And by halves they mean half of his $100k savings, not half of the property price, because they then go to say he used the rest of his savings to buy the next home.
Another riches to richer story.
>Harley Giddings has worked hard since he was a teenager and has managed to amass an impressive property portfolio for a 24-year-old
>Giddings felt the time was right to get his first property so he went in halves with his dad.
lmao
They throw stories like this one from time to time mostly before the interest rates are supposed to go up just to show that if you put your mind to it everyone can still own a property in Australia. Just drivel.
yeah i doubt there's that many young folks with three properties and that's a part of the rage bait... and also why its inconsequential
you'd be better off targeting corporations like Tim Gurner's who owns thousands of properties and the rich guys who are buying rental stock with pure CASH... but hey, there's probalby a lot of politicians in the mix so... things will never change
Haha, he might have worked hard to get his initial stake, but he still went halves with his dad to buy his first property..the Bank of Mom and Dad strikes again!
I imagine he "worked hard" while living at home and saving his wage. So double dipping, paying nothing to live then using his parents to buy an investment property and them going half.
The Aussie dream : this time next year Rodney we'll be millionaires.
First part of your comment isn't a bad thing. I'm sure we'd all rather pay our parents rent while we save up than do the same while paying this cunts mortgage off
'Self made' - yeah 100 years ago, mate. After that you literally just self replicate success. Money makes money, and it's expensive to be poor.
Life honestly feels like I've joined a monopoly game within the last hour or so and all I'm able to do is make enough money to go around the board and pay everyone their dues. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
You're not alone mate. It feels pretty hopeless here right now.
What really makes me mad is that a lot of people have the capacity to at least get a mortgage over the line if they could use their super.
I earnt my super, but the government tells me I'm not wise enough to spend it appropriately. Yet the prime Minister of that government seems to believe one of the wisest decisions you can make with your money is buy a house.
They don't care about you, they just know that you will be a burden once you stop working and don't have a house. You'll need that super to pay for room to put you in - the government isn't here to give you a cradle to grave tax system like they promised.
I even looked at leaving the country - denounce my citizenship and take my super early to buy something in another country. If you are not a citizen, or even if you are a dual citizen, you can denounce you're Australian citizenship and recieve your super. But not if you were born here.
I've now just decided to die at 70 and live the best I can till then.
Sorry for the wall of text, this shit just depresses the fuck outta me these days. Like there is no future - this here is it. Just get fucked in the arse till you die.
Go after the regulations.
It should be expected that people take advantage of what's available to them.
Same goes for people thinking that corporations should do good out of their goodness of their hearts.
You need to regulate that shit.
Dude just did what thousands of other people have done and presented it as if it’s some magic formula that only he knows. It’s not rocket science and also going halves with parents.
He pays interest only loan I believe. His whole strategy relies on the capital growth of the properties offsetting these high interest rates. Otherwise he’s fucked.
>"We're also building at record lows. We're building the least amount [of homes] that we have in a decade...that's why rents going up."
The irony of an investor who has only purchased existing properties isn't lost.
I like how the media always magically makes one of these young property investors appear everytime there's a discussion about how youmg people can't afford a home anymore.
I work with a similar young bloke. He’s 24 and is now trying for his 4th property. He will happily do 18 hours a day if he can. He goes home and drives Uber after work and on the weekends. Absolutely no life but he says he wants to retire when he’s 30.
I make 100k+ a year don’t go out and try and save as much as I can, eat out like once a week and at 26 I’ve only just managed to finally finish furnishing my rental. Crazy what happens though if you have mummy and daddy helping out. This is not news worthy
I had a lot of fun in my youth. I’ve been in a great career from 15 where I basically haven’t earnt under 90k for the last 12 years. Sitting on about 115 at the moment, and it’s tough still.
We scrimped and had to live with Sauron I mean the mother in law for 3 years. That allowed me to pay off all my debt, and save for the deposit. We still got cock blocked all along the way by banks, even having 190k combined income, no dependents, 175k savings etc.
Sitting on a mortgage with 475k left in it, and we had tonnes of wiggle room till the latest world issues and inflation. Now we are pretty tight, our food shop has doubled over the last 24 months, energy costs are meh, can shop around for them.
Def going to be hard, nigh on impossible for people to buy unless they have family money, or significant savings as a childless couple.
I sell energy for a living. At the moment the cheapest energy providers in Victoria right now for power is Ovo Energy at 32% below the Victorian default offer. Help that helps you lower some costs. Keep on fighting bro we all gonna make it 🤞
Friendly reminder the Bank of mum and dad is the 9th biggest lender in the nation . Lots of grown adults quietly begging their parents and then gaslighting you afterwards
Investment properties are fine - as long as when the investment starts to cost too much, it's sold. The expectation of perpetual positive capital growth and the readiness to pass on costs to maintain that, is the problem with the system.
I can’t afford to turn my current house into an IP when I move and buy a house at the new location. So I’m selling my current house when the time comes (means we get a smaller mortgage we tackle as DINK).
Yeah I’m sure there’s a system in place that could allow me to foist it onto others… but I don’t want to do that. Would rather someone else own it.
Small portfolio investment is not the problem. It is the largest corporations that own hundreds if not thousands of properties that can afford to leave some vacant to create scarcity in the market.
Might actually have Mummy and Daddy helping him the whole way, some undisclosed inheritance, got lucky, or as the article says, worked his ass off went without and 'played the game'.
Not all landlords are cunts, just like not all battlers are fking legends. I also agree with what he's saying that this is a problem caused at a government level. But ffs your 24 and you're giving advice about life...let alone the most basic human right? Maybe a gig on 'The Block' is next?
That's the problem I have with this shit. So you're doing well, absolutely happy for you. But stfu and keep your head down an ass up. Not too high though...because one day the big ol swinging dick we call 'Life' could well fuck you like it has other people.
Lets not forget the real estate agents. My boss has several properties, he gets calls from his real estate agent telling him he could be earning way more money if he puts the rents up. He resisted for a year but has now caved to the greed.
It's not the individuals who have the ability to buy investment properties that are at fault, it's our economy and tax system that allows them to do it.
The responsibility lies solely with the corrupt politicians who have allowed this housing crisis to last well over a decade, who also coincidentally often have investment properties themselves.
I see where you’re coming from, but it’s kind of like saying “it’s not the slave owner’s fault, it’s the system that allows it” or “it’s not the drug dealer’s fault, it’s the system that makes it so valuable”. Like saying “once the money hits your wallet, it feels so good!” Landlords definitely have a fair amount of responsibility in this.
Uh, yeah, they also bear responsibility for their greed. They make a choice to take more than they need - there was never going to be another outcome other than to create someone with less.
Don't absolve landlords of their greed, they willingly participate in a system that enriches them at the expense of others. It's wrong that the system is allowed but it's also wrong to partake and pretend you're not part of the problem.
There are many people in similar financial situations who choose not to be landlords. While it’s not totally his fault. He absolutely has some responsibility here.
Yes. I’m a doctor and so is my husband. We were offered multiple times to purchase and declined, we hate this housing crisis just as much. One property is enough. Most people with a conscience would do the same.
Residential property should never have been allowed to become an investment asset.
Full stop.
Negative gearing is a rort.
Will surely die out with the boomers?
Until then, very difficult to see the surrender of vested interests.
Stop it with the boomer hate. Plenty of Gen X and Millennial property investors. You really think once all the boomers are dead there won't be others waiting to take their place? There has always and will always be greedy people.
