Your Thoughts on The Rental Crisis?

Sydneyswans on 15/10/2022 - 23:34

Hey guys sorry if I sound oblivious to the rental crisis situation affecting Australia because I haven't seen it first hand and I live in Sydney.

Just this month A friend and partner fully employed (Govt roles) finding an apartment in less than 2 weeks after selling the apartment they owned whilst awaiting construction of their dream home. Myself finding a four bedder a year ago within a month of looking mid covid19 mind you but 3 occupants fully employed plus children. For those looking and struggling I feel for you… I think the WFH situation has changed the way we live and made some parts of regional Australia unaffordable. Wish there was something I could do.

For those renting how long did it take you to find a place and how is your situation? How is the situation in your town or suburb? What should the governments do to alleviate the situation.

Home & Garden

Comments

        • mitt on 17/10/2022 - 13:37
          +5

          Convincing people that opposing wage suppression is xenophobia is the most effective piece of propaganda ever deployed. It has completely neutralised the effectiveness of labour advocacy in the west. They have the wage slaves begging for their shackles to be tightened.

          Good dog.

      • Cookiescream on 17/10/2022 - 17:51
        +2

        So i am from a country where tons of people want to come here to learn English and eventually stay. Those people are having trouble to even find a room in a shared house. Without renting history they can't get in the market for units/apartment/house.

        And to be honest those people work is hospitality, cleaning, labours.

        Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane are sold like paradise abroad.

        • Ghost47 on 17/10/2022 - 18:32
          +1

          Most migrants come here and end up being the white mans slave.

        • [Deactivated] on 18/10/2022 - 20:48

          Good. Maybe they'll stay home and install the Babbel app instead.

    • berry580 on 17/10/2022 - 05:43

      How can your rent go up 4 times in 2 years?

      • unwashed00 on 17/10/2022 - 09:53
        +4

        Every 6 months

  • USER DC on 16/10/2022 - 02:52
    +15

    What government actually need to do reduce house prices, increase house supplies.

    I think a good way of doing it is Capping how many properties one person can own. This way more properties would be given to first home buyers, increase house occupancies. Decrease investments and investors. Decrease demand.

    Although it is not going to happen I know because government dont want to go against politicians.

    • barge-in hunter on 16/10/2022 - 07:50
      +19

      I was talking to my mates about the this concept recently. Here’s what we came up with;

      1) remove stamp duty on PPOP so people are more willing to live near work and reduce transport costs/pollution
      2) abolish negative gearing
      3) sliding scale of taxes on each subsequent property owned. Eg, higher land taxes on second, third and fourth etc

      Minimum win is 1 house for everyone- a second for those who can afford it to feed rentals… then go and invest in something that isn’t negatively impacting society’s ability to function

      • Ghost47 on 16/10/2022 - 11:21
        +8

        2) abolish negative gearing

        Labour tried to go to the 2016 and 2019 elections with this policy and the majority of the country voted against it didn’t they?

        Minimum win is 1 house for everyone- a second for those who can afford it to feed rentals

        Our country has too much of a property fetish, this won’t happen.

        • barge-in hunter on 16/10/2022 - 12:30
          +9

          Yes, on both counts.

          What needs to happen is often different from what will happen.

        • BobLim on 16/10/2022 - 22:06
          +1

          the majority of the country voted against it

          Don't remember seeing that question on my voting forms?

        • barge-in hunter on 16/10/2022 - 12:35
          +1

          My comment above;

          What needs to happen is often different from what will happen.

          I never said each were alternative options - when all applied together, house prices would drop.

          The rich are still more than welcome to invest their money in less taxing investments? It’s simply modifying the demand in one overly hot market, not targeting anyone who isn’t significantly contributing to a major societal problem.

        • ripesashimi on 16/10/2022 - 13:56

          It seems you are looking for cons that are inevitable in any suggestions. There are no solutions with only pros and no cons.

          What are your suggestions then?

          • tsunamisurfer on 16/10/2022 - 16:10
            -2

            @ripesashimi:

            What are your suggestions then?

            For the government to do nothing.

            Everything they do makes it worse.

            Let the market take care of itself.

            • barge-in hunter on 16/10/2022 - 17:02
              +9

              @tsunamisurfer:

              For the government to do nothing.

              Let the market take care of itself.

