chambers and have their wealth redistributed to a majority group. That would be true equality in your eyes."

                      Except I don't because I don't invent a line of argument, assume your conclusion and pass it off as fact. That's just low.

                      • @tshow: I don't think they are talking about making sports winnable for those that don't train. I believe what they are trying to say, using your hypothetical and linking it back to the wealth disparity is;

                        8 individuals are competing in a 100 metre race they have all trained as hard as they can and are top level athletes now in this hypothetical you are allowed to pay $1m to start 1 Metre closer to the finish line. 4 of the competitors come from affluential families with long histories in sprinting events so their parents pay various sums of money to have them start closer to the finish line. Due to this advantage, 3 of those four always get the gold, silver and bronze medal.

                        In this circumstance you could argue that it is all fair as their parents merely worked harder so why shouldn't they give their kids the advantage. and all the other competitors have to do is work harder so they can make up the difference in starting distance but that's a pretty big feet.

                        Now if you wanted to make it less on the nose the difference would be the rich families gave their child various trainers and special shoes as well as teaching them the optimal path to run whereas the poor individuals just did their best with no help to become fast.

                        I don't think anyone wants people to get things with no merit as that discourages hard work, I believe they want people to all have the same starting point so what you achieve is purely based on your merit rather than the benefits giving by historical wealth.

                        Sorry for the wall just my best to to get my point across.

                        • @Bjingo: I know what you're trying to convey and I still disagree to most of it.

                          When you say…

                          Now if you wanted to make it less on the nose the difference would be the rich families gave their child various trainers and special shoes as well as teaching them the optimal path to run whereas the poor individuals just did their best with no help to become fast.

                          … you are diminishing all the achievements of those who have done well but got support along the way.

                          A lot of people that receive support still fail. There are no guarantees. When they fail, they also lose the invested capital.

                          The analogy about changing the rules have more to do with equal outcomes than it does equal opportunities. If someone really wants everyone to be start on equal footing, they can lead by example and moving to a mid wealth country. (Of course they won't and will cite reasons of attachment.)

                          We are all born into different economical and genetic footing. It is ineffectual to equalise this. You can't go around taking money away just as much as you can't go around cutting down the legs of taller folk. The best we can do is equal opportunity and it already exists. I'm not saying more cannot be done but the proposal above is the example of equal outcomes.

                          • @tshow: You're right in pointing out diminishing the achievements of those with support. that was not a fair statement and not my intention its hard to discuss the issue in a way that does not do so. The best I can think of is having this support is like getting lost in a jungle but having a map because even though you have it doesn't mean you didn't work bloody hard to get out of that jungle.

                            Regarding equal footing I understand it will never be purely equal mainly due to literal chance upon birth. However I do think we should work towards closing the gap where we can. I think strengthening the education system would be the first thing which would take away the massive advantage going to private schools gives. How much money your parents have should not be the defining point of the quality of your education. Australia does have equal opportunity in a sense, as in you have the opportunity to achieve whatever you can with the circumstances you are given. Which is why we need to reduce the educational gap for those in the best and worst circumstance.

                            I recently found out Finland made charging school fees illegal which means if the wealthy want their kids to have a better education they have to fight for everyone getting a better education. I am not saying this should be done in Australia as they are two different countries and I am unsure if it would work here. I merely find the idea to be interesting and Finnish schooling is one of the best in the world so they must be doing something right.

                            Anyway I'm getting sooo off topic.

                            TL;DR taking money from one person and giving it to another is not a solution, however those with greater means should still be taxed more (current progressive tax brackets).
                            I think we should aim towards having as equal a start as possible regardless of your families historic wealth and IMO a good place to start is education.

                            • @Bjingo:

                              I recently found out Finland made charging school fees illegal which means if the wealthy want their kids to have a better education they have to fight for everyone getting a better education. I am not saying this should be done in Australia as they are two different countries and I am unsure if it would work here. I merely find the idea to be interesting and Finnish schooling is one of the best in the world so they must be doing something right.

