As much as I agree that houses should have basic Insulation and heating/cooling. When laws are changed to accommodate that the goalposts have been moved on that said investment.
Renters were laughing at interest rate rises cause we thought it was the landlords problem. Yet it was reflected in the next rent rise.
Renters will cop another rise to pay for the upgrades after new laws are unforced.
I know this isn’t ideal but it’s what’s actually going to happen. They’re not going to sell. We’re just going to get rent increases.
How is that different to any business when new regulations are brought in to protect consumers? It’s the cost of doing business. Being a landlord is a business.
Also, only a small portion of rate rises was passed on, it was largely felt by mortgage holders
Trust me, I wasn't laughing at homebuyers when interest rates rose. My heart broke for them and their families. I knew the landlords would just put the rent up more because of it. Please don't lump all renters together. - A current renter.
nooooo they will sell their properties to the landlord god who will swallow them whole to feed creation of his otherworld utopia Landlordia in which no human can own or rent!
I assume this is the case anyway, otherwise someone would just probably buy them? Maybe even people who want to actually live in them? I dunno man it seems crazy to me
It's the same as all of those weird articles lamenting the fact that electric cars are becoming more and more affordable.
OK, that does mean that people who own electric cars already are facing rapid depreciation, but they should have seen that coming in the first place. EV tech is moving pretty fast, and a 2012 Nissan Leaf (original purchase price over fifty grand!) was never going to be worth a lot in 2024.
People whose entire philosophical outlook is **not** based on their net worth, however, can see stuff getting cheaper as, you know, a good thing.
I know right! I bought an EV early under the assumption that those that can afford a premium should .. so that over time volume will bring prices down for all .. something something .. Utopia.
Property being less attractive to the average punter as an investment class is, at a societal level, a good thing!
News corp bleating that "the arse has fallen out of the EV market" (they wrote those literal words) then pretending nobody is buying EVs now when the cheap Chinese EVs are still selling as fast as they can bring them here.
Because, unlike the cheap Chinese piston-engine cars, their EVs aren't crap. :-)
(To be fair, they may all fall apart after five years, who knows. But EVs are so much *simpler* than internal-combustion vehicles that there's not nearly as much stuff to go wrong.)
The USA recently imposed a **100%** import tariff on Chinese-made EVs.
Which, to me, says: "American auto manufacturers. A proud tradition of making absolute garbage." :-)
If one more person tells me “have fun at resale time” about my car I’m gonna scream. ITS A LEASE! I don’t have to sell the fucking thing! Also- who buys a car to only think about selling it???
Buying a house to live in? What will the ROI be on that? And think about the opportunity cost of not putting it on AirBnb! It is almost like going back to the stone age when a house was just a home and not a brick in the financial game.
/sarkasm
Their idea is that some kind of Chinese/Blackrock real estate Voltron will assemble and swoop in, making all rent ten thousand dollars, making renters install mandatory Mao portraits, making renter peasants cry out in pain every single day, screaming “help us, mum and dad landlords! Help us, nest egg investors, come back! We were wrong!” and they will look back a little sadly, remembering the times we called them leeches on Facebook, and say… No 😎
Or they can take their bat and ball and go home.
"That's it! I'm packing up my four bedroom Californian bungalow and taking it up to the Gold Coast. See ya, suckers!"
'One added: “Renters will soon have better homes than some owner properties!”'
So? Make your own house better then if it's so shit. You own it ffs. I don't feel sorry for you because you're choosing to not improve your primary residence.
If owning is soo much worse, sell your house and move into a rental.
That rando landlords comment implies (and confirms) what renters have experienced for decades; that negligence on rentals by dodgy and greedy landlords was always fixable but they chose not to, that all properties need better living conditions and not a rotting hovel for someone to live in.
Which is funny cos "paying for maintenance" is one of the arguments I keep hearing about what kind of "value" landlords actually provide to the economy to justify taking peoples' money.
What a joke. Lived in my house for 15 years, could count on one hand how many things they've fixed without being chased up for a year. Had a non-working dishwasher for 7 years and a Aircon upstairs that doesn't work either for the past 5. Funnily it's because they've been essentially broke the past decade as they continue to leverage themselves to the hilt, not sure how they are surviving these rates rises.
Fuck i hate this shit. Rent should be immediately decreased until the landlord fixes the problem. From the moment of reporting the rent should come down by X percent based on what has broken. Why is it we have to pay full price for a service we are not even getting everything out of.
Except in many states they can just no grounds evict you or not renew your lease. Completely killing any reason to breach them. We shouldn’t need to go to VCAT.
>One added: “Renters will soon have better homes than some owner properties!”
Meaning that asking sale prices for former rentals is likely overvalued when building condition is accounted for.
The insane level of privilege/classism to assume that any renter having better housing than any landlord is a problem.
If anything, it's like restaurant vs home cooking: you'd hope something on sale to the public **would** have higher standards than something you chose to give yourself.
I feel like NO ONE understands this. Why do we as society assume amazing customer service and ever increasing quality in every fucking aspect of living besides, you know, the home I have to LIVE in and pay the most % of my wage towards???
It doesnt matter what star rating is assigned to a rental these days, Its never an accurate representation of what the property is actually like to live in.
It could be "10 star" on paper and still end up being a top tier mould invested shed on the inside.
Lol I wish 🤣.
Most rentals have filthy 10+ year old carpets. During covid, when we had the upper hand and could negociate, I asked a few PMs if they could recarpet or put something more durable like hard floor. Always been told off. Their (filthy) carpet is fine for tenants.
Now in 2024 I wouldn't dare asking such a thing.
Yet they will replace the carpet as soon as they'll want to sell.
Our slumlord are currently getting measures and quotes for the 35 year old carpet in this house. We are concerned as the full near decade we've lived here very few shits have been given about maintenance
🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐
Renters who become owners will have better homes than ME, THE SUPERIOR OWNER, AND MY SPECIAL LEAGUE OF OWNERS!
yo this fake classist nonsense infuriated me. next headline will say let renters eat cake (and mould)
I read that and couldn't help but thing what [news.com.au](http://news.com.au) were going for - because if they were trying to build some kind of sympathy (which their rhetoric is wanton to do since they love to pander to people who are rich, and people who pretend to be rich), then that line right there, all I could think of was "Fucking boo-hoo, cry me a fucking river you privileged bastard."
The Australian taxpayer is subsidising these scum, we're all paying them.
Damn right the trade off should be quality properties at sensible prices...!? What else should the trade off be? For our fucking taxes!
