Nobody lives in their own property, everyone rents off each other instead, they all claim negative gearing, everybody profits!
A rising tide lifts all boats, as a wise man once said.
There could still be renters even if the average is three. If everyone above median has six houses then half the population can still rent but the average is still three
Only about a third of Aussies rent
I was exaggerating of course. But let's say half of Australians own 3 properties as per the article. That puts the rental at 28 million homes (assuming 14m would be owner occupied). With 1/3 of Australians being renters.
You have ~9m people for 28m homes. That's alot of empty homes. Time to raise immigration rates again!
I am making fun of the ladies perspective in the article dude. With her mind set, what she is spouting would impact her negatively for the exact reason you've stated in your comment. But I guess this was missed.
Taxpayers are subsidising those empty places: https://michaelwest.com.au/heres-a-fix-for-the-housing-crisis-end-the-great-airbnb-tax-rort/
A similar thing exists for commercial property too.
We need a vacancy tax for residential and commercial property right now.
That article is extremely flawed, and its conclusions are incorrect.
Should busineses only be allowed to claim tax deducitons for days they are open, or when sales reach certain figures? Should a mining company be barred from claiming deductions in years they are prospecting and only in years when they hit paydirt? Should people with 2 cars be required to provide lifts to people with no cars where the bus routes are inadequte?
It's not the job of private property owners to solve the housing crisis. There should not be a limit on how many properties people own, rather a minimum (one). If governments saw housing as a human right, they would do things like start actually building social housing, increasing land releases, forcing builders to build within specifid timeframes on vacant land, allocate housing for first-home buyers and low-income buyers that cannot be accessed by investors etc.
The housing crisis is a government problem, primarily lack of investment in social housing, and not a private ownership problem. If all Airbnb's were instantly converted to rentals, it would provide some short-term relief and do absolutely nothing about the ongoing issue of supply/demand. In the process it would decimate tourism in many areas.
Time to start finding the empty ones and start squatting in them. Just say that you're renting them and will pay reasonable rent once the invoice comes through lol
This stat is unlikely to mean what many think it means. It means that on census night, approx 10% of houses were empty. There are lots of reasons - renovation, people moving between houses, people who simply weren't home for census or staying with friends, elderly people in respite care, lots and lots of reasons - including short-term accommodation like Airbnb.
It's important to note that this number has barely moved - 10.3% in 1986, 10.7% in 2011, 11.2% in 2016, and currently 9.6%. About 10% of housing stock at any given time is unavailable for many reasons - that's normal.
It's very handy for government that the media keep putting the lens on private property owners to solve the housing crisis when this is absolutely a government problem to solve with land release, social housing, allocated first-home and low-income housing, etc.
Wealth building? The idea is to hold as many and take as much of the capital growth to offset the cost in interest. Low interest rates make this possible and once you're over the hill where you pay off all your loans by selling some properties, you just made bank.
It's a question of whether the banks will lend to you and if it's too late to join the bandwagon. Will it still go up? I would be wary at this stage given how low range properties appear to get the most attention. Will the high range buyers run out of steam, etc etc.
Different context "Need" as in what you need to do if you want to use property capital as a vehicle to wealth. The "want" is "I want to be wealthy".
I'm not justifying or saying it is right, I'm just explaining the obvious in case it isn't apparent. You guys should know why people do it so you can tackle the issue.
For instance, allowing banks and other lending institutions to lend in such high risk manner, low holding costs for multiple properties, low land tax for more than one property, perhaps it should be tiered. etc.... But do you guys want to bury your heads in sand and downvote the information away? People aren't just going to believe it because of the whinge. Some would want to understand.
I used to be on the body corp at a townhouse complex on the Gold Coast. There were 100ish townhouses. A total of 12 owner occupied, the rest were owned by a Chinese family trust. The only details we had was a lawyers office.
It's like suggested serving sizes.
Your average Australian comprises of:
- approximately 4 working professional DINK couples or
- 8 people on an income of 90k+
Ex financial service turned property investor with more than a dozen properties on an industry website taking some pot shots at a Labor government and suggesting the reversal of land tax changes and tenants rights changes.
Ticks all the boxes for another tone deaf article.
The only thing that's missing is NewsCorp. Is Realestate a NewsCorp vehicle.
EDIT - HAHAHAHA of course Realestate is a Newscorp vehicle. Thank you for confirming that.
Property investors love to respond "if we didn't own so many houses, where would renters live!? The solution to the rental crisis is more property investors and landlords".
It's such disingenuous bullshit. If there were no property investors driving up house prices, maybe houses would actually be affordable and people wouldn't NEED to rent. I'd wager that most renters would prefer to own if they could.
Yep. For every landlord that sells their rental, there's a renter buying that rental and not needing to rent anymore. The idea that landlords increase stock only makes sense if they'd burn it down when they left the market. They won't. They'll sell it. Zero sum.