                              So they'll just make it free but completely exclude certain groups and expect attendees to make charitable donations to the school. That would make elitism even worse.

                              Or they'll ban that too and the elite will send their kids to private boarding schools abroad and the money leaves the country. These kids would likely have less attachment to Finland. They're also more likely to be entrepreneurial. They'll take their family money and jobs abroad.

                              • @tshow: From what I read on the topic, though I am not an expert. I do not believe those things would happen as;

                                1.Selective administration is prohibited.

                                1. the education budget in Finland is around 13 billion Euros which I believe is higher than Australia's

                                2. Finlands population is around 5 million. So an education budget higher than Australia's is being distributed among slightly less than 1/4 the population.

                                3. school teachers are regarded very highly in Finland and must have a minimum qualification level of a masters degree. Meaning the education standard is very high

                                So they cannot exclude groups and the education itself is of a standard where sending their kids to a school abroad would likely just be an expensive and non beneficial option.

                                The reason I don't believe it would work here is Australia does not put enough importance on education that they would be willing to increase the budget for it by 60 billion dollars. In addition the wealthy like their little private school clubs and would by unwilling to get rid of it.

                                • @Bjingo:

                                  The reason I don't believe it would work here is Australia does not put enough importance on education

                                  I agree.

                                  increase the budget for it by 60 billion dollars.

                                  No. I wouldn't agree with it either. Schools and uni would be (partially) funded by those in the trades who did not benefit from schools and uni.

                                  In addition the wealthy like their little private school clubs and would by unwilling to get rid of it.

                                  I am public school educated. They slow down to the lowest common denominator. If not for private schools in Australia, I would send my kids abroad.

                                  • @tshow: I honestly don't believe the current education system could effectively use an additional 60 billion dollars anyway. Though I am no expert and maybe someone more in the know could prove me wrong.

                                    I am private school educated, and as of currently I too would send my kids to private because despite the vile culture. the level of education at private schools is of a significantly level higher that if I had the ability to send them there it would be the wrong decision not to.

          • @SlavOz: Sure was hard work being born into one of the best countries in the world to privileged parents that had plenty of cash from their inheritance, with all the good genetics, the best sex and skin colour

            Can't believe this smoothbrain garbage is still touted by wider society and ozbargainers in general. Hilariously ignorant of reality

  • +10

    Housing affordability only becomes a problem when people/banks start borrowing sums of money to fund the infinite growth that the housing market seemingly provides.

    What they don't factor in is a decrease in wages - A.K.A what happens in a recession when all of a sudden your safety net evaporates and your disposable income gets swallowed by the mortgage.

    Yes we could all rent, but property ownership is ingrained in our culture in Australia. I personally don't want to have rental inspections for the rest of my life, let alone what happens when i turn 65 and want to retire yet don't have a stable place of accommodation.

    Housing affordability isn't a problem to those who bought their houses some 20-30 years ago when houses were 20-30% of the value that they are today, likely these have been paid off and the land owners are sitting pretty. I can assure you if you speak to many x/y gen's in NSW/Melbourne they'd have some strong words when they can't cobble together a deposit let alone ever consider paying off a house or apartment. The renter's trap is a real thing.

    • -7

      So it isn't a problem now then? As far as what I'm seeing pre covid people are paying their mortgage happily.

      • +7

        At the moment jobkeeper and jobseeker are propping up the economy, largely the renters who are able to keep paying the high rents and hence the investor's mortgage, as this is wound down they will be forced to downsize or move to a cheaper place.

        Generally this is a lagging indicator of a recession so its still a few months before it'll become reality.

        also Australia's debt to income ratio is one of the highest at ~200% GDP which isn't something to be confident about while in a recession

        • Well I did say pre covid. Since housing affordability was pre covid topic

    • -6

      You're asking the wrong gen x/y's then.

      I'm gen y and can pretty easily afford a house in metro Melbourne. I've saved up, been good with my money, educated and am hard working…same as my wife. Not hard, just that many people here have a lazy and entitled mentality.