              Negative gearing is an artificial manipulation of the market, by the government. Can’t have both

              • dave999 on 16/10/2022 - 17:34

                @barge-in hunter: With respect to negative gearing, you clearly have absolutely no concept what it actually is. It is not "an artificial manipulation of the market", it is the normal way all assets are treated. Also removing it will do precisely nothing to prices, as they are determined by supply and demand and the supply and demand are identical whether there is negative gearing or not.

                • [Deactivated] on 16/10/2022 - 22:55

                  @dave999: That's ridiculous. Without negative gearing owning real estate would be a lot less profitable, rents will not increase enough to make up the shortfall as the market won't support it - renters only have so much income. So prices must fall to keep yields equal.

                  When prices are lower, more renters would buy their own home.

                  The solution is very simple, negative gearing for one house, decreasing benefits for every subsequent house. Multimillionaires don't need tax breaks to invest in residential real estate, they can invest in commercial property or in a business- something that will actually grow the economy and create jobs, not just make banks richer and everyone else poorer

                  • dave999 on 17/10/2022 - 13:11

                    @[Deactivated]: "Without negative gearing owning real estate would be a lot less profitable, rents will not increase enough to make up the shortfall as the market won't support it - renters only have so much income. So prices must fall to keep yields equal.". There is simply no data or any reason that prices will fall - you are just making it up. The only thing that might change is the ratio of renters to home owners - but the price wouldn't change - demand and supply of properties will remain the same. Property prices may even go up, equal to the amount of extra tax collected by the government.

                    • [Deactivated] on 17/10/2022 - 13:36
                      +1

                      @dave999: Demand and supply of properties will equal each other, yes, but how can it possibly be "the same". Why do I need to provide evidence for your argument, it's illogical

                      If the % earned from owning real estate is effectively reduced, then the value of that real estate is effectively reduced. Or are investors simply going to eat the losses?

                      There is plenty of evidence that the price of rent and the price of the underlying property are disconnected - just compare the value of real estate and rent 20 years ago and today, property price has grown much more than rents

                      Property prices may even go up, equal to the amount of extra tax collected by the government.

                      I'm sorry I can't respond to this, I cannot comprehend how increasing taxes on an investment makes it more valuable to own.

                      • dave999 on 18/10/2022 - 11:21

                        @[Deactivated]: "If the % earned from owning real estate is effectively reduced, then the value of that real estate is effectively reduced. Or are investors simply going to eat the losses?"

                        The most likely outcome is rents would increase, resulting in more home ownership - but not a reduction in prices.

                        "I'm sorry I can't respond to this, I cannot comprehend how increasing taxes on an investment makes it more valuable to own."

                        Adding taxes to anything, usually increases the cost of whatever it is - when the government introduced the GST of 10%, everything went up in price by 10% - not saying that would happen exactly the same with property because people are severely limited in their ability to pay more, but the extra tax the government would collect has to come from somewhere.

                        • [Deactivated] on 18/10/2022 - 11:53

                          @dave999: The extra money has to come from somewhere, I agree, but you are looking at it backwards.

                          The price of real estate is correlated with borrowing power, when the average person can borrow more prices go up.

                          In a similar fashion, the price people pay in rent is correlated to the average income of renters.

                          Both borrowing power and incomes are not going to change if tax increases,

                          You are saying that prices will go up so the investment yield is maintained. I am saying that is not possible, so yields go down. Then prices will also go down, so the yields are back to where they are now.

                          Alternatively yields will go down and prices stay about the same, so the only thing that changes is that more tax is collected.

                          Economic theory tells us taxes are generally split between supply and demand, the most likely scenario is therefore that prices will go down by half the value of the additional tax, and yields will also go down by about half that value. Investors will eat half the taxes.

                          As you say, rents can also increase, resulting in more home ownership as some renters become owners. But rent will be increasing while the price of homes stagnates

                • nigel deborah on 17/10/2022 - 09:32
                  +2

                  @dave999: Confidently wrong? I can't use stock trading losses (or any other asset investment losses, that I'm aware of) to offset my taxable income, but I can do that with an investment property thanks to negative gearing. It is an artificial incentive to invest in housing.

                  • dave999 on 17/10/2022 - 12:54
                    +2

                    @nigel deborah: Of course you can, if you borrow money for the specific purpose of buying shares the interest payments are tax deductible, exactly like property or any other investment. That is the whole point, property is treated the same as any other investment.

                    • nigel deborah on 17/10/2022 - 16:04

                      @dave999: In your case, it's tax deductible against other income, not from your investment? I thought what made negative gearing for property different was that you can deduct against your full time salary (for example).

