Do You Agee with The Greens 2 Year Rent Freeze

Trying2SaveABuck on 31/07/2023 - 21:08
Last edited 31/07/2023 - 21:11

So there is a 'real' possibility of a double disolution at the ALP try to push there housing affordability fund which they believe is a partial solution to the housing crisis

'Labor has just 26 of the 76 Senate spots and believes it could win two or three extra Senate seats with a double dissolution.'

The Greens do not believe the bill goes far enough and they are 'demanding the government spend $2.5 billion a year on housing and pay the states to implement a nationwide freeze or capping of rents. The government says the former is unaffordable and the latter unconstitutional.'

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/full-term-double-dissol…

The LNP has some what broke up as Bridget Archer has broken ranks and offered her vote in support of the ALP Bill potentially other MPs will as well
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/liberal-rebel-splits-wi…

personally - i am 100 percent behind this bill passing i think the idea of a rent freeze will do more harm then good and i do believe this bill will help some Australians, id like to see bipartisen support from the two majors the Greens are asking for too much. However i acknowledge im not a 'renter' and some renters will be feeling the cost of living pinch so much they might be on the verge of homelessness and they are looking for the Greens/LNP to push for a better deal to help them. I also acknowledged im in a wealthy enough position to not 'worry' about cost of living and that some voters would feel incredbiliy let down by the way the ALP have left them to struggle without much/if any support and any more cost pressures will see them hit breaking point.

Poll Options

  • 160
    Yes Freeze the rent for 2 years
  • 762
    No do not Freeze rents it not a practical solution
  • 25
    I dont know
Home & Garden

Comments

  • Loot N Plunder on 31/07/2023 - 21:30
    +107

    How can you enforce a rent freeze when landlords have costs that need to be serviced in a rising economy?
    Stupid idea why not cap the rent increases to a % per year and to massively increase public housing and release much more cheaper land for home owners.

      • deveshwar0 on 31/07/2023 - 22:00
        +115

        This notion always fascinates me.
        Why do we then allow any business to pass on increased costs?
        There should be a freeze on everything.

          • deveshwar0 on 31/07/2023 - 22:13
            +66

            @jjjaar: So, we're talking food, clothing, utilities, education………. And the list goes on.
            My point still stands, why not a freeze on these as well.
            And, what about costs for owner occupied properties? Is that not a survival item as well?

              • deveshwar0 on 31/07/2023 - 22:38
                +50

                @jjjaar: But isn't it the same thing with a property? If no one is renting it for what the landlord wants, the landlord will have to drop the rent to match the market. If no one rents the property, the landlord will go bust.
                The tax deduction that landlords get are comparable to the tax deductions other businesses get.
                The issue here is supply vs demand. Because there is an increased demand, the landlord is able to ask an inflated rent.

                • xylarr on 01/08/2023 - 11:30
                  +11

                  @deveshwar0: Yes, landlords don't "pass on costs". They charge what the market will bear. If costs went up, but demand went down, the landlord can raise the rent all he likes, but he's not going to get anyone paying the rent.
                  The opposite is also true, you could get dropping interest rates with rising rents.

                • nigel deborah on 01/08/2023 - 14:56
                  +1

                  @deveshwar0: You're mostly right but price gouging (via monopoly or collusion) is a thing for retail which most would consider unethical or even illegal. You can have similar situations for rentals which might be pushing beyond just passing on costs (not saying that's the case necessary but it's possible).

                • spixder on 04/08/2023 - 11:56
                  +1

                  @deveshwar0: "The tax deduction that landlords get are comparable to the tax deductions other businesses get."

                  And that is the elephant in the room, housing shouldnt be seen as an investment. But nothing will change when the average polly has 2 houses to their name.

                • Tleyx on 04/08/2023 - 12:07

                  @deveshwar0: You cant claim your loss of your side business against your payg income, so i am not sure its just like other business.

            • ssfps on 31/07/2023 - 22:55
              +30

              @deveshwar0: Good point, i'd like a freeze on my mortgage interest rates please.

              • itsHughesy on 03/08/2023 - 10:31
                +1

                @ssfps: I'd like to be able to get into the property market, what can you do.

            • Almost Banned on 01/08/2023 - 00:10
              +8

              @deveshwar0: Don't forget healthcare. Try freezing medical costs.