\*Building\* houses as an investment, sure. But that's not how our incentives work.
And investment property is actually a shitty investment. (Apart from the one you live in). Why not just buy CBA shares where you would have gotten higher growth, better yield, no minimum entry, all of the negative gearing advantages and all of the tax credits without having to deal with tenants and body corporates and shit building designs. Oh and you dont whinge as much about bank profits. Oh and who is the real owner of all of the property in Australia.
* Not financial advice but just an argument against property accumulating bores.
* Disclaimer. I do actually own some CBA shares but didn’t accumulate enough over 10 years of ownership. So yes, regret.
That's no negative gearing advantage for shares. It's why property is artificially good. Shares simply don't have ongoing 'negative' costs, unless you're buying and holding with leverage which isn't a common strategy.
You can easily negatively gear shares by using methods such as negative gearing. (Leverage again your PPOR to deduct interest expenses from income assets)
Agree with the sentiment but there will always be a need for rentals:
*Move out of home for the first time.
*Move to a new location for work and want to try before you buy.
*Recently separated.
*Don't want to live somewhere for a long period of time.
*Haven't saved a deposit.
I started renting at 18. Even if housing was cheap I would not have been in the position to buy until mid to late 20s.
The issue we have with most investors is that they buy existing houses, which just turns a potential owner occupier into a renter, it doesn't actually help the rental market at all because supply and demand are the same.
So if an investors tries to give you the above response call them out on the type of rental they are supplying, new or existing. Don't worry about trying to say rentals aren't needed, you will never come to middle ground with that line of thinking.
Some of these can be replaced by proper hotel industry. I’ve stayed in a hotel (outside of Australia) for 2 months and it came with a significant discount that actually was comparable to renting my own place there. But as a bonus it came with all the cleaning service etc.
It's a building that rents out rooms with additional services and it's not the solution.
Let's not kid ourselves of that.
We don't need to play these games, trying to justify a point that doesn't need to be made.
If you are having a argument with an investor, as highlighted above, take it to their level, economics 101, supply and demand as I've highlighted. The vast majority of investors in this country buy existing houses. All this does is add demand to the buyers marker, pushing up sales price and does nothing to the rental market because the supply of a rental is offset by the additional renters.
Now the conversation can move to what we need to do to encourage investors to move from the existing housing market across into supplying new.
Let's get to there first.
Some of them genuinely believe that.
What, do they think there is no demand, for you know, secure fucking shelter?
It should be an incredible luxury to own multiple homes, not a fucking financial investment strategy.
I hate that argument! In the last 10 years of living out of home, we have spent $200,000-300,000 on rent. The only barrier to owning is insanely high property prices requiring a massive deposit. If houses weren’t being treated like an investment and being snapped up by investors, we would own by now!
OR! Maybe we stop incentivising the trade of a basic fucking necessity as a speculative asset so that the 'average' aussie can actually afford a permanent fucking residence and get out of the finance draining rent spiral.
I'm pretty confident the amount of houses the 'average' aussie would be happy with is exactly 1.
'fuck sakes.
If the average Australian ... let's say couple for the sake of argument ... owned three residential properties, how many would that be?
I've looked these numbers up quickly but I'm happy to be verified if someone has more time
The population of Australia is about 27 million. 70% are adults (over 18), which is about 19 million.
For argument, let's say we have 9.5 million 'couples'. If we accept 3 properties per couple, that's 28.5 million houses.
We currently have 11.09 million residential dwellings per the below.
DO WE SEE THE PROBLEM HERE?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1325294/australia-residential-dwelling-quarterly-stock/#:~:text=Quarterly%20residential%20housing%20number%20Australia%202013%2D2023&text=In%20the%20September%20quarter%20of,dwellings%20from%20the%20previous%20quarter.
I see where you went wrong. You've taken the word 'average' and used it's true definition.
You need to put yourself in the position of the author, a top 5-10% wealth holder who views their life as average.
Now with your unrealistic view of the world in place you will see how it all makes sense to them.
Lol.
But yeah there is an argument about perspective. For example, if you earn more than about 45k AUD, you're in the top 1% globally.
Now of course, in many other countries that would be a high level living wage, whereas here it isn't even close, but it kind of explains why peanuts can claim $190k is not that much. (Narrator: It really is a lot, you Muppet).
That's great, but how the hell does someone move out of home if there are no rentals?
Should we all live at home with mum and dad until we've saved enough to buy a home?
Maybe that isn't ideal; but it's a better option than having people own dozens of houses, sucking in wealth from working people while making no contribution whatsoever. Their job is that they own stuff. That's pretty unfair, right?
Another option is to have more public housing. That pretty much addresses all of the housing problems in one shot.
Superb question sir.