      • +29

        Yes, I understand there are those like yourself that can afford to live in a good house with education. I'm lucky enough to be in a similar position, however unfortunately we aren't the majority of y gens.

        In the boomer days you could work part time at kfc and amass a housing portfolio on the side. (Average grad wage was $40k with houses $80k back then as opposed to $65k and $500k)

        Nowadays you need a degree, own your own business or have 2 strong incomes to even start looking at buying a house. And that's before you think about having kids.

        I feel we're heading the same way as Japan where population growth drops along with consumption as working hours increase to service our ever expanding mortgages.
        The only winner out of this is the government

        • +1

          Agree with what you're saying except the boomer wages. They were lower, but the houses were probably cheaper than your figure too.

          • -1

            @BartholemewH: Our interest rate is 2%. Theirs was 17%.

            • +3

              @Calam05: Let's not forget though that you could effectively buy a house if you saved up for 3 years, bypassing taking out a mortgage altogether

      • +2

        Wow you still don't get it huh? Even with the negs, people responding to you which you choose to ignore, you're still harping on about your stupid mentality. What happened to me having so much time?

        If you have such a strong mentality respond to some of these comments, with actual facts. Honestly it seems like you're the one with a weak mentality…

    • +5

      Housing affordability isn't a problem to those who bought their houses some 20-30 years ago when houses were 20-30% of the value that they are today

      oh boy, if only it's gone up that much.

      When i was born, my parents paid $175,000 for their place, today it'll fetch well over a million. Not much change in the property over that time.

      • Interest rate changes, income changes, population changes, more cash printed.

        Yeah not much at all.

        • Yeah not much at all.

          Exactly

  • +52

    But in Australia you can't even hang a painting on the wall if you are a tenant. You can't paint a wall, change the horrible chandeliers from 1960's or replace the office-style blinds they chose for the main bedroom.

    It's really hard to feel at home if you are a tenant. Everything is temporary. You keep buying cheap stuff because you don't know if you will have to leave after 12 months… The owner might want to sell the house, or increase the rent, or you have to fight to have repairs done. Maybe you will just find mould everywhere and you just have to leave before you stop breathing…

    You generally can't even think about having a pet… If you are not happy at your place and wanna move to a different one, you have to fight against other individuals for a ridiculously-priced 2-bedroom apartment in a peaceful neighbourhood, and wait for the message saying "It's unfortunate. Your application is very good, but the landlord had other options to consider and had to made a decision based on small details.".

    Like what? My accent? The colour of my eyes or skin? My gender or sexual orientation? My profession? My dog? My bank statements?
    We will never know…

    Then, when you are "lucky" enough to be accepted by the owner to give a contribution of $$$ a month for his average place, every six months someone will come to "your" place and take photos of your stuff, and after a few days you might receive an email saying "the landlord appreciates how you keep the house clean, particularly the shower, which used to be a problem with the previous tenant…". WTF?!

    Being a tenant in Australia is one of the most unfair, discriminatory, and frustrating experiences someone can have… Even when the outcome is positive, the entire process is still terrible.

    • +10

      Exactly this

    • +8

      Our experience to a T.

      Just been told we have to vacate our rented house after 4 years. Problem is now on the Sunshine Coast rentals are as rare as hen's teeth so it'll be a real challenge to find something suitable.

      • Sure that sucks but what do you suggest we do short of telling homeowners what they can and can't do with their own property?

        We're already a massive police state. What's the point of buying a house if the government is just going to control it for you.

    • -22

      You can hang painting, just with 3m.

      • Physically you can sure, but you still need to ask permission from your landlord to do so. That’s definitely been a clause in all my leases - it specifies that permission must be granted before attaching any picture fittings to the walls.

        • -6

          With 3m? How about blutek? Scotch tape?

          • +10

            @DisabledUser225214: Lol, no. No adhesives, no nails, no hooks.

            Have you ever actually rented?

