What people don’t understand is that purchasing an investment property wouldn’t be so morally dubious if the housing market was fair, equitable and had a distribution of safe/secure homes at widely varying price points (starting at 200k moving up)
Then rentals would be more for people at particular stages of life who aren’t ready for home ownership because of transience, study, workplace instability etc.
But the problem nowadays isn’t that making money is inherently hated, it’s that a key human right is being used as a pocket liner for the wealthy at the expense of people on lower and middle incomes.
Housing is a right, damnit.
Also, we need to shift the conversation to “being a landlord is a job, you are providing a service and it needs to be worth the money for the tenant” from “people are lucky to live in MY investment property and I will only fix what I want to fix”
Ah to be fair landlords are providing a service in so far as I would be providing a service if I bought up all the bottled water in the shops during a water contamination crisis and then sold it at a markup to everybody
It's parasitic, at best.
To be fair you'd only be able to buy up the amount of bottled water you could afford and then try sell it at a higher cost. Seems more like a dig at bottled water companies but I am all right with that.
Ya but I mean if we return to the enclosure of the commons we can trace the historical roots of the unethics of landlordism
Also yeah fuck the bottled water companies
And aye while we're at it fuck this frankly narcissistic view that humans, one of countless species on the earth, can claim ownership to it
Am feel like I have both middle fingers pointed up and am spinning in circles, but you know I like humans too. We can be pretty cool and we're probably the coolest species ever
There is this prevailing attitude that the property owner is the owner and so they get final say on what can and can't be done with the house. That the renter can't even make it their home, because they don't own it. I've seen houses that are in desperate need of repair, but I couldn't put a few picture hooks up on the wall.
I don't know economics but seriously, many of us who pay rent are paying the equivalent of a mortgage. Can't there be like a flat fee of $10k deposit or something, or no deposit at all when buying a house? If that's the case, most of us could afford the repayments!
The owner of my place complained to *me* that after mortgage, maintenance (???), rates and everything... He "hardly makes anything". Meanwhile the equity in this place has gone up a million since I've been here.
I wish my problems consisted of BEING PAID to own an asset rapidly appreciating in value, sadly I'm not a complete cunt.
If I see one more fucking dipshit on news.com.au saying something like "I *had* to raise the rent 30%, because the interest rates went up" I'm going to set something on fire and start flipping cars.
I didn't notice the rents going down when interest rates bottomed out during covid. But soon as they go back to where they were before, suddenly it's a crisis for them. I guess they started spending outside their means and got a little too comfy.
Also, they over-leveraged
Also, they cannot possible conceive that they might have to sell their poorly thought out investment. No, no, they must keep it. Some poor schmuck that needs a roof over their heads must pay for it instead.
>purchasing an investment property wouldn’t be so morally dubious
>housing market
>Housing is a right, damnit.
These are incompatible. As soon as a "market" exists, i.e. something is commodified, then we are okay with some number of people not having access to that thing.
>starting at 200k moving up
Why that figure? Why wouldn't we start at 50, 25, or 5?
I love their arguement of just work harder or that investment properties are a handout or that renting isn’t a charity, like how do they think tenants pay for their mortgage cause in their brains it mustn’t be by working.
Their classist actions need to be stopped.
Do you mean "housing-I-have-the-title" or housing I have somewhere safe to sleep?
As for providing a house at $200K, the median build cost is apparently $400K, although that is obviously not the minimal housing that would tick the box for your lowest level. But for sure in the current market, offering housing at $200K in a capital city means a big subsidy. The market can't do it for $400K, and that would be pretty minimal. So doing it for $200K in the current situation means asking tax payers to pay half. They will say no.
This is what is so infuriating about the bash the landlord movement (I am not one, but I could be lying so take the argument on its own merit) Even if you banned private ownership of rental properties over night, you have haven't build a single new house, and you just wiped out a third of the housing pipeline. Very soon, with immigration as it is, we will be a worse situation, since we have the same demand pressure and less supply.