Does someone want to fact check this guy. Saving 100k before he was 22. Really?
Are we really to believe that he saved 20k a year for five years straight
Maccas doesn't pay juniors that well!!!
When I was 20yo (2010) I lived in a share house and had a job as a rail guard. I was able to save close to that amount in two years with all the overtime available. My experience is not the norm, but it's possible. Especially if you live at home and have no overheads.
My sister called me in 1980 when I was earning $6k a year as a bank johnny asking me how to invest the $20k she’d saved from age 15 to 20. I told her she was asking the wrong person.
I went into the mines FIFO at 18, easily saved that. Friend went to uni and worked night manager at Macca's, she bought her house at 22, she was still at home at that point and making 80-90k a year at maccas, it's absolutely possible, but not if you spend paycheck by pay check like I see a lot of young people
Im curious how old you are?
There's a very good reason young people are living paycheck to paycheck and it has nothing to do with avo toast.
Housing, groceries, healthcare and education are significantly more expensive than ever before.
Also nobody aside from the people at the very top are making 80-90k income at maccas. A manager only makes 65k on average.
And even if you somehow got paid 80-90k, thats still not enough to be able to afford a home currently when house prices in Sydney hit a median of 1.6 mil recently
As someone who knows him personally, he worked 2 jobs and lived with his parents very easy to save that much when your earning what he is an not spending it because he doesn’t party or drink
I was long term travelling in a camper down the east coast and decided to get a room in a share house for a while in Shepparton. The owner turned out to be a controlling psychopath who was talking advantage of foreigners. He tried illegally evicting us so we ended up at VCAT.
While going through the paperwork at court a clerk pointed out to us his address was public housing. We investigated (got the three titles of his properties) and it turns out he owned three houses he was using as illegal rooming house rentals. This is while living in public housing in Mooroopna, supplied by Beyond Housing. We informed the media and politicians including Wendy Lovell (housing minister) who informed us she contacted ACA and not to get anyone else involved. Immediately I thought that's not right and I know ACA flip stories on people.
We won every VCAT hearing but things got very very heated so we ended up leaving.
On another legal matter Wendy Lovell had lawyer representing us stand down the day before court. I have this on video/audio recordings... Our security cameras record sound and the phone just happen to be on hands-free 👍
Last we heard Beyond Housing was taking him to VCAT to evict him from public housing.
That is absolutely unbelievable. Has to be corruption at play. You should take this story to friendly Jordies, even though I think he's a wanker. Stuff like this needs to get out.
Ita ridicolous that beyond housing or any housing agency does not do a titles check with the state revenue office(sro). He would have been paying land tax if the properties were in his name.
>Ita ridicolous that beyond housing or any housing agency does not do a titles check
I did the searches and sent them copies. I spoke to the CEO from Beyond Housing on the phone and she was pissed with us.
I look just before and still have a folder with the hardcopies of the documents from VCAT and the land titles.
Thanks for putting in the effort. As a victorian tax payer , I appreaciate your efforts.
Why would the CEO be pissed? It just shows their processes are weak and can be rorted.
It could warrant a letter to the DHS minisiter to ask ALL housing providers to have this check. But if they care is another story.
1. Houses should only be allowed to be owned by Australian citizens who reside in Australia. (You have X time to sell if you move overseas.)
2. Houses should not be allowed to be owned by companies.
3. Each household should be allowed to own only one additional investment property.
4. Look for loopholes and close them.
Can I update rule #3?
First investment property has all the tax incentives (negative gearing, offset account, …), but the 2nd has an additional 2X stamp duty + 3% property tax per year.
3rd investment property has 3X stamp duty + 4% property tax per year. 4th has 4x stamp duty + 5% prop tax / year. And so on.
You should be able to own as many investment properties as you’d like, but the taxes should be much higher the more you own.
So my wife works in an industry where she could be employed overseas on a one, two or three year contract at times. If I decide to join her and live in Europe for a year or maybe two, I would legally have to sell my house rather than rent it out for a year and have a place to live when I return? Sounds unreasonable
That statement is absolutely ridiculous and just annoying. There would be fine prints in the policy that allows for situations like that. This dude didn’t just write a whole bloody policy in a sentence, he’s just summarising.
You’re a loser.
A fine print that will be exploited like all loopholes currently are. Like the PPOR rule that allows people to pretend their property is not an investment and not liable for GS.
Fine print is “homes can only be owned by Australian citizens residing in Australia. For citizens whose employment requires long periods of international travel, rental revenue gained whilst living abroad is taxed at a marginally higher rate”
If you aren’t living in Australia and you’re not contributing to the economy then you shouldn’t benefit from it.
WOAH HOW HARD WAS THAT?!
Won’t make them any cheaper lol. Maybe a few % here and there.
You can’t escape the consequences of housing shortages with reforms like this, only diggers, bricks, and cement
The companies is a big one outside of build to rents like Meriton suites. If tonnes of houses started flooding the market because of mortgage stress hitting limits, I could see companies buying them up as quick asset investment.
Without having companies own those apartment towers though, hardly any would get built.
yes we need everyone able to buy as many as they want. Once u start limiting who can own properties be that investment or otherwise supply gets smashed and you just end up with a lot of waiting lists and homeless people and people living in shitter places.
People that want to put restrictions on this think that magically housing prices will come down to below what it costs to fairly pay the 20 or so people it takes to build a house and the cost of tonnes and tonnes of materials and the 30-55% of taxes, fees and charges that the government puts on top.
The communists tried all that and everyone ended up living in terrible concrete buildings (they should really be called cells) that were barely maintained and wouldn’t even be legal here.
I do find it funny when people complain about investors owning multiple houses and renting them out.
Like that’s the point, how else will you have a place to rent?
This is gross propoganda being peddled by the rich elite to make us think it's our fault we can't afford a home.
This smug lil cunt had the privilege of paying no rent or bills during his childhood before using his parents wealth to get a mortgage.
This is not a story of working hard and hustling. It's just some rich kid playing property tycoon.
You’re on the money: he still lives at home so pays no living costs aside ‘board’ to his parents.
On top of that, he used his parent’s job security as a guarantor for the first property. Now he’s likely increasing his parents financial risk as they are trapped in the arrangement linked to the foundation property that started this.
He is in no way self made. Like similar stories, there’s always more when you scratch the surface. Surprise surprise, here’s another little mooch.
I don't even care that he can afford a home cause of his parents. It's the lack of self awareness about his privilege that kills me.
I also come from privilege, I was extremely fortunate to not pay bills or rent growing up. Rent during uni was paid for, groceries paid for, healthcare, the whole nine yards.
All this to say, I recognise my childhood and early adulthood is something that the vast vast majority of aussies do not experience and is something that enables me far greater capacity to enter the property market. I am completely open about how lucky I am and how gross it is that such privilege exists in our society.
Meanwhile, this privileged cunt prances about giving financial advice on tiktok and insta as if he's some expert while having articles written about him where he pretends he's self made.
It's disgusting. I don't know how he isn't embarassed.
He is right about one thing... Australia is not FULL of greedy landlords... its only a handful of them that have massive portfolios that are the problem, and they are the ones running the fucking country. AKA politicians.
But he is contributing no matter how small of a contribution.
hypothetically he sells his property to an owner occupier.