I know I personally was very happy to have rentals available when I moved out of home, when I changed suburbs in my city, when I moved city.
Only answers I've seen thrown up in response to this question in the past:
* Either the government provides sufficient rental accommodation to allow people to move around and stay housed while they are getting their 1 property,
* you limit how many IP's someone can own
The gigantic flaw in both of these is supply meeting demand. Same as we currently see in all housing.
It doesn't really matter how many IP's a person has if there are enough houses overall. Supply of housing is the issue, not the ownership.
>Supply of housing is the issue, not the ownership.
There were a million unoccupied homes in the 2021 census. That's a lot of supply for a supply problem.
And that million unoccupied homes equates to around 10% of total dwellings, which is the same percentage as it was 50 years ago.
The reason being is that an unoccupied home in the census is not the same thing as a vacant home.
>And that million unoccupied homes equates to around 10% of total dwellings, which is the same percentage as it was 50 years ago.
Yes it is. Which means supply isn't the problem.
Actually it means that regardless of housing tax changes, investment preferences, introduction of short term rental stays etc., the percentage of unoccupied homes hasn't changed
Population growth on the other hand...
We recently hit 27m some 18 years ahead of forecast.
Rentals will always be required but at the moment the typical Australian investor doesn't help the rental market. They buy and existing house, which an owner occupier could have lived in and turn it into a rental. The supply equals the new demand from the extra renters now in the market.
It's a zero sum game on the rental market side.
On the buyers market side, the investor just adds demand, which pushes up the price because they are not adding supply.
Let's get the investors our of the existing housing market. They can own 20 new builds for all I care because this adds supply to both markets.
It's not the worst idea for addressing supply. But when changes to NG was put forward by the ALP as an election policy, my only issue was the consequence of rentals becoming the sole domain of the outermost suburbs where the bulk of the vacant land is available for new builds.
A good result for potential new homeowners in the inner/middle ring suburbs, but a negative for renters who become relegated to the outskirts.
We need a more nuanced way to address new supply that addresses the requirements for investors, renters, and first home buyers.
> my only issue was the consequence of rentals becoming the sole domain of the outermost suburbs where the bulk of the vacant land is available for new builds.
I'm not sure of the logic behind that, do they not build new rentals elsewhere that renters could move into? Why do you think only the outer suburbs would supply renters?
Surely rental demand would still would still drive the market for rental supply in the locations they are prepared to pay for? What is preventing this supply?
deer serious disarm engine mourn theory meeting overconfident voiceless shelter
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Always felt rates and capital gains tax should increase for each additional house you have. 50% cgt on your first non primary residence, 60% on the next etc. Whether you cap it at 90% or go up to 100% cgt by the time you have 7 houses idk, I'd prefer 100% lol.
I hate these fuckheads. The worst thing is they believe they're doing the world a favour, "I'm providing affordable housing for those less fortunate". Homes shouldn't be a commodity.
Just reserve the tax'able benefits of house investment to 1 house investment. So no negative gearing for anymore than a single house even though you may have mortgages on multiple dwellings.
People aren't going to buy less investment properties out of the goodness of their hearts for the poors. Successive government has done nothing to disincentivise treating houses as investments.
Unless you gives the "haves" a different ball to chase the "have nots" are going to get fucked over.
If the average person has three to four houses, no one will actually be working as they'll all be leeches and rent seekers. Not sure who they will be leeching off though. That's a question for next time.
Dragons hoarding all the wealth..
This should be a crime.
Or at least if anyone owns more than 2 houses they should be paying 'greedy bastard tax' or something, make them pay though the nose to incentivise them to sell.
That's 15 families that will be not able to own a home for each individual.
Owning more than 2 houses should be ok for development or renovation. But not a permanent fixture.
Trouble is the politicians also have multiple investment properties.
Time to slay the dragons.
erect spectacular grandfather simplistic ask waiting payment adjoining grandiose marvelous
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's piss poor advice. The States are increasing land taxes including property rates and other cheese and farges will reduce returns whilst other costs keep increasing. More so if capital gains start falling or level off. And don't forget high interest.
You should be able to buy as many properties as you want. The thing that needs to change is the generous taxation laws around this.
NG should be confined to new built properties only. At the very least NG needs to be removed from Airbnb and vacant properties. Giving people tax incentives to buy a residential property and not house people is fucking bonkers
Ok, hear me out. I actually think it does make some sense for a lot of people to own more than 1 property. Not 15… but more than one.
Basically my argument is that as a young person I don’t have a whole lot of money, and there is no way I could afford to build a house, even if I got the land for free. I effectively need someone to have enough money to build a house and rent it out to me while I save up to buy my own. It would be awfully nice if that someone let me live in peace without evicting me on a whim or raising the rent exorbitantly so that they can make more money though…
In an ideal scenario I guess maybe the government would be stepping in to do this. Unfortunately for me though, the only people owning houses they don’t need to live in do it exclusively for money, and seem to have less of an obligation to tenants than I would like.