              • mavack on 01/08/2023 - 16:23
                +2

                @Almost Banned: we already did that, the froze the medicare rebate and all that did was mean that more and more people have to pay upfront to visit the doctors.

              • SolitaryMan on 02/08/2023 - 22:57
                +1

                @Almost Banned: You mean like free healthcare through Medicare and the public hospital system?

            • Wiede on 01/08/2023 - 14:52

              @deveshwar0: because this is how you get a bread line

            • shutuptakemymoney101 on 26/08/2023 - 22:50

              @deveshwar0: Nope, owner occupier isn't included because you are close to being the devil you rich fool, you're only on struggle street and worthy of a price freeze if your expenses go up as a renter 'apparently'.

              Sucks when beer and ciggies go up at the same time as rent, it's a heartbreaking trifecta for many.

          • Sal in SA on 31/07/2023 - 22:17
            +3

            @jjjaar: Well, flip side, income can be $40k one year and $80k next etc.

          • RiseAndRuin on 01/08/2023 - 12:43
            +6

            @jjjaar: Then the same should apply to mortgage rates. The day we get 30 years fixed rates, we'll also fix part of the issues causing the high housing costs. The bigger issue is the construction mafia running this country, which is an issue that will never be solved.

          • pogichinoy on 02/08/2023 - 10:38
            +4

            @jjjaar: But it's not wild when rent can be $550 one year and $380 the next year?

            Have we forgotten how rents dropped during Covid?

          • Morphio25 on 05/08/2023 - 06:54
            +4

            @jjjaar: Why not? 15 months ago my mortgage was $550 a fortnight, now its $820. It's almost like you're saying you think it's acceptable for people with a mortgage to pay more but those who rent shouldn't have to.

        • Sal in SA on 31/07/2023 - 22:12
          +3

          Am sure there will be thoses that would be happy to cap % markup for any and all business ..just because..
          Then it will be caps on salary
          Then size and type of car allowed ..

        • ozbjunkie on 01/08/2023 - 10:32
          +1

          Instead of just wages.

        • baskinghobo on 01/08/2023 - 16:31

          Because what drives investments is profits and freezes may temporarily reduce costs but over the long term, the lack of investments will reduce supply which will drive up costs. However, this argument doesn't really hold well when you're talking about monopolies that artificially reduce supply and/or dictate the price. I'm not really sure what the solution for that is.

          • pj1351 on 01/08/2023 - 23:52

            @baskinghobo:

            However, this argument doesn't really hold well when you're talking about monopolies that artificially reduce supply and/or dictate the price.

            Natural monopolies inevitably collapse (or are forced to change and adapt), as smaller and more flexible competitors come along and offer better/cheaper alternatives.

            It's only when the government gets involved where they're not needed, that unnatural monopolies are possible. And when unnatural monopolies that are "too big to fail" do still fail anyway, the domino effects are even worse.

            As you noted yourself, "what drives investments is profits". There's no secret cabal of landlords who are willingly keeping their property off the market (and earning zero profits) just so that other landlords can "artificially" raise their rent.

            • baskinghobo on 02/08/2023 - 07:54

              @pj1351: I was talking more about supermarkets than real estate. Also monopolies can sell at a loss whenever a new competitor comes along so I wouldn't rely on the free market to solve the issue of monopolies.

              • pj1351 on 02/08/2023 - 13:01
                +1

                @baskinghobo: Aldi, which now owns around 10% of the market-share for supermarket, have themselves quite consistently pointed out (even as far back as 20 years ago!), that government redtape on planning and zoning restriction was one of their biggest obstacles in expanding and competing with Coles/Woolworths.

                The "free market" is constantly blamed for the un(?)intended consequences of ham-fisted government interventions.

            • ssfps on 03/08/2023 - 10:59

              @pj1351:

              Natural monopolies inevitably collapse

              LOL

        • mattyman on 01/08/2023 - 22:33

          I'm confused. Won't the $2.5b put aside each year be going to the landlords to accommodate increases while the rent is frozen?

        • Aneurism on 02/08/2023 - 10:37

          Perhaps if they put a freeze on people having kids that they can't afford to have.. or a freeze on cheating and divorce that lead to broken families, single parent welfare and stopped rent assistant payments a long time ago there would be more people in affordable housing.

