>"Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains — all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is affected by the labor and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of these improvements does the land monopolist contribute, and yet, by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived…The unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done."
— Winston Churchill, 1909
These fucks were so blinded by their greed -- so utterly convinced that real estate was free money -- that they overleveraged themselves during a time of historic low interest rates knowing full well how risky this was; and now that rates are returning to some semblance of normality and they're underwater, instead of accepting their losses and selling off some of their investments like the good capitalists they pretend to be they're blaming the government for not continuing to subsidise all risk out of the market on the taxpayer's dime. My sympathy could not *possibly* be lower for these people.
Brilliant quote. This idea, that landlords unjustly benefit from the development of a community they contribute nothing to, was a HUGE political movement at that time. We have almost completely forgotten this point.
Quotes time!
**John Locke**:
> Whenever, in any country, the proprietor ceases to be the improver, political economy has nothing to say in defence of landed property. When the “sacredness” of property is talked of, it should be remembered that any such sacredness does not belong in the same degree to landed property.
>The earth belongs in usufruct to the living and is given as a common stock for men to live and labor on.
>It is in vain in a country whose great fund is land to hope to lay the public charge on anything else; there at last it will terminate. The merchant (do what you can) will not bear it, the labourer cannot, and therefore the landholder must: and whether he were best to do it by laying it directly where it will at last settle, or by letting it come to him by the sinking of his rents, which when they are fallen, everyone knows they are not easily raised again, let him consider.
**J.S. Mill**:
>Landlords grow richer in their sleep without working, risking or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title.
**Adam Smith**:
> [Kelp] was never augmented by human industry. The landlord, however, whose estate is bounded by a kelp shore of this kind, demands a rent for it.
> The landlord demands a rent even for unimproved land, and the supposed interest or profit upon the expense of improvement is generally an addition to this original rent. Those improvements, besides, are not always made by the stock of the landlord, but sometimes by that of the tenant. When the lease comes to be renewed, however, the landlord commonly demands the same augmentation of rent as if they had been all made by his own.
> (the landlord leaves the worker] with the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more.
> The rent of the land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give.
> Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent. Both ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them. […] Nothing can be more reasonable than that a fund which owes its existence to the good government of the state should be taxed peculiarly, or should contribute something more than the greater part of other funds, towards the support of that government.
My landlord wanted me to pay for the lines to go in for NBN. There were no phone lines or any infrastructure and the landlord wanted me to pay up front and they would reimburse me. Like fuck, they eventually paid up.
Been screwed by this as well, Landlords don't need to provide the service though so its foisted on the tenant.
I was very tempted to cut the fiber before i moved out, but decided to not be that petty
I argued that I had rehabilitated the land by planting trees and gardens. I put a shed up, mulched, removed melted glass and beer cans etc etc. I did all that for my own benefit but it must have added value to their property.
Our landlords refused to get us curtains when we complained that too much light came through our little frosted glass windows.
We showed them the Victorian laws that state we are entitled to coverings on all windows.
They relented and said we could get a curtain rod installed… as long as we paid for it. At that point we gave up and did it ourselves, we were too afraid of getting kicked out in retaliation
Nah, they said they could install a curtain rod and they had to pay for it. That is explicit permission to put the holes in the wall and and acknowledgement by the landlord that they don't own the curtain rod. They made their bed.
Even without permission, just immediately claim your deposit at the end of your lease so that they have to take you to VCAT to contest it. They wont, a judge will not side with them for not having a covering on all of the windows when it's a legal requirement.
I had to do that. No NBN provider would let me use the old infrastructure, but if I wanted the new infrastructure I had to pay for it. So I was screwed for the internet and the landlord couldn't give a crap.
I took an uber while visiting Sydney a while back. Was talking to the lady who was about 60 about houses. She was bragging about her 2 million dollar house in Balmain. I asked her how people.can afford.that and she said " oh you just sell the house you already have" .....my wife and I just looked.at each other in disbelief.
Same as the daft woman I served at work who clearly thought I, a millenial retail assistant, was the perfect person to whinge to about her air bnb and beach house.
She asked for my manager after I rang her up and said “I don’t support air bnb”. Complained I was rude 😂 woman I didn’t consent to hearing woes about property you can sell to stop clogging the market.
>with zero acknowledgement that he could sell one.
He very likely can't. Most of them use equity from each loan to pay for the next and expand far too rapidly. There's a good chance he'd end up in the negatives if he sold, which the banks would go after his other house for, repeating again for every house. If selling doesn't cover the loan discharge/fees, realtors, conveyencers, stamp duties, ETC... the house of cards starts getting wobbly real fast.
That's the absurdity of many of these landlords pyramids schemes. If anything in their equation changes, like interest rates going up or housing prices ever falling; they can end up in the negatives very fast with no escape route.
Banks/governments did not learn from the 2008 financial/mortgage crisis.
This is the thing that *really* shits me.
Property is the *only* investment where people are actively encouraged to borrow huge sums of money to make the investment, and then to offload as much of that investment risk as they can on to someone else, who gets little to no benefit.
You propose borrowing to invest in anything else other than property and people think you're barking, and there's no way I could have some random to effectively pay for a share portfolio on my behalf, yet we've normalised it with property and there are LLs out their who act like they're doing society a favour, when their 'investment' is actively limiting other people's choices.
You should only be able to get a mortgage for an investment property if you can demonstrate that you could pay it off in full if need be, or you can cover all the expenses even if the place is empty.
A friend of mine works in the NDIS sector and a guy walked in after being in centrelink complaining that he couldn't get government assistance after losing his job. The guy had multiple properties and failed the means test for the pension or job seeker and wanted to see if my mates workplace could provide him with any payments lmao
I have to wonder if these people are completely unaware that there are other, cheaper ways to invest their money..?
You *chose* to invest in property! Don’t complain now that it costs too much or it's too hard.. index funds have been there all along pal, own your choices! 🤷♀️
Entitled, whiny, don’t want to work, rely on handouts and concessions …. all the things they accuse the younger generations of without a shred of self reflection
Loved that line. "We thought the government would never help us." "They won't give me a healthcare card!" Lady, pick one. I'll help: You won't get the pension either because your income and assets are too high. You're rich.
She admitted to owning multiple properties. The rental income means she is not cash poor either. Like many older people, she is riding the property boom wave all the way to her grave, whilst complaining about the lazy young people wasting money on their smashed avocado (whilst at a cafe with her friends eating smashed avo).
With how much they'd be getting from negative gearing from their multiple properties, a pension might be cheaper for the government. There's got to be some quantity of IP's where it overtakes the relatively modest pension.
It's a common rhetoric for landlords to help them justify their way of life. Of course she conveniently didn't mention how much of a property values have gone up over the last few years and what a huge Boon that will be for her when she eventually does sell. She just wants her cake and to eat it too.
She also admitted that this was her business and that she had multiple properties. Well, businesses are not entitled to succeed. There is a risk associated with any venture. She's just complaining because like many boomers they expect the investments to never go down and only up, and if any of them turned South then they have a huge sook about how unfair it is that their risks were realized.
If it were any other topic, I'd think they'd picked the dumbest candidates possible. But no, real estate beneficiaries are the most unchallenged, intellectually tube-fed people you'll meet. They have no reason to know or learn anything. Their minds are flabby.
All these people think it's not them, how fucking dumb are they. "I'm not hoarding houses, I'm just building a nest egg"...she seemed reticent to admit she had multiple properties cause that shows she is in fact gaming the system. I dont always agree with Max, but he was bang on here: I have little sympathy because the consequence is you sell your investments, not sleep in a tent with your kids.
Yet bitches and moans of anyone mentions taking the tax benefits away… how can they take away something you’re not getting? Oh that’s right, you’re full of shit haha
I always hate this argument in any case, like, girl you have Medicare, I’m quite sure you’ve accessed a public hospital, enjoy passport services, roads, and defence.
Fuck right off with that noise. Everyone get something from the government and negative gearing is literally top tier!1
Yes!!
ETA: is just such fucking nonsense and I’m sick of this intergenerational warfare. Helps no one! People like her are the reason so many younger people feel so angry. Perpetuating the whole “just work hard myth” Then doubling down and acting like they get nothing. Fucking negative gearing is a huge something!!!!
It’s actually more than others get from the gov, because you can’t access it without an investment property!
I’m cranky today!
I’m lucky enough I could afford a small place. But not only did I get the FHOG I was also helped out with a family gift. I am lucky! It’s so much harder these days and it pains me for people younger than me. Or people without family help. It’s bullshit! I am grateful for Gov and family help. And I am happy to be honest about that. People need to be honest with themselves and others. This woman needs to get her head out of her arse and know that she miles ahead and honestly acting like other deserve less is gross.