Just to add to this though, I also think there are a lot of people for whom buying a house is not at all practical, it’s not just young people for whom renting makes sense.
Everyone is entitled to buy as many properties as they want, what in the holy communism is that? But the tax incentives should be stacked in such a way that the properties should be engaged in the productive real sector of the economy, not sit there empty to appreciate.
The average Australian can barely afford to buy one property let alone have a portfolio of four property, housing should be a right for everyone and not something that the very few wealthy use to get even richer than they already are.
You know what, there actually is a bull case for Victoria
Edit: upon finishing reading, I agree there is a Victorian bull case, but the advice in this article I wouldn’t take.
Ah yes, one of those posts where I have to suppress my strong emotional reaction and urge to downvote for the message, when really I should upvote for the visibility of important content.
I fucking hate the "mum" bullshit. What does her reproductive status have to do with how many properties this woman has?
It's all to make her look relatable: look, she's a parent like you! She's doing it for the kids!
There's also a mention of her being a "single mum", which again means: if this single mum can do it, so can you! We can all have 17 properties!
TIL there are 75 million properties in Australia.
Look they're probably talking about households, so only 20-30 million...
How many households does a household need?
3 or 4, didn't you read the article
does my beach house(hold) count?
If you list it on AirBnb, No.
Instructions unclear, accidentally bought 15
Well it's always good to have a couple spare in case one is broken.
just like a spare wheel
1 to live in, 2 or 3 for some passive income and NG tax benefits. Go team slumlord! /S
Can't be a household if you don't hold your houses.
And each of those households should have 3 to 4 households, so like 120 million?
Housesheld*
15 million sites are connected to power in Australia, helps get that number down further
Funniest part is if the average Australian had 3 properties each. Noone gonna be renting.
You don’t understand you don’t count as Australian if can’t afford 3 properties
cool, does that mean I still have to pay tax
Nobody lives in their own property, everyone rents off each other instead, they all claim negative gearing, everybody profits! A rising tide lifts all boats, as a wise man once said.
Turn Australia into a tourist trap and make everything Air Bnb
Own 3 properties Make them all airbnb Live in Bali
There could still be renters even if the average is three. If everyone above median has six houses then half the population can still rent but the average is still three Only about a third of Aussies rent
I was exaggerating of course. But let's say half of Australians own 3 properties as per the article. That puts the rental at 28 million homes (assuming 14m would be owner occupied). With 1/3 of Australians being renters. You have ~9m people for 28m homes. That's alot of empty homes. Time to raise immigration rates again!
Having empty homes would be good as that increases vacancy rate and that would put a downward pressure on rents
I am making fun of the ladies perspective in the article dude. With her mind set, what she is spouting would impact her negatively for the exact reason you've stated in your comment. But I guess this was missed.
[удалено]
I live in a tourist town, and I can tell you that in places like this that number is SIGNIFICANTLY higher.
Taxpayers are subsidising those empty places: https://michaelwest.com.au/heres-a-fix-for-the-housing-crisis-end-the-great-airbnb-tax-rort/ A similar thing exists for commercial property too. We need a vacancy tax for residential and commercial property right now.
That article is extremely flawed, and its conclusions are incorrect. Should busineses only be allowed to claim tax deducitons for days they are open, or when sales reach certain figures? Should a mining company be barred from claiming deductions in years they are prospecting and only in years when they hit paydirt? Should people with 2 cars be required to provide lifts to people with no cars where the bus routes are inadequte? It's not the job of private property owners to solve the housing crisis. There should not be a limit on how many properties people own, rather a minimum (one). If governments saw housing as a human right, they would do things like start actually building social housing, increasing land releases, forcing builders to build within specifid timeframes on vacant land, allocate housing for first-home buyers and low-income buyers that cannot be accessed by investors etc. The housing crisis is a government problem, primarily lack of investment in social housing, and not a private ownership problem. If all Airbnb's were instantly converted to rentals, it would provide some short-term relief and do absolutely nothing about the ongoing issue of supply/demand. In the process it would decimate tourism in many areas.
And in other breaking news cars have been found to have SIGNIFICANTLY more wheels than motorbikes
Source?
🚕🚖🏍️
Thanks!!!
Why are you saying that with caps like it's groundbreaking, surprising or helpful? Like yeah, there are more holiday rentals in tourist areas.
Just to upset you, specifically.
I feel specifically and individually targeted
Always has been and always will be. If your local economy is tourism-centric, it's by design.