        • Raheen on 02/08/2023 - 16:08

          You have the government increasing the costs it charges, business too, it seems the only one stymied from increasing their rate is the employee as that would be inflationary, everyone but the wage earner is allowed to keep their purchasing parity, such a fair system

        • shutuptakemymoney101 on 03/08/2023 - 18:00
          +1

          There should be a freeze on the Greens and their completely clueless ideas.

      • Almost Banned on 01/08/2023 - 00:08
        +18

        An interest rate change is a reasonable commercial risk.
        A rent freeze is essentially the government co-opting the private property of all landlords. That is a sovereign risk that is not remotely foreseeable nor reasonable to predict or allow for.
        If the Commonwealth government want to seize property they need to do so on just terms. Do you want the government to pay everyone's additional rent for the next two years?

      • brendanm on 01/08/2023 - 11:45

        Lol, lmao even.

      • gromit on 01/08/2023 - 12:31
        +7

        no it isn't. landlords take the risk of market pressures, not government intervention.

      • MrFunSocks on 01/08/2023 - 13:03
        +4

        Is that not the risk landlords take on when they choose this type of investment?

        But you're now suggesting that they add a completely new potentially finances destroying risk in at the drop of a hat. That's not fair.

      • trapper on 02/08/2023 - 11:47
        +1

        Is that not the risk landlords take on when they choose this type of investment?

        lol what? The 'risk' that the government will randomly change the law specifically to screw them over. haha

      • Tiredman on 02/08/2023 - 20:10

        Why do people always say this. Baffles me.

    • CalmLemons on 01/08/2023 - 16:32
      +20

      Rent freeze will just cause a massive rent rise now and after the freeze is over.

      Land lords will just not extended leases then jack up the rent for the next people.

      Sounds like a policy from people who do not know how to manage money.

      If they want to freeze rents, sure thing, reduce the land taxes and council rates.

      • SlartiBartFozz on 01/08/2023 - 21:55
        +2

        If govt reduced taxes / rates, the landlords would never willingly pass that onto tenants — that would have to be mandated, as well as getting the support of all 3 levels of government.

        • trapper on 02/08/2023 - 11:54
          +2

          Prices are driven by the market, supply and demand, that is all.

          Nothing just gets 'passed on' directly like that in either direction.

      • freefall101 on 02/08/2023 - 14:38
        +3

        Rent controls around the world have created a cottage industry of how to get around rent controls. The only time intervention on pricing makes sense is in a monopoly situation.

        We’ve got a pretty clear idea what demand is like for housing, supply is the problem. And the past 25 years we’ve had governments pumping demand and hoping supply would magically catch up when it clearly wouldn’t. I’m as much of a left wing woke hippy as they get, but it’s pretty basic economics at this point, increase supply, stop propping up housing prices for land developers and investors.

        • sakurashu on 02/08/2023 - 17:06

          100% just this ^

    • The Wololo Wombat on 01/08/2023 - 21:26
      +64

      Hijacking the first comment here, but I lived in Sweden where rent control is the norm and I think Australians should know about what a terrible system this is in practice - see this article from 2016

      The TLDR You end up with LONG wait lists and a confusing system of (necessary) loops-holes which decrease security for renters.

      More detail
      If you want to rent in Stockholm, you have to wait 10-20+ YEARS before a place becomes available; there simply is not enough supply to cover the demand. Of course, most people (like me) needed a place to live without waiting 20 years, so the NORMAL way to rent in Stockholm is via a variety of (necessary) 'black-market loopholes'; the main one being a short-term sub-let.

      The sub-let (second-hand leases in Swedish) are at market-driven (higher) rates and can only be for the short term - six months to a year. This IS the way to rent in Stockholm. Problem is, because it's a 'loop-hole' it's only allowed for short periods of time and renters have to move every ~6 months (or the first hand leaser risks a fine). Other loopholes exist, but they carry the same problems.

      In summary, unless you inherit a rental contract from an older relative (yes, that's a thing), or wait 10+ yrs, you have to move every six months + pay normal/market rates at crazy prices (even higher, due to less supply).

      Fun fact - in the Swedish system, those with rental contracts actually become pseudo-landlords, as, (if you have a first-hand lease), then you can sub-let for (a premium) at the natural market rate.