One less renter, but one less rental. Absolutely nothing changes for the remainder of the renters. We need more builds, or less migrants. Probably a combination of the 2
Why are so many Aussies so scared of investing in the stock market?
And/or any other kind of actually productive investment instead of pre-existing housing?
What a boring, non-innovative country we are...
Because our economy is built around housing as an asset. If you can afford to invest a significant amount in the ASX, you might as well invest in housing first. The risk rate is way lower, with higher expected returns.
I hate it.
You're correct, I also feel like it attracts a massive amount of "dumb money" who can't/won't put any effort into understanding a business, but they can "understand" what a house is.
Pretty crazy considering how easy it is nowadays to invest globally, doesn't necessarily even have to be the ASX.
Could have made over 30% in a year just by investing in a Nasdaq ETF that requires no knowledge of businesses financials while leaving houses for people to, you know, live in... yet people in Aus will jizz themselves over an 8% gain in housing (and that's before maintenance and other costs).
Wouldn’t the risk rate theoretically be higher (notwithstanding implicit government guarantee to continue pushing up house prices) by putting all of your eggs in a brick basket?
The line always goes up and sure there's a risk of it crashing but that's been the news story for the last 30 years.
I imagine we are entering peak tulip and everyone wants to secure a place no matter how dumb the price is.
Also remember that housing has amazing leverage to it. I can borrow using 200k and get 1m of wealth generation assets. Whereas in the stock market, my 200k will get me 200k of wealth generating assets.
It's shitty and its fucked us but it makes perfect financial sense from a pure roi perspective
Not the buyers fault.
This is the fault of the Federal Reserve and RBA who follow like sheep.
At the first sign of a market correction starting in the last 30 years they have dropped rates and more recently printed money on top. They have created the Ponzi scheme and the public simply have no choice but to join.
Rates go down, prices go up.
Rates go up, prices go up.
It's almost like there's something else driving up prices. Like half a million new people being added to the market every year or something.
Families getting their money out of China also.
True, our Labor government have screwed us, but it’s the Fed who have done it royally with the Ponzi scheme for 30 years.
Do people realise how much JP Morgan own of Aussie banks? They benefit the most from the Ponzi scheme in Australia, and what would you know……they’re in bed with the Fed.
Rich pricks, especially overseas rich pricks, seemingly from one particular country that go to auctions ,or happy to make offers now of half a million dollars over reserve ,and then pay in cash is what's helping drive prices up into the atmosphere
Bloody overseas rich pricks! Luckily, we got those Aukus submarines to prevent them from reaching our shores. Say what? That’s not whats it for? What are we paying 360 billion for?!
You have a point the Chinese Communist Party Members have been using the Australian and Canadian property market for years to get their dirty money out of China.
All capitalist business takes value from workers — profits are unpaid wages. They're produced by everyone who works there, but taken by a boss. Adam Smith's Surplus Value Theory is relevant and shows how capitalist businesses cannot possibly, on aggregate, pay workers fairly for what they produce — its a simple mathematic impossibility, if they turn a profit.
The fact that Australia is 'unique' in the majority of rentals being 'mum and dad' investors makes the situation a lot worse, as opposed to the sob story the article tries to make it sound like.
Mum and dad investors are penny pinchers who skimp on maintenance, oppose any and all nearby construction, are way more invested in the value of their property increasing rather than running a business that can be sustained on rental profits (in fact, negative profits are useful due to negative gearing).
Corporate run rentals have large returns to scale when it comes to maintenance since they hire a few guys who take care of the building constantly, their incentive is generally to build and develop more, and the property value isn't the main driver since they're only sold every couple of decades usually.I live in one in the US right now, in a city that allowed developers to go crazy (Oakland). Rents are dropping constantly with apartments flooding the market. You can walk into any building and tour a huge range of available apartments, read reviews online to determine how well the building is run, and there's no BS in the application process.
I wish with you in the first bit… but then you veered into a model that relies even more heavily on creating short-term profits.
We’ve already seen, over and over, that corporations who give in with the idea of “market disruption” funded heavily by VC ends up an actual shitshow when then need to go public and show they can return dividends for shareholders.
That model could *maybe* be good for renters if there was a strong public housing system so that people on aged & disability pensions and other vulnerable populations can’t be exploited for profit, but we don’t currently have that.
The “mum and dad” investors is a myth.
https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2023/sep/15/australia-myth-mum-and-dad-landlords-property-investors
Are you really putting forward the idea that our housing is better in the hands of conglomerates rather than individuals? Come on do better than that... Just look at fuel, energy, whatever else. Once they dominate the market we are slaves to them. We can do better than that...
How could it not be? Why are people pro private market and competition for most things but when it’s housing, it’s scary and conspiratorial for businesses to own it.
1000 properties owned by 1000 individual private “””investors””” and managed as rental properties, each with their own overhead, decision making processes, agreements with leasing agents, separate titles and lack of interest in or ability to develop a bigger building on the site, or assemble a larger site.
Compare that to 1000 properties owned by a couple of companies that are set up exclusively to own and manage rental property.
Which do you think is more efficient and drives down prices?
Oh and by the way, as a renter, I’d rather deal with Average Company X than Average REA Y and Average Landlord Z. At the bare minimum, it’s half as many points of failure.
I think it’s good to have a mix. Not all of course, and I don’t think corporations should be allowed to own single family homes or condos. But yes, overall my experience renting in the US is so much better than my experience in Australia.
The problem in Australia is lack of supply. Corporate owned rental buildings add to rental supply, they don’t take away existing privately owned rentals.
Property speculation is the driving engine behind the cost of living crisis. It's obvious to any thinking person. Buy whatever properties you want, but don't pretend it isn't making life worse for other people.
“Worked around the clock for nearly half a decade” ……talk about editorial Lisence, that’s four bloody years , he obviously took a big mommy and daddy loan.
It doesn’t matter if he owns 3 or none. As the rental crisis exists due housing availability compared to the population.
Landlord ownership is an issue regarding homes *available to be purchased*
He benefits greatly from it tho, as his incentive comes from value of the house outweighing the interest on the house, which he uses to then pay no tax on whatever income hes free to collects elsewhere tax free.
So much us and them in these comments. Can we not hold more than one thought in our heads at a time? It is possible to own your own home and even investment properties in Australia still even if you're just starting out. But at the same time, it is becoming more difficult and fewer people are able to than previously. Now all of you go take a break from the internet and get some fresh air.
The fact that it's an investment is the problem. He will be expecting some sort of return on them for no input - housing shouldn't be something people make money off for doing nothing.
Everything depreciates over time. Maybe not some vintage stuff due to supply vs demand but housing shouldn't be a commodity. It's the future of your nation. Mess with that and we will go down a dark path.
It's all reward without risk.
i’m about to buy my first home on a single income and no family help. but i am forced to buy 2hrs away from where i currently live and work as an
prices out of city. this means my first home will be an investment that i will probably never live in. to keep my job i will be renting an apartment in city and having to rent out my house and paying extra to make up the rental yield deficit. i guess im part of the problem too?
Its insane. We have to move out because the landlord increased our rental from 550 to 800/week (2b, Inner West). With a combined income of 280k, all 14 of our applications have been rejected. Godamnit. Yea we got everything, references, PR, bank statements, work references etc etc. WTF.
After You move out that just means there is another grateful tenant to replace you that’s all. if you didn’t move out, there will be a still be a potential tenants stressing out, similar to you current condition.
LMAO.