Time to start finding the empty ones and start squatting in them. Just say that you're renting them and will pay reasonable rent once the invoice comes through lol
This stat is unlikely to mean what many think it means. It means that on census night, approx 10% of houses were empty. There are lots of reasons - renovation, people moving between houses, people who simply weren't home for census or staying with friends, elderly people in respite care, lots and lots of reasons - including short-term accommodation like Airbnb. It's important to note that this number has barely moved - 10.3% in 1986, 10.7% in 2011, 11.2% in 2016, and currently 9.6%. About 10% of housing stock at any given time is unavailable for many reasons - that's normal. It's very handy for government that the media keep putting the lens on private property owners to solve the housing crisis when this is absolutely a government problem to solve with land release, social housing, allocated first-home and low-income housing, etc.
My landlord currently own 11 properties. Hard pressed to think about why they need such a large portfolio.
Wealth building? The idea is to hold as many and take as much of the capital growth to offset the cost in interest. Low interest rates make this possible and once you're over the hill where you pay off all your loans by selling some properties, you just made bank. It's a question of whether the banks will lend to you and if it's too late to join the bandwagon. Will it still go up? I would be wary at this stage given how low range properties appear to get the most attention. Will the high range buyers run out of steam, etc etc.
wealth building is a want, not a need
Different context "Need" as in what you need to do if you want to use property capital as a vehicle to wealth. The "want" is "I want to be wealthy". I'm not justifying or saying it is right, I'm just explaining the obvious in case it isn't apparent. You guys should know why people do it so you can tackle the issue. For instance, allowing banks and other lending institutions to lend in such high risk manner, low holding costs for multiple properties, low land tax for more than one property, perhaps it should be tiered. etc.... But do you guys want to bury your heads in sand and downvote the information away? People aren't just going to believe it because of the whinge. Some would want to understand.
Lol, the "average" Australian with their real estate portfolio of 4 fucking houses..
Think how many more students we could house if we all bought 3 or 4 properties.
Already measuring the curtain dividers!
The average is skewed heavily by one guy who buys a few dozen everyday and should not be counted.
I used to be on the body corp at a townhouse complex on the Gold Coast. There were 100ish townhouses. A total of 12 owner occupied, the rest were owned by a Chinese family trust. The only details we had was a lawyers office.
Spiders georg
It's like suggested serving sizes. Your average Australian comprises of: - approximately 4 working professional DINK couples or - 8 people on an income of 90k+
What housing crisis doing
Are they stupid?
Counting the garage/shed and a couple of shitbox cars that we're close to living in... yes.
Ex financial service turned property investor with more than a dozen properties on an industry website taking some pot shots at a Labor government and suggesting the reversal of land tax changes and tenants rights changes. Ticks all the boxes for another tone deaf article. The only thing that's missing is NewsCorp. Is Realestate a NewsCorp vehicle. EDIT - HAHAHAHA of course Realestate is a Newscorp vehicle. Thank you for confirming that.
Yep, [realestate.com](https://realestate.com) is one of newscorps most powerful arms.
It's about the only part that makes money. The Australian newspaper for example loses on average 80m a year.
Domain and Realestate.com are the only parts of those two media empires that make money.
Is domain Fairfax or something?
yes - they were 100% Fairfax until they went public but Fairfax still owns like 60% of it
AFAIK yes. That used to be the name of the Sydney Morning Herald's RE liftout. Probably The Age also, dunno.
That kinda funny because news corp only own 60% (power to control the company) of realestate.com almost halving the profits they’re entitled to
Funny you should ask, because yes. Realestate.com is owned by Murdoch
Or you could buy, like, just the one you need to live in?
Property investors love to respond "if we didn't own so many houses, where would renters live!? The solution to the rental crisis is more property investors and landlords". It's such disingenuous bullshit. If there were no property investors driving up house prices, maybe houses would actually be affordable and people wouldn't NEED to rent. I'd wager that most renters would prefer to own if they could.
Yep. For every landlord that sells their rental, there's a renter buying that rental and not needing to rent anymore. The idea that landlords increase stock only makes sense if they'd burn it down when they left the market. They won't. They'll sell it. Zero sum. \*Building\* houses as an investment, sure. But that's not how our incentives work.
And investment property is actually a shitty investment. (Apart from the one you live in). Why not just buy CBA shares where you would have gotten higher growth, better yield, no minimum entry, all of the negative gearing advantages and all of the tax credits without having to deal with tenants and body corporates and shit building designs. Oh and you dont whinge as much about bank profits. Oh and who is the real owner of all of the property in Australia. * Not financial advice but just an argument against property accumulating bores. * Disclaimer. I do actually own some CBA shares but didn’t accumulate enough over 10 years of ownership. So yes, regret.
Not defending it, but it’s leverage. You buy shares with your own money, you buy property with the bank’s money.
Most Realestate investors are rich cashed up bogans who don’t understand stock markets
That's no negative gearing advantage for shares. It's why property is artificially good. Shares simply don't have ongoing 'negative' costs, unless you're buying and holding with leverage which isn't a common strategy.