      Extra facts - because most Stockholmers have to move every ~6 months… it's a big part of the reason behind the Swedish minimalist furniture style. The Government also gives every citizen a 'moving day' each year - one you can claim from work (like a sick day) due to this issue…. people can rage against the machine all they want, but the free-market always emerges.

      • SlartiBartFozz on 01/08/2023 - 21:56
        +8

        Holy crap, that's a ridiculous system — another case of life being stranger than fiction!

        • The Wololo Wombat on 01/08/2023 - 22:10
          +7

          Yea, it's what happens when the Government restricts the free market for an inelastic commodity. Many examples both contemporary and throughout history. We should know better… but we have not (refuse to?) learned.

      • CalmLemons on 01/08/2023 - 22:15
        +5

        Minimalist ikea furniture - I get it, this is why they design it to last only 6 months, so everytime someone move in sweden, they have to buy new furniture, cause the ikea shit falls apart.

        GENIUS.

      • R4 on 03/08/2023 - 17:51
        +2

        Interesting and I never knew any of this.

        And to think that we're always told how Scandinavia is the best at everything and we should emulate them.

        • The Wololo Wombat on 03/08/2023 - 18:14
          +1

          Mate. I've a lot more stories like this in other contexts too! My time there was eye-opening. There's a lot of cool things about Scandinavian countries, but it's funny how blind we are to our own success as a nation (and the reasons for it).

          • R4 on 03/08/2023 - 21:28

            @The Wololo Wombat: I agree - we live in an extraordinarily successful country. I'm sick of hearing about how they do this that and the other in Norway or Iceland and how better they are than us. Scandinavia is a small group of 5-6 countries with tiny populations. They have great cohesive societies (although that is being tested in some of them via unchecked 3rd world migration) that function well and they have good economies. But what they have and do is rarely replicated around the World. Interestingly, Australia is stronger economically that all of them apart from Norway (and maybe Iceland), so we must be doing something right!

    • LVlahov on 01/08/2023 - 23:07
      +15

      Australia is already building as many homes as it can, so releasing more land won't change the situation, similarly investing in public housing since we are building at capacity already will not increase the number of homes being built.

      Importing more builders also will not work, as then we need more doctors, nurses and so on to support the growth in population, and nowhere to put them all.

      Isn't it funny how there is one solution that is never considered: stop importing a record number of people. This massively reduces the demand for housing at the margins, and removes the price growth pressure.

      • sakurashu on 02/08/2023 - 17:10
        +4

        Agreed and yet we are talking about higher immigration over the coming years

      • twig on 02/08/2023 - 21:11
        -2

        Gonna be that guy that gets thrown out of the building for suggesting common sense; Aussies should stop treating property as an investment.

        Get investors out of the market and your supply problem solves itself.

        • LVlahov on 03/08/2023 - 03:36
          +5

          It doesn't solve itself at all. The market is building at capacity. There being less people financing housing does not increase the number of builders who can physically build houses. It doesn't increase the amount of houses.

          Importing builders in an overall extreme flow of migrants also doesn't solve the problem, because they all need houses themselves, which then requires more builders.

          The answer is ending insane levels of migration. This massively reduces the number of new homes required, which means building at capacity can come much closer to meeting the required level. it also reduces the return to investors from capital gains, seeing investors naturally settle in the market to a desirable level.. meeting the demand of renters in excess of those who can afford to enter the market as buyers.

        • nujee on 04/08/2023 - 05:36
          +2

          Sidh…people will always need to rent. Is not just about housing affordability, it’s also about mobility and contribution to the economy; people moving closer to work for a period of time or a life stage. 2.9% of the rental stock is government supplied in Australia- rest is all individual mom and pop…but yeah let’s kick them out and watch an already crap situation go nuclear. grabs popcorn

      • supersabroso on 03/08/2023 - 10:31
        -4

        Stopping immigration isn't the solution, we depend on more people to come in for us to get wealthier. The main problem behind house prices is negative gearing and the 50% capital gains discount in addition to limitations with building high-rise apartments. If you remove this, there will be a lot more houses available for people to purchase and live in, rather than rich people who want a tax offset to start their empire of rent slaves. Housing should be for the people to live in, not for the rich to lord over the poor so that they can get juicy bank accounts and retire early.