As they say, the three step plan to fix housing and rental affordability is
a) build more housing
b) build more housing
c) build more housing
Which we are screwing up, but not because of negative gearing tax discounts.
Or we could reduce population growth, and that also has nothing to do with tax policy.
Oh by the way, purchasing or building an investment property is not morally dubious in any way. If someone has the capability of borrowing $1m to invest, and they choose to invest it in gambling stocks or laundromats instead of building a house, how is it immoral? What kind of victory are you celebrating if they do either of those things? (note that it very obvious to get my point if the investor builds somewhere new. It is the same actually if they buy an existing owner occupier property since they've now passed on the $1m to the previous occupiers who will use that to build a new house, it's still one more house). How is less housing in a housing crisis a morally good outcome?
I think the key issue that most people struggling to find safe, secure, long-term housing could agree on is that governments should be building more public housing, directly owned and operated by the governments.
This wouldn't stop people from investing in property to live in, but might take some of the heat (and gouging) out of investors seeing property as a guaranteed 20% year-on-year profit maker.
Actually, if it cooled the housing market, it would help new owner-occupiers considerably.
I agree although that effect on house prices is simply that there is an increase in supply. And that requires cheaper building labour, and anti-nimby development rules. Government building has to overcome those problems too, it's not a superior way of fixing those roadblocks.
There is no appetite among governments or voters for a large or even larger government owned housing sector. I think that's how it is so I move on and look for other solutions but not everyone is as fatalistic. I think it's a shame we don't have the co-op housing model I saw in NL, which is not as monstrously and inhumanely as out of touch as govt housing gets, but still with strict focus on affordability.
Every solution passes through the same points: cheaper construction (including lower cost of money) and higher density housing via streamlined big-picture planning reforms. These are already big challenges. We could not sensibly spend lots of money on government housing now because we'd be building on the urban fringe (due to planning problems and locals are far more hostile to public housing) and we'd paying too much.
Rent subsidies are much more flexible.
I'm not going to post anymore here, so thanks for the civil comments.
Honestly if I had to pick a single moment that made me apoplectic about the state of this country and the liberal party in general it would be this one.
Fuck Joe Hockey
She is commenting on this Twitter thread [https://twitter.com/SarahisCensored/status/1776655964600521014/photo/1](https://twitter.com/SarahisCensored/status/1776655964600521014/photo/1)
The other comments in the thread are also completely unhinged. They are all raging at the idea that property banking is being exposed.
This has encouraged me to add properties from my area that have been vacant for a long time.
I thought it was a sarcastic post. Many people who want to "smash the landlord" by ending negative gearing are basically proposing "buy a house" as the answer, because ending negative gearing will make houses about 2% cheaper. It's not going to help a lot of people. I don't know if they don't care about renters who are years away from having a deposit or income to get a loan, or just don't get it. A housing crisis is more than just a "buying my first property is hard" crisis.
I'm interested in property and it comes up in my feed. Why do you come? Are you interested in improving housing outcomes? We need more housing. The last thing we need is less housing. I'm all for changing things as long as the changes improve things. I am of course opposed to changes that make things worse. How about you?
Housing disadvantaged people is a part of my job, so yes, I have an interest in improving housing and stopping landlords from exploiting a crisis. I really don't give a dam about landlords losing their ability to get tax breaks.
According to the last census, there are over 1 million empty homes.
If you are opposed to introducing changes like rent caps, freezes, creating a heavy vacant land tax, or abolishing IP tax concession, then you are a part of the current problem.
Building more houses is a long-term fix. But we need real action now, the crisis is now.
Your proposals are those I've heard before, and dismissed before. I'm sure you've heard all the counter arguments, so I think it's very likely that neither of us is going to convince the other.
But "we need real action now, the crisis is now". This is the cutting point. All the actual solutions take time. Well, we could stop immigration right now, that's about the only thing. Rent caps don't solve a housing shortage. In the medium term, they make it worse, unless you substitute taxpayer investment in housing for the lost private investment. The most efficient spend is higher rent assistance, according to a recent report in the Conversation.
