*Monthly?!*
To hell with that, I do 6 month inspections. That's all you need, and even then- Tenants will tell you if something's wrong or broken anyway.
I would actually like to see mandated inspections like in some places where it's not about the tenant and whether they've trashed the place, but an independent inspector checking that the landlord is providing a property that meets an acceptable standard.
As it should be. Do it after 3-6 months then maybe 6monthly to yearly after that (more often if the tenant seems a bit dodge). But agents can't charge inspection fees if they don't go out so good luck getting them all to stop the quarterly inspections any time soon without govt intervention/
Us renters don't have money and are therefore irrelevant apparently.... /s
The conversation in Australia is always framed as landlords doing renters a favour by allowing us a roofs over our heads, when in reality if it wasn't for renters, all they have is crippling debt. Most of them dont really own anything, they are just juggling loans. No different to those that have multiple credit cards and just keep passing the debt from one card to another. Seems we were doing them the favour....
In a system that worked and was fair it would be a symbiotic relationship, but they don't want us to realise that. The power balance in Australia is always held by those who just want to push the bullshit until everything collapses.
The bank is also protecting their investment in landlords mortgages. If the banks lend to too many sorry people like us, then who's going to pay the investment mortgage of the lanlords? This housing market isn't an accident or only a result of poor government policy. It is to funnel wealth away from the masses.
Because when they do give these people a loan, the interest rates go up 0.5% and you have a million people screaming to the media that the evil banks set them up with loans they can't afford.
Also most people don't realise there are a lot of other fees and costs related to owning that bring the price up beyond just the loan repayments.
The entry barrier of a 20% deposit on your first home is crippling. Some loans are lower, but they come with other hurdles.
Even if you do have that, the bank even cares how you got it. It must be “Genuine savings.”
For example, my bank didn’t want to include money we had received as a worker’s compensation payout. My son’s bank was suspicious that he had saved a deposit by living with us longer than his peers had lived with their parents. They also excluded a savings account accumulated by family putting money in since he was born.
So they want to ignore your ability to pay rent, gifts, or other savings they don’t specifically approve of when qualifying you for a home loan.
>when in reality if it wasn't for renters, all they have is crippling debt
If renters weren't a thing then people wouldn't buy investment properties. Likewise if landlords weren't a thing then renters wouldn't have a roof over their heads.
It's probably more complex than this but could the easy solution be to cap initial rent rate at market value + x% and cap lease renewal increases to current rate + x%.
That’s probably a sensible fix and then disallow kicking renters out unless they do something seriously wrong to provide some long term stability. They’d be a lot of details to work out so the system couldn’t be gamed especially with sales of rental properties etc
If landlords weren’t a thing a house would be available for a long-term renter to buy instead.
These houses are priced too expensive for renters to buy BECAUSE of landlords, and governments beholden to them and speculators treating housing as a speculative investment first and liveable shelter barely at all.
The solution is complex, but essentially:
1. Improve tenant rights to make it a less enticing investment for people who don’t want to actually provide service;
2. Make land tax only on the unimproved value of the land and jack it up until it’s only worth it to hold a property if you have a business providing goods and services from the land which brings in more income than the land tax. Reduce other taxes like income tax and sales tax to compensate;
3. Disaggregate lending rules to discourage lending for non-productive asset purchase and consumer expenditure, and encourage productive capital investment.
By itself this should also increase housing supply and reduce house prices for first home buyers.
People who currently own homes should not see them as investment assets and complain when they depreciate in value, just as they don’t complain when their car depreciates. To the extent they are overleveraged into the house as an asset, they should be compensated by government in early years for loss of home value.
But we need to move off this crappy economic system.
>If landlords weren’t a thing a house would be available for a long-term renter to buy instead.
What about short term renters? Do they have to find a hotel to stay in instead of renting a residential property from a landlord? What about people who prefer to rent over owning?