        • LVlahov on 03/08/2023 - 13:54
          +4

          Do we NEED to get wealthier? Bearing in mind we are already some of the wealthiest people in the world, and almost all gains in wealth from mass immigration go to the top 10%? With near nil to negative benefits for the bottom 60%?

          Why the addiction to ponzi growth?

          The cause of a shortage is mismatched supply to demand, and with supply running at capacity (Australia has never built more houses annually than it is doing now), the shortage is being caused by population growth, not investors.

          People need to realise the reason so many people, such as yourself, react as if mass immigration is a necessity is multiple decades of propaganda programming to make people reflexive defenders of it.

          It isn't worth the cost, to the environment, to our way of life.

          Smaller blocks? yay right? More crowded roads? yay right? More environmental damage and pressure on our water supplies? yay right? Less room for nature? yay right? More high cost retrofit infrastructure requirements? yay right? No financial benefit, instead a financial cost for the bottom 60% in society? yay right?

          Which societies provided the highest standard of living through the 90's and ranked highest on the Human Development Index? BIG nations? USA? India? China? Or small.. like Slovenia, Iceland, Norway, and so on?

          • pogichinoy on 03/08/2023 - 14:55
            +1

            @LVlahov: A lot of us want to build wealth so we can retire early *FIRE) and/or create generational wealth.

            Smaller blocks? yay right? More crowded roads? yay right? More environmental damage and pressure on our water supplies? yay right? Less room for nature? yay right? More high cost retrofit infrastructure requirements? yay right? No financial benefit, instead a financial cost for the bottom 60% in society? yay right?

            Smaller blocks? Bound to happen as land becomes more scarce and especially land in the popular/in demand areas.

            All the other things listed is a result of poor city planning by the govt.

            • LVlahov on 03/08/2023 - 15:37

              @pogichinoy: "as land becomes more scarce"

              Yeah, for what reason?

              Give you a hint.. it starts with im…..

              How moral to see the nation of others as something to be sold out for personal financial wealth, damn the cost and experience this forces onto others.

              And wouldn't Australia be better off importing more people with such dreams! /sarc

              • pogichinoy on 04/08/2023 - 12:52
                +1

                @LVlahov: Immigration is an inevitability. No doubt about that.

                Moral? Which countries and their people do everything out of morality?

                Life is a competition. Everything from the jobs you are working, to the assets you own, to your status in society.

                You either play the game or wait for the rules to change. Wake me up when there's are revolution.

        • mitt on 04/08/2023 - 23:00

          "We" dont depend on more people to come in to get wealthier, those wealthy enough to have their fortunes tied to GDP (not GDP per capita) do. "We" get to endure mass migration decoupling wages from productivity to maximise return on capital investment all while enduring more strained living conditions.

          "We" indeed.

      • dcash on 03/08/2023 - 14:32
        +3

        Indeed, it's the obvious solution that the ALP and so-called Greens (should be remained the Socialists) won't even talk about, because they rely on the population Ponzi scheme to support endless growth figures and new voters. The downside is that quality of life for everybody else continues to decline.

        • nujee on 04/08/2023 - 05:39
          +3

          There has to be a scalable model…. We need to import people in but at a manageable pace. And you’re100% right- the greens imo are the worst thing to happen to Australian politics and that is saying something.

          • dcash on 04/08/2023 - 07:33

            @nujee: I don't think anyone is suggesting to completely stop immigration; as you say, it must be done on a level that is manageable. Until such time as infrastructure (roads, transport, housing, schools, hospitals and so on) catches up, possibly it should be as simple as people in = people out. If we can't afford to upgrade infrastructure without importing more people than we're exporting, then clearly we are stuffed.

            • nujee on 05/08/2023 - 07:39
              +1

              @dcash: Yeah no I agree the current approach is unsustainable. Politicians playing games with the country’s future and resources. My family immigrated here ourselves so the irony of this statement isn’t lost on me but it has to be a planned approach.

        • larndis on 05/08/2023 - 12:39

          @dcash, so there has never been immigration under a coalition government? why try to make this is left/right thing? all governments are running a ponzi scheme that relies on skilled migration

          • dcash on 06/08/2023 - 16:20

            @larndis: Fair call. Howard was one of the worst when it came to increasing immigration. Your comment regarding 'skilled immigration' I disagree with, because the only skill most migrants seem to have is that of welching off Australian taxpayers. Did someone say "family visa"…!

