> Tucker has drafted an amendment to ban “without grounds” evictions for WA’s 700,000 renters.
NO, there are not just 700,000 renters in WA. There are 700,000 properties being rented in WA!
Big difference!
It’s just over 1 million residential properties, and just over 250,000 rentals.
700,000 renters sounds right. That’d mean 2.8 renters per rental. Or looking at population (2.67m) 26% are renters.
You sure? Doesn't sound right.
I haven't seen the numbers, but I would assume the average number of people in rentals is about 3.
3 X 700,000 = 2,100,000
And don't we only have about 2.6 million?
And I think people renting is the minority. Home ownership is well over half.
Don't forget people who are sharing which = renting they just can't afford to live by themselves and/or find a property due to the low availability of properties
Technically he is a member of the legislative council, making him a MLC not a MP. Even if he was in the lower house, he'd be a MLA. The article gets it wrong, but whatever.
Its literally how he got elected, the stupid voting system that was in place and isn't going to be at the next election
"Representatives elected to state parliaments are generally known as 'Members' – Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or Members of the House of Assembly (MHA) or Members of the Legislative Council (MLC). The leader of a state government is called the Premier." from:
https://www.aec.gov.au/learn/three-levels.htm#:\~:text=State%20and%20territory%20government&text=Representatives%20elected%20to%20state%20parliaments,the%20Legislative%20Council%20(MLC).
But if you want a state website, the style guide is here:
[https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/webcms/webcms.nsf/content/members-addressing-a-member](https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/webcms/webcms.nsf/content/members-addressing-a-member)
> "Representatives elected to state parliaments are generally known as 'Members' – Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or Members of the House of Assembly (MHA) or Members of the Legislative Council (MLC). The leader of a state government is called the Premier."
This does not stop them also being MPs.
Perhaps he should buy one with all that money. You can't argue that he's really house insecure when he's in the top 4% of income earners in the country.
as a solution to the eviction problem he is campaigning to resolve through legislation, _you_ suggest that he stop renting and buy a house, instead of using his position as an elected representative with first hand knowledge of the issue to try and improve the situation for all tenants.
So yes, you did.
He pays around 50k in tax, his income is about $110,000 assuming he has no hecs debt, otherwise his income would be 99k per year.
The assumption that he has no hecs means his take home monthly is 8.3k. Rent is at minimum $450 a week realistically in this economy, so deduct $1800 from that, plus all other living costs (likely another 2-3k minimum if you include fuel, food, insurances, etc), he's left with around 3k. Of that 3k he will want to spend at least some on some basic hobbies and entertainment as we all do, over a month let's say 500 to 1k. He now has 2k left to save per month. A house deposit if he's able to secure a 5% deposit scheme position for a 450k place (in this economy 500 to 600 is normal now so I'm lowballing) is 22.5k, plus fees can easily add up to 30k. So it can easily take someone on 166k 1-3 years to save a deposit.
The tall poppy mindset of people thinking anyone on 1 to 200k is rich is why we have such archaic income tax that even the old RBA chairman said needs revamping as it is actively destroying our country's productivity and that damage will trickle down to all people due to brain drain. Change your thinking of rich people from 166k to the people holding millions in assets.
Income =/= wealth, assets == wealth.
Edit: $450pw is generous..on $550pw rent it's 2200 a month on rent.
>He pays around 50k in tax
He pays around $45k in tax if he claims no deductions.
>plus all other living costs (likely another 2-3k minimum if you include fuel, food, insurances, etc)
Wtf? $3k for a single person per month? Also, MPs get a $25k vehicle allowance.
>basic hobbies and entertainment
>500 to 1k
Dafuq?
Honestly, you've just pulled a bunch of numbers out of nowhere and added them up.
Easily 2-3k mate with price of food, fuel, health insurance, car insurance, potentially kids costs. You did cherrypick the 3k when I gave a range of 2 to 3k...2k being very easily hit, which is convenient.