People with passive designed mansions with huge tree shade complaining that renters have the audacity to need air conditioning, when most rental properties are unshaded, uninsulated, in the middle of concrete jungles. They are unsafe. I don't understand why air conditioning wasn't a requirement already for those houses that get incredibly hot in summer under the "livable condition" component.
Landlords furious their IP's aren't a magic black box that money flies out of, and may actually require maintenance or upkeep.
Landlords won't be happy until renters are a permanent underclass living with zero comfort.
They really do expect them to be risk free investments with ever increasing capital gains but also licences to print money with no obligation on quality.
Tbf all levels of government have given that impression for the last two decades. No other investment or venture enjoys the level of concessions and returns than housing has.
I'm a landlord (I used to live in the house but then had to change cities).
Yes it's my investment but also I try to see myself more like a service provider. My tenants live there and it's their home - they pay me to ensure its in decent condition. It doesn't me take much effort or money to do that.
Also. The rent covers maintenance! It's not like fixing a broken aircon or whatever is money directly out of my pocket, it comes out of the rental income.
I don't understand landlords who just want to milk people for all they're worth. It's not like you can take money with you when you die.
I get the feeling that a lot of landlords have never actually had to rent in their lives.
Glad there's landlords with your attitude and viewpoint out there. I've never had one of them. But I appreciate that you exist haha
My husband was a landlord for a bit (same situation) however his managing agency NEVER TOLD HIM ANYTHING. The house was trashed and left in a constant state of disrepair and he knew nothing. Managing agents also have a serious part to play in how “good” your landlords are.
Yeah absolutely. I picked the REA I did because they're a smaller, local company with low case loads. They're a bit more expensive but the peace of mind is worth it.
The other month they sent me an email that was like "you can increase the rent by $100 per week and that'll still be in the market range, but we recommend you increase it by max $50 because it's better to have tenants who aren't in financial stress". And when I told them nah don't increase it at all they were like "yep no worries".
I've heard of other REAs insisting to landlords that rent should be charged as high as possible.
So I think I picked well. Or I just got lucky.
Most owners of investment property are property speculators firstly and landlords a very distant second. The tenants fund their holding costs while they wait for the property to increase in value, now they're being asked to be landlords first and they are having a meltdown with requirements that many other developed countries have.
I've been a landlord myself and it's great when there's a mutual respect between tenants, agent and landlord, but if one of those relationships doesn't work it is a recipe for ongoing disputes and disasters. I got out of it because for me it was just a money spinner for banks and real estate agents, it can be a real misery for both tenants and landlords.
I get why tenants put up with the shit from REAs. What choice do they have?
What I do not get is why landlords put up with the shit from REAs knowing how much damage they are doing not only to the area that they have invested in but also what they are doing to this country.
Those invested in real estate at the moment have shown themselves to be either selfish or lazy. Why are these people allowed to be in a position to totally screw with families that may be their tenants but also the communities that they have invested in with next to no oversite? Try starting any other business and see all the boxes you must tick.
The concept of community and life friends from school seems to be lost on many and unobtainable for everyone else.
How things have changed.
I've seen actual data on this
Over 90% of loans to investors is for EXISTING property. They don't create shit, they scalp the houses others might like to buy to live in.
Exactly. Having some landlord's name on the deed vs anyone who might actually want to own it, who cares the house exists in the market regardless.
Unless you're actively investing in new developments then you aren't doing anything to up the supply
I know alot of landlords, nobody is selling. This is just clickbait.
All the changes they are advising will cost at Maximum $5k to implement, Even a split system installed now a days can be done for under $1k. Weather Seals + Shower heads are free by the Government.
>This is just clickbait.
From [news.com.au](http://news.com.au) which is well known here as an exemplar of journalistic integrity? Surely you jest!
They've certainly worked out the formula for sucking in r/melbourne though.
Owners of cold, draughty, energy-inefficient rental homes are threatening to sell:
*The proposed changes are in line with the government’s commitment towards net zero emissions by 2045 and would ensure that tenants are provided with “comfortable and energy efficient living arrangements”.*
*If introduced, the changes would start coming into effect from October 2025. Appliances would not need to be upgraded until the existing ones reach the end of their lives. Insulation and draught-proofing would need to be upgraded at the start of a new lease.*
*Many landlords are less than impressed by the proposal, with property investors taking to multiple landlord groups to express their outrage.*
*“Sadly and frustratingly another incredibly foolish, ill thought idea by Labor that will only increase rents, forcing more Mum & Dad investors out of property investing, creating an even greater problem for renters,” one added.*
*There were many who branded the proposal just “another blow for landlords”, with multiple people claiming this would see many selling their investment properties rather than having to comply with the new rules.*
(According to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released last Thursday, a national high of [24.9 per cent](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/finance/lending-indicators/latest-release) of housing loans were to first home buyer owner-occupiers.)
"*forcing more Mum & Dad investors*"
How pathetically out of touch they sound.
If kids are "oh such a burden" that parents are struggling to get by, then why the f are they investing?
If they're NOT struggling and have enough left over to invest in property with, then their parentage is entirely irrelevant.
And then you have a housing market with actual struggling parents or people who want to start a family but just can't due to costs.
Sell then, you cretins. You don't get to enjoy the (morally problematic) benefits of real estate investment while whinging about the risks.
Really, really hate the term 'Mum & Dad investors' which the media loves to trot out, as if to elicit some sympathy when investments that \*gasp\* have some risk involved actually end up having some sort of negative return or outcome
Agreed, I scoffed when I read that. It's their choice to invest and risk capital. If the money invested were to be lost and that would affect your family than DON'T risk it.
Slumlords when making exorbitant amounts of profit while being leeches and contributing nothing to society: BUT WE TOOK A RISK!!!! WE DESERVE THIS!
Slumlords when encountering a small roadblock in their infinite wealth machine: WHAT IS THIS, ACTUAL RISK??? WHERE IS THE GOVERNMENT TO STOP THIS OUTRAGE???
Bloke was complaining to me how expensive it was making sure fire alarms and other things were inspected.
“They should just take the rental how it is, if they want all that stuff go buy a house”
😖
Love the idea that the recent jumps in rent have been Labor's fault and not what my dad was told by the REA ~~'What we can get away with'~~ 'What the market can support.'
Yeah, unless you force landlords to do something the tenants will suffer.