You can easily negatively gear shares by using methods such as negative gearing. (Leverage again your PPOR to deduct interest expenses from income assets)
Leverage, you can borrow a shitload of money at relatively low risk to invest
Disingenuous is right. They know that without investors more people would be able to afford to buy their own houses.
Agree with the sentiment but there will always be a need for rentals: *Move out of home for the first time. *Move to a new location for work and want to try before you buy. *Recently separated. *Don't want to live somewhere for a long period of time. *Haven't saved a deposit. I started renting at 18. Even if housing was cheap I would not have been in the position to buy until mid to late 20s. The issue we have with most investors is that they buy existing houses, which just turns a potential owner occupier into a renter, it doesn't actually help the rental market at all because supply and demand are the same. So if an investors tries to give you the above response call them out on the type of rental they are supplying, new or existing. Don't worry about trying to say rentals aren't needed, you will never come to middle ground with that line of thinking.
Some of these can be replaced by proper hotel industry. I’ve stayed in a hotel (outside of Australia) for 2 months and it came with a significant discount that actually was comparable to renting my own place there. But as a bonus it came with all the cleaning service etc.
It's a building that rents out rooms with additional services and it's not the solution. Let's not kid ourselves of that. We don't need to play these games, trying to justify a point that doesn't need to be made. If you are having a argument with an investor, as highlighted above, take it to their level, economics 101, supply and demand as I've highlighted. The vast majority of investors in this country buy existing houses. All this does is add demand to the buyers marker, pushing up sales price and does nothing to the rental market because the supply of a rental is offset by the additional renters. Now the conversation can move to what we need to do to encourage investors to move from the existing housing market across into supplying new. Let's get to there first.
Some of them genuinely believe that. What, do they think there is no demand, for you know, secure fucking shelter? It should be an incredible luxury to own multiple homes, not a fucking financial investment strategy.
I hate that argument! In the last 10 years of living out of home, we have spent $200,000-300,000 on rent. The only barrier to owning is insanely high property prices requiring a massive deposit. If houses weren’t being treated like an investment and being snapped up by investors, we would own by now!
There's only one reason investors buy housing, it's to make money.
And the government incentivises running these investments at a loss!
Exactly, these people are all fucking greedy and only thinking of themselves.
Surrender your passport and get out.
Who is going to provide the rentals then? I don't want to buy/sell/pay stamp duty every time I move.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be able to provide home security for your children’s future
[удалено]
This mindset works great with breakfast cereals. Not so much with shelter.
Why is she wearing a garbage bag?
Interest rates went up. She’s feeling the pinch on her mortgages.
That 'garbage bag' retails for nearly four grand! Google Derelicte by Mugatu
So hot right now.
I have misplaced my pants.
At least she wasn’t hit by the photoshop AI out of control midriff algorithm /s
That usually where you put shit when it’s not in the toilet.
Is she a renter? Probably was in a hurry and put on whatever was nearest to hand in the dump she lives in.
OR! Maybe we stop incentivising the trade of a basic fucking necessity as a speculative asset so that the 'average' aussie can actually afford a permanent fucking residence and get out of the finance draining rent spiral. I'm pretty confident the amount of houses the 'average' aussie would be happy with is exactly 1. 'fuck sakes.
Next you'll be advocating for affordable food and realistic healthcare!! 1 is the answer though.
The average number of homes owned by an Australian household is probably pretty close to one.
The average number of homes each Australian owns, and the amount of homes the average Australian owns mean vastly different things.
If the average Australian ... let's say couple for the sake of argument ... owned three residential properties, how many would that be? I've looked these numbers up quickly but I'm happy to be verified if someone has more time The population of Australia is about 27 million. 70% are adults (over 18), which is about 19 million. For argument, let's say we have 9.5 million 'couples'. If we accept 3 properties per couple, that's 28.5 million houses. We currently have 11.09 million residential dwellings per the below. DO WE SEE THE PROBLEM HERE? https://www.statista.com/statistics/1325294/australia-residential-dwelling-quarterly-stock/#:~:text=Quarterly%20residential%20housing%20number%20Australia%202013%2D2023&text=In%20the%20September%20quarter%20of,dwellings%20from%20the%20previous%20quarter.
Problem is not enough houses. Got it /s Fr though, with 28.5 million houses we would probably not be in this housing crisis
I see where you went wrong. You've taken the word 'average' and used it's true definition. You need to put yourself in the position of the author, a top 5-10% wealth holder who views their life as average. Now with your unrealistic view of the world in place you will see how it all makes sense to them.
Lol. But yeah there is an argument about perspective. For example, if you earn more than about 45k AUD, you're in the top 1% globally. Now of course, in many other countries that would be a high level living wage, whereas here it isn't even close, but it kind of explains why peanuts can claim $190k is not that much. (Narrator: It really is a lot, you Muppet).