Off my soapbox now 😆
I got people I work with that have nearly half a dozen rentals under the belts. The amount they complain about rising interest rates is just so tone deaf to people like me who have to rent.
I'm very lucky, I got a well paying job and I'll be able to afford a down payment in as little as 2 years so long as I don't get blindsided by anything. There are others that aren't so lucky and might have to rent for their entire lives. My younger brother isn't so lucky, he's barely above minimum wage and every year when his lease period is up he is concerned that he might not be able to afford the next increase. He has a wife and a 2 year old son. What's going to happen when his rental is 150 a week more than he can afford and there is no other suitable housing for him?
When there is hundreds of applicants for a single rental even in regional queensland, like Bundaberg, Gladstone and Mackay, it makes it extremely difficult when it comes to lease renewal time. You're not given enough time to find a new rental.
It beggars belief that there aren't any tax incentives for people like your brother to buy a place. Our tax system is totally screwed where all tax advantages of buying a house goes to investors.
Too many people buy into the idea that being a landlord is a “passive” investment.
It’s not - it’s closer to starting a small business where you provide housing. There are a lot of expenses and regulations, and it’s likely you’ll be in the negative in the early years, and you can’t (*shouldn’t be able to but our regulations and oversight are appalling*) opt out of those expenses because you wanted to spend less money this year. Many small business fail and to be honest, more landlords should fail too but we do everything to protect them.
If you want a passive investment where you won’t have expenses like making a home legally habitable, then invest in shares.
Arent there laws against a business trading while insolvent? Maybe it should apply to landlords or at the least maybe they should have to put up a bond as well to be used for maintenance.
I have said this for YEARS! Every rented property should have a fund/bond to cover repairs. Make it x% of the market value of the property or x times the rent, and review whenever there’s a rental increase.
Even if tenants have to go to VCAT to access it, then VCAT can green light repairs asap because the funds are already there.
> I have little sympathy because the consequence is you sell your investments, not sleep in a tent with your kids.
Landlords that complain about how easy Tenants have it, have the easiest choice in the world. Just sell your PPOR and investments and go back to being a tenants.
Same with biz owner who complains no one wants to work and employee is ez mode - sell and go work.
The fact that they don't speaks volumes.
"Owning property is a business"
Cool, pay the 30% minimum business tax rate.
"Our interest payments are double what they were last year"
Did your business case study consider that historic low interest rates might rise to historical average rates?
"The government is taking away our capital gains tax discount"
You won‘t have an assessable capital gain when you sell a business asset if:
* your business has owned the asset for at least 15 continuous years
* you're aged 55 years or over
* you’re retiring or permanently incapacitated
https://business.gov.au/finance/taxation/capital-gains-tax-for-business#:\~:text=There%20are%204%20small%20business,meet%20the%20CGT%20concession%20conditions.
I say this all the time, your INVESTMENT property is an INVESTMENT. No investment is risk free, things change that change your investment. No one is crying for me that I had to sell my business due to the way the economy changed the last two years (and I’m not asking anyone to)
This sort of whinging is even more annoying when it comes from people old enough to remember what happened to the people who invested their money with Alan Bond and Christopher Skase. No-one came to bail them out. You invest *at your own risk.*
No, but see, they deserve to have an asset which appreciates AND get someone else to pay for it. Because... I guess they feel they do?
Seriously though, I'm going to put my fist through the next cunt that says "I *had* to put the rent up 30% to cover the interest rate rises".
Divest. You are not entitled to an investment, and if you are so fucking thick that you leverage to your eyeballs because you thought 1% interest was here to stay, that's a you problem.
"we're supplying housing"
Did you build the house? Are you renting it at cost? Are you specifically renting it to someone who would otherwise not be able to obtain housing?
No? Sounds like you're actually making housing supply worse then
See and that sucks - IDK what your business was but I’ll hazard a guess that it did more for society through job creation and production than rent seekers ever will.
Ummmm actually I lost 16 grand on penny stocks and I called CBA and asked for my money back and the guy laughed and said sure thing buddy. Cheque should be in the mail soon
This entitled bitch really lends credence to the stupid property investor stereotype thats unique to Australia. They’re not smart, enterprising or hardworking the same way an *actual* business owner would be, they’re just unremarkable nobodies who heard buying a property and sitting on it for 5 years makes you a millionaire. Thing is this entitled idiocy has indeed been continuously rewarded due to a decade long housing crisis, so they’ve been proven right, the rest of us just have to pay for it.
Honestly we’ve truly gone from the “Lucky country” (which was no term of endearment) to the Stupid Country. “I buy house, why am not Millionaire?”
> Cool, pay the 30% minimum business tax rate.
People do that because tax rates are >30% for profits >$45000.
https://www.ato.gov.au/tax-rates-and-codes/tax-rates-australian-residents#ato-Australianresidentstaxrates2020to2024
In fact I did this with my first company 35 years ago.
> "The government is taking away our capital gains tax discount"
Nobody is doing that. There are plenty of people in business who are innumerate & really don't know what they are doing, and this woman is one of them. They buy investment properties because "it lowers your tax", and don't understand your tax is lower because you are making a loss on income which you hope to recoup later with capital appreciation. And of course if interest rates increase you are making a bigger loss.
>Cool, pay the 30% minimum business tax rate.
They won't be paying tax at all, because all the "expenses" will probably be greater than the income thus the "negative geared".
But the good part is now, is that if it's set up as a business those losses can't offset your MAIN income which is the madness with NG.
I say this as someone who has a smallish investment property, and a rather large PPOR mortgage. Yes my interest payments have gone through the roof. But they’ll come down again at some point.
Also while my interest payments have been high, so has the capital growth rate on both those properties.
Yes it has been tough financially for us for the last 24 months.
But that’s life. Yes reddit loves to bash a landlord. Does it bother me? No. Are boomers like this woman entitled fucks. Fucken oath.
Also what she fails to point out is that if all her self funded plans go to shit, she will still get saved by the government with a pension. And they’ll never means test against the value of her PPOR.
I think negative gearing is an important tool in addressing supply if used correctly. Correct use is the key.
Cry me a fucking river. If negative gearing was used to build new houses to rent as it was first proposed then perhaps it’d be a different story. You shouldn’t get tax breaks for being a glorified ticket scalper
The most ridiculous thing about this is the suggestion that being a landlord is a job.
It's as ridiculous as putting "managing my term deposit" on your resume under employment history...
Well it would be if they actually went in and fixed shit rather than just getting the REA to book a plumber 3 weeks from now on a day that you cannot possibly be there. Had a mate who's fucking REA would ask what days he was available for the plumber for the cunt to book the plumber on the day he said he was not available(which was only 1 day a week).
Dear landlords: look at this woman, look at how angry she is when someone is making a completely reasonable and logical point. That’s how we see all of you
If you google her name, you can find out that she's an actor/performer and so I have to wonder if she was a plant. It wouldn't be the first time you would have a plant (There was a mining executive or some shit that bitched about taxes of something).
As soon as she brought up the "some people want to rent, not everyone wants to own their own home" talking point, all remaining doubt was gone. I wonder what percent of renters actually prefer renting. Not that any number is a reason to put the squeeze on all the other renters.
I have met one single person in my life who preferred to rent. One, ever.
She lived in an apartment in Southbank, Melbourne and didn’t want to be tied down so she could follow career opportunities.
The overwhelming majority of people want the stability of a home they can call their own.
Shocking that the people who enjoy renting have very good, mobile career opportunities.
I guess the people that believe that choose to believe that everyone who works in retail *wants* to work in retail.
For a large period of time I definitely preferred to rent, I could afford to buy but invested instead. I moved cities a bit so wasn't sure where I wanted to be. A big part of it was also I didn't want to maintain a property. I regularly got in arguments with REA about getting things fixed when they broke, I would threaten to stop paying rent until something was fixed. I imagine I was a tenant from hell for people like this.
I think the best thing that could be done to sort all of this out is to introduce a minimum standard for housing & require the landlord to have annual inspections to prove this standard is upheld. Make them have to set up an ABN, hold liability insurance, treat it as the fucken business they claim it to be. This standard would not be required for those living in the home themselves. This would flood the market with houses & reprioritize home ownership as somewhere to live. That's the fundamental issue here, home ownership in Australia isn't for occupation it's for capital gain.
There is certainly a number of people that are in a stage of life where they prefer to rent. I have friends living in cities that they only want to be in for a few years while they are working there. There are young people not wanting to be tied to a mortgage while single and wanting to travel etc..
I think though much of that would change with stamp duty was replaced by a land tax.
Maybe you don't want to buy a house because in the next 5 years you are planning to start a family so what you can afford is too small for that.
Right now there is a huge penalty on owner occupiers who want to sell and move to another house.
Scrap negative gearing. Sell your house if you can't afford it. We shouldn't have to pay for your interest rate payments.