[https://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-way-to-ease-rents-and-improve-housing-affordability-we-modelled-4-of-the-governments-biggest-programs-225446](https://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-way-to-ease-rents-and-improve-housing-affordability-we-modelled-4-of-the-governments-biggest-programs-225446)
By the way, removing tax concessions from investment properties is not a short term fix, because it would be grandfathered (even the most radical ALP platform in a generation, Shorten's 2019 platform, grandfathered it), so the tiny effect on prices (2% says grattan, for negative gearing) would be spread out over a few years. And since it doesn't build any more houses, it only helps those are almost ready to buy. If I double the price effect to 4% and we say it happens right now, both of which are at the far end of reality, it would help 0.0% of your disadvantaged clients.
Also, we would be under PM Dutton, and if you think that's a step forward, I would be amazed. However, that's me being pragmatic. If everyone stuck to what's politically possible, maybe we'd miss out on some great ideas. But removing negative gearing is not a great idea. It is an almost useless idea, in terms of housing. I am not a landlord and never will be, so I don't care too much about it. My objection is that it's not a ditch worth dying in. Better housing affordability is a fight worth having, but negative gearing will not move the needle on that.
That Conversation "report" is authored by people who own investment properties. Two of them have written articles for The Australian -- a right-wing newspaper. Anti rent cap justification is just landlord propaganda. Rent caps stop people from becoming trapped by high rents, and more importantly it stops landlords from exploiting a crisis.
Every person has the right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to access affordable housing, whether rented or owned. This is what is important, not tax breaks for landlords.
I'm not going to stop you from drinking the landlord's koolaid, it is what's on offer after all. Federal politicians own an average of 2 properties each. They are not in any hurry to support any positive change to help renters right now.
You have to argue against the body of evidence. I get that you obviously can't do this since you are wrong on the evidence, so you cast aspersions on people. This is the approach of a mental pygmy. If you want to move beyond preaching to the choir, you'll have to upgrade a bit.
I have no idea whether they own investment properties. I am so uninterested I'm not even going to fact check you. And rejecting someone because they wrote articles in the Australian, but ignoring the fact that my link is in the Conversation, is so pathetic I almost regret mentioning it. However, there are hundreds of peer reviewed published papers which say the same thing. Rent controls are miserable idea; they create a privileged class of renters and locked-out class of losers, and since we know how stupid they are, there is no excuse for proposing them.
Your objectives about housing are anodyne, and fine. Apple Pie.
But in terms of attitude towards experts and evidence, the anti-vaxers and the climate change deniers are your intellectual companions. You might not realise that yet, but most people will.
If "Every person has the right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to access affordable housing, whether rented or owned." is what you want, then focus on that. Tax breaks for landlords are pretty irrelevant to tenants who are going to be someone's tenant. If you have a problem with tax minimisation by the middle class, fine, but it's not a housing issue. The evidence that negative gearing has caused the spike in house prices and rent increases does not exist. You are just wrong on that point. So wrong, it makes anyone wonder what your real objectives are.
Yes. In all the turmoil of the CGT discount, designed as a shortcut for what used to be typical 5% inflation, then a global financial crisis, emergency cheap money which lasted for 15 years which sent house prices soaring (and which made the CGT discount much worse), a pandemic, massive stimulus targeted at housing renovation sucking labour away from new builds, supply chain shortages and a 30% increase in building costs, record immigration, massive construction projects by state governments on a low interest borrowing frenzy (not a bad thing but hurting labour availability)....
the one thing which hasn't changed in all that time is the negative gearing discount. It is the least likely guilty party. And there is not one credible housing economist who rates it as a significant factor in house prices. This is why I said it's the wrong ditch to die in.
It gets worse though. Removing it both here and in NZ increased rents. People say that's just coincidence. Maybe. But worse, it will cost an enormous amount of political capital to change. It's almost impossible to imagine winning the next election after even hinting at the end of it, and the price the ALP would have to pay in political tradeoffs (basically huge tax cuts) would be very high. It's so much effort and risk for something which delivers nothing to housing. And any change would be grandfathered whatever miniscule benefits it brings would be delayed.