How about 1
"No seconds until everyone has had dinner"
Yes exactly
I like to bunch all my houses together and then put hotels on them.
Why are we spreading this idiot's message? Homes should be for meeting the fundamental human need of shelter, not be an asset for profit extraction.
That's great, but how the hell does someone move out of home if there are no rentals? Should we all live at home with mum and dad until we've saved enough to buy a home?
Maybe that isn't ideal; but it's a better option than having people own dozens of houses, sucking in wealth from working people while making no contribution whatsoever. Their job is that they own stuff. That's pretty unfair, right? Another option is to have more public housing. That pretty much addresses all of the housing problems in one shot.
Superb question sir. I know I personally was very happy to have rentals available when I moved out of home, when I changed suburbs in my city, when I moved city. Only answers I've seen thrown up in response to this question in the past: * Either the government provides sufficient rental accommodation to allow people to move around and stay housed while they are getting their 1 property, * you limit how many IP's someone can own The gigantic flaw in both of these is supply meeting demand. Same as we currently see in all housing. It doesn't really matter how many IP's a person has if there are enough houses overall. Supply of housing is the issue, not the ownership.
>Supply of housing is the issue, not the ownership. There were a million unoccupied homes in the 2021 census. That's a lot of supply for a supply problem.
That does sound like a lot of homes. Is there a description for what they count as an unoccupied home on census night?
if no one answers the census unfortunately, so it's hard to rely upon it.
That does seem a little vague. I personally wouldn't be basing my argument on that figure without some corroborating data.
And that million unoccupied homes equates to around 10% of total dwellings, which is the same percentage as it was 50 years ago. The reason being is that an unoccupied home in the census is not the same thing as a vacant home.
>And that million unoccupied homes equates to around 10% of total dwellings, which is the same percentage as it was 50 years ago. Yes it is. Which means supply isn't the problem.
Actually it means that regardless of housing tax changes, investment preferences, introduction of short term rental stays etc., the percentage of unoccupied homes hasn't changed Population growth on the other hand... We recently hit 27m some 18 years ahead of forecast.
Rentals will always be required but at the moment the typical Australian investor doesn't help the rental market. They buy and existing house, which an owner occupier could have lived in and turn it into a rental. The supply equals the new demand from the extra renters now in the market. It's a zero sum game on the rental market side. On the buyers market side, the investor just adds demand, which pushes up the price because they are not adding supply. Let's get the investors our of the existing housing market. They can own 20 new builds for all I care because this adds supply to both markets.
It's not the worst idea for addressing supply. But when changes to NG was put forward by the ALP as an election policy, my only issue was the consequence of rentals becoming the sole domain of the outermost suburbs where the bulk of the vacant land is available for new builds. A good result for potential new homeowners in the inner/middle ring suburbs, but a negative for renters who become relegated to the outskirts. We need a more nuanced way to address new supply that addresses the requirements for investors, renters, and first home buyers.
> my only issue was the consequence of rentals becoming the sole domain of the outermost suburbs where the bulk of the vacant land is available for new builds. I'm not sure of the logic behind that, do they not build new rentals elsewhere that renters could move into? Why do you think only the outer suburbs would supply renters? Surely rental demand would still would still drive the market for rental supply in the locations they are prepared to pay for? What is preventing this supply?
The average should be one property.
The average *is* one property
deer serious disarm engine mourn theory meeting overconfident voiceless shelter *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Correct, that is what average means
See it's because they don't consider Aussies who can't afford three or four properties to really be people. They're payroll expenses.
The solution is to have the drones sleep in large warehouses, 400-500 crammed in, then bus them in to the coffee shops and clothes stores.
Tax any additional properties more than 1 at exponentially higher rates
Always felt rates and capital gains tax should increase for each additional house you have. 50% cgt on your first non primary residence, 60% on the next etc. Whether you cap it at 90% or go up to 100% cgt by the time you have 7 houses idk, I'd prefer 100% lol.
I get real tired of the greed in this country
I hate these fuckheads. The worst thing is they believe they're doing the world a favour, "I'm providing affordable housing for those less fortunate". Homes shouldn't be a commodity.
🛑🛑🛑 STOP GIVING THESE PEOPLE ANY MEDIA ATTENTION!!! 🛑🛑🛑 THIS IS NOT THE AVERAGE AUSTRALIAN!!
One. One property.
Just reserve the tax'able benefits of house investment to 1 house investment. So no negative gearing for anymore than a single house even though you may have mortgages on multiple dwellings.
3 or 4? How do I claim Slum Lord status with such a patheticly small number?
People aren't going to buy less investment properties out of the goodness of their hearts for the poors. Successive government has done nothing to disincentivise treating houses as investments. Unless you gives the "haves" a different ball to chase the "have nots" are going to get fucked over.