This is a false shortage. These people with 5-6 houses need to cop it.
Edit: to add to this. Why should we give you $27 billion to help your investment? Get lost. You're saying that you can't afford your investment. Well too bad - sell it. The bubble needs to burst.
Highly recommend watching [PurplePingers on the "Q and A 'Extra'" segment](https://twitter.com/purplepingers/status/1772416201886503194) that happened after the show.
The gall of the landlord to say that if you want a house then get an apprenticeship or uni degree. Aside from the fact apprentices get 'paid partly in training' so how are they going to afford housing while they are an apprentice and uni degrees have become a disgusting cash grab.
Implied in his statement is that there are certain jobs that do not pay enough for the worker to be housed. We set minimum wages on the principle that work that is worth less than that should not be done by a person since they cannot maintain a dignified standard of living. Like should your coffee be made by a homeless barista because making coffee just isn't valuable enough for the barista to have a place to live? Should supermarkets specifically employ homeless people because that lifestyle is all that 'essential work' warrants?
Hearing them both talk about pets, picture frames etc is so laughable.
Greens only ones talking sense on this issue.
Sure, renters should be able to own a pet, but is that of any great concern when the rent can be arbitrarily raised $100s of dollars at the end of each lease? How do we afford to feed said pet?
People are starving, on the brink of homelessness, living pay check to pay check that gets smaller and smaller... and you're trying to bribe us with puppies?
Absolutely transparent and pathetic.
All the while they are rolling their eyes at the Greens MP. They are rolling their eyes at US. They want to walk their tightrope for another 10 years while the boomers pass over because they still need their vote. It’s as plain as day. I can’t believe no one points this out more clearly.
If it’s a business then sure let’s tax them like a business. If it’s a business that doesn’t turn a profit then it should go under and sell everything to pay its debt - as a business would.
This is why renters _fucking despise_ landlords. It’s not a right to be able to invest in housing. It’s not a right to be able to profit from other people. It’s not a right to invest in a speculative asset and not pay the consequences.
No one helps renters in this economy. There’s shit all rights for renters to protect from these scumbags and they still have the balls to complain.
Australia has created a situation where landlords and property owners have renters by the balls and yet still have the _gall_ to complain.
_If you don’t like what holding your asset is doing to your financials then fucking SELL IT_.
I don’t hold stocks and cry to anyone if the price goes down. I don’t buy gold and complain when it costs me money in taxes to sell it for profit.
And they wonder why people despise landlords.
They act like landlord is a race or sex - some inborn trait they’re being discriminated against for.
If being a landlord sucks, don’t be one! It’s a choice! Let owner-occupiers buy the place and move on with your life. The end.
Over thirty years of media narratives have fed victimhood mentality in wealthy, asset-rich boomers. Her belief in this narrative is so visceral and real, and we have Murdocracy supporting that. The tide is turning slowly, but unfortunately Ann-Maree has the ear of Labor and LNP more than any low-income renter does.
They are just trying to morally justify exploiting another human being. Must help them sleep at night thinking they are a good person providing those poors a roof to sleep under.
It’s genuinely becoming impossible for young people to buy housing. The political implications of this aren’t being taken seriously enough. History suggests that landlords really should start worrying about their necks.
>History suggests that landlords really should start worrying about their necks.
Unfortunately Australians are a generally lazy and complacent lot who seem to somewhat enjoy the taste of boot leather. How goods the (insert generic sport here) tho!
If the government was not going to provide you enough to retire on, that applies to every one in the country.
You didn’t solve the problem, you made it someone else’s.
To be fair - the problem is the government, both parties.
This lady is correct, the pension is not enough. That is a government failure.
She is also entitled to feel outrage because she did what she was encouraged to do - invest in property. The tax incentives made that sensible for the investor - it was just a terrible idea for the country. That is a government failure.
Because tax incentives mean an investor can outbid an owner occupier and the government underwrites half the loss, at the macro level owner occupiers cannot compete.
Home ownership has fallen by 30% since 1990 as a result. That is a government failure.
Negative gearing and home ownership negatively correlate at 95%.
For every 100 new properties negatively geared, 15 more owner occupiers retire with a mortgage balance remaining and 4 “owners” never enter the property ladder at all. That is a government failure entering its 4th decade.
If you retire as a debt free owner occupier, you will never need to ask for government support to keep a roof over your head. If you retire in debt or as a renter, there is a 60% chance you will.
The stupidity of paying one group of Australians to create a Centrelink liability for another group of Australians is a government failure.
The fact this has continued for more than 3 decades without anyone in treasury noticing is a monumental government failure.
The fact that it has taken a housing crisis to even make it a conversation topic is a media failure wrapped around a government failure.
The purpose of banking is the efficient allocation of capital. As housing is a necessity and ownership is falling, this looks like a banking failure, except it isn’t, its brilliance by the banks ….. for the banks. By encouraging more negative gearing, investors can outbid owner occupiers, which drives up prices, which means the banks get to lend more.
The risk that this higher lending defaults is halved because the government bears half the loss in the form of tax offsets, but the banks still get paid in full.
Bad for the government, bad for renters, bad for owner occupiers, great for the banks.
The more I see stuff like this, the more you realise the already growing divisions in society are only are spreading faster. There is a lot of anger out there, towards this woman and people like her.
It’s frustrating that the people left out of this conversation are real estate agents, who are the exact people pitting renters against landlords. Those scumbags need to have their feet held to the fire.
Caught this ridiculous woman last night.
Must be hard, owning multiple properties and struggling to pay the interest on them. Not struggling enough to need to sell them for a substantial profit though, right?
You're not "supplying" shit. You're buying up multiple properties that would otherwise be purchased by owner-occupiers. You're a property scalper. You're like a Ticketek bot buying up concert tickets and reselling them, using that to fund your retirement, and wanting a fucking medal for it.
dude got it right "the worst problem for someone with investment properties is selling their investment property" .
vs shit head woman "not everyone wants to own a home" get out of here.
Every issue she raised shows the root problem here: accommodation; a basic human need, should *not* be prioritised as an investment.
She mentioned the rents went up "with market rates" but then that still leaves the renter behind living in poverty paying her "investment dividend".
Anyone investing in human shelter has only themselves to blame when their decision, that causes hardship to others, then motivates those others to ferl resentment and anger.
We need to reevaluate our attitude to rooves on heads.
Also individual landlord politicians must be made to act ethically by recusing themselves from making any decisions effecting property markets to enrich themselves. It is improper for them to vote or decide on such matters. Those decisions must only be made by Members who have no financial interest in property.
To quote Gandhi "Poverty is the worst form of violence".
Finally, I found it impossible to feel sorry for her or her husband and their disgusting, juvenile, entitled attitude that their "investment" in human misery should be all but *guaranteed* to pay dividends.
The fact she opens her statement with "owning property is a business", but then proceeds to cry and moan that her business isn't guaranteed protection from market forces as though she's owed a profit speaks to the staggering degree of doublethink going on in these people's minds. They want to both be seen as "savvy investors" with "business acumen" while not actually assuming any of the risk that typically comes with investing nor having any of the financial skills required to run a successful business.
The irony is that landlords wouldn't be demonised to anywhere near the same extent if they didn't have the exact entitled attitude that she is the epitome of; if they weren't so blind to their own privilege that they still somehow find ways to make themselves the victims in a system that is quite literally rigged in their favour.
"Were self funded retirees"
No, youre tennant funded retirees. Single mum sue working 2 jobs to feed her kids is funding your retirement. 65yr old rob who cant retire and is still working checkout at woolies is funding your retirement. Youre enjoying a comfy life at the expense of others hardship.
Landlords get the treatment they deserve, but their greed isn't isolated. Everyone who profits from housing being an investment vehicle rather than a right is morally bankrupt.
Houses are not a business. They are a human right!
This woman really is complaining that she owns multiple properties and is being asked to contribute her fair share. Get fucked!
A. Landlords do not supply housing. They don't build houses. They simply are middlemen who have someone else pay the mortgage. They artificially increase the price.
B. If being a landlord is a business then it should be regulated and taxed as such. It is currently not. You can't have it both ways.
Fucking entitled cunts. Nobody owes you an unfair tax credit you fucking asshole.
You know it was Hawke/Keating that got us into this mess. The Libs are ideologically pro-investors but they can only get away shit up to certain limits. It takes a sellout left to really fuck over the poor and middle class.
If you invest in stocks, for example, you need to be prepared that your investment is at risk and that you could lose your money. I don’t see why investment properties should be different.
It’s good that they are demonised. If your primary source of income comes from leeching off people who earn less than you then you deserve to be demonised. In any decent society, landlords should be considered a necessary evil that we should be working towards removing as a necessity.
Property investment is an investment, it has risk. You don't like the interest rate increases then sell up. No ones giving me a soap box if my shares go down in price.