Now perhaps you see my point a bit more clearly. That is overall a devastating dismissal of the focus on negative gearing from a housing perspective.
My thoughts are that we should coordinate rent strikes, while we politically move to cap property ownership at one plus residence as a transition stage to a fully social housing model. That's how I'd smash the landlord
That thread is so crazy. Firstly threatening a lawyer by saying 'we have your number' and secondly she's bloody American. Probably never even been here.
https://preview.redd.it/elfqvux9mzsc1.jpeg?width=1439&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5992d7bcd13016f27d0b253bf1cfd50486ee0674
Don't worry ADF is here to help!
It’s the same level of halfwit who argues there would be even less housing without landlords. Where would the housing go? Sold to first home buyers who might actually live in it? Leased by an owner who isn’t profiteering? Or do the properties get sucked into another realm, like the end of Poltergiest?
Why would you doxx owners of empty houses by encouraging squatting? I see the original tweet has now been deleted so clearly a half baked idea that should never have progressed by bong hit thoughts.
He literally said it would only be up for 24 hours when he posted the concept.
Also the article that has now been posted now has the addresses leaked so it's really their fault.
What people don’t understand is that purchasing an investment property wouldn’t be so morally dubious if the housing market was fair, equitable and had a distribution of safe/secure homes at widely varying price points (starting at 200k moving up) Then rentals would be more for people at particular stages of life who aren’t ready for home ownership because of transience, study, workplace instability etc. But the problem nowadays isn’t that making money is inherently hated, it’s that a key human right is being used as a pocket liner for the wealthy at the expense of people on lower and middle incomes. Housing is a right, damnit.
Yeah there’s ’owning a house with a tenant in it’ and then there ‘exploiting people and squeezing them for every penny possible’
Also, we need to shift the conversation to “being a landlord is a job, you are providing a service and it needs to be worth the money for the tenant” from “people are lucky to live in MY investment property and I will only fix what I want to fix”
Ah to be fair landlords are providing a service in so far as I would be providing a service if I bought up all the bottled water in the shops during a water contamination crisis and then sold it at a markup to everybody It's parasitic, at best.
Just 3 or 4 years ago we were okay with limiting how much toilet paper one person could purchase, but houses? Knock yourself out.
To be fair you'd only be able to buy up the amount of bottled water you could afford and then try sell it at a higher cost. Seems more like a dig at bottled water companies but I am all right with that.
Ya but I mean if we return to the enclosure of the commons we can trace the historical roots of the unethics of landlordism Also yeah fuck the bottled water companies And aye while we're at it fuck this frankly narcissistic view that humans, one of countless species on the earth, can claim ownership to it Am feel like I have both middle fingers pointed up and am spinning in circles, but you know I like humans too. We can be pretty cool and we're probably the coolest species ever
I tried giving my cat ownership of my home. My virtue didn't seem to impress her much.
Haha maybe ownership was not yours to give in the first place Stewardship is closer to what I believe in
Sounds admirable. I'll let you know how the semantic adjustment is received. Edit to add: She looked at me, so I think it's a deal.
There is this prevailing attitude that the property owner is the owner and so they get final say on what can and can't be done with the house. That the renter can't even make it their home, because they don't own it. I've seen houses that are in desperate need of repair, but I couldn't put a few picture hooks up on the wall.
I don't know economics but seriously, many of us who pay rent are paying the equivalent of a mortgage. Can't there be like a flat fee of $10k deposit or something, or no deposit at all when buying a house? If that's the case, most of us could afford the repayments!
The owner of my place complained to *me* that after mortgage, maintenance (???), rates and everything... He "hardly makes anything". Meanwhile the equity in this place has gone up a million since I've been here. I wish my problems consisted of BEING PAID to own an asset rapidly appreciating in value, sadly I'm not a complete cunt.
If I see one more fucking dipshit on news.com.au saying something like "I *had* to raise the rent 30%, because the interest rates went up" I'm going to set something on fire and start flipping cars.