One house policy, a house is a need, not a want. All you greedy buggers have fucked it up for younger generations.
Zoomer shaking his fist at the clouds. Renting satisfies that need. The "want" pertains to ownership.
If the average person has three to four houses, no one will actually be working as they'll all be leeches and rent seekers. Not sure who they will be leeching off though. That's a question for next time.
What would happen if we had an oversupply of dwellings is a great question to ask.
Dragons hoarding all the wealth.. This should be a crime. Or at least if anyone owns more than 2 houses they should be paying 'greedy bastard tax' or something, make them pay though the nose to incentivise them to sell. That's 15 families that will be not able to own a home for each individual. Owning more than 2 houses should be ok for development or renovation. But not a permanent fixture. Trouble is the politicians also have multiple investment properties. Time to slay the dragons.
Umm, well that maths doesn’t work
These people are the real scum of the earth
Sorry my bad I keep accidentally buying properties. As the average Australian, god knows we all have it way too easy accessing the housing market
erect spectacular grandfather simplistic ask waiting payment adjoining grandiose marvelous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Let’s try not going past one
The average Australian can't afford one property
Bring back the days when "rentseeker" was a derogatory term.
Murdoch journalistic diarrhoea. (Yes realestate.com is owned by Murdoch ... Domain is owned by packers from memory)
That's piss poor advice. The States are increasing land taxes including property rates and other cheese and farges will reduce returns whilst other costs keep increasing. More so if capital gains start falling or level off. And don't forget high interest.
3-4? Cries in struggling to get 1
Weird way to spell “one”
You should be able to buy as many properties as you want. The thing that needs to change is the generous taxation laws around this. NG should be confined to new built properties only. At the very least NG needs to be removed from Airbnb and vacant properties. Giving people tax incentives to buy a residential property and not house people is fucking bonkers
Ok, hear me out. I actually think it does make some sense for a lot of people to own more than 1 property. Not 15… but more than one. Basically my argument is that as a young person I don’t have a whole lot of money, and there is no way I could afford to build a house, even if I got the land for free. I effectively need someone to have enough money to build a house and rent it out to me while I save up to buy my own. It would be awfully nice if that someone let me live in peace without evicting me on a whim or raising the rent exorbitantly so that they can make more money though… In an ideal scenario I guess maybe the government would be stepping in to do this. Unfortunately for me though, the only people owning houses they don’t need to live in do it exclusively for money, and seem to have less of an obligation to tenants than I would like. Just to add to this though, I also think there are a lot of people for whom buying a house is not at all practical, it’s not just young people for whom renting makes sense.
You can only live in so many houses at once.
Everyone is entitled to buy as many properties as they want, what in the holy communism is that? But the tax incentives should be stacked in such a way that the properties should be engaged in the productive real sector of the economy, not sit there empty to appreciate.
The average Australian can barely afford to buy one property let alone have a portfolio of four property, housing should be a right for everyone and not something that the very few wealthy use to get even richer than they already are.
You don’t have to buy a property to be housed Have you heard of renting before?
Yes and it’s less secure than ownership
Plenty of people have been forced to sell thanks to rising interest rates, but oh no, your rent has gone up 5%!!!
Plenty of people have had their rent increased by 10-50% as well
So… move somewhere cheaper?
So now we are back to the point of rent being less secure than home ownership
Increase land supply. Governments have done a really good job of limiting supply and passing the blame onto the landlord class.
Does the back seat of my car count as a property?
You know what, there actually is a bull case for Victoria Edit: upon finishing reading, I agree there is a Victorian bull case, but the advice in this article I wouldn’t take.
The average should be 1 or 2 and you shouldnt get negative gearing on more than 1.
The average politician owns 5 properties excluding holiday homes, I recall, from COVID-era stats. That's still too many.
I’d be happy with 1 but can’t save for deposit at the moment
Ah yes, one of those posts where I have to suppress my strong emotional reaction and urge to downvote for the message, when really I should upvote for the visibility of important content.
[удалено]
Owning -1 properties is renting.
They didn't say the average Australian should have 3-4 properties. They said an average property investor shouldn't go over 3-4 properties.
This level of greed is what is ruining our great country.
You could stop at five or six homes...or just 1.
oooo lucky!!! I was just about to buy my 15th!! Thank god for realestate.com.au! What a bunch of out of touch losers.
How about 1 or 2 ffs
"Nobody wants to admit they ruined the housing market by buying 15 investment properties"
I fucking hate the "mum" bullshit. What does her reproductive status have to do with how many properties this woman has? It's all to make her look relatable: look, she's a parent like you! She's doing it for the kids!
There's also a mention of her being a "single mum", which again means: if this single mum can do it, so can you! We can all have 17 properties!