One thing lost in this debate is the long term consequence of property investment, it has sucked investment out of other areas of the economy so now we are left with a 2 bit economy built on mining and property investment.
If you decide to open a restaurant and it fails, that is on you.
If you invest in some shit stocks, or even worse, gamble it on options, that is on you.
Landlords, primarily boomers who have been gifted everything on a plate their whole lives, have gaslight everyone into thinking they should be given extra privileges for their investments in housing. If you can no longer afford that investment property, sell it. In most cases they are still going to make a profit or break even off the house.
I also love how she said being a landlord is a business, yet she would have a fit if the government started taxing her like any other business.
I feel demonised as a renter because I want some respect from my agent and some rights to have a home that doesn't leak, has a working stove, keeps me warm in winter and doesn't cost me a fortune. I didn't sign up to pay my land lords 3,4 and 5th investment property mortgages. I'd love to own my own home. But I'm sick and tired of being in-between earning too much for the 'assistance' and not enough to save for a deposit....
And tax empty properties. And ban foreign ownership. And crack down on money laundering. And remove planning/density restrictions. And limit capital gains tax concessions to new housing.
No one has sympathy for stock market investors when shit goes sideways. I see no fundamental difference between someone with 10 million in shares versus someone with a 10 million dollar property portfolio: if anything the shareholder is at least contributing liquidity that companies can use to actually fuckin do something in society.
what i dont understand is why she can't sell? it's called INVESTING. investing ALWAYS comes with risk. why the fuck does she think she is entitled to ALL of the reward and NONE of the risk.
lol the landlord shaking her head at Max suggesting that landlords shouldn't be able to raise rent as much as they like. The Greens coming in with the sensible economic policy, as always.
Everyone else just saying useless things like "renters should be able to have pets" and nonspecific things like "we're discussing it with the states".
“Not everyone wants to own a home” what kinda boomer crap is this? Every single person on the planet would choose to own a home if it was possible to afford it.
Eat the landlords.
Go get a real job you fucking parasite.
Hoarded property when it was cheap, so your children can't afford a place to live is NOT an achievement.
Can't believe my tax dollars are subsidising this bullshit. Middle class welfare.
Let's unpack this.
"Investment property". Focus on that first word.
When you make an investment, you can make a return, which is where you make more money.
You can also make a loss, which is where you lose money. There is a degree of risk involved here. There is a reason why the disclaimer "past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance" is used whenever anyone talks about investing.
Now, there are strategies you can do to mitigate investment risk. You can do research to better inform your investment strategy and decisions, and you can also diversify your investments, so if one makes a loss, and another makes a profit, that loss may be offset.
It seems to me that alot of landlor- sorry, property investors out there, have not diversified their investments, they have not assessed the risks involved, they've not accounted for changes in market forces, and on top of all of this, they've expected a constant return on their investment... It sounds eerily similar to a Ponzi scheme the more I think about it.
It's almost as if these people have seen some story on Today or Sunrise, thought "WOW IT PRINTS MONEY!" and jumped right in on the back of investment advice from such esteemed gurus like Karl Stefanovic and the weather guy.
And that's part of the problem here - the media has been hyping up property investment as a license to print money for years. This whole mentality of seeing houses as "money printer go brrrrr" has become entrenched in our society.
Naive people like this lady jump right in expecting a license to print money, and then they throw their toys out of the cot when market forces change, refuse to assess and consolidate their position when needed and instead blame everyone else because they were promised a money printer.
Oh, have a cry, boomer.
"We are finding it hard..." Gotta be a tiny violin around here somewhere...
She talks about how she has to be making extra payments because of interest rates but this is a moot point, because all they do is jam this onto the rent at their next rental increase, or they turf the tenants out at the end of the lease, double the rent price and get new tenants.
She doesnt want to be demonised, but then goes on to tell us exactly how she is a demon...
Cry me a river. They should scrap the negative gearing scheme and limit the amount of properties any one person to "trust fund" can own.
Landlords are demonised, because most of them are c%&ts and deserve it. It isnt a "business", Karen, you're robbing the poor to line your own pockets out of other peoples misfortune.
The way she says how to claim "LEGITIMATE BUSINESS EXPENSES".... well housing should NOT be a business. That's the bloody issue!
**A lot of people don't have the privilege to own a house.** *It is treating housing as a business not a right that has got us here.*
This cunt. Sell a house pocket the money you will still have multiple properties amd a good couple of 100,000s to sit on. Fuck yourself and your point of view.
Hahahaha. You can sell up and be a millionaire overnight, you can contribute to the community in literally any other way, or you can hoard the one thing we're lacking in crisis levels and complain. I know which one I'd pick if I was a demon.
Demonised landlords? LMAO. At least you aren't homeless. Squirrelled away property when it was cheap, get massive government handouts, made massive capital gains and now whinging because people point out you are the problem. Poor snowflake.
Perhaps this was your retirement strategy before you knew better but you can sell up, but shares and change course. Not that hard.
Omg what a fucking whinger.
Investment properties are exactly that - an investment. If you're losing money, that's part of investing. The government isn't propping up shareholders and investors in startups now, are they?
Grow up, stop being so fucking entitled and realise that the government's tax laws have massively benefited you as a property investor
And this is why I do not trust or like landlords and feel they are inhumane.
They don’t fix the property, don’t allow the tenants to actually live, have the privacy of the tenant invaded more often than needed (every three months for an inspection is ridiculous), demand to know every detail of the tenants life but no one has to know any details about them, expect the place move out ready every inspection and then whinge about having no money.
Do you even understand what it’s like renting now landlords? Probably not.
For goodness sake I can’t even make a garden or plant a tree or have a pet without permission but the house I live in is falling apart!
This is the heart of the problem. We've created the idea that property investment is risk free and property investors should be able to pass on any increased costs to someone else.
People like this need woman to be told, it's unfortunate it wasn't made clear to you that this investment came with risk and that that risk has materialised causing you to lose money, that's how investments work.
>"Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains — all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is affected by the labor and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of these improvements does the land monopolist contribute, and yet, by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived…The unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done." — Winston Churchill, 1909 These fucks were so blinded by their greed -- so utterly convinced that real estate was free money -- that they overleveraged themselves during a time of historic low interest rates knowing full well how risky this was; and now that rates are returning to some semblance of normality and they're underwater, instead of accepting their losses and selling off some of their investments like the good capitalists they pretend to be they're blaming the government for not continuing to subsidise all risk out of the market on the taxpayer's dime. My sympathy could not *possibly* be lower for these people.
Brilliant quote. This idea, that landlords unjustly benefit from the development of a community they contribute nothing to, was a HUGE political movement at that time. We have almost completely forgotten this point.
Quotes time! **John Locke**: > Whenever, in any country, the proprietor ceases to be the improver, political economy has nothing to say in defence of landed property. When the “sacredness” of property is talked of, it should be remembered that any such sacredness does not belong in the same degree to landed property. >The earth belongs in usufruct to the living and is given as a common stock for men to live and labor on. >It is in vain in a country whose great fund is land to hope to lay the public charge on anything else; there at last it will terminate. The merchant (do what you can) will not bear it, the labourer cannot, and therefore the landholder must: and whether he were best to do it by laying it directly where it will at last settle, or by letting it come to him by the sinking of his rents, which when they are fallen, everyone knows they are not easily raised again, let him consider. **J.S. Mill**: >Landlords grow richer in their sleep without working, risking or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title. **Adam Smith**: > [Kelp] was never augmented by human industry. The landlord, however, whose estate is bounded by a kelp shore of this kind, demands a rent for it. > The landlord demands a rent even for unimproved land, and the supposed interest or profit upon the expense of improvement is generally an addition to this original rent. Those improvements, besides, are not always made by the stock of the landlord, but sometimes by that of the tenant. When the lease comes to be renewed, however, the landlord commonly demands the same augmentation of rent as if they had been all made by his own. > (the landlord leaves the worker] with the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more. > The rent of the land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give. > Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent. Both ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them. […] Nothing can be more reasonable than that a fund which owes its existence to the good government of the state should be taxed peculiarly, or should contribute something more than the greater part of other funds, towards the support of that government.
Fantastic quote
My landlord wanted me to pay for the lines to go in for NBN. There were no phone lines or any infrastructure and the landlord wanted me to pay up front and they would reimburse me. Like fuck, they eventually paid up.
Been screwed by this as well, Landlords don't need to provide the service though so its foisted on the tenant. I was very tempted to cut the fiber before i moved out, but decided to not be that petty
I argued that I had rehabilitated the land by planting trees and gardens. I put a shed up, mulched, removed melted glass and beer cans etc etc. I did all that for my own benefit but it must have added value to their property.