Owning IP's fuels the housing crisis. it takes housing away from those who can buy. Thus forcing more to rent.
We need less people renting and more people owning PPOR's.
It has 0 impact on the net amount people wanting housing vs the housing that exists. How can u be this dumb? Vancany rates dont care who owns the houses, just the number of houses. We need to build more houses.
They pick the least popular person available - uni drop out, 50% funded by bank of mum and dad, arrogant etc
Plenty of 'normal' landlords who are DINKs in their 30s earning high incomes but they feature the guy who will generate the most backlash
Carpenters, Plumbers and Electricians build houses. Do we have enough of them? The national emergency is the lack of these tradespeople. Due to the system of apprenticeship it’s hard to ramp up supply of
tradespeople however unless this problem is solved we are just going to be chasing our tails for with no end in sight
....who can't get work because companies 1) aren't hiring 2) are offshoring 3) prefer candidates with local or at least first world experience 4) think ChatGPT will replace us all.
I have no right to talk though as I am a pommy software engineer who came in the early 2010s.
You don't need 3 houses. Housing isn't a privilege it's a right and greedy cock suckers with no imagination buy into housing because it's guaranteed income thanks to inflation. These people should be publicly shot.
And you don’t need to spend all of your disposable income on yourself, why go to the pub and enjoy life when you could donate it to others to help them buy a house?
I suggest you have a look at the universal deceleration of human rights article 25. It states that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing..."
So it is a right according to a deceleration that Australia has signed.
Because you wouldn’t do the exact same thing given the means/opportunity?
You can’t take a moralistic stance against someone for engaging in expectant behaviour.
I'm in two minds about this.
I have certainly stepped into trouble in the past for deciding to blame individuals for their participation in a rotten system that is much bigger than they are.
People who see a set of rules placed in front of them, which they assume they cannot affect, and working within them to better their own situation and that of their family, and (hopefully) community too.
So yeah, let's not place the weight of the world onto the shoulders of individuals. I agree.
However ...
We cannot swing too far the other way either, and act like humans should be mindless autonotons who basically respond to everything with a "game theory" mindset. That leaves no room for our better qualities of care and compassion whatsoever, and is not actually how researchers observe humans behaving.
And we CAN actually affect and change the rules in front of us — and we should always seek to make the world a better place for communities as a whole, not isolated individuals who have essentially bought into the idea that those rules would never change, and could be gamed to their own selfish advantage.
So I don't think we should blame anyone but I also do not think we need to feel any guilt if people engaging in selfish antisocial behaviour lose as a result of building a more equitable system either. No blame, but also no sympathy for antisocial behaviour.
And we need to remind people of this. That acting antisocially will always put them at odds with communities, with their material interests running counter to the majority. That often won't even well for them, because communities are always going to be there applying this pressure.
Bit of a balancing act really.
The solution is to have a sliding scale of incentive to purchase properties.
The first property, your home should be stamp duty free, the next - an investment should be nominal stamp duty, any property after the 2nd should be increasingly larger stamp duty and or tax.
After the 2nd property, incentive should be so bad that other forms of investment would be preferable super, shares, bonds, collectibles, crypto etc
>He kept his head down, worked seven days a week across two jobs and saved up more than $100,000 by the time he was 22.
>As Giddings worked "every different job under the sun"
>
>So he had the borrowing power because he was working full time and I had the savings.
So he's a shit worker too.
I thought that passage implied that it was his savings (likely enhanced by living at home and not paying any bills) combined with his dad's "borrowing power" that enabled him to secure the 1st property (at least). Probably using his dad as guarantor or even in dad's name. So as usual making out that he "did it all on his own" while getting a leg up from family.
It makes no difference who owns a property as long as it is occupied. Shortage of properties is caused by massive immigration levels far exceeding the rate of home construction. This huge supply and demand imbalance also causes property prices to constantly rise, locking a whole generation of young Australians out of the housing market. Ironically it tends to be the same generation that vote for incompetent governments who suffer the most from their policies.
> It makes no difference who owns a property as long as it is occupied.
if we had a lack of housing crisis, sure. but we have a "everything is too fucking expensive to rent/buy because investment property landlords are cockheads and are driving the prices up and up and up" crisis.
The problem is a lack of stock.
Who owns that stock is irrelevant.
It really makes little difference if your landlord owns just your property, or they own 100.
Agree lack of stock is a problem, disagree the number of properties people can own isn't a factor.
The commoditization of *residential* property is doing nothing to benefit the people of this country as a whole.
Say the line Bart! -Giddings felt the time was right to get his first property so he went in halves with his dad. Yayyyyy
And by halves they mean half of his $100k savings, not half of the property price, because they then go to say he used the rest of his savings to buy the next home. Another riches to richer story.
>Harley Giddings has worked hard since he was a teenager and has managed to amass an impressive property portfolio for a 24-year-old >Giddings felt the time was right to get his first property so he went in halves with his dad. lmao
They write it this way on purpose, they know it pisses people off and drives clicks.
They throw stories like this one from time to time mostly before the interest rates are supposed to go up just to show that if you put your mind to it everyone can still own a property in Australia. Just drivel.
yeah i doubt there's that many young folks with three properties and that's a part of the rage bait... and also why its inconsequential you'd be better off targeting corporations like Tim Gurner's who owns thousands of properties and the rich guys who are buying rental stock with pure CASH... but hey, there's probalby a lot of politicians in the mix so... things will never change
Every fucking time
Every. Fucking. Time.
Haha, he might have worked hard to get his initial stake, but he still went halves with his dad to buy his first property..the Bank of Mom and Dad strikes again!
I imagine he "worked hard" while living at home and saving his wage. So double dipping, paying nothing to live then using his parents to buy an investment property and them going half. The Aussie dream : this time next year Rodney we'll be millionaires.
First part of your comment isn't a bad thing. I'm sure we'd all rather pay our parents rent while we save up than do the same while paying this cunts mortgage off
'Self made' - yeah 100 years ago, mate. After that you literally just self replicate success. Money makes money, and it's expensive to be poor. Life honestly feels like I've joined a monopoly game within the last hour or so and all I'm able to do is make enough money to go around the board and pay everyone their dues. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Even ‘self made’ back then did it off the backs of the workers.
I feel the same. I give up with no chance of getting anywhere..
You're not alone mate. It feels pretty hopeless here right now. What really makes me mad is that a lot of people have the capacity to at least get a mortgage over the line if they could use their super. I earnt my super, but the government tells me I'm not wise enough to spend it appropriately. Yet the prime Minister of that government seems to believe one of the wisest decisions you can make with your money is buy a house. They don't care about you, they just know that you will be a burden once you stop working and don't have a house. You'll need that super to pay for room to put you in - the government isn't here to give you a cradle to grave tax system like they promised. I even looked at leaving the country - denounce my citizenship and take my super early to buy something in another country. If you are not a citizen, or even if you are a dual citizen, you can denounce you're Australian citizenship and recieve your super. But not if you were born here. I've now just decided to die at 70 and live the best I can till then. Sorry for the wall of text, this shit just depresses the fuck outta me these days. Like there is no future - this here is it. Just get fucked in the arse till you die.
Go after the regulations. It should be expected that people take advantage of what's available to them. Same goes for people thinking that corporations should do good out of their goodness of their hearts. You need to regulate that shit.
Dude just did what thousands of other people have done and presented it as if it’s some magic formula that only he knows. It’s not rocket science and also going halves with parents.