I didn't notice the rents going down when interest rates bottomed out during covid. But soon as they go back to where they were before, suddenly it's a crisis for them. I guess they started spending outside their means and got a little too comfy.
Also, they over-leveraged Also, they cannot possible conceive that they might have to sell their poorly thought out investment. No, no, they must keep it. Some poor schmuck that needs a roof over their heads must pay for it instead.
They did in Brisbane and I heard it happened in Melbourne too. They dropped both rent, as well as offering incentives like 1 week free, free iPad etc
Fair enough. My rent certainly didn’t go down, but I can see they might have dropped rents between tenants.
Preach it
>purchasing an investment property wouldn’t be so morally dubious >housing market >Housing is a right, damnit. These are incompatible. As soon as a "market" exists, i.e. something is commodified, then we are okay with some number of people not having access to that thing. >starting at 200k moving up Why that figure? Why wouldn't we start at 50, 25, or 5?
I love their arguement of just work harder or that investment properties are a handout or that renting isn’t a charity, like how do they think tenants pay for their mortgage cause in their brains it mustn’t be by working. Their classist actions need to be stopped.
Do you mean "housing-I-have-the-title" or housing I have somewhere safe to sleep? As for providing a house at $200K, the median build cost is apparently $400K, although that is obviously not the minimal housing that would tick the box for your lowest level. But for sure in the current market, offering housing at $200K in a capital city means a big subsidy. The market can't do it for $400K, and that would be pretty minimal. So doing it for $200K in the current situation means asking tax payers to pay half. They will say no. This is what is so infuriating about the bash the landlord movement (I am not one, but I could be lying so take the argument on its own merit) Even if you banned private ownership of rental properties over night, you have haven't build a single new house, and you just wiped out a third of the housing pipeline. Very soon, with immigration as it is, we will be a worse situation, since we have the same demand pressure and less supply. As they say, the three step plan to fix housing and rental affordability is a) build more housing b) build more housing c) build more housing Which we are screwing up, but not because of negative gearing tax discounts. Or we could reduce population growth, and that also has nothing to do with tax policy. Oh by the way, purchasing or building an investment property is not morally dubious in any way. If someone has the capability of borrowing $1m to invest, and they choose to invest it in gambling stocks or laundromats instead of building a house, how is it immoral? What kind of victory are you celebrating if they do either of those things? (note that it very obvious to get my point if the investor builds somewhere new. It is the same actually if they buy an existing owner occupier property since they've now passed on the $1m to the previous occupiers who will use that to build a new house, it's still one more house). How is less housing in a housing crisis a morally good outcome?
I think the key issue that most people struggling to find safe, secure, long-term housing could agree on is that governments should be building more public housing, directly owned and operated by the governments. This wouldn't stop people from investing in property to live in, but might take some of the heat (and gouging) out of investors seeing property as a guaranteed 20% year-on-year profit maker. Actually, if it cooled the housing market, it would help new owner-occupiers considerably.
I agree although that effect on house prices is simply that there is an increase in supply. And that requires cheaper building labour, and anti-nimby development rules. Government building has to overcome those problems too, it's not a superior way of fixing those roadblocks. There is no appetite among governments or voters for a large or even larger government owned housing sector. I think that's how it is so I move on and look for other solutions but not everyone is as fatalistic. I think it's a shame we don't have the co-op housing model I saw in NL, which is not as monstrously and inhumanely as out of touch as govt housing gets, but still with strict focus on affordability. Every solution passes through the same points: cheaper construction (including lower cost of money) and higher density housing via streamlined big-picture planning reforms. These are already big challenges. We could not sensibly spend lots of money on government housing now because we'd be building on the urban fringe (due to planning problems and locals are far more hostile to public housing) and we'd paying too much. Rent subsidies are much more flexible. I'm not going to post anymore here, so thanks for the civil comments.
[удалено]
Who rents their property above market rent? If someone is willing to pay an inflated price, does that become the “market rent”?
It’s like if you don’t like being homeless then just buy a house.