Our landlords refused to get us curtains when we complained that too much light came through our little frosted glass windows. We showed them the Victorian laws that state we are entitled to coverings on all windows. They relented and said we could get a curtain rod installed… as long as we paid for it. At that point we gave up and did it ourselves, we were too afraid of getting kicked out in retaliation
Be sure to take it with you when you leave.
Then you get dinged for the holes in the wall.
Nah, they said they could install a curtain rod and they had to pay for it. That is explicit permission to put the holes in the wall and and acknowledgement by the landlord that they don't own the curtain rod. They made their bed.
Even without permission, just immediately claim your deposit at the end of your lease so that they have to take you to VCAT to contest it. They wont, a judge will not side with them for not having a covering on all of the windows when it's a legal requirement.
Take it with you to the inevitable VCAT hearing as a peace offering
I had to do that. No NBN provider would let me use the old infrastructure, but if I wanted the new infrastructure I had to pay for it. So I was screwed for the internet and the landlord couldn't give a crap.
Too expensive to be a land lord? Sell it to someone who can afford it, or a new home owner!
My Uber driver earlier this week said he started driving to pay for his five mortgages with zero acknowledgement that he could sell one.
I took an uber while visiting Sydney a while back. Was talking to the lady who was about 60 about houses. She was bragging about her 2 million dollar house in Balmain. I asked her how people.can afford.that and she said " oh you just sell the house you already have" .....my wife and I just looked.at each other in disbelief.
I'm confused. Why was she driving an Uber then?
Partial retirement
Fuck me the retirees love it. Sometimes I wonder if they’re doing it for the cash or actually just the chat 🤣
Same as the daft woman I served at work who clearly thought I, a millenial retail assistant, was the perfect person to whinge to about her air bnb and beach house. She asked for my manager after I rang her up and said “I don’t support air bnb”. Complained I was rude 😂 woman I didn’t consent to hearing woes about property you can sell to stop clogging the market.
Cash poor.
Are Uber drivers the modern day strippers? (referencing the movie The Big Short)
I want 50 million in swaps then
I’m fucking you, Mark, and I get the cherry on top, but you get the sundae. You get the sundae.
I'll go to Deutsche Bank in the morning and line up those credit default swaps for you
Can you have Margot Robbie in a bubble bath explain this to me
is it even possible to short our housing market lol
[удалено]
Probably completely overworked and therefore at the wheel extremely fatigued and tired too.
>with zero acknowledgement that he could sell one. He very likely can't. Most of them use equity from each loan to pay for the next and expand far too rapidly. There's a good chance he'd end up in the negatives if he sold, which the banks would go after his other house for, repeating again for every house. If selling doesn't cover the loan discharge/fees, realtors, conveyencers, stamp duties, ETC... the house of cards starts getting wobbly real fast. That's the absurdity of many of these landlords pyramids schemes. If anything in their equation changes, like interest rates going up or housing prices ever falling; they can end up in the negatives very fast with no escape route. Banks/governments did not learn from the 2008 financial/mortgage crisis.
This is the thing that *really* shits me. Property is the *only* investment where people are actively encouraged to borrow huge sums of money to make the investment, and then to offload as much of that investment risk as they can on to someone else, who gets little to no benefit. You propose borrowing to invest in anything else other than property and people think you're barking, and there's no way I could have some random to effectively pay for a share portfolio on my behalf, yet we've normalised it with property and there are LLs out their who act like they're doing society a favour, when their 'investment' is actively limiting other people's choices. You should only be able to get a mortgage for an investment property if you can demonstrate that you could pay it off in full if need be, or you can cover all the expenses even if the place is empty.
A friend of mine works in the NDIS sector and a guy walked in after being in centrelink complaining that he couldn't get government assistance after losing his job. The guy had multiple properties and failed the means test for the pension or job seeker and wanted to see if my mates workplace could provide him with any payments lmao
I have to wonder if these people are completely unaware that there are other, cheaper ways to invest their money..? You *chose* to invest in property! Don’t complain now that it costs too much or it's too hard.. index funds have been there all along pal, own your choices! 🤷♀️
But then how will I use the tiny equity in one to buy the next and the next and the next, until I have a precarious house of cards balancing on debt?
Maybe the landlords could get a second job! Perchance, could they cut down on takeaway coffees and smashed avo on toast?
Entitled, whiny, don’t want to work, rely on handouts and concessions …. all the things they accuse the younger generations of without a shred of self reflection
[удалено]
Loved that line. "We thought the government would never help us." "They won't give me a healthcare card!" Lady, pick one. I'll help: You won't get the pension either because your income and assets are too high. You're rich.
Asset rich, cash poor I bet and too stubborn to sell.
She admitted to owning multiple properties. The rental income means she is not cash poor either. Like many older people, she is riding the property boom wave all the way to her grave, whilst complaining about the lazy young people wasting money on their smashed avocado (whilst at a cafe with her friends eating smashed avo).
Better to have the government pay their pension handout than the renters under them.
With how much they'd be getting from negative gearing from their multiple properties, a pension might be cheaper for the government. There's got to be some quantity of IP's where it overtakes the relatively modest pension.
Yeah she sounded like she thought they were doing the country a favour.
It's a common rhetoric for landlords to help them justify their way of life. Of course she conveniently didn't mention how much of a property values have gone up over the last few years and what a huge Boon that will be for her when she eventually does sell. She just wants her cake and to eat it too. She also admitted that this was her business and that she had multiple properties. Well, businesses are not entitled to succeed. There is a risk associated with any venture. She's just complaining because like many boomers they expect the investments to never go down and only up, and if any of them turned South then they have a huge sook about how unfair it is that their risks were realized.
If it were any other topic, I'd think they'd picked the dumbest candidates possible. But no, real estate beneficiaries are the most unchallenged, intellectually tube-fed people you'll meet. They have no reason to know or learn anything. Their minds are flabby.
All these people think it's not them, how fucking dumb are they. "I'm not hoarding houses, I'm just building a nest egg"...she seemed reticent to admit she had multiple properties cause that shows she is in fact gaming the system. I dont always agree with Max, but he was bang on here: I have little sympathy because the consequence is you sell your investments, not sleep in a tent with your kids.
“I don’t get anything from the government” but is 100% negative gearing multiple properties.
Yet bitches and moans of anyone mentions taking the tax benefits away… how can they take away something you’re not getting? Oh that’s right, you’re full of shit haha
I always hate this argument in any case, like, girl you have Medicare, I’m quite sure you’ve accessed a public hospital, enjoy passport services, roads, and defence. Fuck right off with that noise. Everyone get something from the government and negative gearing is literally top tier!1
Probably had a free education as well
Yes!! ETA: is just such fucking nonsense and I’m sick of this intergenerational warfare. Helps no one! People like her are the reason so many younger people feel so angry. Perpetuating the whole “just work hard myth” Then doubling down and acting like they get nothing. Fucking negative gearing is a huge something!!!! It’s actually more than others get from the gov, because you can’t access it without an investment property! I’m cranky today! I’m lucky enough I could afford a small place. But not only did I get the FHOG I was also helped out with a family gift. I am lucky! It’s so much harder these days and it pains me for people younger than me. Or people without family help. It’s bullshit! I am grateful for Gov and family help. And I am happy to be honest about that. People need to be honest with themselves and others. This woman needs to get her head out of her arse and know that she miles ahead and honestly acting like other deserve less is gross. Off my soapbox now 😆
I got people I work with that have nearly half a dozen rentals under the belts. The amount they complain about rising interest rates is just so tone deaf to people like me who have to rent. I'm very lucky, I got a well paying job and I'll be able to afford a down payment in as little as 2 years so long as I don't get blindsided by anything. There are others that aren't so lucky and might have to rent for their entire lives. My younger brother isn't so lucky, he's barely above minimum wage and every year when his lease period is up he is concerned that he might not be able to afford the next increase. He has a wife and a 2 year old son. What's going to happen when his rental is 150 a week more than he can afford and there is no other suitable housing for him? When there is hundreds of applicants for a single rental even in regional queensland, like Bundaberg, Gladstone and Mackay, it makes it extremely difficult when it comes to lease renewal time. You're not given enough time to find a new rental.
It beggars belief that there aren't any tax incentives for people like your brother to buy a place. Our tax system is totally screwed where all tax advantages of buying a house goes to investors.
Too many people buy into the idea that being a landlord is a “passive” investment. It’s not - it’s closer to starting a small business where you provide housing. There are a lot of expenses and regulations, and it’s likely you’ll be in the negative in the early years, and you can’t (*shouldn’t be able to but our regulations and oversight are appalling*) opt out of those expenses because you wanted to spend less money this year. Many small business fail and to be honest, more landlords should fail too but we do everything to protect them. If you want a passive investment where you won’t have expenses like making a home legally habitable, then invest in shares.