                  • itsme56 on 17/10/2022 - 23:36

                    @nigel deborah: I can't use stock trading losses (or any other asset investment losses, that I'm aware of) to offset my taxable income
                    ahhhh you absolutely can, it's the exact same scenario.

                    • nigel deborah on 18/10/2022 - 06:59

                      @itsme56: I didn't write that well. I meant to say I can't use those losses to offset my taxable income not related to the investment, for example, a full time salary. If I lose money on stocks and sell my position, I can't then reduce the tax I pay on my full time salary.

                      But my understanding is that's not the case for some property losses, you can actually deduct against your full time salary (and possible other forms of income).

                      Not the best source, but this explains it https://www.loans.com.au/home-loans/buying-investment-proper…

                      • itsme56 on 18/10/2022 - 07:29

                        @nigel deborah: You’re still wrong, yes you can.
                        If you lose 100k when selling a stock and you earn a salary of 150k you would pay no tax after claiming the loss.

                        • nigel deborah on 18/10/2022 - 08:23

                          @itsme56: You're definitely wrong, but I might be too.

                          https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/capital-gains-tax/calcula…

                          "You cannot deduct a net capital loss from your income"

                          But, that's the same for property, you can't deduct capital losses after the sale of the house from your income. Perhaps commenter above is right and you can deduct costs (eg house repairs or for shares, loan interest) from your income regardless of the investment type.

                          Even if that is the case, I'd still be in favour of its removal for property investment. Especially for asset depreciation.

                          • dave999 on 18/10/2022 - 10:57

                            @nigel deborah: The reality is investment properties are already heavily taxed through Land Tax and Capital Gains Tax - neither of which are paid by home owners.
                            The cynic would say the government does not want to decrease property investment because tax revenues would plummet if significantly more people owned their own house.

              • dave999 on 17/10/2022 - 13:04
                +1

                @barge-in hunter: "Negative gearing is an artificial manipulation of the market, by the government" is a completely false statement. Tax is on profits not revenue, for any investment. Removing negative gearing would be a tax on revenue, not profit.

                It is not a "Negative gearing is an artificial manipulation of the market, by the government", it is how all investment and tax works for all assets.

        • Diji on 17/10/2022 - 00:49
          +2

          Those high income earners already bear most of Australia's tax burden.

          Won't somebody think of the rich? :'(

          • berry580 on 17/10/2022 - 05:50
            +1

            @Diji: Without the rich being taxed, this whole government benefits scheme which are disproportionately funded by the rich won't be sustainable.
            So yes, you're right, someone should.

      • drfuzzy on 16/10/2022 - 12:23
        +3

        None of this increases the supply of housing. Rents would be higher under this plan as there would be less homes built for investment. Id start by loosening the planning rules to get rid of NIMBYism. I developed 2 homes and the construction took 6 years and nearly sent me broke due to all the complaints. That's despite having planning permits already. So many people selfishly wants their view, their light, their street parking, etc not impacted and they do everything they can to reduce the housing density around them and be obstructive.

        • barge-in hunter on 16/10/2022 - 13:10

          That’s a really interesting perspective - there would definitely need to be an increase in supply, or at least maintained at current levels (despite lower investment demand). That’s a tricky one.

          And agree, somethings have to give in planning and development - everyone in our area loves the tree lined streets, but complain when they have to ask council permission to pull down a tree.

    • tsunamisurfer on 16/10/2022 - 11:24
      -7

      I think a good way of doing it is Capping how many properties one person can own.

      This is a stupid idea to tell people who they should invest their wealth. This goes agains tthe grain of what a free market is about.

    • [Deactivated] on 18/10/2022 - 20:50

      Every time government interferes with property prices go down for a short time, then UP and STAY there.

  • OnlyLurking on 16/10/2022 - 02:53
    +2

    Your Thoughts on The Rental Crisis?

    My thoughts are with you 💔
    We need to build more houses but with interest rates increases and inflation and expensive building materials, ain’t nobody doing that.

  • ForkSnorter on 16/10/2022 - 07:51
    +27

    The $5 trillion government is handing out to investors who own multiple properties via negative gearing and other tax concessions (that’s free money, by the way, not earned) to make wealthy people wealthier could be cut off and instead be used to create a massive house-building project that benefits the entire nation.

    They should bring in some of those German firms that can build a house in 3 days, instead of the 6 -12 months (2 years?) it takes Australian builders.