            • -1

              @Zephyrus: I have of course. I don't just be born rich, unlike what people think. I work hard to get here.

              I have rented a house with 9 other people. Also have rented a 50yo apartment, new apartment. They allow hanging stuff as long as it doesn't use nails or screws. 3m, blutek, tape, all fine. The 50yo one allow me to use nails.

              If you rent a car, you can't change the stereo. If you rent it for a year maybe you can, as long as you replace the original back when you return it.

              • +1

                @DisabledUser225214: Lol blutak??? I dont believe you've ever rented. All those temporary fixings are explicitly forbidden in standard rental agreements for the past 15 years ive been renting.

                Another 5y and ill have a deposit! Cant wait. Will probably be at the peak of the post covid market revival too!

                • +1

                  @ratman: Dude, in what world do you live in. Blue tek leaves no mark, easy to remove. Seriously.

                  • @DisabledUser225214: I know its fine to use, doesn't change the fact that its forbidden under any modern rental agreement.

                    Best guess is that the landlord oligarchy are so disguisted by stupid poor people touching their precious investment portfolio assets with their grubby poor fingers, and they couldnt stand the thought of them having any kind of decoration or nice thing to look at hanging from a wall, and so it was.

                    • @ratman: Seriously which suburb do you live and how new is your apartment? So weird.

                      Sounds like your ll is crazy.

                      • @DisabledUser225214: About 20 diferent places, mostly houses, between Newcastle and wollongong, including sydney.

                        Last place was about 200 years old, paint literally flaking off the walls, and there was even a crack in the bedroom wall which leaked water to the inside when it rained. I asked if I could use 3M sticks to hang a photo of my late mother up for an evening during her wake. I even offered to have the room professionally repainted in a colour of their choosing if it resulted in any unexpected damages, and id foot the bill.

                        Got a response a day later saying the landlord wont make exceptions to the agreement, modifying the house is forbidden in all circumstances, and requesed i dont hold any parties at the premesis. Attached was a no grounds eviction notice.

                        Pretty standard landlord behaviour in my experience, there are millions of stories like it. I just live in mould and filth until I can save a deposit and get my own place. Current place doesn't even have a working stove, landlord keeps saying they'll fix it because theyre required to, but only if I can prove to them it doesn't work. Then they cancel every appointment to come and check it. I havent had a warm meal in 6 months.

                        • +1

                          @ratman: Far out mate, I feel for you.

                          As an ll myself I have never done that. Instead I got screwed many times by tenant and Rea that releases bond too quickly. Every report says all good. By the time tenant is out, crack in bathtub, paint chips, carpet wine/blood stain, broken blind roller, broken wardrobe door, and most recently cracked tile. Not too mention excessive mould in bathrooms. This is in 12 months of rent, sometimes 6.

                          I count myself lucky they don't cost arm and leg to fix.

                          • @DisabledUser225214: We have excessive mould in the bathroom - all thru the house actually. Took photos when we moved in showing actual furry walls with a lick of white paint over it to disguise it.

                            There is also no openable windows and no exhaust fan. Only option is to open the front door and stick and fan there to blow steam into the hallway. Isn't too effective.

                            LL will no doubt try and gouge my bond for the damage that apparently I caused. Hopefully it holds up when I have to dispute…these hearings are famous for auto resolving in favour of LL though. Sounds like you got unlucky.

      • +13

        We recently moved into a new rental. We had to sign a separate agreement to say we wouldn't use any 3M sticky hooks or the like in the property. I understand the idea of not substantially changing a property e.g. changing the colour of the walls, but when there isn't even one hook in the apartment and you are unable to use sticky hooks, it doesn't seem all that reasonable really.

        We put in a request within the week of receiving the condition report for a number of things to be repaired (for example the oven no longer has indicators of the temperature, or the setting it is on). We also requested for another set of keys (as we're in a strata building that has a swipe fob to access the building and a security key to access our apartment), we offered to pay for this expense and it has now been more than 3 months of delays, not to mention it is going to cost us over $200 for these two keys and it is non-refundable when we move out.