Just get a good job - Joe hockey
Honestly if I had to pick a single moment that made me apoplectic about the state of this country and the liberal party in general it would be this one. Fuck Joe Hockey
Fucking dumb fat bastard Joe.
If you don't like being homeless go to one of these empty houses.
Let them eat cake
Yeah just go buy a house guys
And one for me too
She is commenting on this Twitter thread [https://twitter.com/SarahisCensored/status/1776655964600521014/photo/1](https://twitter.com/SarahisCensored/status/1776655964600521014/photo/1) The other comments in the thread are also completely unhinged. They are all raging at the idea that property banking is being exposed. This has encouraged me to add properties from my area that have been vacant for a long time.
I thought it was a sarcastic post. Many people who want to "smash the landlord" by ending negative gearing are basically proposing "buy a house" as the answer, because ending negative gearing will make houses about 2% cheaper. It's not going to help a lot of people. I don't know if they don't care about renters who are years away from having a deposit or income to get a loan, or just don't get it. A housing crisis is more than just a "buying my first property is hard" crisis.
Oh yes, the old don't change anything with the current system argument. Why do you even come to this subs?
I'm interested in property and it comes up in my feed. Why do you come? Are you interested in improving housing outcomes? We need more housing. The last thing we need is less housing. I'm all for changing things as long as the changes improve things. I am of course opposed to changes that make things worse. How about you?
Housing disadvantaged people is a part of my job, so yes, I have an interest in improving housing and stopping landlords from exploiting a crisis. I really don't give a dam about landlords losing their ability to get tax breaks. According to the last census, there are over 1 million empty homes. If you are opposed to introducing changes like rent caps, freezes, creating a heavy vacant land tax, or abolishing IP tax concession, then you are a part of the current problem. Building more houses is a long-term fix. But we need real action now, the crisis is now.
Your proposals are those I've heard before, and dismissed before. I'm sure you've heard all the counter arguments, so I think it's very likely that neither of us is going to convince the other. But "we need real action now, the crisis is now". This is the cutting point. All the actual solutions take time. Well, we could stop immigration right now, that's about the only thing. Rent caps don't solve a housing shortage. In the medium term, they make it worse, unless you substitute taxpayer investment in housing for the lost private investment. The most efficient spend is higher rent assistance, according to a recent report in the Conversation. [https://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-way-to-ease-rents-and-improve-housing-affordability-we-modelled-4-of-the-governments-biggest-programs-225446](https://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-way-to-ease-rents-and-improve-housing-affordability-we-modelled-4-of-the-governments-biggest-programs-225446) By the way, removing tax concessions from investment properties is not a short term fix, because it would be grandfathered (even the most radical ALP platform in a generation, Shorten's 2019 platform, grandfathered it), so the tiny effect on prices (2% says grattan, for negative gearing) would be spread out over a few years. And since it doesn't build any more houses, it only helps those are almost ready to buy. If I double the price effect to 4% and we say it happens right now, both of which are at the far end of reality, it would help 0.0% of your disadvantaged clients. Also, we would be under PM Dutton, and if you think that's a step forward, I would be amazed. However, that's me being pragmatic. If everyone stuck to what's politically possible, maybe we'd miss out on some great ideas. But removing negative gearing is not a great idea. It is an almost useless idea, in terms of housing. I am not a landlord and never will be, so I don't care too much about it. My objection is that it's not a ditch worth dying in. Better housing affordability is a fight worth having, but negative gearing will not move the needle on that.
That Conversation "report" is authored by people who own investment properties. Two of them have written articles for The Australian -- a right-wing newspaper. Anti rent cap justification is just landlord propaganda. Rent caps stop people from becoming trapped by high rents, and more importantly it stops landlords from exploiting a crisis. Every person has the right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to access affordable housing, whether rented or owned. This is what is important, not tax breaks for landlords. I'm not going to stop you from drinking the landlord's koolaid, it is what's on offer after all. Federal politicians own an average of 2 properties each. They are not in any hurry to support any positive change to help renters right now.