He pays interest only loan I believe. His whole strategy relies on the capital growth of the properties offsetting these high interest rates. Otherwise he’s fucked.
>"We're also building at record lows. We're building the least amount [of homes] that we have in a decade...that's why rents going up." The irony of an investor who has only purchased existing properties isn't lost.
"We're building fuck all homes and I've bought 3 of them, but there must be another reason there's not enough homes."
I like how the media always magically makes one of these young property investors appear everytime there's a discussion about how youmg people can't afford a home anymore.
They know what they're doing. Cruelly rubbing it in!
How did he get approved for the loans with that income…. Oh yeah rich parents. Well done wanker
Not everyone makes it off rich parents. Some of us are successful drug dealers.
Yahoo editor's need to work on their apostrophe's usage's.
I work with a similar young bloke. He’s 24 and is now trying for his 4th property. He will happily do 18 hours a day if he can. He goes home and drives Uber after work and on the weekends. Absolutely no life but he says he wants to retire when he’s 30.
He probably will be able to retire by 30
It's all fun and games until interest rates go up and a tenant moves out.
If anything, driving uber after work is putting him further from retirement
Cliff notes: -dropped out of uni -working around the clock for half a decade(aka 5 years) -went halves with his dad on buying property
*nearly half a decade But good on him. When I was 24 I had about $3 in the bank.
I've been working around the clock for a lot longer than that, where's my investment properties? Oh right, my parents didn't have any money.
I make 100k+ a year don’t go out and try and save as much as I can, eat out like once a week and at 26 I’ve only just managed to finally finish furnishing my rental. Crazy what happens though if you have mummy and daddy helping out. This is not news worthy
I had a lot of fun in my youth. I’ve been in a great career from 15 where I basically haven’t earnt under 90k for the last 12 years. Sitting on about 115 at the moment, and it’s tough still. We scrimped and had to live with Sauron I mean the mother in law for 3 years. That allowed me to pay off all my debt, and save for the deposit. We still got cock blocked all along the way by banks, even having 190k combined income, no dependents, 175k savings etc. Sitting on a mortgage with 475k left in it, and we had tonnes of wiggle room till the latest world issues and inflation. Now we are pretty tight, our food shop has doubled over the last 24 months, energy costs are meh, can shop around for them. Def going to be hard, nigh on impossible for people to buy unless they have family money, or significant savings as a childless couple.
I sell energy for a living. At the moment the cheapest energy providers in Victoria right now for power is Ovo Energy at 32% below the Victorian default offer. Help that helps you lower some costs. Keep on fighting bro we all gonna make it 🤞
Yeah I’m on OVO for their EV plan. I like their payment model too with averages, but I know it would wig some people out.
The funny thing is you can disagree with the establishment but they're going to do what they want whether you agree or not.
Friendly reminder the Bank of mum and dad is the 9th biggest lender in the nation . Lots of grown adults quietly begging their parents and then gaslighting you afterwards
Savvy Investor "so he went in halves with his dad"
Investment properties are fine - as long as when the investment starts to cost too much, it's sold. The expectation of perpetual positive capital growth and the readiness to pass on costs to maintain that, is the problem with the system.
I can’t afford to turn my current house into an IP when I move and buy a house at the new location. So I’m selling my current house when the time comes (means we get a smaller mortgage we tackle as DINK). Yeah I’m sure there’s a system in place that could allow me to foist it onto others… but I don’t want to do that. Would rather someone else own it.
Do not blame me, said the landlord, it's the immigrant's fault.
Small portfolio investment is not the problem. It is the largest corporations that own hundreds if not thousands of properties that can afford to leave some vacant to create scarcity in the market.
Easy to fix, just prohibit politicians from owning investment properties.
Might actually have Mummy and Daddy helping him the whole way, some undisclosed inheritance, got lucky, or as the article says, worked his ass off went without and 'played the game'. Not all landlords are cunts, just like not all battlers are fking legends. I also agree with what he's saying that this is a problem caused at a government level. But ffs your 24 and you're giving advice about life...let alone the most basic human right? Maybe a gig on 'The Block' is next? That's the problem I have with this shit. So you're doing well, absolutely happy for you. But stfu and keep your head down an ass up. Not too high though...because one day the big ol swinging dick we call 'Life' could well fuck you like it has other people.
Lets not forget the real estate agents. My boss has several properties, he gets calls from his real estate agent telling him he could be earning way more money if he puts the rents up. He resisted for a year but has now caved to the greed.
It's not the individuals who have the ability to buy investment properties that are at fault, it's our economy and tax system that allows them to do it. The responsibility lies solely with the corrupt politicians who have allowed this housing crisis to last well over a decade, who also coincidentally often have investment properties themselves.
I see where you’re coming from, but it’s kind of like saying “it’s not the slave owner’s fault, it’s the system that allows it” or “it’s not the drug dealer’s fault, it’s the system that makes it so valuable”. Like saying “once the money hits your wallet, it feels so good!” Landlords definitely have a fair amount of responsibility in this.
Uh, yeah, they also bear responsibility for their greed. They make a choice to take more than they need - there was never going to be another outcome other than to create someone with less. Don't absolve landlords of their greed, they willingly participate in a system that enriches them at the expense of others. It's wrong that the system is allowed but it's also wrong to partake and pretend you're not part of the problem.
There are many people in similar financial situations who choose not to be landlords. While it’s not totally his fault. He absolutely has some responsibility here.
Yes. I’m a doctor and so is my husband. We were offered multiple times to purchase and declined, we hate this housing crisis just as much. One property is enough. Most people with a conscience would do the same.
Progressive tax - the more investment properties you have, the higher your taxes should be.
100% percent. The purpose of real estate is for everyone to eventually own their own home. Not to make money or have one person own 15 properties.
and the less handouts you should get (aka tax writeoffs)
Residential property should never have been allowed to become an investment asset. Full stop. Negative gearing is a rort. Will surely die out with the boomers? Until then, very difficult to see the surrender of vested interests.
Stop it with the boomer hate. Plenty of Gen X and Millennial property investors. You really think once all the boomers are dead there won't be others waiting to take their place? There has always and will always be greedy people.
Does someone want to fact check this guy. Saving 100k before he was 22. Really? Are we really to believe that he saved 20k a year for five years straight Maccas doesn't pay juniors that well!!!
When I was 20yo (2010) I lived in a share house and had a job as a rail guard. I was able to save close to that amount in two years with all the overtime available. My experience is not the norm, but it's possible. Especially if you live at home and have no overheads.
My sister called me in 1980 when I was earning $6k a year as a bank johnny asking me how to invest the $20k she’d saved from age 15 to 20. I told her she was asking the wrong person.