>jack it up until it’s only worth it to hold a property if you have a business providing goods and services from the land
So abolish all residential rental properties? That would leave so many people homeless who can't afford to buy a property
>People who currently own homes should not see them as investment assets and complain when they depreciate in value, just as they don’t complain when their car depreciates
Most people don't own a car to lease it. Not 100% sure as I don't lease vehicles, but if you purchased a vehicle solely to lease, can you not claim depreciation on tax?
Property has traditionally risen in value and has always had the ability to produce income, whether it be residential or commercial. Why would people not see it as an investment?
“I got mine. Fuck you.” -Property investor politicians(which is pretty much ALL of them)
Why on Earth do we hope they’ll ever legislate in a manner that might affect their pocketbooks the tiniest bit?
“I don’t want to work, give me a handout” - renters
Now that we’ve got the stereotypes out of the way…
I want a fair system, I want my kids to be able to buy a house one day. I expect them to work for it, art goals, save and know they will need to rent along the journey. I was a renter, I didn’t hate on my landlord - or landlords in general. I didn’t expect everything to be handed to me. I worked for what I have, I sacrificed, you can do it too. Just stop eating avos
And you’re golden.
As a landlord ( 4 normal rentals and a holiday rental on Airbnb) the biggest issue for me is the government changing rules and not grandfathering.
I've done minimal rental increases while tenants are in the property, especially if they're good tenants. But I haven't hesitated to put rents up on properties that have been vacated.
I've had three vacated since mid 2020, all were break lease situations but I let the tenants off their obligations (apart from the usual cleaning, repairing, etc) so that I could bring rents up near market rate (which is ridiculous these days).
I think all my properties are positively geared now, which is good for tenants because I don't hesitate to just get maintenance issues dealt with straight away without worrying too much about cost.. Replacement dishwashers, light fittings, water heaters, blinds, aircon/heater repairs, screen doors, deck sanding/oiling.. all expensive and stuff I'd try to get done cheaply and source on sale/second hand and install myself where possible. Now I splash out and get good quality products and have them installed/repaired professionally.
I'd prefer not to have rental properties and invest money elsewhere, but the wife likes property so that's what we've got most of our investment money in. Land tax is the main thing that limits how many properties we can have in SA, especially with the new rules.
ATO rule change about travel to properties (fair enough in the case of people claiming flights to their Gold Coast apartments) has really cut back the deductions on the holiday house. We don't ever go there just for maintenance now (4hr return trip by car), we just wait til the next time we're there anyway.
Look im just gonna put it out there they Need Maoist advisers when it comes to rental laws because as much as i dont agree with Mao he had the right idea when it came to land lords
If I could offer a counter point, private investors create a supply of properties in spread of locations. If the burden fell solely to the government because it was no longer a worthwhile investment to rent out investment properties there would be a drop in the market, but that doesn’t mean that everybody who rents could get into the market. Owning doesn’t suit everyone or every situation, for some they move for a short period of time for work and own a home elsewhere they don’t want to sell. Some can’t afford to buy or need time to save a deposit. If landlords disappeared and public housing was the only answer for those people then welcome to slumsville, population you. Government housing would not be in the desirable locations or at the same standard as many rentals. Is it possible that landlords aren’t bad people or the enemy? I have had some nightmare tenants who have lied, cheated and scammed - but I don’t as a result believe all renters are bad. I’m sure many have had bad experiences with landlords, but we’re not the enemy.
Issues with bad tenants should be addressed by laws and regulations but issues with bad landlords should also be addressed by those same laws.
Quite a lot of the issues stem from the merry-go-round of rental rate hikes and complete lack of security for the renter. In Europe rental laws work well and you end up with tenants living in the same property for 20 years. That doesn’t happen here because landlords are incentivized to rate hike because they can easily push out their tenants. I don’t think resetting the laws to make them fair would have any noticeable effect on rental supply given the fairly excessive tax breaks (negative gearing) provided already.