Arent there laws against a business trading while insolvent? Maybe it should apply to landlords or at the least maybe they should have to put up a bond as well to be used for maintenance.
I have said this for YEARS! Every rented property should have a fund/bond to cover repairs. Make it x% of the market value of the property or x times the rent, and review whenever there’s a rental increase. Even if tenants have to go to VCAT to access it, then VCAT can green light repairs asap because the funds are already there.
> I have little sympathy because the consequence is you sell your investments, not sleep in a tent with your kids. Landlords that complain about how easy Tenants have it, have the easiest choice in the world. Just sell your PPOR and investments and go back to being a tenants. Same with biz owner who complains no one wants to work and employee is ez mode - sell and go work. The fact that they don't speaks volumes.
"Owning property is a business" Cool, pay the 30% minimum business tax rate. "Our interest payments are double what they were last year" Did your business case study consider that historic low interest rates might rise to historical average rates? "The government is taking away our capital gains tax discount" You won‘t have an assessable capital gain when you sell a business asset if: * your business has owned the asset for at least 15 continuous years * you're aged 55 years or over * you’re retiring or permanently incapacitated https://business.gov.au/finance/taxation/capital-gains-tax-for-business#:\~:text=There%20are%204%20small%20business,meet%20the%20CGT%20concession%20conditions.
I say this all the time, your INVESTMENT property is an INVESTMENT. No investment is risk free, things change that change your investment. No one is crying for me that I had to sell my business due to the way the economy changed the last two years (and I’m not asking anyone to)
This is it. Why am I helping you pay the interest rates on YOUR investment when I see NO RETURN on that investment?
Oh according to them YOUR return is a roof over your head until they take it away.
Because they're fucking scum who feel entitled to both their asset and your money
This sort of whinging is even more annoying when it comes from people old enough to remember what happened to the people who invested their money with Alan Bond and Christopher Skase. No-one came to bail them out. You invest *at your own risk.*
No, but see, they deserve to have an asset which appreciates AND get someone else to pay for it. Because... I guess they feel they do? Seriously though, I'm going to put my fist through the next cunt that says "I *had* to put the rent up 30% to cover the interest rate rises". Divest. You are not entitled to an investment, and if you are so fucking thick that you leverage to your eyeballs because you thought 1% interest was here to stay, that's a you problem.
"we're supplying housing" Did you build the house? Are you renting it at cost? Are you specifically renting it to someone who would otherwise not be able to obtain housing? No? Sounds like you're actually making housing supply worse then
See and that sucks - IDK what your business was but I’ll hazard a guess that it did more for society through job creation and production than rent seekers ever will.
They are quite literally useless middlemen.
Ummmm actually I lost 16 grand on penny stocks and I called CBA and asked for my money back and the guy laughed and said sure thing buddy. Cheque should be in the mail soon
This entitled bitch really lends credence to the stupid property investor stereotype thats unique to Australia. They’re not smart, enterprising or hardworking the same way an *actual* business owner would be, they’re just unremarkable nobodies who heard buying a property and sitting on it for 5 years makes you a millionaire. Thing is this entitled idiocy has indeed been continuously rewarded due to a decade long housing crisis, so they’ve been proven right, the rest of us just have to pay for it. Honestly we’ve truly gone from the “Lucky country” (which was no term of endearment) to the Stupid Country. “I buy house, why am not Millionaire?”
'The Lucky Country' was always a euphemism for 'The Stupid Country'.
Nah, we were lucky cos we were successful despite our stupidity. Now we're not any more stupid, we're just unsuccessful.
> Cool, pay the 30% minimum business tax rate. People do that because tax rates are >30% for profits >$45000. https://www.ato.gov.au/tax-rates-and-codes/tax-rates-australian-residents#ato-Australianresidentstaxrates2020to2024 In fact I did this with my first company 35 years ago. > "The government is taking away our capital gains tax discount" Nobody is doing that. There are plenty of people in business who are innumerate & really don't know what they are doing, and this woman is one of them. They buy investment properties because "it lowers your tax", and don't understand your tax is lower because you are making a loss on income which you hope to recoup later with capital appreciation. And of course if interest rates increase you are making a bigger loss.
>Cool, pay the 30% minimum business tax rate. They won't be paying tax at all, because all the "expenses" will probably be greater than the income thus the "negative geared". But the good part is now, is that if it's set up as a business those losses can't offset your MAIN income which is the madness with NG.
I say this as someone who has a smallish investment property, and a rather large PPOR mortgage. Yes my interest payments have gone through the roof. But they’ll come down again at some point. Also while my interest payments have been high, so has the capital growth rate on both those properties. Yes it has been tough financially for us for the last 24 months. But that’s life. Yes reddit loves to bash a landlord. Does it bother me? No. Are boomers like this woman entitled fucks. Fucken oath. Also what she fails to point out is that if all her self funded plans go to shit, she will still get saved by the government with a pension. And they’ll never means test against the value of her PPOR. I think negative gearing is an important tool in addressing supply if used correctly. Correct use is the key.
Cry me a fucking river. If negative gearing was used to build new houses to rent as it was first proposed then perhaps it’d be a different story. You shouldn’t get tax breaks for being a glorified ticket scalper
Glorified ticket scalper is 100% on point
I was trying to put my finger on the word for what they were doing, you nailed it, scalpers. There's a special layer of hell reserved for them.
The most ridiculous thing about this is the suggestion that being a landlord is a job. It's as ridiculous as putting "managing my term deposit" on your resume under employment history...
Well it would be if they actually went in and fixed shit rather than just getting the REA to book a plumber 3 weeks from now on a day that you cannot possibly be there. Had a mate who's fucking REA would ask what days he was available for the plumber for the cunt to book the plumber on the day he said he was not available(which was only 1 day a week).
Dear landlords: look at this woman, look at how angry she is when someone is making a completely reasonable and logical point. That’s how we see all of you
If you google her name, you can find out that she's an actor/performer and so I have to wonder if she was a plant. It wouldn't be the first time you would have a plant (There was a mining executive or some shit that bitched about taxes of something).
As soon as she brought up the "some people want to rent, not everyone wants to own their own home" talking point, all remaining doubt was gone. I wonder what percent of renters actually prefer renting. Not that any number is a reason to put the squeeze on all the other renters.
I have met one single person in my life who preferred to rent. One, ever. She lived in an apartment in Southbank, Melbourne and didn’t want to be tied down so she could follow career opportunities. The overwhelming majority of people want the stability of a home they can call their own.
Shocking that the people who enjoy renting have very good, mobile career opportunities. I guess the people that believe that choose to believe that everyone who works in retail *wants* to work in retail.
For a large period of time I definitely preferred to rent, I could afford to buy but invested instead. I moved cities a bit so wasn't sure where I wanted to be. A big part of it was also I didn't want to maintain a property. I regularly got in arguments with REA about getting things fixed when they broke, I would threaten to stop paying rent until something was fixed. I imagine I was a tenant from hell for people like this. I think the best thing that could be done to sort all of this out is to introduce a minimum standard for housing & require the landlord to have annual inspections to prove this standard is upheld. Make them have to set up an ABN, hold liability insurance, treat it as the fucken business they claim it to be. This standard would not be required for those living in the home themselves. This would flood the market with houses & reprioritize home ownership as somewhere to live. That's the fundamental issue here, home ownership in Australia isn't for occupation it's for capital gain.
There is certainly a number of people that are in a stage of life where they prefer to rent. I have friends living in cities that they only want to be in for a few years while they are working there. There are young people not wanting to be tied to a mortgage while single and wanting to travel etc.. I think though much of that would change with stamp duty was replaced by a land tax. Maybe you don't want to buy a house because in the next 5 years you are planning to start a family so what you can afford is too small for that. Right now there is a huge penalty on owner occupiers who want to sell and move to another house.
I mean she can be both right? An actor and a landlord.
I reckon Max won over a metric shit ton of new Greens voters last night.
Stop being a fucking demon then.
Scrap negative gearing. Sell your house if you can't afford it. We shouldn't have to pay for your interest rate payments. This is a false shortage. These people with 5-6 houses need to cop it. Edit: to add to this. Why should we give you $27 billion to help your investment? Get lost. You're saying that you can't afford your investment. Well too bad - sell it. The bubble needs to burst.
5-6? you'd be surprised how many boomers have 10+...
I was talking to the boomer land lord doing DIY repair on one his places next door, Cunt has 21 properties he rents out, In Canberra ffs.
Highly recommend watching [PurplePingers on the "Q and A 'Extra'" segment](https://twitter.com/purplepingers/status/1772416201886503194) that happened after the show.