    • Stopback on 16/10/2022 - 08:58

      When it gets cut off. Propel will sell their properties. And that will reduce supply for rentals

      • ForkSnorter on 16/10/2022 - 09:04
        +6

        If they did sell off their properties, the price of properties nationwide would plummet. It would be an exponential downward spiral, to the point where most renters could probably afford to buy a house.

        And the extra supply of houses produced by the government's house-building project would make up for the loss of rental supply by investors.

        • dave999 on 16/10/2022 - 17:40
          +1

          This is simply not true. For every investment house sold to a renter, there is a renter that ends up living in the house - demand and supply are completely unchanged and house prices would not change at all - there is still the same number of houses and the same number of people living in houses. Why is this so hard to understand?

          • ForkSnorter on 17/10/2022 - 07:42

            @dave999: What you are not factoring in is the fact that many of these renters could only buy a house if the prices declined. And again, it is not only demand that sets prices, it is what people can afford to pay, which depends on their income and interest rates. A renter on a median or lower income can only afford to pay so much.

            • Quantumcat on 17/10/2022 - 08:48

              @ForkSnorter: It doesn't really matter if prices go down for affordability if you need a large loan, if the reason they're going down is because of higher interest rates. Prices going down only benefits those with loads of cash who don't need loans

            • dave999 on 18/10/2022 - 11:03

              @ForkSnorter: I think you just perfectly explained why prices would not go down. Whether renting or purchasing you can only pay what you can/choose to pay, that is true now and will be true if negative gearing was removed. Removing negative gearing doesn't increase supply or decrease demand - so prices will be unaffected.

        • berry580 on 17/10/2022 - 06:00

          At what price point can "most renters" afford without leverage (i.e borrow money)?

          If house price falls exponentially and not hold value, you bet banks would no longer lend at 80%.
          They might consider 20% lends. How does $400K deposit sound like for a $500k house for "most renters"?

    • Almost Banned on 16/10/2022 - 10:39
      +3

      Negative gearing is not handing out money.
      It is, at best, giving you an additional deduction. It requires you to spend money - in order to deduct just under half of what you have spent - to give someone else a home.
      Allowing you to keep some of your own money is not giving money out, nor is it free. In addition, most housing investors are not particularly wealthy.
      However, I agree with your last comment. I do not understand why there is not a larger prefab housing market in Australia.

      • ForkSnorter on 16/10/2022 - 10:48
        +4

        It makes the cost of your 2nd house cheaper than it otherwise would be. That's free money.

        • tsunamisurfer on 16/10/2022 - 11:29
          +3

          It makes the cost of your 2nd house cheaper than it otherwise would be. That's free money.

          It is used to offset against income that would normanlly be taxable. That's not free money.

          • ForkSnorter on 16/10/2022 - 12:06
            +2

            @tsunamisurfer: The deduction provided by negative gearing makes your mortgage cheaper (for example compared to your first house, which you live in). That means you are getting a discount on your 2nd house, courtesy of tax payers.

            • tsunamisurfer on 16/10/2022 - 12:16
              +5

              @ForkSnorter: I have already explained that the property generates an income. When you generate an income you can deduct costs of generating that income.

              What about that is ground breaking or difficult to grasp?

              • ForkSnorter on 16/10/2022 - 12:21

                @tsunamisurfer: The interest on your mortgage should not be considered a cost of generating your income. That is fundamentally unfair. It means you are getting a discount on your mortgage in comparison to first home buyers. Plus, by owning a 2nd house, you are creating competition among critically limited stock, which pushes up the price of your existing properties, allowing you to profit even more, at the expense of first home buyers and people who can't afford to buy a house.

                • tsunamisurfer on 16/10/2022 - 12:35
                  +3

                  @ForkSnorter: You don't seem to understand simple concepts of taxation.

                  You don't need investors to drive up prices, home owner occupiers are more than capable of climbing over each other to buy.

                  Generally we don't tell people how to invest their wealth. If you want 10 properties that's fine. If you want to buy 50% of Rio Tinto shares thereby preventing other investors that's ok too…simple market at Work.

                  • ForkSnorter on 16/10/2022 - 12:41
                    +4

                    @tsunamisurfer: No, without negative gearing and other welfare for investors from the ATO, the prices of houses are fundamentally limited by interest rates and people's incomes, so the prices would not rise as high.