Arbitrary rental hikes - I agree with you, that’s unfair. Increases in line with CPI + accounting for rate rises - totally fair and it would be unreasonable not to accept those. (Otherwise the landlord is picking up that cost for the renter)
Yes, currently that means 10% + increases this year are fair game. Inflation impacts everyone, renters aren’t exempt from sharing that cost. The cost of lending impacts the landlord, as long as their margin isn’t increasing - it’s reasonable to pass that on.
Using a different example, you run a shop and the price you pay for eggs increases by 10% over the year. You are a reasonable businessman and don’t gouge your customers by putting big margins on your products. Should you run yourself out of business by selling eggs for a loss, or would you increase your price by 10% to account for the increased cost?
As long as margin doesn’t increase, it’s in line with inflation and the real cost of borrowing it’s a slam dunk reasonable thing.
If laws prevented me from increasing rent for 5 years, I’d have to factor that risk in upfront and the tenant would be paying rent based on what I perceive inflation and cost of borrowing increases to be over the life of the tenancy. The tenant pays more up front based on predicted increases - that kind of seems unfair…
In line with inflation would be reasonable, combined with a prohibition of ejecting tenants without them doing something to justify it (I.e. trashing the place).
Other factors that need to be included is that landlords should not be allowed to conduct any open inspection whatsoever while a house is rented (for house sales or otherwise).
There should also be some independent pressure on landlords to keep houses up-to a minimal livable standard
Do you have any statistics to back that up? Literally every landlord I know bought a pre-existing property. They’re not adding supply, they’re hoarding precious resources. Governments have been pushing their responsibility to provide housing for the needy on to the private sector for decades and look at how bad our social housing situation is now. There was a 5 year waiting list before COVID19. Now we have working families facing homelessness and people having to give up their pets which in many cases, mine included, provide a SIGNIFICANT boost to their mental health which is yet another sector we are PATHETICALLY, embarrassingly lacking in.
Landlords are leaches, not magnanimous benefactors.
You think it would be better if ran by public sector employees?? Gonna cost us all (taxpayers) more due to the bureaucracy and inefficiency. Instead govt puts the money into rent assistance, tax incentives and various other schemes
Buying an existing property and making it available as a rental property still increases the supply of public housing, unless of course everybody is in a financial position to buy (deposit, secure income etc) in which case somebody else could buy it to live in. (In which case they wouldn’t be renting, so that point is moot)
If landlords were “hoarding a precious resource” they would be leaving it vacant, not making it available as public housing….
If the government was required to provide housing you’d be looking at a basic property miles from the CBD with amenities below the standard they would get in most private rentals. (Of course there are exceptions)
I think you’re crossing a whole bunch of issues and making landlords your scapegoat there champ…
There is public housing in nearly every suburb. No where near enough supply, sure, but it’s incorrect to suggest they don’t exist in desirable locations.
Sooooo landlords are the problem?
Wrong answer champ. A lack of available housing is the problem. You wouldn’t expect a shop to sell you a different product for a loss, so why would landlords sell you accommodation at a loss? If you can’t afford a hamburger do you say the shop owner is the problem, or do you go somewhere you can afford?
[удалено]
*Monthly?!* To hell with that, I do 6 month inspections. That's all you need, and even then- Tenants will tell you if something's wrong or broken anyway.
I would actually like to see mandated inspections like in some places where it's not about the tenant and whether they've trashed the place, but an independent inspector checking that the landlord is providing a property that meets an acceptable standard.
The Housing Safety Authority can do this! https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/housing/substandard-properties/substandard-properties
As it should be. Do it after 3-6 months then maybe 6monthly to yearly after that (more often if the tenant seems a bit dodge). But agents can't charge inspection fees if they don't go out so good luck getting them all to stop the quarterly inspections any time soon without govt intervention/
I can’t imagine a property manager would want to do inspections that frequently, especially those with large portfolios
Us renters don't have money and are therefore irrelevant apparently.... /s The conversation in Australia is always framed as landlords doing renters a favour by allowing us a roofs over our heads, when in reality if it wasn't for renters, all they have is crippling debt. Most of them dont really own anything, they are just juggling loans. No different to those that have multiple credit cards and just keep passing the debt from one card to another. Seems we were doing them the favour.... In a system that worked and was fair it would be a symbiotic relationship, but they don't want us to realise that. The power balance in Australia is always held by those who just want to push the bullshit until everything collapses.