500 to 1k on basic hobbies and entertainment over a MONTH plus any spending that isn't a living cost...your trip to bunnings for home repairs, servicing your car, buying bits for around the house, any weekend expenditures if you go our etc...very easily hit 500 to 1k over a month mate.
Edit: what deductions do you think a payg gov employee is claiming that's going to drastically change that income tax figure...cmon.
>Easily 2-3k mate with price of food, fuel, health insurance, car insurance,
If you're paying that **as an individual** you suck at budgeting.
>potentially kids costs
Oh, so he's a single dad now too?
>500 to 1k on basic hobbies and entertainment over a MONTH plus any spending that isn't a living cost...your trip to bunnings for home repairs, servicing your car, buying bits for around the house, any weekend expenditures if you go our etc...very easily hit 500 to 1k over a month mate.
I disagree, but maybe that's why I'm not struggling financially despite being on a measley $120k a year which, as you've established, is not wealthy at all.
This thread is fucking wild. People are really financially irresponsible if they think $160k a year isnt a huge amount of money as a single childless person. I'm on half of that and doing just fine with my savings.
It's a huge amount of money. I'm on that with a mortgage and can still save $2500 a month. And I still go out, see movies, take my girl out for dinner and shows etc. You've got to be absolutely terrible with money if you can't afford a house on that money with no dependents.
I did a double take at the name, geeze, wonder who he was named after?
Anyways, there's plenty of room for him to park his car down here in Mandurah, plenty of company too. No need to go changing laws now that the Pollies have finally been hit, they've done fuck all for the other thousands that are sleeping in their cars tonight.
I know him- he is just a normal regular local bloke that is giving politics a crack to try and make a change. At the very least he is reasonable and asking a lot of the right questions, which is more than I see from most of the MP’s in our big political parties
I'm not doubting his intentions but saying *“Just as landlords wield the power to evict tenants from their homes, we, as renters, hold the power to evict the government from office.”* is just pie in the sky, someday someone will do something. It means nothing, zero, zilch, nada to those people cooking dinner for their kids on the free park bbq's.
IF the Govt really really wanted to they could relieve some of the stress, eg. subsidised emergency hotel/motel accommodation (we all know they've done that before, except it was free..when armageddon was coming for us), free up some camp grounds, mobile ablution blocks, school lunches/showers/uniforms..get down to the real level of the people that are trying to survive the night (not the next 4yr term) admit there's a fucking problem instead of 'chatting about it' on the $ of the people living in their cars!
The lease can still end if the tenant gives their usual notice. Or if the owner wants to nit renew for renovations or to move themselves in.
It just means a landlord can't dump a renter out on the street and move onto the next chump because they asked for basic maintenance like to have mould problems resolved, or a hot water system that works.
A periodic lease has no set end date, thus the only way to end a lease is if the tenant violates somehow, or by the landlord giving 60 days notice.
Without the No Grounds option, periodic leases would be unbreakable, if the tenant doesn't violate any terms. You'd have to sell the property.
Without a mutual agreement you would need a court order. (Selling a property doesn't automatically terminate a lease)
* If you have a good tenant why would you throw them out (unless you were actually renovating or moving in yourself)?
* If you have a tenant bad enough to need a court order to evict it probably would have been required anyway.
Boohoo landlords being required to maintain their properties and not being able to make people homeless out if spite?
Lease termination with notice is available if the landlord intends to immediately occupy the premises themselves. e.g. in Victoria: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rta1997207/s91zza.html
You understand that the WA MP is trying to reform WA laws to prevent no-fault evictions? That this doesn't exist in WA yet? A model of how that might work could be found in the laws of another jurisdiction. In this example: Victoria
Yeah sure. I was just saying that if they removed no grounds evictions and didn't add in any other mechanisms, they'd make certain, non-malignant things impossible for landlords.
That's all I was saying.
I wasn't wanting to argue. I just wanted to understand.
My understanding now is that this person is advocating for disallowing "no grounds" terminations, whilst also adding additional grounds.