                    There are a gazillion companies you can buy shares from. There is only one property market, with a critically limited stock. There are people in Sydney who own hundreds of millions of $ worth of houses, and by continually buying, they are continually putting pressure on the market, thereby ensuring the value of their existing properties rises. Some of these people have gained tens of millions of dollars in 2 years without having to do anything, while simultaneously getting tax concessions from the ATO.

                    • tsunamisurfer on 16/10/2022 - 16:19
                      +2

                      @ForkSnorter:

                      No, without negative gearing and other welfare for investors from the ATO, the prices of houses are fundamentally limited by interest rates and people's incomes, so the prices would not rise as high.

                      There are no welfare for investors.

                      Social housing is welfare.

                      Investors actually add value to the economy, people who take up social housing have less.

                      There is only one property market, with a critically limited stock. There are people in Sydney who own hundreds of millions of $ worth of houses, and by continually buying, they are continually putting pressure on the market,

                      Are you talking about buying now or renting?

                      Because house prices are dropping in Sydney, how do you explain this 'pressure' you speak of?

                      On renting, those investors in turn rent out those properties which is actually what you want to have more stock in the market.

                      Some of these people have gained tens of millions of dollars in 2 years without having to do anything,

                      Yes thats because Sydney prices went beserk.

                      while simultaneously getting tax concessions from the ATO

                      What concessions other than NG are you talking about?

                      • ForkSnorter on 16/10/2022 - 16:37
                        +2

                        @tsunamisurfer: Negative gearing reduces the overall cost of an investor’s mortgage. Don’t forget, the tenant is paying their mortgage, then on top of that the ATO pays the interest on the mortgage.

                        The overall cost of the house is thereby reduced in comparison to first home buyers.

                        This is welfare for wealthy people.

                        The other concessions are CGT, as well as the ability to claim other costs which first home buyers can’t.

                        Investors only add more stock if they are buying/building new properties. And quite a few investors aren’t renting out their investment properties, they’re just flipping them or putting them up on AirBnB so they can still use them.

                        • dave999 on 18/10/2022 - 11:08

                          @ForkSnorter: " Don’t forget, the tenant is paying their mortgage, then on top of that the ATO pays the interest on the mortgage.".

                          You are horribly confused, if the tenant is paying all the mortgage, then the property is not negatively geared.

                          "This is welfare for wealthy people.
                          The other concessions are CGT, as well as the ability to claim other costs which first home buyers can’t."

                          Mate, you really have no idea. Home owners do not pay CGT or Land Tax at all - that is only on investment properties. It isn't welfare, it is being heavily taxed.

                      • darkmattersunB6c0MV on 16/10/2022 - 16:56
                        +1

                        @tsunamisurfer: Seems that you only want to see one side of the story.
                        Ok, if it is not free money, you would not have any objections if the Govt did not offer negative gearing, and let the market be decided by demand?

                        Or if Govt decided (will not, but let's say hypothetically) to increase the supply of housing?
                        The problems is to get it just right- the Goldilocks problem- If the prices of property falls, it can cause a vicious downward spiral.

                        But negative gearing should go as a means to cool off the property prices and deflate the housing bubble, relive the pressure and prevent a burst.
                        The prices in Sydney today are crazy and unsustainable.
                        The people who will lose out if the bubble bursts will be the people buying property in 2022.

                • dave999 on 16/10/2022 - 17:48

                  @ForkSnorter: "The interest on your mortgage should not be considered a cost of generating your income. That is fundamentally unfair. It means you are getting a discount on your mortgage in comparison to first home buyers". Investors pay Capital Gains Tax and Land Tax on investment properties that home owners do not and pay a higher interest rate on loans - which is more unfair.

                  "Plus, by owning a 2nd house, you are creating competition among critically limited stock". Fundamentally false - there is no extra competition because there is still the exact same number of houses and the exact same number of people living in houses.

                  • ForkSnorter on 17/10/2022 - 07:45
                    +3

                    @dave999: The total number of houses for sale declines by 1 every time an investor buys another house. But the number of first home buyers remains the same.

                    • dave999 on 18/10/2022 - 11:10

                      @ForkSnorter: The number of renters also increase by 1 every time an investor buys a house, so demand is exactly the same.

                      • ForkSnorter on 18/10/2022 - 12:20

                        @dave999: We're talking about different types of demand.

                        I'm talking about buyer demand. The incredible demand cause by over-investment in the property market in Australia is the main reason prices are so high.