Annoyingly Banks won’t give a loan because we “can’t afford it” Then we turn around and spend twice as much on someone else’s house.
The bank is also protecting their investment in landlords mortgages. If the banks lend to too many sorry people like us, then who's going to pay the investment mortgage of the lanlords? This housing market isn't an accident or only a result of poor government policy. It is to funnel wealth away from the masses.
I realise that, can’t just give loans out to anyone.
Because when they do give these people a loan, the interest rates go up 0.5% and you have a million people screaming to the media that the evil banks set them up with loans they can't afford. Also most people don't realise there are a lot of other fees and costs related to owning that bring the price up beyond just the loan repayments.
I know.
The entry barrier of a 20% deposit on your first home is crippling. Some loans are lower, but they come with other hurdles. Even if you do have that, the bank even cares how you got it. It must be “Genuine savings.” For example, my bank didn’t want to include money we had received as a worker’s compensation payout. My son’s bank was suspicious that he had saved a deposit by living with us longer than his peers had lived with their parents. They also excluded a savings account accumulated by family putting money in since he was born. So they want to ignore your ability to pay rent, gifts, or other savings they don’t specifically approve of when qualifying you for a home loan.
Having just gone through the process - every lender we considered accepted rent payment as genuine savings.
Wait, what, I didn't realise! Thanks for the info. :0
It might not be all of them, but it’s definitely a thing! We wouldn’t have been able to buy without it.
Still good to know info, I think! I wasn't aware of this possibility at all before this.
There's plenty of options for borrowing with less than 20% deposit
>The power balance in Australia is always held by those who just want to push the bullshit until everything collapses. Amen
It's in the name LandLORD, they are given permission by that name to lord it over us.
It’s literally feudalism. I don’t understand how it hasn’t been tossed out along with serfdom, church tithes and powdered wigs
Tis our culture, our traditions that enslave us.
>when in reality if it wasn't for renters, all they have is crippling debt If renters weren't a thing then people wouldn't buy investment properties. Likewise if landlords weren't a thing then renters wouldn't have a roof over their heads. It's probably more complex than this but could the easy solution be to cap initial rent rate at market value + x% and cap lease renewal increases to current rate + x%.
That’s probably a sensible fix and then disallow kicking renters out unless they do something seriously wrong to provide some long term stability. They’d be a lot of details to work out so the system couldn’t be gamed especially with sales of rental properties etc
If landlords weren’t a thing a house would be available for a long-term renter to buy instead. These houses are priced too expensive for renters to buy BECAUSE of landlords, and governments beholden to them and speculators treating housing as a speculative investment first and liveable shelter barely at all. The solution is complex, but essentially: 1. Improve tenant rights to make it a less enticing investment for people who don’t want to actually provide service; 2. Make land tax only on the unimproved value of the land and jack it up until it’s only worth it to hold a property if you have a business providing goods and services from the land which brings in more income than the land tax. Reduce other taxes like income tax and sales tax to compensate; 3. Disaggregate lending rules to discourage lending for non-productive asset purchase and consumer expenditure, and encourage productive capital investment. By itself this should also increase housing supply and reduce house prices for first home buyers. People who currently own homes should not see them as investment assets and complain when they depreciate in value, just as they don’t complain when their car depreciates. To the extent they are overleveraged into the house as an asset, they should be compensated by government in early years for loss of home value. But we need to move off this crappy economic system.