    • JakeyJooJoo on 01/08/2023 - 23:38
      -1

      I think your suggestion is actually what the Greens want. Playing politics, they have to ask for more extreme stuff like a rent freeze, with the idea that Labor with rebuttal with a proposed % cap which is then accepted.

      • dcash on 07/08/2023 - 08:02
        +1

        Except in this case the housing bill will be defeated again and Albo will just let it die, with the added bonus that he can then claim the housing crisis is all the fault of the LNP and Greens for voting against his bill.

        • JakeyJooJoo on 07/08/2023 - 22:25

          He can claim that if he wants but the bill was already passed and they haven't made amendments. Can't blame other parties for Labor's unwillingness to negotiate despite the bill already failing to get support once, and a significant portion of the population being unhappy with their current bill as it stands.

    • jatbinks on 02/08/2023 - 13:47
      +4

      Well if they can't pay up then they can sell it. And a person who has rented all their life can maybe have a chance at owning a home. Win win.

      • bargbazza on 02/08/2023 - 15:37
        +2

        where is that person who rented all their life going to " magically" come up with the finances to afford it just because property prices went 20-40% whatever % down . If they were in a position to buy, would they have not started somewhere already albeit a bit less desirable than what they would go for? this logic always baffles me!

        • jatbinks on 02/08/2023 - 17:05
          +1

          Simple math honestly. It's alot easier to afford a 500k vs a 1 million house. Don't think you can get a house for 500k even in the less desirable fringe suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne currently.

          • sakurashu on 02/08/2023 - 17:13
            +1

            @jatbinks: What percentage of people do you think are in that bucket? Imo house prices would have to drop even further than 50% to have a sizeable impact on existing renters who would like to buy

            • jatbinks on 02/08/2023 - 17:51

              @sakurashu: Not sure but 100% of the people I know including me. I have 200k+ income, good amount of savings and still can't afford a house in a good suburb (unable to get a loan for approx 1 mill). The only place I can afford is crapshoot properties in places like Tarneit or Craigieburn in VIC and I'm probably better off renting than moving there.

              • deveshwar0 on 02/08/2023 - 18:15

                @jatbinks: It'll be interesting to know where, what and how much are you renting for vs what you're wanting to buy.

              • supersabroso on 03/08/2023 - 10:46

                @jatbinks: If you're on $200k, then you're missing out by not purchasing property. It's a common mistake to want what is beyond your reach too early, I made the same mistake. Start with a nice 2-3 bedroom apartment for $600k (brand new, get all the first home buyer grants/benefits). Once you're ready/need to upgrade in 3-6 years time, you can sell that for $700k-$900k. You don't want to start at your maximum debt level as you'll be a interest slave to the bank which is why you've come to the conclusion that you might as well be a rent slave to some land lord, it's the same thing. Although it's less risk, you miss out on the tax free capital gains.

              • MrFunSocks on 03/08/2023 - 11:29

                @jatbinks:

                I have 200k+ income, good amount of savings and still can't afford a house in a good suburb

                If you earn 200k+ you can afford a house in a good suburb. You might not be able to buy the mansion you want, but there's no way you couldn't buy a house/townhouse/unit unless you're absolutely terrible with money.

            • SolitaryMan on 02/08/2023 - 23:01

              @sakurashu: You opinion doesn’t really factor into it unless you’ve actually done any quantitative research.

              • sakurashu on 02/08/2023 - 23:45

                @SolitaryMan: Lol the data is everywhere - check out the HES summary page 59 for indicators of financial stress - 45.6% of households having at least one of the indicators (https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/6530.02…).