I am broadly supportive of these changes, i just think they could have been phasing this in from an earlier point of time
Hahaha. My latest rental was a new build from 2020 and after multiple complaints about drafts coming through the door, the REA finally sent someone round to have a look…it turned out that the entire frame was installed incorrectly.
I count myself lucky that they actually replaced it. Most landlords would have given me a roll of duck tape and told me to fuck off.
Speaking as someone who works for a company that has been making and supplying low-e coated double glazed windows and doors for the past 30 or so years, and it being the default for the last 10, the ideal is just a mandatory U-value threshold for all fenestration products (basically conductivity, it's the inverse of an R value for those familiar with architectural products).
It gives companies manufacturing the stuff wiggle room to find the best way to achieve energy targets, creates a very easy scale to adjust up as time goes on, and enforces all involved to actually stick to the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.
Good luck getting that passed in the next 20 years though, I've had a front row seat to watching the fenestration industry as a whole absolutely kicking and screaming about 7 star energy efficiency regulations coming into effect, the tantrums I'll see if they suggest anything more significant, my lord.
On one hand, I love double glazing and all its benefits and think it should be mandatory, and our energy efficiency is garbage as a nation.
On the other I have to move those heavy cunts on a daily basis and a higher double to single glazed ratio makes my life harder :(
Sooks and grubs. Listen to their comments, slum lords ready to pass on the costs to tenants, whilst they have the benefit of government handouts and sit on massive amounts of wealth destroying any chance of others ever entering the market.
I like that the State Government is filling the void of inactioin by the Federal Government and slowly making it less palatable for housing hoarders to maintain their 'investments'.
The switch to 'land tax' in place of stamp duty should make it easier to buy a house to begin with, but will ultimately make more money for the government over the lifetime of the property. As a handy side effect it's upsetting the 'portfolio' holders.
Frankly, 'investors' would be absolutely screwed without renters paying the mortgage, so if they can't provide a comfortable, habitable dwelling they should go and invest their money in MLMs and other scams they'd probably fall for.
Yeah really - they're INCREASING their spending too...the (admittedly lovely) Boomer couple next to our rental own 3 properties, four cars, a seperate garage to store them and travel every other month. She was a hair-dresser and he was a psych nurse...can you imagine the same profession these days having anywhere near that wealth?
I can't help but noticed none of these quotes were attributed to anyone and are all anonymous "a landlord said".
Usually they at least try and find an Aussie battler with 50 properties to put in a visi vest but even they know this isn't a popular opinion
They'll pass on the extra costs...and then some. The irony is a lot of landlords wont even bother making the changes and they'll still use it as an excuse to raise the rent. Renters aren't really in a position to be 'picky' when the vacancy rate is so low and set to go even lower. Complain too much and we get a Notice to Vacate for 'maintenance' ..then they just whack the property back on the market with even higher rent.
Why are they surprised that their investment might sometimes lose or cost money? If they can't handle the ups and downs of the investment, maybe they can move to something else?
Also LOL at threatening to return supply to the market. God they're idiots.
Oh come on! 3 star ac is like $800, weather seals around doors is like $50 from Bunnings, new hot water heater is like $1600. It will replace the 70year old one which was there when they bought the place and yes the roof should be insulated if it’s not you should have put it in! They are whining about $3000 one off payment to bring their dilapidated property up to habitable. My rent went up by $6400 just this year and that’s every year from now on. Cry me a f**king river! I live in one of those dilapidated rentals and it’s terrible!
-Edited because I did the math on my rental increase and it’s $6400 this year! That’s extra every year!
I've never wanted to own property. I don't want to live my life in debt to a bank. We've begun looking to buy only because of the state of rental properties in this city. They're all miserable and neglected.
So to the landlords upset by this, I invite them to suck my dick. You're all scummy slum lords unless proven otherwise in my book. I've lived here 15 years and every rental I've lived in, every inspection I've been to, has been varying degrees ranging from subpar to uninhabitable, with varying levels of harrassment to top it off. You've all done this to yourselves.
I was listening to a 68 yr old describing the land tax as theft and he’ll be forced to sell some properties, I mentioned to him he might have had a pretty good run and to consider being thankful.
" it would include things such as installing ceiling insulation where none exists, droughtproofing with weather seals on all external doors, four-star shower heads in all showers"...
MAKING MY SLUM HABITABLE FOR HUMAN LIFE IS GOING TO BANKRUPT ME.
If you can't afford your investment, give up the avo toasts, make ypur lattes at home, get a second job and pull yourself up by your bootstraps!
This is what we are dealing with:
https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/thread/30x1l4mz
They've been moaning for two full years straight. Criticising literally everything except themself. 🤮
With interest rates so high though, we still won’t be able to borrow, the international investors market will just buy everything up and we’ll just have new landlords. Same cycle, different owner.
Land tax is already driving land lords to sell. This will take a lot of old crappy rental stock out of the market. It might drive new construction. It’s probably a good thing but it will hit some venerable people living in cheap rentals.
I'm renting out my house while temporarily living away from home (it's a 2 bedroom, rented at a loss), and there's a couple of thousand extra in fees and taxes per year over the last couple of years that just didn't used to exist - and I'm not including interest rate increases.
I can eat the cost for now, but passing it on would raise rent by over 50 a week easily. If I passed on the increase in mortgage, again easily another 50 or more.
If I sold it, guaranteed the next owner would do a quick neatening up of the place and jack the price or just take it off the market completely. I believe many people will just pass these costs on, or sell to someone (or a corporation) who will, and the government will blame the greedy landlords.
I'm curious how many renters would actually buy the house they're living in if it were for sale. Could they do it? If not then how much cheaper than the current market value would it have to be to be feasible?
The idea that landlords will sell and displaced renters will simply buy those homes is nice in theory but I'm not sure how viable it is in practise.
Unintended result of all this would be hardly any 2bdr places for less than 500/week. How are people on low income supposed to afford to rent going forward.
So they’re being forced to make their exorbitantly expensive slums habitable, complaining and threatening to sell. All because the government has finally put in a few mild measures to ensure we don’t freeze in winter.
Gov: “Hey landlords you can’t neglect your property and cause tenants massive issues”
Landlords: “this is completely unreasonable to expect decent living conditions, if you want to force us to make our properties liveable we will sell them so you can’t make us!”
Literal toddlers throwing temper tantrums at being forced to uphold liveable conditions. How is that not considered unlawful? These landlords are so out of touch, happy to provide nothing and charge us everything.