                        High property prices have all kinds of effects, including reducing home ownership rates, reducing owners' disposable income (thereby limiting their ability to spend/invest elsewhere in the economy), psychological pressures due to mortgage stress, hight rents (yes, high house prices are correlated with higher rent), etc.

                        And don't forget, nowadays many investors are not renting their houses out permanently. Some are putting them up on airbnb, or even just leaving them vacant so they can use them.

      • USER DC on 16/10/2022 - 11:53

        It encourage people to over spend money, as in e.g. get 5 star equipment over 3 star, because they know they can claim cost of 5 star equipment in Neg gearing. So why would they want to
        pay money to government, rather than
        pay money to their asset (which builds more equity)

        • tsunamisurfer on 16/10/2022 - 12:19
          +6

          No. No it doesn't.

          Very few landlords I know go out of their way to put 5 star things in a rental. It doesn't make sense on 2 fronts.

          A) it's a rental, likely to get thrashed.

          B) You are suggesting someone will overspend $1 just to claim back $0.40 on deductions. I don't want to lose 60c.

          • FlyingMiffy on 16/10/2022 - 17:57
            +1

            @tsunamisurfer: No point arguing mate, theres plenty of folks on OzB that dont want to know the difference between deduction and handout. Save your breath.

        • fusion17 on 17/10/2022 - 23:38

          Uh, that's more likely to be done by people close to retirement on their primary residence to continue getting maximum pension.

  • taradavey on 16/10/2022 - 08:12
    +3

    My rental in regional NSW was put up for sale late last year, with 3 adults (2 of which had 2 jobs totaling over full time hours each week) in the household.
    We applied for rentals for over 6 months, upwards of 10 per week, did not even get an inspection for a house (had to apply to rent before allowed to inspect and then accept rental).
    Applications would take around half an hour each to fill in, it was like a 3rd job.
    We had even asked several agents if there was problems with our applications. They said there was no problems in them but most rental properties had people offering up 6 months of rent upfront or offering to pay more per week - and the landlord can choose whoever they want. Prices were already inflated by hundreds of what they were 6 months prior.
    We were so so lucky as our house got purchased by an investor and so we got to stay.

  • reactor-au on 16/10/2022 - 08:32
    +22

    Get rid of negative gearing

    • pegaxs on 16/10/2022 - 08:50
      +20

      And get rid of owning “investment properties” once people own one or two of them. Third and onwards IP’s should be taxed so heavily that they are just not worth getting into.

      • reactor-au on 16/10/2022 - 09:18
        +4

        I don't have much issue against investment, everyone should invest in various things. Negative gearing is just ridiculous, in concept the taxpayer is subsidizing private investment.

        • dave999 on 16/10/2022 - 17:50
          +1

          The "concept the taxpayer is subsidizing private investment" is completely ridiculous is absolutely correct, just that negative gearing is nothing of the sort.

        • tsunamisurfer on 16/10/2022 - 19:22

          Umm what?

          The investor IS the taxpayer, just not as much.

          No one is giving him money to invest.

      • jhaley3180 on 16/10/2022 - 09:21
        +3

        Not sure this would actually make diddly squat of difference. Despite what clickbait media would have you believe the proportion of people with multiple investment properties is actually tiny.
        2.8% in 2
        0.09% in 3
        0.03% in 4
        0.013% in 5
        0.014% in 6 or more
        (Proportion of taxpayers, not all Australians, in 2018/19)

        • Shorium on 16/10/2022 - 11:36
          +12

          Then it wont hurt to do it then

        • Ghost47 on 16/10/2022 - 15:53
          +4

          I don’t think it makes sense to look at the proportion of people with >1 investment property. The issue isn’t that “not many people own >1 IP”, the issue is the number of IPs owned by people.

          What needs to considered is whether or not those who own multiple properties own more properties combined than all investors who only own one IP, I.e. the minority of property investors own >1 IP, but the number of IPs they own might outweigh the amount owned by those who only own one IP.

          There are people who own dozens of properties. If you add up all the IPs owned by people who own >1 IP, how does that number compare to all the people who own just one IP?

          Not expecting you to answer this as I can probably look it up sometime (not at my computer at the moment and it would be easier to do this kind of thing on my computer), but from what I saw on Google I think you just took these stats from an article on LinkedIn.

        • [Deactivated] on 17/10/2022 - 07:00
          +1

          It also doesn't take much to create a property bubble.

          If one house sells for 100k over asking, every house in that street is now worth 100k more.

          If the price of one house drops 100k, the rest of the homes in that street will be withdrawn from the market.