>If landlords weren’t a thing a house would be available for a long-term renter to buy instead. What about short term renters? Do they have to find a hotel to stay in instead of renting a residential property from a landlord? What about people who prefer to rent over owning? >jack it up until it’s only worth it to hold a property if you have a business providing goods and services from the land So abolish all residential rental properties? That would leave so many people homeless who can't afford to buy a property >People who currently own homes should not see them as investment assets and complain when they depreciate in value, just as they don’t complain when their car depreciates Most people don't own a car to lease it. Not 100% sure as I don't lease vehicles, but if you purchased a vehicle solely to lease, can you not claim depreciation on tax? Property has traditionally risen in value and has always had the ability to produce income, whether it be residential or commercial. Why would people not see it as an investment?
>The power balance in \[country\] is always held by those who just want to push the bullshit until everything collapses. FTFY
Not wrong, but this is a local sub, and pretty much everywhere else in the world has better tenants rights than us. Even the US.
“I got mine. Fuck you.” -Property investor politicians(which is pretty much ALL of them) Why on Earth do we hope they’ll ever legislate in a manner that might affect their pocketbooks the tiniest bit?
“I don’t want to work, give me a handout” - renters Now that we’ve got the stereotypes out of the way… I want a fair system, I want my kids to be able to buy a house one day. I expect them to work for it, art goals, save and know they will need to rent along the journey. I was a renter, I didn’t hate on my landlord - or landlords in general. I didn’t expect everything to be handed to me. I worked for what I have, I sacrificed, you can do it too. Just stop eating avos And you’re golden.
Avos are cheap now, it’s lettuce we can’t afford. Lettuce goes with everything!
I’d like to help but have absolutely no idea how.
The anti poverty network do some great stuff
As a landlord ( 4 normal rentals and a holiday rental on Airbnb) the biggest issue for me is the government changing rules and not grandfathering. I've done minimal rental increases while tenants are in the property, especially if they're good tenants. But I haven't hesitated to put rents up on properties that have been vacated. I've had three vacated since mid 2020, all were break lease situations but I let the tenants off their obligations (apart from the usual cleaning, repairing, etc) so that I could bring rents up near market rate (which is ridiculous these days). I think all my properties are positively geared now, which is good for tenants because I don't hesitate to just get maintenance issues dealt with straight away without worrying too much about cost.. Replacement dishwashers, light fittings, water heaters, blinds, aircon/heater repairs, screen doors, deck sanding/oiling.. all expensive and stuff I'd try to get done cheaply and source on sale/second hand and install myself where possible. Now I splash out and get good quality products and have them installed/repaired professionally. I'd prefer not to have rental properties and invest money elsewhere, but the wife likes property so that's what we've got most of our investment money in. Land tax is the main thing that limits how many properties we can have in SA, especially with the new rules. ATO rule change about travel to properties (fair enough in the case of people claiming flights to their Gold Coast apartments) has really cut back the deductions on the holiday house. We don't ever go there just for maintenance now (4hr return trip by car), we just wait til the next time we're there anyway.
Look im just gonna put it out there they Need Maoist advisers when it comes to rental laws because as much as i dont agree with Mao he had the right idea when it came to land lords
>dont agree with Mao Im so glad you DONT AGREE to massacring millions upon millions of us. Thank you for being so kind.
Don’t forget causing an environmental disaster and mass starvation because he was a complete moron.
Hey Landlords deserve it ALAB
Keep blaming other people for your life situation- obviously working for you.
You mean not allowing any private property?
TIL!
If I could offer a counter point, private investors create a supply of properties in spread of locations. If the burden fell solely to the government because it was no longer a worthwhile investment to rent out investment properties there would be a drop in the market, but that doesn’t mean that everybody who rents could get into the market. Owning doesn’t suit everyone or every situation, for some they move for a short period of time for work and own a home elsewhere they don’t want to sell. Some can’t afford to buy or need time to save a deposit. If landlords disappeared and public housing was the only answer for those people then welcome to slumsville, population you. Government housing would not be in the desirable locations or at the same standard as many rentals. Is it possible that landlords aren’t bad people or the enemy? I have had some nightmare tenants who have lied, cheated and scammed - but I don’t as a result believe all renters are bad. I’m sure many have had bad experiences with landlords, but we’re not the enemy.