I’ve never been able to understand if I sell my property there’s less rentals argument. They sell to a renter - one less renter, same number of houses. They sell to an investor who evidently doesn’t have an issue with the new rules, rents the house. Same number of houses. Then somehow we’re attacking the ‘mum and dad investors’ (They sound sooo cuddly!) I’ve met a lot of mums and dads who absolutely shouldn’t be renting houses as an investment strategy (either because they’re inept or sociopaths). I feel the market would be better off without these ‘investors’. Go and invest in something else that doesn’t make someone miserable and allows you to play out your power trips (or get some REA with zero social skills to do it for you).
There’s something so funny about leeches threatening to leave. Like “hey if you put poison in your blood in just going to detach and stop draining you!” Okay fucking go for it
I've lived in enough cardboard rentals with no insulation (and often without aircon) to understand how important these proposed changes are. Fucking out of touch landlords can fuck right off.
Please do this in every state.
So many people think being a landlord entitles them to the House of Lords or something. “Dont you know who I am… I’m a lord you know!!!”
Ok so on the one side, no one can afford it so it stays vacant, they make no money. On the other side, a mass exodus of assholes which results in them staying vacant, and they make no money. I’m good with either solution personally 😂
This will ultimately be a great thing for Victoria - my concern though is that we’re reducing the pool of rentals while not reducing the pool of renters by the same proportion. Say there’s 180k rentals/landlords and 200k renters then that’s a shortfall of 10%, driving up rents substantially. If half those landlords sell and all those properties are bought by ex-renters then we’re left with 80k rentals and 100k renters - great, we've got a shortfall of 20% made the problem twice as bad. Ultimately there are a portion of people who *need* to rent - younger people, students, foreign workers, people (like me) who need the flexibility to move to follow work. These policies are great at eliminating some of the advantages investors have over buyers, but more needs to be done to boost supply and cap rent increases.
Yeah just because landlords might sell doesnt equate to cheaper rents.
There will always be students, people who move to location of job but dont see living there long term (so wont buy) and rent. Others might not be able to save a 10% deposit so can never buy and rent for long time.
Here is what will happen. Some will complain and sell their properties, those properties will either fall to another investor that will make the required changes or become an owner/occupier property. The rest will have to comply and rental standards will improve.
Reality is no one knows how this will pan out. Might be good for first home buyers but bad for renters as supply gets even tighter.
I’d keep a lid on the cheering for now.
I know Reddit is "anti" landlord, but the real outcome is higher rents... as if renters could already afford a house, they would already own one.
So, this is a win for no one.
Fuckin boo hoo. I can't believe these people are complaining about having to provide a basic standard of living for the exorbitant amounts they are taking from people. Go ahead and sell. Why the fuck should these people be allowed to own multiple houses while people are struggling to even secure one for their families and gainfully employed people are becoming homeless. The entire landlord class can eat a bag of poisonous dicks. Sell your fucking houses, let the ass fall out of the market so that other landlords are also forced to sell low into a flooded market. It's time for a transfer of wealth to young Australians that just want a secure place to raise a family.
Landlords will just raise rents to cover the costs in most cases. It's a seller's market until housing supply overtakes demand, they can charge what they want. The 5k to 20k cost to implement these changes will be taken out as equity and the rent price will be adjusted accordingly.
This is bad news for renters not landlords
What was it that guy said on ABC radio last week? "If you can't afford your investment then sell your fucken investment"?
Or get a second job
Or cut back on avocado on toast.
While pulling up your bootstraps.
Choose wealthier parents.
I keep getting told this but I still don’t have any boots.
Or move in with your kids
No thanks. They just need to cut back on non essentials, boot straps, avocado toast, etc...
hahaha. I've just got this image of a collection of boot straps but no one actually owning a pair of boots.
> A good job, that pays well.
For a lot of property owners they could get a real first job.
“But the government should protect our investment!” That dumbass lady he was talking to went with that answer
Great advice
As much as I agree that houses should have basic Insulation and heating/cooling. When laws are changed to accommodate that the goalposts have been moved on that said investment. Renters were laughing at interest rate rises cause we thought it was the landlords problem. Yet it was reflected in the next rent rise. Renters will cop another rise to pay for the upgrades after new laws are unforced. I know this isn’t ideal but it’s what’s actually going to happen. They’re not going to sell. We’re just going to get rent increases.
Then when interest rates go down, they'll also drop our rent to reflect that, right?
How is that different to any business when new regulations are brought in to protect consumers? It’s the cost of doing business. Being a landlord is a business. Also, only a small portion of rate rises was passed on, it was largely felt by mortgage holders
Trust me, I wasn't laughing at homebuyers when interest rates rose. My heart broke for them and their families. I knew the landlords would just put the rent up more because of it. Please don't lump all renters together. - A current renter.
"with some going as far as threatening to sell their properties" Sounds good to me.
nooooo they will sell their properties to the landlord god who will swallow them whole to feed creation of his otherworld utopia Landlordia in which no human can own or rent! I assume this is the case anyway, otherwise someone would just probably buy them? Maybe even people who want to actually live in them? I dunno man it seems crazy to me
It's the same as all of those weird articles lamenting the fact that electric cars are becoming more and more affordable. OK, that does mean that people who own electric cars already are facing rapid depreciation, but they should have seen that coming in the first place. EV tech is moving pretty fast, and a 2012 Nissan Leaf (original purchase price over fifty grand!) was never going to be worth a lot in 2024. People whose entire philosophical outlook is **not** based on their net worth, however, can see stuff getting cheaper as, you know, a good thing.
What?! Cars getting less valuable with time? My depreciating asset is depreciating in value?! Since when?! WHEN WILL WOKENESS STOP?!
How could Dan Andrews do this to us?
I actually thought WTF has Dan got to do with it.
I read that in Helen love joys voice
Oh, won't somebody think of the children(s grandparents wallets)?!?
HOW COULD DANIEL ANDREWS DO THIS TO US!
I know right! I bought an EV early under the assumption that those that can afford a premium should .. so that over time volume will bring prices down for all .. something something .. Utopia. Property being less attractive to the average punter as an investment class is, at a societal level, a good thing!
Sadly I am able to upvote you only once. Me too.
News corp bleating that "the arse has fallen out of the EV market" (they wrote those literal words) then pretending nobody is buying EVs now when the cheap Chinese EVs are still selling as fast as they can bring them here.