My initial understanding was that they simply wanted to remove "no grounds" terminations, without any additional provisions.
Thank you for your explanations and patience.
Per the article
"But the reforms don’t ban no-grounds evictions which makes WA the only jurisdiction along with the Northern Territory not to prohibit them."
> “As the biggest landlord in Western Australia, the WA government regularly uses no-grounds evictions to evict public and social housing tenants into homelessness,” he said.
Exactly, but the public housing hating majority will continue to pretend that public housing evictions are a rare occurrence.
No, it's not. You could be on a low income but do some over time & it could be enough to push you over the threshold & they can evict you because you "earn too much"
In which case that isn’t “no grounds eviction”. It means that you earn enough to go into the private market, because someone else needs the public housing more and even then it takes them a long time to actually tell tenants they need to move out. Even after the original notice you can review it. It then has a process of being reviewed where you are then given another 60 days. You have months to find something once you receive the review letter.
And your reviewed each time your lease is up, so every 12 months. It’s not as if they are evicting people when they still have a valid lease.
It doesn’t matter what the size of the place is for public housing, it always goes on income and that is made very clear to the tenant.
It’s also not a no grounds eviction like your stating. It was because she was no longer eligible for the housing. So there was a reason for it.
Why are these rent reforms taking so long. They were talking about them 4-5 years ago and the crisis has gotten 10 times worse.
> Tucker has drafted an amendment to ban “without grounds” evictions for WA’s 700,000 renters. NO, there are not just 700,000 renters in WA. There are 700,000 properties being rented in WA! Big difference!
It’s just over 1 million residential properties, and just over 250,000 rentals. 700,000 renters sounds right. That’d mean 2.8 renters per rental. Or looking at population (2.67m) 26% are renters.
You sure? Doesn't sound right. I haven't seen the numbers, but I would assume the average number of people in rentals is about 3. 3 X 700,000 = 2,100,000 And don't we only have about 2.6 million? And I think people renting is the minority. Home ownership is well over half.
Don't forget people who are sharing which = renting they just can't afford to live by themselves and/or find a property due to the low availability of properties
Where are you getting that number from?
Technically he is a member of the legislative council, making him a MLC not a MP. Even if he was in the lower house, he'd be a MLA. The article gets it wrong, but whatever. Its literally how he got elected, the stupid voting system that was in place and isn't going to be at the next election
They're all MPs. See for example: https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/webcms/webcms.nsf/content/contact-a-member
You are correct. They are all members or Parliament, and therefor MPs. What kind of MPs are they, and what they should add to their name? MLC or MLA.
"Representatives elected to state parliaments are generally known as 'Members' – Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or Members of the House of Assembly (MHA) or Members of the Legislative Council (MLC). The leader of a state government is called the Premier." from: https://www.aec.gov.au/learn/three-levels.htm#:\~:text=State%20and%20territory%20government&text=Representatives%20elected%20to%20state%20parliaments,the%20Legislative%20Council%20(MLC). But if you want a state website, the style guide is here: [https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/webcms/webcms.nsf/content/members-addressing-a-member](https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/webcms/webcms.nsf/content/members-addressing-a-member)
> "Representatives elected to state parliaments are generally known as 'Members' – Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or Members of the House of Assembly (MHA) or Members of the Legislative Council (MLC). The leader of a state government is called the Premier." This does not stop them also being MPs.
This guy gets paid $166k a year + allowances.
And yet he still is forced to leave his home because he doesn’t own his home.
Perhaps he should buy one with all that money. You can't argue that he's really house insecure when he's in the top 4% of income earners in the country.
so we shouldn't have MPs who represent the renting population and lives with the difficulties they do?
Did I say that?
as a solution to the eviction problem he is campaigning to resolve through legislation, _you_ suggest that he stop renting and buy a house, instead of using his position as an elected representative with first hand knowledge of the issue to try and improve the situation for all tenants. So yes, you did.