        I'm on good income, I'm good with my money but I've got a number of health issues that have been a drain on my savings. I could service a mortgage, but I can't possibly get a deposit together for the area I grew up and continue to live in, where all my support network is. I support my parents financially, so they are in no way able to help me out.

        The issue with being a renter is what was mentioned above, the constant fear that you are going to be evicted. Moving is a huge expense and mental drain.

        We need to have better renters rights like in the EU where long term renting is the norm. Australia is at times very backwards.

        • -11

          As people grow older, their income increases, so is their affordability. Having an idea of being able to afford the same suburb as your parents means you have to have the same income as your parents. It's a wild dream.

          I feel for you for not being able to hang anything. But why did you sign up and agree? Aren't there other choices?

          • +2

            @DisabledUser225214: My income significantly outweighs both of my parents, which is why as I said I've been supporting them financially. Also as stated above I could service a mortgage in the area I live in (which isn't cheap) but it's the fact that you are renting at relatively high rates that makes it difficult to get a minimum 10% deposit, which where I live is about $100,000. I'm sure your response is going to be, well move somewhere else but as I also previously mentioned I've got some health issues and my support network for that is where I currently live.

            Why did we sign up and agree, ultimately when you are a renter it's highly unlikely you'll find a property that is going to meet all your needs. In the scheme of things not being able to hang stuff was a lower priority. It still sucks. The reason I brought it up however is because the OP was saying that renting is totally fine and there are no issues with it. There are issues. Some more major than others.

            • @Aureliia:

              as I also previously mentioned I've got some health issues and my support network for that is where I currently live.

              Those could be some of sacrifices some landlords had to make, so you can live there without having to cough up $100k upfront.

            • @Aureliia: Sorry to hear that. But that is a different problem. It is not the house that is too expensive. It is rental rights that is a problem. It is not housing affordability problem.

              You accepted the fact that you can't afford your area. If you can it will either be a economic crisis taht somehow doesn't impact you. Or you suddenly get a massive boost of income.

              Price is driven by supply and demand. Rental price so high means demand for rent in your area is high. Nothing to do with someone trying to screw you so that you can't ever afford a home deposit.

              As for finding property that will meet all your needs, that is a problem even if you can buy. Especially if you buy apartments. Ask any home owners.

    • +6

      And adding to this - constantly living in fear of eviction when you raise maintenance requests. It may be illegal but it doesn’t stop the landlord from not renewing your lease, or serving a 120day no reason eviction. (I have had this happen twice from landlords who couldn’t afford to make the legally required repairs - broken heating)

      I once had an agent mark in the inspection report that I need to take corrective action on the shower, as it was wet when she inspected the house!

      • -7

        The ll also living in fear of you moving out and them losing their income.

        If they evict you for small things then they also lose their income and letting fee. Unless your fee is so small it's a great bargain. Then why complain?

    • -6

      It's not your place! The entitlement of some people is ridiculous.

      • +7

        there will come the day landlord will fight for tenants. And landlord will have to keep the place in good condition to attract people. Hopefully this day is really close.

        • +1

          It is today, inner city Melbourne for example has been gutted as students move back overseas and young people moved back to their parents.

          • @Zephyrus: Inner sydney hasnt changed, rent or buy, prices are as high as ever.

    • So it's like a job interview.

      A tenant is borrowing someone's else's property. If a tenet trashed the house, people would say it's LL fault for not vetting the tenant, it's part of the risk.
      LL is losing money during covid, its LL fault, its part of the risk.

      Well, having no pet policy, no paintings allowed to be hanging etc, are they not part of risk management? Damned if of they and damned of they don't. Freedom beyond basic necessities are luxurys that come with a cost and risk.