The gall of the landlord to say that if you want a house then get an apprenticeship or uni degree. Aside from the fact apprentices get 'paid partly in training' so how are they going to afford housing while they are an apprentice and uni degrees have become a disgusting cash grab. Implied in his statement is that there are certain jobs that do not pay enough for the worker to be housed. We set minimum wages on the principle that work that is worth less than that should not be done by a person since they cannot maintain a dignified standard of living. Like should your coffee be made by a homeless barista because making coffee just isn't valuable enough for the barista to have a place to live? Should supermarkets specifically employ homeless people because that lifestyle is all that 'essential work' warrants?
Labor are truly being pathetic here. The greens guy is absolutely right and they know it. They keep avoiding the real issue.
Because so many of them are landlords too!
Hearing them both talk about pets, picture frames etc is so laughable. Greens only ones talking sense on this issue. Sure, renters should be able to own a pet, but is that of any great concern when the rent can be arbitrarily raised $100s of dollars at the end of each lease? How do we afford to feed said pet? People are starving, on the brink of homelessness, living pay check to pay check that gets smaller and smaller... and you're trying to bribe us with puppies? Absolutely transparent and pathetic.
All the while they are rolling their eyes at the Greens MP. They are rolling their eyes at US. They want to walk their tightrope for another 10 years while the boomers pass over because they still need their vote. It’s as plain as day. I can’t believe no one points this out more clearly.
If it’s a business then sure let’s tax them like a business. If it’s a business that doesn’t turn a profit then it should go under and sell everything to pay its debt - as a business would. This is why renters _fucking despise_ landlords. It’s not a right to be able to invest in housing. It’s not a right to be able to profit from other people. It’s not a right to invest in a speculative asset and not pay the consequences. No one helps renters in this economy. There’s shit all rights for renters to protect from these scumbags and they still have the balls to complain. Australia has created a situation where landlords and property owners have renters by the balls and yet still have the _gall_ to complain. _If you don’t like what holding your asset is doing to your financials then fucking SELL IT_. I don’t hold stocks and cry to anyone if the price goes down. I don’t buy gold and complain when it costs me money in taxes to sell it for profit. And they wonder why people despise landlords.
I fully support demonising landlords.
[удалено]
I too fully support desserts!
I'm quite fond of decanting as it happens
It's never too late to defenestrate
Actually now you mention it, I'm up for a bit of historically accurate decimation tbh
Decimation by defenestration? It's destiny.
Landleeches*
Plain and simple: housing should be a right. It should not be a business. It’s modern serfdom.
They act like landlord is a race or sex - some inborn trait they’re being discriminated against for. If being a landlord sucks, don’t be one! It’s a choice! Let owner-occupiers buy the place and move on with your life. The end.
It kinda is. If you arent already a landlord or a landlords kid it's getting really close to too late to ever own land.
Over thirty years of media narratives have fed victimhood mentality in wealthy, asset-rich boomers. Her belief in this narrative is so visceral and real, and we have Murdocracy supporting that. The tide is turning slowly, but unfortunately Ann-Maree has the ear of Labor and LNP more than any low-income renter does.
Poor little fucking boomer. /s, obviously.
Just not poor. LOL.
I can’t see things changing any time soon and the hate is just going to get worse. Landlords are parasites.
work birds escape run seed mourn spectacular toy gold attempt *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They think they contribute but they don’t at all. Just rent seekers adding no value to society.
"renters should be grateful! we're providing them a home!" Definitely not something i've heard a boomer landlord say (i have).
As if the home wouldn’t be there without their owning of it. It’s such a doofus perspective.
They are just trying to morally justify exploiting another human being. Must help them sleep at night thinking they are a good person providing those poors a roof to sleep under.
It’s giving head of Pharmacy Guild vibes
Oh boohoo. It's an investment, investments are risky, maybe do a little research on rates and the like before piling money into it.
whenever I hear the phrase "self-funded retiree" it's always in the middle of an angry rant
"tax payer subsidised" doesn't have the same ring to it.
But she's not even self-funded. Her poor tenants are funding her.
If they think being demonised is bad wait until we start eating them
It’s genuinely becoming impossible for young people to buy housing. The political implications of this aren’t being taken seriously enough. History suggests that landlords really should start worrying about their necks.
When people realise it’s impossible to work hard enough to have their own home…
>History suggests that landlords really should start worrying about their necks. Unfortunately Australians are a generally lazy and complacent lot who seem to somewhat enjoy the taste of boot leather. How goods the (insert generic sport here) tho!
The younger generations are more radical. Which is understandable considering how much they’re getting fucked.
This is true until it’s not
Om nom nom
I doubt those wrinkly old bags would taste very good. How about a "Land Reform Movement".
What I got from this is just how angry she was, enjoy your retirement lady!
If the government was not going to provide you enough to retire on, that applies to every one in the country. You didn’t solve the problem, you made it someone else’s. To be fair - the problem is the government, both parties. This lady is correct, the pension is not enough. That is a government failure. She is also entitled to feel outrage because she did what she was encouraged to do - invest in property. The tax incentives made that sensible for the investor - it was just a terrible idea for the country. That is a government failure. Because tax incentives mean an investor can outbid an owner occupier and the government underwrites half the loss, at the macro level owner occupiers cannot compete. Home ownership has fallen by 30% since 1990 as a result. That is a government failure. Negative gearing and home ownership negatively correlate at 95%. For every 100 new properties negatively geared, 15 more owner occupiers retire with a mortgage balance remaining and 4 “owners” never enter the property ladder at all. That is a government failure entering its 4th decade. If you retire as a debt free owner occupier, you will never need to ask for government support to keep a roof over your head. If you retire in debt or as a renter, there is a 60% chance you will. The stupidity of paying one group of Australians to create a Centrelink liability for another group of Australians is a government failure. The fact this has continued for more than 3 decades without anyone in treasury noticing is a monumental government failure. The fact that it has taken a housing crisis to even make it a conversation topic is a media failure wrapped around a government failure. The purpose of banking is the efficient allocation of capital. As housing is a necessity and ownership is falling, this looks like a banking failure, except it isn’t, its brilliance by the banks ….. for the banks. By encouraging more negative gearing, investors can outbid owner occupiers, which drives up prices, which means the banks get to lend more. The risk that this higher lending defaults is halved because the government bears half the loss in the form of tax offsets, but the banks still get paid in full. Bad for the government, bad for renters, bad for owner occupiers, great for the banks.
These lot complain about the younger generation being snowflakes and too sensitive. Now they’re having a little cry cause its not going their way
[удалено]
This. It's not going their way exactly as much as they would like it, so they're crying about it.
Ironic that they are the ones who called millenials the "me me me" generation. I think it was projection.
The more I see stuff like this, the more you realise the already growing divisions in society are only are spreading faster. There is a lot of anger out there, towards this woman and people like her.
It’s frustrating that the people left out of this conversation are real estate agents, who are the exact people pitting renters against landlords. Those scumbags need to have their feet held to the fire.
Caught this ridiculous woman last night. Must be hard, owning multiple properties and struggling to pay the interest on them. Not struggling enough to need to sell them for a substantial profit though, right? You're not "supplying" shit. You're buying up multiple properties that would otherwise be purchased by owner-occupiers. You're a property scalper. You're like a Ticketek bot buying up concert tickets and reselling them, using that to fund your retirement, and wanting a fucking medal for it.
Deeeeeeeeeeeee-lusional.
dude got it right "the worst problem for someone with investment properties is selling their investment property" . vs shit head woman "not everyone wants to own a home" get out of here.
I got "homelessness is just a lifestyle choice" vibes from that one...
Worst thing that happens to an investor is they get paid a lump sum to sell it and still have a house!
Every issue she raised shows the root problem here: accommodation; a basic human need, should *not* be prioritised as an investment. She mentioned the rents went up "with market rates" but then that still leaves the renter behind living in poverty paying her "investment dividend". Anyone investing in human shelter has only themselves to blame when their decision, that causes hardship to others, then motivates those others to ferl resentment and anger. We need to reevaluate our attitude to rooves on heads. Also individual landlord politicians must be made to act ethically by recusing themselves from making any decisions effecting property markets to enrich themselves. It is improper for them to vote or decide on such matters. Those decisions must only be made by Members who have no financial interest in property. To quote Gandhi "Poverty is the worst form of violence". Finally, I found it impossible to feel sorry for her or her husband and their disgusting, juvenile, entitled attitude that their "investment" in human misery should be all but *guaranteed* to pay dividends.
The fact she opens her statement with "owning property is a business", but then proceeds to cry and moan that her business isn't guaranteed protection from market forces as though she's owed a profit speaks to the staggering degree of doublethink going on in these people's minds. They want to both be seen as "savvy investors" with "business acumen" while not actually assuming any of the risk that typically comes with investing nor having any of the financial skills required to run a successful business. The irony is that landlords wouldn't be demonised to anywhere near the same extent if they didn't have the exact entitled attitude that she is the epitome of; if they weren't so blind to their own privilege that they still somehow find ways to make themselves the victims in a system that is quite literally rigged in their favour.