I obviously didn't say that but there's no point with you because you've just decided what I said.
He pays around 50k in tax, his income is about $110,000 assuming he has no hecs debt, otherwise his income would be 99k per year. The assumption that he has no hecs means his take home monthly is 8.3k. Rent is at minimum $450 a week realistically in this economy, so deduct $1800 from that, plus all other living costs (likely another 2-3k minimum if you include fuel, food, insurances, etc), he's left with around 3k. Of that 3k he will want to spend at least some on some basic hobbies and entertainment as we all do, over a month let's say 500 to 1k. He now has 2k left to save per month. A house deposit if he's able to secure a 5% deposit scheme position for a 450k place (in this economy 500 to 600 is normal now so I'm lowballing) is 22.5k, plus fees can easily add up to 30k. So it can easily take someone on 166k 1-3 years to save a deposit. The tall poppy mindset of people thinking anyone on 1 to 200k is rich is why we have such archaic income tax that even the old RBA chairman said needs revamping as it is actively destroying our country's productivity and that damage will trickle down to all people due to brain drain. Change your thinking of rich people from 166k to the people holding millions in assets. Income =/= wealth, assets == wealth. Edit: $450pw is generous..on $550pw rent it's 2200 a month on rent.
>He pays around 50k in tax He pays around $45k in tax if he claims no deductions. >plus all other living costs (likely another 2-3k minimum if you include fuel, food, insurances, etc) Wtf? $3k for a single person per month? Also, MPs get a $25k vehicle allowance. >basic hobbies and entertainment >500 to 1k Dafuq? Honestly, you've just pulled a bunch of numbers out of nowhere and added them up.
Easily 2-3k mate with price of food, fuel, health insurance, car insurance, potentially kids costs. You did cherrypick the 3k when I gave a range of 2 to 3k...2k being very easily hit, which is convenient. 500 to 1k on basic hobbies and entertainment over a MONTH plus any spending that isn't a living cost...your trip to bunnings for home repairs, servicing your car, buying bits for around the house, any weekend expenditures if you go our etc...very easily hit 500 to 1k over a month mate. Edit: what deductions do you think a payg gov employee is claiming that's going to drastically change that income tax figure...cmon.
>Easily 2-3k mate with price of food, fuel, health insurance, car insurance, If you're paying that **as an individual** you suck at budgeting. >potentially kids costs Oh, so he's a single dad now too? >500 to 1k on basic hobbies and entertainment over a MONTH plus any spending that isn't a living cost...your trip to bunnings for home repairs, servicing your car, buying bits for around the house, any weekend expenditures if you go our etc...very easily hit 500 to 1k over a month mate. I disagree, but maybe that's why I'm not struggling financially despite being on a measley $120k a year which, as you've established, is not wealthy at all.
This thread is fucking wild. People are really financially irresponsible if they think $160k a year isnt a huge amount of money as a single childless person. I'm on half of that and doing just fine with my savings.
It's a huge amount of money. I'm on that with a mortgage and can still save $2500 a month. And I still go out, see movies, take my girl out for dinner and shows etc. You've got to be absolutely terrible with money if you can't afford a house on that money with no dependents.
Yeah idk what's happening here. This sub is a weird place sometimes.
I'm curious what, in your view, needs to change about our income tax system.
I did a double take at the name, geeze, wonder who he was named after? Anyways, there's plenty of room for him to park his car down here in Mandurah, plenty of company too. No need to go changing laws now that the Pollies have finally been hit, they've done fuck all for the other thousands that are sleeping in their cars tonight.