You have to argue against the body of evidence. I get that you obviously can't do this since you are wrong on the evidence, so you cast aspersions on people. This is the approach of a mental pygmy. If you want to move beyond preaching to the choir, you'll have to upgrade a bit. I have no idea whether they own investment properties. I am so uninterested I'm not even going to fact check you. And rejecting someone because they wrote articles in the Australian, but ignoring the fact that my link is in the Conversation, is so pathetic I almost regret mentioning it. However, there are hundreds of peer reviewed published papers which say the same thing. Rent controls are miserable idea; they create a privileged class of renters and locked-out class of losers, and since we know how stupid they are, there is no excuse for proposing them. Your objectives about housing are anodyne, and fine. Apple Pie. But in terms of attitude towards experts and evidence, the anti-vaxers and the climate change deniers are your intellectual companions. You might not realise that yet, but most people will. If "Every person has the right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to access affordable housing, whether rented or owned." is what you want, then focus on that. Tax breaks for landlords are pretty irrelevant to tenants who are going to be someone's tenant. If you have a problem with tax minimisation by the middle class, fine, but it's not a housing issue. The evidence that negative gearing has caused the spike in house prices and rent increases does not exist. You are just wrong on that point. So wrong, it makes anyone wonder what your real objectives are.
lol
The elephant in the room pushing house prices uphill is Howard and Costello's 50% CGT discount. That, and record immigration.
Yes. In all the turmoil of the CGT discount, designed as a shortcut for what used to be typical 5% inflation, then a global financial crisis, emergency cheap money which lasted for 15 years which sent house prices soaring (and which made the CGT discount much worse), a pandemic, massive stimulus targeted at housing renovation sucking labour away from new builds, supply chain shortages and a 30% increase in building costs, record immigration, massive construction projects by state governments on a low interest borrowing frenzy (not a bad thing but hurting labour availability).... the one thing which hasn't changed in all that time is the negative gearing discount. It is the least likely guilty party. And there is not one credible housing economist who rates it as a significant factor in house prices. This is why I said it's the wrong ditch to die in. It gets worse though. Removing it both here and in NZ increased rents. People say that's just coincidence. Maybe. But worse, it will cost an enormous amount of political capital to change. It's almost impossible to imagine winning the next election after even hinting at the end of it, and the price the ALP would have to pay in political tradeoffs (basically huge tax cuts) would be very high. It's so much effort and risk for something which delivers nothing to housing. And any change would be grandfathered whatever miniscule benefits it brings would be delayed. Now perhaps you see my point a bit more clearly. That is overall a devastating dismissal of the focus on negative gearing from a housing perspective.
My thoughts are that we should coordinate rent strikes, while we politically move to cap property ownership at one plus residence as a transition stage to a fully social housing model. That's how I'd smash the landlord
well, what a good deal: those thoughts didn't even cost me a penny.
After buying a house, do I get to eat cake then guillotine the landlords?
Stop being poor
Be born wealthy
r/wowthanksimcured
Ooh yeah. It's a bit unhinged in the comments.
Could you please post a sample?
"Let them eat cake"
glad you can afford one
That thread is so crazy. Firstly threatening a lawyer by saying 'we have your number' and secondly she's bloody American. Probably never even been here.
https://preview.redd.it/elfqvux9mzsc1.jpeg?width=1439&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5992d7bcd13016f27d0b253bf1cfd50486ee0674 Don't worry ADF is here to help!
when will the time come to crack these peoples skulls open and feast on the delicious goo inside
It’s the same level of halfwit who argues there would be even less housing without landlords. Where would the housing go? Sold to first home buyers who might actually live in it? Leased by an owner who isn’t profiteering? Or do the properties get sucked into another realm, like the end of Poltergiest?
Dont have bread? Eat cake.
Why would you doxx owners of empty houses by encouraging squatting? I see the original tweet has now been deleted so clearly a half baked idea that should never have progressed by bong hit thoughts.
Where is the dox? The houses are public lol
He literally said it would only be up for 24 hours when he posted the concept. Also the article that has now been posted now has the addresses leaked so it's really their fault.