          It is completely different from market traded goods, and the fundamental misunderstanding that "supply and demand" parrots keep missing, real estate is not represented by the generic supply/demand equation.

          Bookmark this post and come back in a year, real estate will not have fallen in Australia even though demand has fallen significantly.

        • serpserpserp on 17/10/2022 - 08:06

          The thing is, once you get to owning 2 properties (primary residence and first investment property) most people would start setting up a trust for 3 properties or other structures. I know a few people that own up to 5 houses but at maximum only 1 property would be in their name.

      • RADICALIST on 16/10/2022 - 11:17

        Multiple properties are taxed heavily. Land tax increases as the more properties you own

    • Almost Banned on 16/10/2022 - 10:41
      +1

      Do you think that deductions for all other types of investment should be removed too - or just housing?
      What about food? Should farmers not be entitled to deduct their costs of production?
      How about medicine. Should drug manufacturers have to wear their R&D without deduction, or hospitals be denied deductions for the cost of labour?
      What a genius idea.

      • Quantumcat on 16/10/2022 - 10:49
        +3

        You would always be able to deduct the actual costs of an investment. Eg interest, maintenance, real estate fees. What would stop (for multiple properties) is being able to deduct against other income, for when outgoings outweigh incomings.

        That's my understanding of what they meant anyway

      • reactor-au on 16/10/2022 - 10:52
        +1

        You are overlooking the fact that mortgage interest on rental properties is tax deductible but mortgage interest on principle property is not. Doesn't seem equal in that regard.

        • tsunamisurfer on 16/10/2022 - 12:14
          +2

          If you allowed PPOR mortgage interest to be tax deductible, what do you think will happen to prices?

          They are not equal because the IP generates an income so costs should be deductible.

          Imagine telling Coles that they are not allowed to deduct the cost of workers from their tax assessment?

          • SBOB on 16/10/2022 - 12:18
            +2

            @tsunamisurfer:

            They are not equal because the IP generates an income so costs should be deductible.

            Then make it deductible against that income only.

            • tsunamisurfer on 16/10/2022 - 12:29

              @SBOB: We have actually tried that in the 80s. It lasted months before being repealed.

              The Labor tried to do it again and failed.

              If even Leftists don't want to do it it must be god awful.

              • SBOB on 16/10/2022 - 12:57
                +5

                @tsunamisurfer: You think the economy and housing market now is the same as the 80s?

                What was the ratio of debt to income in the 80s compared to now? What was the level of property income to property debt on negative geared properties compared to now?

                Using 40 year old markets as justification as to making no changes to current taxation rules. I assume you use 40 year old rules to complain about taxation changes that benefit you but shouldn't be changed right?

              • [Deactivated] on 17/10/2022 - 07:07
                +2

                @tsunamisurfer: Labor brought the policy to an election and lost an election, the policy didn't fail, the ignorant masses voted against their own interests.

                People like you who miss that less taxes from real estate negative gearing needs to be made up somewhere else - like your income taxes.

    • bigbadboogieman on 17/10/2022 - 10:23

      Well there are genuine applications of negative gearing. It's the rorting bit of the mechanism that needs to be curbed. People who are pay exorbitant amounts of taxes have a right to absorb some of their losses into their other income to reduce their tax liability.

  • scotty on 16/10/2022 - 08:39
    +2

    I live around UNSW and the rental around here is crazy recently due to return of overseas students drumming up the demand. Some friends of ours sharing a 3 bed room unit in Mascot just had a rent hike last month to over $1000/week, which is crazy.

    In a free market I am not sure what the government can do.

    Build more houses? But the price is dropping & building cost is rising — no incentive for the builders (unless government throws money at it, but that would create other problems).

    Reduce tax incentive to drive down the demand for owning houses? That again would just lower the house price further & would not help the supply issue. Moreover many renters are actually not in the market of buying a property, and lower house price does not translate to lower rent.

    Maybe more regulations in renters' rights & limit how much the rent can increase each year? Proponents of free market won't like it.

    • hasher22 on 16/10/2022 - 11:33
      +1

      In Canada I believe the government has a law that rent can't go up more than 5% per year. Might have to fact check that.

      But I know places in USA there are government rent controlled homes which can't go over a certain amount.

      We need policies like that. It's getting our of hand now.

  • Hardlyworkin on 16/10/2022 - 08:46
    +3

    Incentives for those with largely empty houses (kids have left home) to downsize.