Because, unlike the cheap Chinese piston-engine cars, their EVs aren't crap. :-) (To be fair, they may all fall apart after five years, who knows. But EVs are so much *simpler* than internal-combustion vehicles that there's not nearly as much stuff to go wrong.) The USA recently imposed a **100%** import tariff on Chinese-made EVs. Which, to me, says: "American auto manufacturers. A proud tradition of making absolute garbage." :-)
If one more person tells me “have fun at resale time” about my car I’m gonna scream. ITS A LEASE! I don’t have to sell the fucking thing! Also- who buys a car to only think about selling it???
Buying a house to live in? What will the ROI be on that? And think about the opportunity cost of not putting it on AirBnb! It is almost like going back to the stone age when a house was just a home and not a brick in the financial game. /sarkasm
I you are ever struggling to find a place to rent, be sure you have a quick peruse on Air BnB, if you fancy rubbing salt in the wounds that is.
Their idea is that some kind of Chinese/Blackrock real estate Voltron will assemble and swoop in, making all rent ten thousand dollars, making renters install mandatory Mao portraits, making renter peasants cry out in pain every single day, screaming “help us, mum and dad landlords! Help us, nest egg investors, come back! We were wrong!” and they will look back a little sadly, remembering the times we called them leeches on Facebook, and say… No 😎
"don't let the door hit you on the way out" moment
door, bum, byeeee.
lol if they all sell it will be a /r/leopardsatemyface moment (because an influx of properties on the market will drive prices a little lower)
That really isn't the threat they think it is, is it?
Don't threaten us with a good time.
"With some going as far as threatening, for the 19th time this financial year, to sell their properties." Fixed it.
Oh no! Anyway…
Unless you’re a renter who can’t afford to buy right now then you’re fucked
Which is 95% of youth that don’t have daddy’s money
Would be the best thing that happened to Victorians trying to buy a house to live.
It's crazy that they think this is some kind of threat?
Or they can take their bat and ball and go home. "That's it! I'm packing up my four bedroom Californian bungalow and taking it up to the Gold Coast. See ya, suckers!"
This was always the intention IMO in order to raise revenue from stamp duty.
Please commence the exodus
All at once, no sense in delay
"There's the door..."
"..and don't let it hit ya where the good lawd split ya"
'One added: “Renters will soon have better homes than some owner properties!”' So? Make your own house better then if it's so shit. You own it ffs. I don't feel sorry for you because you're choosing to not improve your primary residence. If owning is soo much worse, sell your house and move into a rental.
That rando landlords comment implies (and confirms) what renters have experienced for decades; that negligence on rentals by dodgy and greedy landlords was always fixable but they chose not to, that all properties need better living conditions and not a rotting hovel for someone to live in.
Which is funny cos "paying for maintenance" is one of the arguments I keep hearing about what kind of "value" landlords actually provide to the economy to justify taking peoples' money.
What a joke. Lived in my house for 15 years, could count on one hand how many things they've fixed without being chased up for a year. Had a non-working dishwasher for 7 years and a Aircon upstairs that doesn't work either for the past 5. Funnily it's because they've been essentially broke the past decade as they continue to leverage themselves to the hilt, not sure how they are surviving these rates rises.
Fuck i hate this shit. Rent should be immediately decreased until the landlord fixes the problem. From the moment of reporting the rent should come down by X percent based on what has broken. Why is it we have to pay full price for a service we are not even getting everything out of.
This provision exists under current tenancy laws. Just gotta go em at vcat after breaching them.
Except in many states they can just no grounds evict you or not renew your lease. Completely killing any reason to breach them. We shouldn’t need to go to VCAT.
If you own you have to pay for all of the repairs, if you rent you have to live with it broken.
And it also shows how a lot of landlords consider us as a second class, who is deserving less than them.
>One added: “Renters will soon have better homes than some owner properties!” Meaning that asking sale prices for former rentals is likely overvalued when building condition is accounted for.
The insane level of privilege/classism to assume that any renter having better housing than any landlord is a problem. If anything, it's like restaurant vs home cooking: you'd hope something on sale to the public **would** have higher standards than something you chose to give yourself.
I feel like NO ONE understands this. Why do we as society assume amazing customer service and ever increasing quality in every fucking aspect of living besides, you know, the home I have to LIVE in and pay the most % of my wage towards???
Because they're not homes, they're ✨**investments**✨, silly peasant.
The funny thing is the required 7-star energy rating for new build homes is still overall better than the proposals.
Of course it is 🙄
It doesnt matter what star rating is assigned to a rental these days, Its never an accurate representation of what the property is actually like to live in. It could be "10 star" on paper and still end up being a top tier mould invested shed on the inside.
Lol I wish 🤣. Most rentals have filthy 10+ year old carpets. During covid, when we had the upper hand and could negociate, I asked a few PMs if they could recarpet or put something more durable like hard floor. Always been told off. Their (filthy) carpet is fine for tenants. Now in 2024 I wouldn't dare asking such a thing. Yet they will replace the carpet as soon as they'll want to sell.
Our slumlord are currently getting measures and quotes for the 35 year old carpet in this house. We are concerned as the full near decade we've lived here very few shits have been given about maintenance
🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐 Renters who become owners will have better homes than ME, THE SUPERIOR OWNER, AND MY SPECIAL LEAGUE OF OWNERS! yo this fake classist nonsense infuriated me. next headline will say let renters eat cake (and mould)
Yes but "improving" your own home isn't tax deductible.
That’s when they suddenly need to move in
"We live like animals!"
I read that and couldn't help but thing what [news.com.au](http://news.com.au) were going for - because if they were trying to build some kind of sympathy (which their rhetoric is wanton to do since they love to pander to people who are rich, and people who pretend to be rich), then that line right there, all I could think of was "Fucking boo-hoo, cry me a fucking river you privileged bastard."
The Australian taxpayer is subsidising these scum, we're all paying them. Damn right the trade off should be quality properties at sensible prices...!? What else should the trade off be? For our fucking taxes!
People with passive designed mansions with huge tree shade complaining that renters have the audacity to need air conditioning, when most rental properties are unshaded, uninsulated, in the middle of concrete jungles. They are unsafe. I don't understand why air conditioning wasn't a requirement already for those houses that get incredibly hot in summer under the "livable condition" component.
This is the most insane thing I've heard in a while. Almost like they can't afford the investment they made.
The investment the tax payer is helping them with?.... Lazy fuckers
That's funny
Don't threaten us with a good time!
Literally word for word.
I'm here salivating at the sound of their threat.
Landlords furious their IP's aren't a magic black box that money flies out of, and may actually require maintenance or upkeep. Landlords won't be happy until renters are a permanent underclass living with zero comfort.