      • +2

        Yeah… It's like a job interview, when it's OK to reject women because they can be(come) pregnant, or black people, or homossexuals… Right? It's exactly the same thing… Well, the companies are just thinking about their own investment, so not hiring a woman is part of the risk management, right? Because women have periods, get pregnant and all the risk… And clients might not like black people, or homossexuals, or someone with a different accent, so not hiring them is just risk management…

        Ops… But it is not OK, is it? 🤔

        • Since when is not letting you paint someone else house, having a dog on their property part of discrimination?

          Psst, ones attitude and entitlement could have also been a reason for not being chosen.

          • @Ughhh: I thought we were talking about choosing people based on gender, race, etc. That's what a job interview is about. You said it was like a job interview. You can't compare a job interview with painting walls.

            • @this is us:

              I thought we were talking about choosing people based on gender, race, etc.

              Lmao. No.

              Is it not possible that people are rejected because they didn't have a bubbly personality, the social and communication skills etc the position required? Not saying its not possible that people are rejected because of discrimination factors, but you're saying like that's the only reason why all the time. Do you always pull the race /gender card when you don't get what you want?

              Would you rent/sub rent your spare room to a dodgy looking person (drug addict/creepy guy etc)?

    • -2

      Of course you can't paint the wall. Can you rent a car and return it in a different color, or replace the horrible tinted windows and leather seats?

      • I see tshow suggested this comparison to you, but I've never lived in a car or hired one for more than three weeks. You can't compare renting a house for years with hiring a car for days or weeks. It's pretty obvious that those things are not in the same category, not even close. No one is talking about renting three weeks of Airbnb and wanting to change the colours of the wall or the horrible chandelier. That would be comparable to hiring a car for a few weeks. And yes, I could tolerate tinted windows, leather seats, or even a bad colour choice for three weeks.

        • -3

          You are renting. Don't change anything you don't own. What's so hard to understand about it. It's not about length. It's about ownership.

          • @DisabledUser225214:

            What's so hard to understand about it.

            You asked, it the despicable/blant ignorant LL who fail to differentiate between the right of use and ownership.

            Length matters too, just ask wifey.

    • What's the alternative? Someone builds you a house for free?

    • Absolutely Spot on

      • +8

        Someone is trying to collect negs and pick a fight with everyone.

  • +13

    OP, I agree with the general feeling about tenants vs landlord, probably nowhere near as much in favour of the landlord as you, but nonetheless…

    However, the way you are presenting your argument is not doing your cause any favours. It is irrational and at times tainted with racial prejudice.

    In fact, your post could pass off as a sockpuppet for tenants. You're setting someone up to win ridiculous arguments.

    Someone pointed out that they cannot paint the walls. Instead of addressing that comment, you went on to talk about sticky tape. You could easily have pointed out that you don't borrow/rent a car and return it in a different colour.

    For those who are pro-tenants - this dude is not representative of the counter argument just as I wouldn't call a squatter a representative for tenants.

    (In politics, what I'm doing is called making an opponent of both sides. :P)

    • +2

      You can't compare renting a house for years with hiring a car for days or weeks. It's pretty obvious that those things are not in the same category, not even close. No one is talking about renting three weeks of Airbnb and wanting to change the wall or the horrible chandelier.

      • You can't impose a cost on the owner to undo your changes without expecting there to be additional cost.

        I'm sure if you paid more in rent to cover undoing your changes, they'll oblige.

        Imagine if someone left the walls a hot pink. The owners will either have to pay and get it painted over or the new tenants will live with it. Then the new owners will be jumping up and down with the availability of rentals without ridiculous wall paint.

        • +1

          I agree with you here. Tenants should be able to paint the walls providing that they re-paint to the previous colour when leaving. That is reasonable. What happens is that in most cases they can't do that even if they accept re-painting the walls. I couldn't replace a horrible chandelier that had 8 light bulbs altogether. I would pay someone to replace the chandelier for something else, and I would put it back before leaving, but that was a NO… So, I had to live with the chandelier but replaced all the 60W bulbs with 5W ones (and obviously returned the old bulbs when I left). When I wanted to install two cameras, I didn't ask, and that seems to be the most appropriate thing to do.