    Phase out negative gearing and cap it to one property.

    Cut the red tape on building approvals to increase density in suburbs that have the infrastructure.

    Make it easier to get a loan on pre fab houses.

    • bigbadboogieman on 17/10/2022 - 10:25

      You need red tape or it all becomes a sh!t hole. Don't trust me just look at any third world country.

  • Stopback on 16/10/2022 - 08:55
    +1

    Yep allow more granny flats.

    Allow more caravans to park at homes.

    More units.

  • Motek Benzona on 16/10/2022 - 08:55

    What really grinds my gears is that the criminal heads of governments have spent the past 2 years bleating the same line in unison "Its our job to keep you safe" but by that they mean forcing an injection into the masses via coercion but, surprise surprise, not sorting out the situation where good decent people and KIDS are being forced to live in tent, cars and streets because of a "free market"

    Are these new homeless "safe?" Is the government looking after their health?

    How, in the 21st century, in Australia, can whole WORKING or otherwise families be forced to live on the street? There is no justification whatsoever.

    End negative gearing
    Build social housing
    Force people with empty places to use them or lose them

    It might not be flavour of the month but who cares? People cannot live like this

    Feel free to flame away, i could not care less….

    • CalmLemons on 17/10/2022 - 00:01

      Ending negative gearing will not make houses cheaper. People with money will still invest in properly as it is a safe haven.

      It's a free market, you cannot force people to use their property in a way they do not want to.

      Need to stop blaming the government and expecting the government to take care of you.

      If you want something, you need to go about getting it.

  • Boogerman on 16/10/2022 - 09:17
    +6

    Just take Malcolm Turnbull's advice & get yourself rich parents

    • Mugsy on 16/10/2022 - 09:27
      +2

      Damn, I knew I ticked the wrong box on the form when I was lining up for reincarnation.

      • Diji on 17/10/2022 - 00:50

        I always select the hardest difficulty

  • GordonD on 16/10/2022 - 09:23
    +9

    We claim to be a democracy.

    We claim to be smart people who make decisions based on evidence.

    Yet it doesn't matter that the majority of Australians have been saying for decades that high immigration, whatever benefits it has, is stuffing up too many things. Like the house prices, and as a result rental prices. It is distorting the economy too much. It is doing too much damage to too many ordinary Australians. But, no, they listen to the idiot economists who can tell you with 100% certainty why things happened, but can't predict anything. Who always get it wrong about what's going to happen, and what is needed to make or prevent things happening. Yet government keeps listening to them and doing what they say. Even when half the country would be happy to take the governor of the Reserve Bank out and string him up.

    First they stimulated the economy with huindreds of thousands of immigrants a years for decades. Then the shut it down with lockdowns, but still poured hundreds of billions of stimulus in to keep it from dying. Where did they think that money was going to go? Into pushing up the price of houses.

    The economists keep saying big immigration is the solution. But its not the solution. It is the problem. We can try to alleviate some of the symptoms with this measure or that, but we are not going to get better until we kick the immigration addiction, and learn, after some pain, to get along without it. It is the big underlying problem. The elephant in the room no-one wants to talk about.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/10/2022 - 10:14
      +7

      the immigration is just a symptom of the main problem: the idea of infinite growth on a finite planet.

      our economy, as well as that of pretty much the entire world, is based around this ludicrous idea that we can sustain infinite growth. everyone wants more. the only reason we have such a focus on immigration, is that immigrants are willing to work harder & for less, for a "better" life, than people born here, as well as falling birth rates among those who are middle class or higher, as they cannot afford to raise children and are responsible enough to choose not to have them / have as many, or they are too busy with their careers for children, so they don't have any.

      "build more housing" is a band-aid fix, we can only build so many houses, in the process destroying the best part of Australia; the natural beauty. can't just keep building more houses forever.

      stability, not growth, is the answer.

      • GordonD on 16/10/2022 - 10:42
        +2

        The problem is infinite growth on a finite planet?

        Yes, I agree, the problem is not so much big immigration as such, but big population growth. Its just that in this country we only have big population growth because we have big immigration. We can't tell people here they can't have lots of children. but all it takes to stop lots of people coming here is to tell them they can't.

        It is long past time to decide that the human race, starting with those of us on this continent, to decide enough is enough. That more human beings don't guarantee our childrens' survival, and improve their quality of life, like was the case in primitive tribes, it makes it more likely that our children and our planet will be worse off.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join