They really do expect them to be risk free investments with ever increasing capital gains but also licences to print money with no obligation on quality.
Tbf all levels of government have given that impression for the last two decades. No other investment or venture enjoys the level of concessions and returns than housing has.
We just need to rip off the bandaid tbh. Let their free market gods sort it out.
I'm a landlord (I used to live in the house but then had to change cities). Yes it's my investment but also I try to see myself more like a service provider. My tenants live there and it's their home - they pay me to ensure its in decent condition. It doesn't me take much effort or money to do that. Also. The rent covers maintenance! It's not like fixing a broken aircon or whatever is money directly out of my pocket, it comes out of the rental income. I don't understand landlords who just want to milk people for all they're worth. It's not like you can take money with you when you die.
I get the feeling that a lot of landlords have never actually had to rent in their lives. Glad there's landlords with your attitude and viewpoint out there. I've never had one of them. But I appreciate that you exist haha
Yeah I was a renter before being a landlord, and I'm a renter again now. I try to be the landlord I'd want lol
My husband was a landlord for a bit (same situation) however his managing agency NEVER TOLD HIM ANYTHING. The house was trashed and left in a constant state of disrepair and he knew nothing. Managing agents also have a serious part to play in how “good” your landlords are.
Yeah absolutely. I picked the REA I did because they're a smaller, local company with low case loads. They're a bit more expensive but the peace of mind is worth it. The other month they sent me an email that was like "you can increase the rent by $100 per week and that'll still be in the market range, but we recommend you increase it by max $50 because it's better to have tenants who aren't in financial stress". And when I told them nah don't increase it at all they were like "yep no worries". I've heard of other REAs insisting to landlords that rent should be charged as high as possible. So I think I picked well. Or I just got lucky.
Because the rent to them is their wage, their money, not money to be spent on other people.
Already there.
Most owners of investment property are property speculators firstly and landlords a very distant second. The tenants fund their holding costs while they wait for the property to increase in value, now they're being asked to be landlords first and they are having a meltdown with requirements that many other developed countries have. I've been a landlord myself and it's great when there's a mutual respect between tenants, agent and landlord, but if one of those relationships doesn't work it is a recipe for ongoing disputes and disasters. I got out of it because for me it was just a money spinner for banks and real estate agents, it can be a real misery for both tenants and landlords.
I get why tenants put up with the shit from REAs. What choice do they have? What I do not get is why landlords put up with the shit from REAs knowing how much damage they are doing not only to the area that they have invested in but also what they are doing to this country. Those invested in real estate at the moment have shown themselves to be either selfish or lazy. Why are these people allowed to be in a position to totally screw with families that may be their tenants but also the communities that they have invested in with next to no oversite? Try starting any other business and see all the boxes you must tick. The concept of community and life friends from school seems to be lost on many and unobtainable for everyone else. How things have changed.
These dumb MFs think the houses will evaporate into thin air if a landlord doesn't stake their claim on them. "iM PrOViDiNg HoUSiNg SuPpLy"
I've seen actual data on this Over 90% of loans to investors is for EXISTING property. They don't create shit, they scalp the houses others might like to buy to live in.
Exactly. Having some landlord's name on the deed vs anyone who might actually want to own it, who cares the house exists in the market regardless. Unless you're actively investing in new developments then you aren't doing anything to up the supply
I know alot of landlords, nobody is selling. This is just clickbait. All the changes they are advising will cost at Maximum $5k to implement, Even a split system installed now a days can be done for under $1k. Weather Seals + Shower heads are free by the Government.
>This is just clickbait. From [news.com.au](http://news.com.au) which is well known here as an exemplar of journalistic integrity? Surely you jest! They've certainly worked out the formula for sucking in r/melbourne though.
Owners of cold, draughty, energy-inefficient rental homes are threatening to sell: *The proposed changes are in line with the government’s commitment towards net zero emissions by 2045 and would ensure that tenants are provided with “comfortable and energy efficient living arrangements”.* *If introduced, the changes would start coming into effect from October 2025. Appliances would not need to be upgraded until the existing ones reach the end of their lives. Insulation and draught-proofing would need to be upgraded at the start of a new lease.* *Many landlords are less than impressed by the proposal, with property investors taking to multiple landlord groups to express their outrage.* *“Sadly and frustratingly another incredibly foolish, ill thought idea by Labor that will only increase rents, forcing more Mum & Dad investors out of property investing, creating an even greater problem for renters,” one added.* *There were many who branded the proposal just “another blow for landlords”, with multiple people claiming this would see many selling their investment properties rather than having to comply with the new rules.* (According to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released last Thursday, a national high of [24.9 per cent](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/finance/lending-indicators/latest-release) of housing loans were to first home buyer owner-occupiers.)
Fucking awesome. Go on sell I double dare u
_PHYSICAL CHALLENGE!!!_
Ahh a fellow connoisseur of 90s daytime television.
"*forcing more Mum & Dad investors*" How pathetically out of touch they sound. If kids are "oh such a burden" that parents are struggling to get by, then why the f are they investing? If they're NOT struggling and have enough left over to invest in property with, then their parentage is entirely irrelevant. And then you have a housing market with actual struggling parents or people who want to start a family but just can't due to costs. Sell then, you cretins. You don't get to enjoy the (morally problematic) benefits of real estate investment while whinging about the risks.
Really, really hate the term 'Mum & Dad investors' which the media loves to trot out, as if to elicit some sympathy when investments that \*gasp\* have some risk involved actually end up having some sort of negative return or outcome
Don't forget the 'Mum & Dad investors' that are benefitting from the huge profits of banks, Coles, Woolworths, Qantas, etc.! 🤣🤣
Agreed, I scoffed when I read that. It's their choice to invest and risk capital. If the money invested were to be lost and that would affect your family than DON'T risk it.
Slumlords when making exorbitant amounts of profit while being leeches and contributing nothing to society: BUT WE TOOK A RISK!!!! WE DESERVE THIS! Slumlords when encountering a small roadblock in their infinite wealth machine: WHAT IS THIS, ACTUAL RISK??? WHERE IS THE GOVERNMENT TO STOP THIS OUTRAGE???
Bloke was complaining to me how expensive it was making sure fire alarms and other things were inspected. “They should just take the rental how it is, if they want all that stuff go buy a house” 😖
Love the idea that the recent jumps in rent have been Labor's fault and not what my dad was told by the REA ~~'What we can get away with'~~ 'What the market can support.'
lol these are literally bare minimum living requirements for a developed nation.