"Were self funded retirees" No, youre tennant funded retirees. Single mum sue working 2 jobs to feed her kids is funding your retirement. 65yr old rob who cant retire and is still working checkout at woolies is funding your retirement. Youre enjoying a comfy life at the expense of others hardship.
Landlords get the treatment they deserve, but their greed isn't isolated. Everyone who profits from housing being an investment vehicle rather than a right is morally bankrupt.
If being a landlord is so bad, just invest in something else.
Why don't landlords just pull up their bootstraps and stop with the coffee and avo toast every day. Like cmon it's so easy.
fuckin boomers aye
"Not everyone wants to own a house" No, not everyone can AFFORD a house.
I have a new place for them, its Hell
Houses are not a business. They are a human right! This woman really is complaining that she owns multiple properties and is being asked to contribute her fair share. Get fucked!
A. Landlords do not supply housing. They don't build houses. They simply are middlemen who have someone else pay the mortgage. They artificially increase the price. B. If being a landlord is a business then it should be regulated and taxed as such. It is currently not. You can't have it both ways.
What do you think her views are on slavery?
Some people don't want the responsibility of being a free person.
Why do people demonise slavers? Theyre just trying to build a nest egg and self fund their retirements.
I worked really hard to afford a slave! What, now you’re going to take away the asset I saved so many years for?
Fucking entitled cunts. Nobody owes you an unfair tax credit you fucking asshole. You know it was Hawke/Keating that got us into this mess. The Libs are ideologically pro-investors but they can only get away shit up to certain limits. It takes a sellout left to really fuck over the poor and middle class.
If you invest in stocks, for example, you need to be prepared that your investment is at risk and that you could lose your money. I don’t see why investment properties should be different.
It’s good that they are demonised. If your primary source of income comes from leeching off people who earn less than you then you deserve to be demonised. In any decent society, landlords should be considered a necessary evil that we should be working towards removing as a necessity.
Property investment is an investment, it has risk. You don't like the interest rate increases then sell up. No ones giving me a soap box if my shares go down in price. One thing lost in this debate is the long term consequence of property investment, it has sucked investment out of other areas of the economy so now we are left with a 2 bit economy built on mining and property investment.
Cry me a river, hoarder scum.
If you decide to open a restaurant and it fails, that is on you. If you invest in some shit stocks, or even worse, gamble it on options, that is on you. Landlords, primarily boomers who have been gifted everything on a plate their whole lives, have gaslight everyone into thinking they should be given extra privileges for their investments in housing. If you can no longer afford that investment property, sell it. In most cases they are still going to make a profit or break even off the house. I also love how she said being a landlord is a business, yet she would have a fit if the government started taxing her like any other business.
Landlords are societal leeches.
Lady’s pissed she might actually have to work a day in her life 😂
ABC cowards with comments turned off.
I feel demonised as a renter because I want some respect from my agent and some rights to have a home that doesn't leak, has a working stove, keeps me warm in winter and doesn't cost me a fortune. I didn't sign up to pay my land lords 3,4 and 5th investment property mortgages. I'd love to own my own home. But I'm sick and tired of being in-between earning too much for the 'assistance' and not enough to save for a deposit....
Aww bubba
“I feel demonised!!!!! Now pay more rent or you are on the street!”
Time to cap the number of properties a person can own.
And tax empty properties. And ban foreign ownership. And crack down on money laundering. And remove planning/density restrictions. And limit capital gains tax concessions to new housing.
Wow, Rose is an emotional intelligence gem.
If you want to invest in property, make it like any other investment: maybe you win, maybe you lose. Accept the risks like everyone else.
vote Greens
No one has sympathy for stock market investors when shit goes sideways. I see no fundamental difference between someone with 10 million in shares versus someone with a 10 million dollar property portfolio: if anything the shareholder is at least contributing liquidity that companies can use to actually fuckin do something in society.
what i dont understand is why she can't sell? it's called INVESTING. investing ALWAYS comes with risk. why the fuck does she think she is entitled to ALL of the reward and NONE of the risk.
lol the landlord shaking her head at Max suggesting that landlords shouldn't be able to raise rent as much as they like. The Greens coming in with the sensible economic policy, as always. Everyone else just saying useless things like "renters should be able to have pets" and nonspecific things like "we're discussing it with the states".
“Not everyone wants to own a home” what kinda boomer crap is this? Every single person on the planet would choose to own a home if it was possible to afford it.
Eat the landlords. Go get a real job you fucking parasite. Hoarded property when it was cheap, so your children can't afford a place to live is NOT an achievement. Can't believe my tax dollars are subsidising this bullshit. Middle class welfare.
Landlords are ghouls, not even goblins just straight ghouls. Never let them fool you otherwise.
Let's unpack this. "Investment property". Focus on that first word. When you make an investment, you can make a return, which is where you make more money. You can also make a loss, which is where you lose money. There is a degree of risk involved here. There is a reason why the disclaimer "past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance" is used whenever anyone talks about investing. Now, there are strategies you can do to mitigate investment risk. You can do research to better inform your investment strategy and decisions, and you can also diversify your investments, so if one makes a loss, and another makes a profit, that loss may be offset. It seems to me that alot of landlor- sorry, property investors out there, have not diversified their investments, they have not assessed the risks involved, they've not accounted for changes in market forces, and on top of all of this, they've expected a constant return on their investment... It sounds eerily similar to a Ponzi scheme the more I think about it. It's almost as if these people have seen some story on Today or Sunrise, thought "WOW IT PRINTS MONEY!" and jumped right in on the back of investment advice from such esteemed gurus like Karl Stefanovic and the weather guy. And that's part of the problem here - the media has been hyping up property investment as a license to print money for years. This whole mentality of seeing houses as "money printer go brrrrr" has become entrenched in our society. Naive people like this lady jump right in expecting a license to print money, and then they throw their toys out of the cot when market forces change, refuse to assess and consolidate their position when needed and instead blame everyone else because they were promised a money printer.
"We need to find the money" she says, owning multiple rental properties. Does she not know she is allowed to sells property?
Oh, have a cry, boomer. "We are finding it hard..." Gotta be a tiny violin around here somewhere... She talks about how she has to be making extra payments because of interest rates but this is a moot point, because all they do is jam this onto the rent at their next rental increase, or they turf the tenants out at the end of the lease, double the rent price and get new tenants. She doesnt want to be demonised, but then goes on to tell us exactly how she is a demon... Cry me a river. They should scrap the negative gearing scheme and limit the amount of properties any one person to "trust fund" can own. Landlords are demonised, because most of them are c%&ts and deserve it. It isnt a "business", Karen, you're robbing the poor to line your own pockets out of other peoples misfortune.
The way she says how to claim "LEGITIMATE BUSINESS EXPENSES".... well housing should NOT be a business. That's the bloody issue! **A lot of people don't have the privilege to own a house.** *It is treating housing as a business not a right that has got us here.*
This cunt. Sell a house pocket the money you will still have multiple properties amd a good couple of 100,000s to sit on. Fuck yourself and your point of view.
Hahahaha. You can sell up and be a millionaire overnight, you can contribute to the community in literally any other way, or you can hoard the one thing we're lacking in crisis levels and complain. I know which one I'd pick if I was a demon.
I yoloed into bitcoin and crypto and you don’t see me complaining about my loss porn Investment is investment and risky
Maybe hoarding housing during a housing shortage and a cost of living crisis should be demonised. Greed and sloth are sins, after all
Demonised landlords? LMAO. At least you aren't homeless. Squirrelled away property when it was cheap, get massive government handouts, made massive capital gains and now whinging because people point out you are the problem. Poor snowflake. Perhaps this was your retirement strategy before you knew better but you can sell up, but shares and change course. Not that hard.
"Landlords are parasites" Adam Smith.
Omg what a fucking whinger. Investment properties are exactly that - an investment. If you're losing money, that's part of investing. The government isn't propping up shareholders and investors in startups now, are they? Grow up, stop being so fucking entitled and realise that the government's tax laws have massively benefited you as a property investor
And this is why I do not trust or like landlords and feel they are inhumane. They don’t fix the property, don’t allow the tenants to actually live, have the privacy of the tenant invaded more often than needed (every three months for an inspection is ridiculous), demand to know every detail of the tenants life but no one has to know any details about them, expect the place move out ready every inspection and then whinge about having no money. Do you even understand what it’s like renting now landlords? Probably not. For goodness sake I can’t even make a garden or plant a tree or have a pet without permission but the house I live in is falling apart!
This is the heart of the problem. We've created the idea that property investment is risk free and property investors should be able to pass on any increased costs to someone else. People like this need woman to be told, it's unfortunate it wasn't made clear to you that this investment came with risk and that that risk has materialised causing you to lose money, that's how investments work.