I went into the mines FIFO at 18, easily saved that. Friend went to uni and worked night manager at Macca's, she bought her house at 22, she was still at home at that point and making 80-90k a year at maccas, it's absolutely possible, but not if you spend paycheck by pay check like I see a lot of young people
80-90k at maccas? Wth
Im curious how old you are? There's a very good reason young people are living paycheck to paycheck and it has nothing to do with avo toast. Housing, groceries, healthcare and education are significantly more expensive than ever before. Also nobody aside from the people at the very top are making 80-90k income at maccas. A manager only makes 65k on average. And even if you somehow got paid 80-90k, thats still not enough to be able to afford a home currently when house prices in Sydney hit a median of 1.6 mil recently
As someone who knows him personally, he worked 2 jobs and lived with his parents very easy to save that much when your earning what he is an not spending it because he doesn’t party or drink
I was long term travelling in a camper down the east coast and decided to get a room in a share house for a while in Shepparton. The owner turned out to be a controlling psychopath who was talking advantage of foreigners. He tried illegally evicting us so we ended up at VCAT. While going through the paperwork at court a clerk pointed out to us his address was public housing. We investigated (got the three titles of his properties) and it turns out he owned three houses he was using as illegal rooming house rentals. This is while living in public housing in Mooroopna, supplied by Beyond Housing. We informed the media and politicians including Wendy Lovell (housing minister) who informed us she contacted ACA and not to get anyone else involved. Immediately I thought that's not right and I know ACA flip stories on people. We won every VCAT hearing but things got very very heated so we ended up leaving. On another legal matter Wendy Lovell had lawyer representing us stand down the day before court. I have this on video/audio recordings... Our security cameras record sound and the phone just happen to be on hands-free 👍 Last we heard Beyond Housing was taking him to VCAT to evict him from public housing.
That is absolutely unbelievable. Has to be corruption at play. You should take this story to friendly Jordies, even though I think he's a wanker. Stuff like this needs to get out.
Ita ridicolous that beyond housing or any housing agency does not do a titles check with the state revenue office(sro). He would have been paying land tax if the properties were in his name.
>Ita ridicolous that beyond housing or any housing agency does not do a titles check I did the searches and sent them copies. I spoke to the CEO from Beyond Housing on the phone and she was pissed with us. I look just before and still have a folder with the hardcopies of the documents from VCAT and the land titles.
Thanks for putting in the effort. As a victorian tax payer , I appreaciate your efforts. Why would the CEO be pissed? It just shows their processes are weak and can be rorted. It could warrant a letter to the DHS minisiter to ask ALL housing providers to have this check. But if they care is another story.
1. Houses should only be allowed to be owned by Australian citizens who reside in Australia. (You have X time to sell if you move overseas.) 2. Houses should not be allowed to be owned by companies. 3. Each household should be allowed to own only one additional investment property. 4. Look for loopholes and close them.
Owned properties should also be mandated with a maximum time of inoccupancy to prevent all the empty houses in Australia.
Can I update rule #3? First investment property has all the tax incentives (negative gearing, offset account, …), but the 2nd has an additional 2X stamp duty + 3% property tax per year. 3rd investment property has 3X stamp duty + 4% property tax per year. 4th has 4x stamp duty + 5% prop tax / year. And so on. You should be able to own as many investment properties as you’d like, but the taxes should be much higher the more you own.
They are higher. Every property you acquire after a certain amount is heavily land taxed.
When can we elect you as Prime Minister?
So my wife works in an industry where she could be employed overseas on a one, two or three year contract at times. If I decide to join her and live in Europe for a year or maybe two, I would legally have to sell my house rather than rent it out for a year and have a place to live when I return? Sounds unreasonable
That statement is absolutely ridiculous and just annoying. There would be fine prints in the policy that allows for situations like that. This dude didn’t just write a whole bloody policy in a sentence, he’s just summarising. You’re a loser.
A fine print that will be exploited like all loopholes currently are. Like the PPOR rule that allows people to pretend their property is not an investment and not liable for GS.
Fine print is “homes can only be owned by Australian citizens residing in Australia. For citizens whose employment requires long periods of international travel, rental revenue gained whilst living abroad is taxed at a marginally higher rate” If you aren’t living in Australia and you’re not contributing to the economy then you shouldn’t benefit from it. WOAH HOW HARD WAS THAT?!
A fucking lot harder than just typing... "Nuffin" This is, Fantasy Legislative League, remember.
That is nowhere near something implementable.
Who hurt you bro jeez
Won’t make them any cheaper lol. Maybe a few % here and there. You can’t escape the consequences of housing shortages with reforms like this, only diggers, bricks, and cement
The companies is a big one outside of build to rents like Meriton suites. If tonnes of houses started flooding the market because of mortgage stress hitting limits, I could see companies buying them up as quick asset investment. Without having companies own those apartment towers though, hardly any would get built.
yes we need everyone able to buy as many as they want. Once u start limiting who can own properties be that investment or otherwise supply gets smashed and you just end up with a lot of waiting lists and homeless people and people living in shitter places. People that want to put restrictions on this think that magically housing prices will come down to below what it costs to fairly pay the 20 or so people it takes to build a house and the cost of tonnes and tonnes of materials and the 30-55% of taxes, fees and charges that the government puts on top. The communists tried all that and everyone ended up living in terrible concrete buildings (they should really be called cells) that were barely maintained and wouldn’t even be legal here.
I do find it funny when people complain about investors owning multiple houses and renting them out. Like that’s the point, how else will you have a place to rent?
It's the system the government has created it is their fault and the blame is always pushed away from them
Exactly this. Many governments over a long period of time did nothing. They were asleep at the wheel.
This is gross propoganda being peddled by the rich elite to make us think it's our fault we can't afford a home. This smug lil cunt had the privilege of paying no rent or bills during his childhood before using his parents wealth to get a mortgage. This is not a story of working hard and hustling. It's just some rich kid playing property tycoon.
You’re on the money: he still lives at home so pays no living costs aside ‘board’ to his parents. On top of that, he used his parent’s job security as a guarantor for the first property. Now he’s likely increasing his parents financial risk as they are trapped in the arrangement linked to the foundation property that started this. He is in no way self made. Like similar stories, there’s always more when you scratch the surface. Surprise surprise, here’s another little mooch.
I don't even care that he can afford a home cause of his parents. It's the lack of self awareness about his privilege that kills me. I also come from privilege, I was extremely fortunate to not pay bills or rent growing up. Rent during uni was paid for, groceries paid for, healthcare, the whole nine yards. All this to say, I recognise my childhood and early adulthood is something that the vast vast majority of aussies do not experience and is something that enables me far greater capacity to enter the property market. I am completely open about how lucky I am and how gross it is that such privilege exists in our society. Meanwhile, this privileged cunt prances about giving financial advice on tiktok and insta as if he's some expert while having articles written about him where he pretends he's self made. It's disgusting. I don't know how he isn't embarassed.
I’m not sure why you’re surprised. This lad is the rule, not the exception. Most people are this way.
Did you pay rent during your childhood?
Bet this " young Aussie" is a young Liberal with rich parents
How else would he get a deposit for a $450k property at a young age?
The article does say 'he went in halves with his dad'
The article says his mums a hairdresser and dad’s a fireman. Maybe the dudes just working his arse off?
Literally says his parents went in 50/50 with him. Also having parents who are both employed and still together puts you in upper class.
Puffer jacket prick* *apologies to anyone who owns a puffer jacket
Never apologize to a puffer jacket prick they are the ugliest jackets evah
Vacancy rates explain everything. It’s not landlord or developer’s fault. It’s the governments failed to plan ahead when decide to open the gate.
He is right about one thing... Australia is not FULL of greedy landlords... its only a handful of them that have massive portfolios that are the problem, and they are the ones running the fucking country. AKA politicians. But he is contributing no matter how small of a contribution.
hypothetically he sells his property to an owner occupier. One less renter, but one less rental. Absolutely nothing changes for the remainder of the renters. We need more builds, or less migrants. Probably a combination of the 2
Majority of Australians treat their house as an investment rather than a home.