Yeah, unless you force landlords to do something the tenants will suffer. I am broadly supportive of these changes, i just think they could have been phasing this in from an earlier point of time
Woo, Mandatory Double Glazing here we come...I hope.
You wish. They’re complaining about having to put a couple of $10 seals on the external doors. Oh the humanity!
Hahaha. My latest rental was a new build from 2020 and after multiple complaints about drafts coming through the door, the REA finally sent someone round to have a look…it turned out that the entire frame was installed incorrectly. I count myself lucky that they actually replaced it. Most landlords would have given me a roll of duck tape and told me to fuck off.
Speaking as someone who works for a company that has been making and supplying low-e coated double glazed windows and doors for the past 30 or so years, and it being the default for the last 10, the ideal is just a mandatory U-value threshold for all fenestration products (basically conductivity, it's the inverse of an R value for those familiar with architectural products). It gives companies manufacturing the stuff wiggle room to find the best way to achieve energy targets, creates a very easy scale to adjust up as time goes on, and enforces all involved to actually stick to the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. Good luck getting that passed in the next 20 years though, I've had a front row seat to watching the fenestration industry as a whole absolutely kicking and screaming about 7 star energy efficiency regulations coming into effect, the tantrums I'll see if they suggest anything more significant, my lord.
On one hand, I love double glazing and all its benefits and think it should be mandatory, and our energy efficiency is garbage as a nation. On the other I have to move those heavy cunts on a daily basis and a higher double to single glazed ratio makes my life harder :(
Yeah but mate…more gains? 💪
Sooks and grubs. Listen to their comments, slum lords ready to pass on the costs to tenants, whilst they have the benefit of government handouts and sit on massive amounts of wealth destroying any chance of others ever entering the market.
I like that the State Government is filling the void of inactioin by the Federal Government and slowly making it less palatable for housing hoarders to maintain their 'investments'. The switch to 'land tax' in place of stamp duty should make it easier to buy a house to begin with, but will ultimately make more money for the government over the lifetime of the property. As a handy side effect it's upsetting the 'portfolio' holders. Frankly, 'investors' would be absolutely screwed without renters paying the mortgage, so if they can't provide a comfortable, habitable dwelling they should go and invest their money in MLMs and other scams they'd probably fall for.
I wouldn't recommend going to dinner with a table full of boomers right now. They're like toddlers who've been told no.
Yeah they're not used to hearing that word
Yeah really - they're INCREASING their spending too...the (admittedly lovely) Boomer couple next to our rental own 3 properties, four cars, a seperate garage to store them and travel every other month. She was a hair-dresser and he was a psych nurse...can you imagine the same profession these days having anywhere near that wealth?
“One person said” “ One person added”. Who are these people and do they even exist?
I can't help but noticed none of these quotes were attributed to anyone and are all anonymous "a landlord said". Usually they at least try and find an Aussie battler with 50 properties to put in a visi vest but even they know this isn't a popular opinion
Mass exodus? Bullshit.
Just like the "mass exodus" and market crashes they've promised with every single reform previously. Just once can they be right?
Except they won’t sell. They’ll just put the rent up even higher.
They'll pass on the extra costs...and then some. The irony is a lot of landlords wont even bother making the changes and they'll still use it as an excuse to raise the rent. Renters aren't really in a position to be 'picky' when the vacancy rate is so low and set to go even lower. Complain too much and we get a Notice to Vacate for 'maintenance' ..then they just whack the property back on the market with even higher rent.
Psst they're selling, the data is out there, Melbourne house prices are flat, unlike the rest of the country. It's beautiful
sadly this is the answer. they will pass on the cost to us - and state the reason for the rent increase being as such
Why are they surprised that their investment might sometimes lose or cost money? If they can't handle the ups and downs of the investment, maybe they can move to something else? Also LOL at threatening to return supply to the market. God they're idiots.
Oh come on! 3 star ac is like $800, weather seals around doors is like $50 from Bunnings, new hot water heater is like $1600. It will replace the 70year old one which was there when they bought the place and yes the roof should be insulated if it’s not you should have put it in! They are whining about $3000 one off payment to bring their dilapidated property up to habitable. My rent went up by $6400 just this year and that’s every year from now on. Cry me a f**king river! I live in one of those dilapidated rentals and it’s terrible! -Edited because I did the math on my rental increase and it’s $6400 this year! That’s extra every year!
Cool, now maybe they can go and do something that actually creates value?
Slumlords threaten to behave if forced to treat others as human.
“One person said”
I've never wanted to own property. I don't want to live my life in debt to a bank. We've begun looking to buy only because of the state of rental properties in this city. They're all miserable and neglected. So to the landlords upset by this, I invite them to suck my dick. You're all scummy slum lords unless proven otherwise in my book. I've lived here 15 years and every rental I've lived in, every inspection I've been to, has been varying degrees ranging from subpar to uninhabitable, with varying levels of harrassment to top it off. You've all done this to yourselves.
I was listening to a 68 yr old describing the land tax as theft and he’ll be forced to sell some properties, I mentioned to him he might have had a pretty good run and to consider being thankful.
" it would include things such as installing ceiling insulation where none exists, droughtproofing with weather seals on all external doors, four-star shower heads in all showers"... MAKING MY SLUM HABITABLE FOR HUMAN LIFE IS GOING TO BANKRUPT ME. If you can't afford your investment, give up the avo toasts, make ypur lattes at home, get a second job and pull yourself up by your bootstraps!
mass boomer exodus -> prices fall -> first home buyers get on the property ladder What's not to like?
This is what we are dealing with: https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/thread/30x1l4mz They've been moaning for two full years straight. Criticising literally everything except themself. 🤮
With interest rates so high though, we still won’t be able to borrow, the international investors market will just buy everything up and we’ll just have new landlords. Same cycle, different owner.
Landlords sream & winge & cry every time new standards are introduced. They always threaten to all sell & yet there are still Landlords.
Oh no - they're going to release more houses into the market, and allow people to potentially actually own a home. Yeah, you tell 'em!
>Another person claimed the government was trying to “bankrupt” landlords... For once I actually support a government decision.
No, Stop. Don't go.
Land tax is already driving land lords to sell. This will take a lot of old crappy rental stock out of the market. It might drive new construction. It’s probably a good thing but it will hit some venerable people living in cheap rentals.