                Or the banks have some data themselves - NAB only had 2000 responses for their data on average savings amounts but Westpac has this: https://www.westpac.com.au/personal-banking/solutions/budget…

                You can say people don't save money but could service the debt of a mortgage and sure, they do and just get bigger mortgages: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/housing/housing-occ…. shows the owners with a mortgage group increase year on year despite the ratio of house price to income growing - https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2012/dec/pdf/bu… is particularly good as it breaks down the price-to-income for all capital cities separately

                EDIT: There is a drop overall in owners with and without a mortgage, so how many of this 5% would be able to afford a mortgage with a price dip? Even if it was all of this group (reversing the trend from 1990 to now) it would only be 17.2% of existing renters - I guess I can think that's not a very high percentage and that's just my opinion man

                • sakurashu on 03/08/2023 - 00:02

                  @sakurashu: Sydney's ratio being 12.96* with the 1990 value being 6.26 - maybe halving house prices back to a 6ish ratio will help 17.2% of renters purchase their own home - my opinion is that this group isn't the group that is being hit by the rent increases though (being the richest renters at the fringe of buying a home)

        • supersabroso on 03/08/2023 - 10:40

          Honestly, you'd be surprised at how many people are unwilling to compromise on the size of the house/apartment and the location. It definitely baffles me! However, once you see it from the parent's perspective it will make a lot more sense to you for that group of people. They go to all sorts of extremes and make the wrong financial decision because they believe that their kids futures depend on going to the right school by being in the catchment area.

      • nujee on 05/08/2023 - 07:43
        +2

        Mate it just doesn’t work this way- they don’t just have to pay the mortgage- it’s all the other costs- I pay $3.2k a year in rates on my ip. Plus I also pay water supply, $1.3k a year to insure the building and any maintenance that’s required.

        I’m not expecting anyone to be grateful, but demonising people who are subsidising the roof over someone’s head is a bit much.

        • jatbinks on 05/08/2023 - 08:13
          +1

          That's fine because at the end of the day you have a fully paid off 6 -7 figure asset in your name and the renter who paid most of not all of your costs does not. You are not doing it out of altruism.

          • larndis on 05/08/2023 - 12:42
            +1

            @jatbinks: where can you buy an investment property that the rent will cover all of the costs?

            • nujee on 05/08/2023 - 13:02

              @larndis: I have seen some in Rockhampton and those regional areas where the property will ‘wash its face’ or come very close to it (only $1 to $2k out of pocket every year) so it is doable but not as much in residential I suppose.

  • deveshwar0 on 31/07/2023 - 21:30
    +33

    Rent freeze is an absurd idea IMO.
    Why only punish the landlords.
    Why not put a two year freeze on everything?

    • boomramada on 31/07/2023 - 21:41
      +44

      Because Greens always got the balance of powers so they comes up with dumb ideas?

      • markathome on 01/08/2023 - 23:28
        +5

        What bugs me about the original post…and there's a lot…

        • The 2-year rent freeze isn't actually the Greens ideas. It's actually one of two good ideas from the world's worst premier Dan Andrews (the other being that you should be able to eat on public transport).

        Furthermore there are few (if any) reputable economists who believe Labor's package is of sufficient scale to meaningfully tackle the housing crisis.

        But the thing that irks me the most is that this is Australia - one of the richest countries in the world and one of the few that enjoys a national pastime of people complaining how poor they are. So how rich are you Trying2SaveABuck? 1 million? 2 million? 3 million? 4 million? More?

        I myself, am regrettably poor, and like all poor people actually think some humanity in economic policy would be a good thing and that what Australia has done turning housing into an investment vehicle is utterly insane.

        • SpainKing on 02/08/2023 - 11:43
          +2

          Upvoted because I should be allowed to eat on public transport

          I always see babies getting away with it and leaving their crumbs all over the floor. Selfish little pricks

          • markathome on 02/08/2023 - 13:24

            @SpainKing: Cheers SpainKing! I’m a little richer and a little less cranky today. Still curious what these rich guys consider rich.

          • Jaspa7 on 02/08/2023 - 13:56
            +1

            @SpainKing: Eat the poor, eat the rich, eat the babies.. eat EVERYTHING

        • supersabroso on 03/08/2023 - 11:12

          Very interesting article to see that 8.5% of our population are USD millionaires in terms of wealth! That's crazy, as that's about $1.53M AUD which means the actual percentage of AUD millionaires is a lot higher. So basically more than 1 out of every 10 Aussies are millionaires, I'll never be able to look at Aussies the same again lol, really puts you in your place as to how poor you are.

          • baldur on 03/08/2023 - 12:38

            @supersabroso: Finally you have noticed how wealthy Australia is. There is literally no poor people in Australia, at least in comparison with median/overall status of the rest of the world.

      • ThithLord on 02/08/2023 - 09:46

        In their defence, they've always come up with dumb ideas

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join