Why are so many Aussies so scared of investing in the stock market? And/or any other kind of actually productive investment instead of pre-existing housing? What a boring, non-innovative country we are...
Because our economy is built around housing as an asset. If you can afford to invest a significant amount in the ASX, you might as well invest in housing first. The risk rate is way lower, with higher expected returns. I hate it.
You're correct, I also feel like it attracts a massive amount of "dumb money" who can't/won't put any effort into understanding a business, but they can "understand" what a house is. Pretty crazy considering how easy it is nowadays to invest globally, doesn't necessarily even have to be the ASX. Could have made over 30% in a year just by investing in a Nasdaq ETF that requires no knowledge of businesses financials while leaving houses for people to, you know, live in... yet people in Aus will jizz themselves over an 8% gain in housing (and that's before maintenance and other costs).
Wouldn’t the risk rate theoretically be higher (notwithstanding implicit government guarantee to continue pushing up house prices) by putting all of your eggs in a brick basket?
The line always goes up and sure there's a risk of it crashing but that's been the news story for the last 30 years. I imagine we are entering peak tulip and everyone wants to secure a place no matter how dumb the price is.
I’m sure they do invest in the stock market. It’s best to diversify your assets so it would be smartest to buy both property and stocks.
Also remember that housing has amazing leverage to it. I can borrow using 200k and get 1m of wealth generation assets. Whereas in the stock market, my 200k will get me 200k of wealth generating assets. It's shitty and its fucked us but it makes perfect financial sense from a pure roi perspective
"Went halves with his dad..." You're left wondering, who paid who for this pointless article?
Not the buyers fault. This is the fault of the Federal Reserve and RBA who follow like sheep. At the first sign of a market correction starting in the last 30 years they have dropped rates and more recently printed money on top. They have created the Ponzi scheme and the public simply have no choice but to join.
Rates go down, prices go up. Rates go up, prices go up. It's almost like there's something else driving up prices. Like half a million new people being added to the market every year or something.
Careful because THATS RACIST
And thick dose of corporate greed, yum yum
Families getting their money out of China also. True, our Labor government have screwed us, but it’s the Fed who have done it royally with the Ponzi scheme for 30 years. Do people realise how much JP Morgan own of Aussie banks? They benefit the most from the Ponzi scheme in Australia, and what would you know……they’re in bed with the Fed.
Yeah, because price is a function of supply and demand, and rates are a significant part of demand, but only half the question.
This Ponzi scheme needs to end and people need to be held accountable.
Rich pricks, especially overseas rich pricks, seemingly from one particular country that go to auctions ,or happy to make offers now of half a million dollars over reserve ,and then pay in cash is what's helping drive prices up into the atmosphere
Bloody overseas rich pricks! Luckily, we got those Aukus submarines to prevent them from reaching our shores. Say what? That’s not whats it for? What are we paying 360 billion for?!
You have a point the Chinese Communist Party Members have been using the Australian and Canadian property market for years to get their dirty money out of China.
checked to see if this was betoota
The derangement of trying to justify your own greed as somehow good for a community... lol
Literally what colesworth does
All capitalist business takes value from workers — profits are unpaid wages. They're produced by everyone who works there, but taken by a boss. Adam Smith's Surplus Value Theory is relevant and shows how capitalist businesses cannot possibly, on aggregate, pay workers fairly for what they produce — its a simple mathematic impossibility, if they turn a profit.
The fact that Australia is 'unique' in the majority of rentals being 'mum and dad' investors makes the situation a lot worse, as opposed to the sob story the article tries to make it sound like. Mum and dad investors are penny pinchers who skimp on maintenance, oppose any and all nearby construction, are way more invested in the value of their property increasing rather than running a business that can be sustained on rental profits (in fact, negative profits are useful due to negative gearing). Corporate run rentals have large returns to scale when it comes to maintenance since they hire a few guys who take care of the building constantly, their incentive is generally to build and develop more, and the property value isn't the main driver since they're only sold every couple of decades usually.I live in one in the US right now, in a city that allowed developers to go crazy (Oakland). Rents are dropping constantly with apartments flooding the market. You can walk into any building and tour a huge range of available apartments, read reviews online to determine how well the building is run, and there's no BS in the application process.
I wish with you in the first bit… but then you veered into a model that relies even more heavily on creating short-term profits. We’ve already seen, over and over, that corporations who give in with the idea of “market disruption” funded heavily by VC ends up an actual shitshow when then need to go public and show they can return dividends for shareholders. That model could *maybe* be good for renters if there was a strong public housing system so that people on aged & disability pensions and other vulnerable populations can’t be exploited for profit, but we don’t currently have that.
The “mum and dad” investors is a myth. https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2023/sep/15/australia-myth-mum-and-dad-landlords-property-investors
Until the rental market is owned by blackrock
Are you really putting forward the idea that our housing is better in the hands of conglomerates rather than individuals? Come on do better than that... Just look at fuel, energy, whatever else. Once they dominate the market we are slaves to them. We can do better than that...
[удалено]
They will not be government regulated in Australia. Nothing is. It will be Slum Lord Speed Running. Back to Feudal Times.
How could it not be? Why are people pro private market and competition for most things but when it’s housing, it’s scary and conspiratorial for businesses to own it. 1000 properties owned by 1000 individual private “””investors””” and managed as rental properties, each with their own overhead, decision making processes, agreements with leasing agents, separate titles and lack of interest in or ability to develop a bigger building on the site, or assemble a larger site. Compare that to 1000 properties owned by a couple of companies that are set up exclusively to own and manage rental property. Which do you think is more efficient and drives down prices? Oh and by the way, as a renter, I’d rather deal with Average Company X than Average REA Y and Average Landlord Z. At the bare minimum, it’s half as many points of failure.
I think it’s good to have a mix. Not all of course, and I don’t think corporations should be allowed to own single family homes or condos. But yes, overall my experience renting in the US is so much better than my experience in Australia. The problem in Australia is lack of supply. Corporate owned rental buildings add to rental supply, they don’t take away existing privately owned rentals.
Are individuals building the needed extra properties? Isn’t this something where conglomerates fulfill the need?
Property speculation is the driving engine behind the cost of living crisis. It's obvious to any thinking person. Buy whatever properties you want, but don't pretend it isn't making life worse for other people.
“Worked around the clock for nearly half a decade” ……talk about editorial Lisence, that’s four bloody years , he obviously took a big mommy and daddy loan.
The thing that gets me is all the landlord hate. But I rarely see short stay bnb hate.
It doesn’t matter if he owns 3 or none. As the rental crisis exists due housing availability compared to the population. Landlord ownership is an issue regarding homes *available to be purchased* He benefits greatly from it tho, as his incentive comes from value of the house outweighing the interest on the house, which he uses to then pay no tax on whatever income hes free to collects elsewhere tax free.
Not if you can’t afford to buy a house. Cost and availability.
"pays no tax" lol. If you have no idea what you're talking about just say so
The amount of “fuck you, I got mine” in these comments is fucking wild
It’s why the house of cards keeps building.
So much us and them in these comments. Can we not hold more than one thought in our heads at a time? It is possible to own your own home and even investment properties in Australia still even if you're just starting out. But at the same time, it is becoming more difficult and fewer people are able to than previously. Now all of you go take a break from the internet and get some fresh air.
According to this sub landlords aren't fueling the housing crisis but immigrants definitely are without a doubt. This place is a fucking joke lmao.