          • @this is us: You should have done it if your contract included permissible changes. It's absolutely wrong for the landlord's to go in and make changes to the wall colour and lighting after you inspected and agreed to the rental as per your inspection.

  • +5

    I can give you an example. I rent a 2 bedroom unit. If I were to buy a 2 bedroom unit my mortgage would be $400 less than I pay in rent.

    1 - I live far from the city, not an affluent fancy neighborhood.

    2 - the property (unit/apartment) with 2 bedroom I am talking about would cost between $280-300k. (yes greater Melbourne you can find them)

    3 - my rent increase every year (so other bills), except my wages.

    The real problem is, people find hard to save while they rent and pay other bills and actually try to live a bit. But if you had a mortgage less than your rent, then you should be able to afford all other bills and live a bit and still save a bit.

    Rent is real expensive.

    • Nothing at all for sale in your area? Seems odd to pay more in rent than you could buy. Bit of a waste of money isn't it?

      • Nothing in my area. But as I said it is available in other places, and I will move where I can afford to buy!

        • +1

          Have you factored in all the cost of ownership of a unit? Body Corporate, rates, maintenance cost, insurance? People can claim negative gearing because well the rental income doesn't actually cover the cost.

          • @od810: Yes! I will break even for a place that is mine.

            • @DisabledUser362419: No you don't break even that is my point.

              Edit: unit might break even but unit in certain area is a depreciating asset. You will notice the apartment/units with higher yield will not hold up in price.

              The fact is that rental price is increasing at slower rate than the price of the property itself (this is a well known stat). People buy because they speculate on the price not to get rental return

    • What area is this?

      Have you considered negotiating your rent? seems oddly expensive.

      Areas closer to city are very affordable depending on where you are..

      • Yes I have tried. And although I have been on the same place for 7 years, the owner didn't want to hear about it.

        Postcode 3138.

        And this landlord owns properties all over here, around 40 I hear.

    • +2

      and you would spend more than that $400 you save in rent on maintenance, rates, body corporate, insurance etc. Many people mistakenly compare mortgage payment to rent, it is not an accurate comparison.

      • not necessarily. unless you find a place falling a part, otherwise how often you would do maintenance?

        body corporate and rates, you need to look for section 32 to be sure you can afford this.

        The example I said above, it would break even.

        People who are landlords tend to say others can't afford owning their own place because of rates. not true.

        • +2

          maintenance includes the depreciation of items, carpets, servicing heaters/air con etc. Personally I allocate $300 a month for this on my 15 year old house, very easy to spend that, this year I am well over that.

          So for me. $100 a month insurance, $220 a month rates, $300 a month maintenance.

    • You're right. The secret is to suck it up for a year or 2 to get a deposit together.

      Live at home, share a house with a friend, rent with another couple who is also looking at doing the same as you. Gotta sacrifice if you want to get ahead. It's not going to be comfortable but it'll be worth it.

      • that is one thing I agree. you do need to make sacrifices to get a deposit. and that is what I have been doing.

        but I understand not everyone is in a position to do that. and I empathize with it.

    • You must be joking :)

      for $280-300k property you will need about $30k deposit.

      That's $600/week for a year or $300 for two years.

      • we are talking about different things.

        i said the mortgage repayment will be less than my rent. 1400-1000 = 400.

        I didnt say 400 a week would be enough for a deposit!

        • So you can't save $300/week for the last 2 years?
          This is required for deposit and most of the banks will give you 90-95% of the money.

          • @localhost: you are still not understanding what I am explaining.

            I gave an example about my rent.

            Not my financial situation.

            • @DisabledUser362419: Believe me, I know what you mean - I was in the same situation like you.
              $2400 rent per month, after that got a loan with repayment $2800/month.

              Now 7 years later loan is $1500 :)

              So you can save 10% deposit and buy a property - if rent is same/similar to monthly payment it's ok.

              • +1

                @localhost: I am buying soon. Just need to find the place :)

  • you guys should live in tassie, rent about $200 a week