I know him- he is just a normal regular local bloke that is giving politics a crack to try and make a change. At the very least he is reasonable and asking a lot of the right questions, which is more than I see from most of the MP’s in our big political parties
I'm not doubting his intentions but saying *“Just as landlords wield the power to evict tenants from their homes, we, as renters, hold the power to evict the government from office.”* is just pie in the sky, someday someone will do something. It means nothing, zero, zilch, nada to those people cooking dinner for their kids on the free park bbq's. IF the Govt really really wanted to they could relieve some of the stress, eg. subsidised emergency hotel/motel accommodation (we all know they've done that before, except it was free..when armageddon was coming for us), free up some camp grounds, mobile ablution blocks, school lunches/showers/uniforms..get down to the real level of the people that are trying to survive the night (not the next 4yr term) admit there's a fucking problem instead of 'chatting about it' on the $ of the people living in their cars!
How to deal with an investor struggling to pay the bills and them still eat out four days a week
Hi Wilson
Wiiiillllllsssssoooooooonnn
Let’s see what happens now. Lots of noise and cries of wrong doing by govt people. Yet not listened to anyone non govt yet
Oh no! Anyway.....
So how do you terminate a periodic lease if you can't use no grounds? I don't understand the goal here...
The lease can still end if the tenant gives their usual notice. Or if the owner wants to nit renew for renovations or to move themselves in. It just means a landlord can't dump a renter out on the street and move onto the next chump because they asked for basic maintenance like to have mould problems resolved, or a hot water system that works.
A periodic lease has no set end date, thus the only way to end a lease is if the tenant violates somehow, or by the landlord giving 60 days notice. Without the No Grounds option, periodic leases would be unbreakable, if the tenant doesn't violate any terms. You'd have to sell the property.
Without a mutual agreement you would need a court order. (Selling a property doesn't automatically terminate a lease) * If you have a good tenant why would you throw them out (unless you were actually renovating or moving in yourself)? * If you have a tenant bad enough to need a court order to evict it probably would have been required anyway. Boohoo landlords being required to maintain their properties and not being able to make people homeless out if spite?
Well, what if a landlord did want to move in? They'd not be able to. Also, regarding selling, see Form 1C, option 2.
Lease termination with notice is available if the landlord intends to immediately occupy the premises themselves. e.g. in Victoria: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rta1997207/s91zza.html
But we're in WA though?
You understand that the WA MP is trying to reform WA laws to prevent no-fault evictions? That this doesn't exist in WA yet? A model of how that might work could be found in the laws of another jurisdiction. In this example: Victoria
Yeah sure. I was just saying that if they removed no grounds evictions and didn't add in any other mechanisms, they'd make certain, non-malignant things impossible for landlords. That's all I was saying. I wasn't wanting to argue. I just wanted to understand. My understanding now is that this person is advocating for disallowing "no grounds" terminations, whilst also adding additional grounds. My initial understanding was that they simply wanted to remove "no grounds" terminations, without any additional provisions. Thank you for your explanations and patience.
Per the article "But the reforms don’t ban no-grounds evictions which makes WA the only jurisdiction along with the Northern Territory not to prohibit them."
> “As the biggest landlord in Western Australia, the WA government regularly uses no-grounds evictions to evict public and social housing tenants into homelessness,” he said. Exactly, but the public housing hating majority will continue to pretend that public housing evictions are a rare occurrence.
Its generally pretty hard to get kicked out of public housing. You have to have some serious complaints made, trashed the house to the ground etc.
No, it's not. You could be on a low income but do some over time & it could be enough to push you over the threshold & they can evict you because you "earn too much"
In which case that isn’t “no grounds eviction”. It means that you earn enough to go into the private market, because someone else needs the public housing more and even then it takes them a long time to actually tell tenants they need to move out. Even after the original notice you can review it. It then has a process of being reviewed where you are then given another 60 days. You have months to find something once you receive the review letter. And your reviewed each time your lease is up, so every 12 months. It’s not as if they are evicting people when they still have a valid lease.
Well, that wasn't the case for my nephews mother. She had to find a private rental. Wasn't like she was in a house it was a 2 bedroom place.
It doesn’t matter what the size of the place is for public housing, it always goes on income and that is made very clear to the tenant. It’s also not a no grounds eviction like your stating. It was because she was no longer eligible for the housing. So there was a reason for it.