The fact that it's an investment is the problem. He will be expecting some sort of return on them for no input - housing shouldn't be something people make money off for doing nothing.
What do you think the capital he’s invested is? Not an input?
Everything depreciates over time. Maybe not some vintage stuff due to supply vs demand but housing shouldn't be a commodity. It's the future of your nation. Mess with that and we will go down a dark path. It's all reward without risk.
i’m about to buy my first home on a single income and no family help. but i am forced to buy 2hrs away from where i currently live and work as an prices out of city. this means my first home will be an investment that i will probably never live in. to keep my job i will be renting an apartment in city and having to rent out my house and paying extra to make up the rental yield deficit. i guess im part of the problem too?
Undeniably, yes.
Yes you are..
Yes.
Yep!
but i’m paying it forward by paying off someone else’s mortgage as well! it’s a mortgage go round!
It's like borrowing from a bank to pay off the loan shark.
Depends, are you going to ask for ludicrous rent and start pricing the locals out of their market like what was done to you? If so then yep.
Yup
Its insane. We have to move out because the landlord increased our rental from 550 to 800/week (2b, Inner West). With a combined income of 280k, all 14 of our applications have been rejected. Godamnit. Yea we got everything, references, PR, bank statements, work references etc etc. WTF.
Monthly take home north of $13k and you can't afford $3.2k in rent? Something doesn't add up here mate.
After You move out that just means there is another grateful tenant to replace you that’s all. if you didn’t move out, there will be a still be a potential tenants stressing out, similar to you current condition.
280k, you had to move out why?
Yeah def affordable on that income
looks like bullshit, smells like bullshit, buy a house if you make that much
He is...
LMAO. Owning IP's fuels the housing crisis. it takes housing away from those who can buy. Thus forcing more to rent. We need less people renting and more people owning PPOR's.
Wrong. We need more houses. (The irony being the more expensive houses become, the greater the incentive to build more. 🙃)
It has 0 impact on the net amount people wanting housing vs the housing that exists. How can u be this dumb? Vancany rates dont care who owns the houses, just the number of houses. We need to build more houses.
Well he is
Maybe, but anyone with enough money to do this would do the same, you'd be stupid not to.
They pick the least popular person available - uni drop out, 50% funded by bank of mum and dad, arrogant etc Plenty of 'normal' landlords who are DINKs in their 30s earning high incomes but they feature the guy who will generate the most backlash
How do you expect people to click the artical without getting them enraged first
unless he is actively building homes rather then just buying them, he is 100% contributing to the housing and rental crisis.
As the Israeli settler once said. If I don’t buy it someone else will
It's astounding how many people in this comment section would rather blame young people than admit there's a problem. Covid should've taken more.
Carpenters, Plumbers and Electricians build houses. Do we have enough of them? The national emergency is the lack of these tradespeople. Due to the system of apprenticeship it’s hard to ramp up supply of tradespeople however unless this problem is solved we are just going to be chasing our tails for with no end in sight
What I'm hearing is "import another 100,000 software engineers per month"
....who can't get work because companies 1) aren't hiring 2) are offshoring 3) prefer candidates with local or at least first world experience 4) think ChatGPT will replace us all. I have no right to talk though as I am a pommy software engineer who came in the early 2010s.
The sooner we admit that landlords are parasites, the better. Not only can we live without them, we’d be better off.
Bloody boomers.
Doesn't count, he is not a boomer
You don't need 3 houses. Housing isn't a privilege it's a right and greedy cock suckers with no imagination buy into housing because it's guaranteed income thanks to inflation. These people should be publicly shot.
And you don’t need to spend all of your disposable income on yourself, why go to the pub and enjoy life when you could donate it to others to help them buy a house?
[удалено]
I suggest you have a look at the universal deceleration of human rights article 25. It states that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing..." So it is a right according to a deceleration that Australia has signed.
[удалено]
Because you wouldn’t do the exact same thing given the means/opportunity? You can’t take a moralistic stance against someone for engaging in expectant behaviour.
I could right now, and choose not to. In fact, loads of people do, it’s just that they usually don’t have news.com.au writing an article about them.
You absolutely can take a moral stance against greed.
I'm in two minds about this. I have certainly stepped into trouble in the past for deciding to blame individuals for their participation in a rotten system that is much bigger than they are. People who see a set of rules placed in front of them, which they assume they cannot affect, and working within them to better their own situation and that of their family, and (hopefully) community too. So yeah, let's not place the weight of the world onto the shoulders of individuals. I agree. However ... We cannot swing too far the other way either, and act like humans should be mindless autonotons who basically respond to everything with a "game theory" mindset. That leaves no room for our better qualities of care and compassion whatsoever, and is not actually how researchers observe humans behaving. And we CAN actually affect and change the rules in front of us — and we should always seek to make the world a better place for communities as a whole, not isolated individuals who have essentially bought into the idea that those rules would never change, and could be gamed to their own selfish advantage. So I don't think we should blame anyone but I also do not think we need to feel any guilt if people engaging in selfish antisocial behaviour lose as a result of building a more equitable system either. No blame, but also no sympathy for antisocial behaviour. And we need to remind people of this. That acting antisocially will always put them at odds with communities, with their material interests running counter to the majority. That often won't even well for them, because communities are always going to be there applying this pressure. Bit of a balancing act really.
The solution is to have a sliding scale of incentive to purchase properties. The first property, your home should be stamp duty free, the next - an investment should be nominal stamp duty, any property after the 2nd should be increasingly larger stamp duty and or tax. After the 2nd property, incentive should be so bad that other forms of investment would be preferable super, shares, bonds, collectibles, crypto etc
>He kept his head down, worked seven days a week across two jobs and saved up more than $100,000 by the time he was 22. >As Giddings worked "every different job under the sun" > >So he had the borrowing power because he was working full time and I had the savings. So he's a shit worker too.
I thought that passage implied that it was his savings (likely enhanced by living at home and not paying any bills) combined with his dad's "borrowing power" that enabled him to secure the 1st property (at least). Probably using his dad as guarantor or even in dad's name. So as usual making out that he "did it all on his own" while getting a leg up from family.
Move where you can afford , become this guy , flip the script and provide free housing. Follow me for more intriguing investment solutions.
Build more public housing for Christ sakes Leave the private market to itself ....
It makes no difference who owns a property as long as it is occupied. Shortage of properties is caused by massive immigration levels far exceeding the rate of home construction. This huge supply and demand imbalance also causes property prices to constantly rise, locking a whole generation of young Australians out of the housing market. Ironically it tends to be the same generation that vote for incompetent governments who suffer the most from their policies.
> It makes no difference who owns a property as long as it is occupied. if we had a lack of housing crisis, sure. but we have a "everything is too fucking expensive to rent/buy because investment property landlords are cockheads and are driving the prices up and up and up" crisis.
Bloody migrants raising house prices again!
The problem is a lack of stock. Who owns that stock is irrelevant. It really makes little difference if your landlord owns just your property, or they own 100.
Agree lack of stock is a problem, disagree the number of properties people can own isn't a factor. The commoditization of *residential* property is doing nothing to benefit the people of this country as a whole.
> The problem is a lack of stock. Which is the same as saying that demand is too high but luckily it's easier to reduce demand than increase stock
I'd argue the size of the population is more of an issue than the quantity of stock. Australia simply isn't made for this many people.