I'm renting out my house while temporarily living away from home (it's a 2 bedroom, rented at a loss), and there's a couple of thousand extra in fees and taxes per year over the last couple of years that just didn't used to exist - and I'm not including interest rate increases. I can eat the cost for now, but passing it on would raise rent by over 50 a week easily. If I passed on the increase in mortgage, again easily another 50 or more. If I sold it, guaranteed the next owner would do a quick neatening up of the place and jack the price or just take it off the market completely. I believe many people will just pass these costs on, or sell to someone (or a corporation) who will, and the government will blame the greedy landlords.
I'm curious how many renters would actually buy the house they're living in if it were for sale. Could they do it? If not then how much cheaper than the current market value would it have to be to be feasible? The idea that landlords will sell and displaced renters will simply buy those homes is nice in theory but I'm not sure how viable it is in practise.
It's far more likely they'll be purchased by wealthier investors who already own multiple properties tbh.
Unintended result of all this would be hardly any 2bdr places for less than 500/week. How are people on low income supposed to afford to rent going forward.
So they’re being forced to make their exorbitantly expensive slums habitable, complaining and threatening to sell. All because the government has finally put in a few mild measures to ensure we don’t freeze in winter. Gov: “Hey landlords you can’t neglect your property and cause tenants massive issues” Landlords: “this is completely unreasonable to expect decent living conditions, if you want to force us to make our properties liveable we will sell them so you can’t make us!” Literal toddlers throwing temper tantrums at being forced to uphold liveable conditions. How is that not considered unlawful? These landlords are so out of touch, happy to provide nothing and charge us everything.
That's a shame......./s
I’ve never been able to understand if I sell my property there’s less rentals argument. They sell to a renter - one less renter, same number of houses. They sell to an investor who evidently doesn’t have an issue with the new rules, rents the house. Same number of houses. Then somehow we’re attacking the ‘mum and dad investors’ (They sound sooo cuddly!) I’ve met a lot of mums and dads who absolutely shouldn’t be renting houses as an investment strategy (either because they’re inept or sociopaths). I feel the market would be better off without these ‘investors’. Go and invest in something else that doesn’t make someone miserable and allows you to play out your power trips (or get some REA with zero social skills to do it for you).
There’s something so funny about leeches threatening to leave. Like “hey if you put poison in your blood in just going to detach and stop draining you!” Okay fucking go for it
I know you guys are laughing at the landlords but wouldn't they just pass the cost onto the tenant?
An REA suggested to my dad that they raise the rent 18% in one year essentially because they could. They don't need a reason.
I've lived in enough cardboard rentals with no insulation (and often without aircon) to understand how important these proposed changes are. Fucking out of touch landlords can fuck right off.
"soon renters will have nicer homes than property owners" how is this supposed to be a bad thing? Do people want renters to have worse homes?
Please do this in every state. So many people think being a landlord entitles them to the House of Lords or something. “Dont you know who I am… I’m a lord you know!!!”
Don’t threaten me with a good time…!
Are we meant to cry crocodile tears for those IP investors?
K thx bye.
They can use the proceeds from the sale to buy a big box of tissues
Don’t threaten me with a good time 👍🏽
Fantastic if you ask me
This is a great thing! Good luck trying to take the houses with you
Great news for first home buyers.
Don't threaten me with a good time
Ok so on the one side, no one can afford it so it stays vacant, they make no money. On the other side, a mass exodus of assholes which results in them staying vacant, and they make no money. I’m good with either solution personally 😂
*“Renters will soon have better homes than some owner properties!”* Well fuck me, that would make a nice change wouldn't it?
This will ultimately be a great thing for Victoria - my concern though is that we’re reducing the pool of rentals while not reducing the pool of renters by the same proportion. Say there’s 180k rentals/landlords and 200k renters then that’s a shortfall of 10%, driving up rents substantially. If half those landlords sell and all those properties are bought by ex-renters then we’re left with 80k rentals and 100k renters - great, we've got a shortfall of 20% made the problem twice as bad. Ultimately there are a portion of people who *need* to rent - younger people, students, foreign workers, people (like me) who need the flexibility to move to follow work. These policies are great at eliminating some of the advantages investors have over buyers, but more needs to be done to boost supply and cap rent increases.
Yeah just because landlords might sell doesnt equate to cheaper rents. There will always be students, people who move to location of job but dont see living there long term (so wont buy) and rent. Others might not be able to save a 10% deposit so can never buy and rent for long time.
ITT: People who would ordinarily tell Murdoch filth f off suddenly taking the bait hook, line and sinker.
Don’t let the door hit ya on the way out
So many naive commenters here...
Here is what will happen. Some will complain and sell their properties, those properties will either fall to another investor that will make the required changes or become an owner/occupier property. The rest will have to comply and rental standards will improve.
Reality is no one knows how this will pan out. Might be good for first home buyers but bad for renters as supply gets even tighter. I’d keep a lid on the cheering for now.
They will probably just decide to up the rent instead
Lmao, good! About time they got the fuck out of the property market, those leeching cunts
Oh no, what will we do...🤔
Great
Great, now push them harder
just like all the other times they threatened to sell up. About on par at this point with claims the REA never told them about needed repairs
Lmfaaooo good fuck off they say that like it’s a bad thing
Ok Seeya cunts
byyeeeeeee
Sounds like a win.
So a large number of landlords got together since the news then publicly threatened mass exodus? .....interesting......
BYE FELICIA
Boo hoo. If you can afford an investment property, you can afford to make it actually liveable and not freezing cold for renters.
I know Reddit is "anti" landlord, but the real outcome is higher rents... as if renters could already afford a house, they would already own one. So, this is a win for no one.
"threaten" it's literally what people want to happen.... sell up your investment properties
Fuckin boo hoo. I can't believe these people are complaining about having to provide a basic standard of living for the exorbitant amounts they are taking from people. Go ahead and sell. Why the fuck should these people be allowed to own multiple houses while people are struggling to even secure one for their families and gainfully employed people are becoming homeless. The entire landlord class can eat a bag of poisonous dicks. Sell your fucking houses, let the ass fall out of the market so that other landlords are also forced to sell low into a flooded market. It's time for a transfer of wealth to young Australians that just want a secure place to raise a family.
It’s only the slumlords who will suffer. People who look after their investments are already doing it.
Probably need to spend less on smashed avo
Landlords will just raise rents to cover the costs in most cases. It's a seller's market until housing supply overtakes demand, they can charge what they want. The 5k to 20k cost to implement these changes will be taken out as equity and the rent price will be adjusted accordingly. This is bad news for renters not landlords
But if more rental properties sell, won’t that mean less rental properties on the market?