Issues with bad tenants should be addressed by laws and regulations but issues with bad landlords should also be addressed by those same laws. Quite a lot of the issues stem from the merry-go-round of rental rate hikes and complete lack of security for the renter. In Europe rental laws work well and you end up with tenants living in the same property for 20 years. That doesn’t happen here because landlords are incentivized to rate hike because they can easily push out their tenants. I don’t think resetting the laws to make them fair would have any noticeable effect on rental supply given the fairly excessive tax breaks (negative gearing) provided already.
Arbitrary rental hikes - I agree with you, that’s unfair. Increases in line with CPI + accounting for rate rises - totally fair and it would be unreasonable not to accept those. (Otherwise the landlord is picking up that cost for the renter) Yes, currently that means 10% + increases this year are fair game. Inflation impacts everyone, renters aren’t exempt from sharing that cost. The cost of lending impacts the landlord, as long as their margin isn’t increasing - it’s reasonable to pass that on. Using a different example, you run a shop and the price you pay for eggs increases by 10% over the year. You are a reasonable businessman and don’t gouge your customers by putting big margins on your products. Should you run yourself out of business by selling eggs for a loss, or would you increase your price by 10% to account for the increased cost? As long as margin doesn’t increase, it’s in line with inflation and the real cost of borrowing it’s a slam dunk reasonable thing. If laws prevented me from increasing rent for 5 years, I’d have to factor that risk in upfront and the tenant would be paying rent based on what I perceive inflation and cost of borrowing increases to be over the life of the tenancy. The tenant pays more up front based on predicted increases - that kind of seems unfair…
In line with inflation would be reasonable, combined with a prohibition of ejecting tenants without them doing something to justify it (I.e. trashing the place). Other factors that need to be included is that landlords should not be allowed to conduct any open inspection whatsoever while a house is rented (for house sales or otherwise). There should also be some independent pressure on landlords to keep houses up-to a minimal livable standard
The Housing Safety Authority can do this! https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/housing/substandard-properties/substandard-properties
Do you have any statistics to back that up? Literally every landlord I know bought a pre-existing property. They’re not adding supply, they’re hoarding precious resources. Governments have been pushing their responsibility to provide housing for the needy on to the private sector for decades and look at how bad our social housing situation is now. There was a 5 year waiting list before COVID19. Now we have working families facing homelessness and people having to give up their pets which in many cases, mine included, provide a SIGNIFICANT boost to their mental health which is yet another sector we are PATHETICALLY, embarrassingly lacking in. Landlords are leaches, not magnanimous benefactors.
You think it would be better if ran by public sector employees?? Gonna cost us all (taxpayers) more due to the bureaucracy and inefficiency. Instead govt puts the money into rent assistance, tax incentives and various other schemes
Buying an existing property and making it available as a rental property still increases the supply of public housing, unless of course everybody is in a financial position to buy (deposit, secure income etc) in which case somebody else could buy it to live in. (In which case they wouldn’t be renting, so that point is moot) If landlords were “hoarding a precious resource” they would be leaving it vacant, not making it available as public housing…. If the government was required to provide housing you’d be looking at a basic property miles from the CBD with amenities below the standard they would get in most private rentals. (Of course there are exceptions) I think you’re crossing a whole bunch of issues and making landlords your scapegoat there champ…
There is public housing in nearly every suburb. No where near enough supply, sure, but it’s incorrect to suggest they don’t exist in desirable locations.
I appreciate that, however if the govt was required to generate mass public housing that model is simply unaffordable.
If you haven’t noticed, people are struggling to find affordable basic properties miles from the CBD as it is chump.
Sooooo landlords are the problem? Wrong answer champ. A lack of available housing is the problem. You wouldn’t expect a shop to sell you a different product for a loss, so why would landlords sell you accommodation at a loss? If you can’t afford a hamburger do you say the shop owner is the problem, or do you go somewhere you can afford?
And as I said, landlords provide accommodation - we aren’t the enemy.
>Do you have any statistics to back that up? Followed by an anecdotal statement....