Non property owners complaining about landlords

Zoolander · 16th May, 2017

I saw a post about a investor who, out of the sweetness of his heart and nature caps the rent to match match exactly to cover the mortgage repayments (so below market rates). Couldn't resist calling out that the rent should be raised to cover other expenses and stop being an intentional negative gearer. Plenty of Likes and no response (reply nor venomous private message) from that fellow.

chylld · 16th May, 2017

Friend of a friend wrote a 5,672-word essay on the subject of being evicted as tenants. Lots of resonance from her friends on Facebook in similar situations. After trying to point out that landlords are humans too, they insisted that landlords just view renters as scum. Self-fulfilling prophecy, perhaps?

(fwiw I like my tenants a lot.)

Phase2 · 16th May, 2017

emza said: ↑

What nonsense is this?

That landlord "losing" $210 per week ($10920 per year) is negatively gearing it to reduce taxable income. This negative gearing is costing us as a society about $5-6 billion a year.

Meanwhile, their capital value is increasing at a far higher rate than their "losses" and when it comes time to sell will be taxed very lightly thanks to the CGT discount introduced by John Howard.

This is the entire core of why people negatively gear and how it interacts with CGT discount to encourage property speculation.

And oh, the joke that renters are somehow better off under this system because they're getting their rent subsidized... what a load of garbage.

Rent is charged at market rates. That's how it works. If that landlord could get $700 per week they would. They're not charging $490 per week out of the goodness of their hearts or because some of their $210 per week loss is subsidized by negative gearing.

If we wiped out negative gearing tomorrow, the rent of that property doesn't magically jump to $700 per week.

I get that this is a forum for property investment but seriously, you need to be able to understand and explain why people hold the positions they do around negative gearing, the CGT discount and the affects on housing affordability even if you don't agree with those positions.

If you are so blinded then you risk losing it all as you go blithely along ignoring the reality around you.
Click to expand...

I think I understand your point..

What happens over time if the incentives for investment properties are removed? Won't this restrict supply of available rental accommodation? Won't restricted supply increase rents??

If the govt were to use the tax $ gained by removing NG provisions, what would they do (assuming they could competently spend the $)? Build more affordable housing? Where? How do they do that without driving property prices down in established markets? Build new satellite cities with desirable features/infrastructure? Govt owns housing but allows long-term, commercial-style leases with rents indexed to CPI?

I'm not a big fan of "social engineering", but I think there are some exciting opportunities in this space, and I remember an article on here about some guy wanting to build his own city in SE QLD.

DaveyB · 16th May, 2017

emza said: ↑

What nonsense is this?

That landlord "losing" $210 per week ($10920 per year) is negatively gearing it to reduce taxable income. This negative gearing is costing us as a society about $5-6 billion a year.

Meanwhile, their capital value is increasing at a far higher rate than their "losses" and when it comes time to sell will be taxed very lightly thanks to the CGT discount introduced by John Howard.

This is the entire core of why people negatively gear and how it interacts with CGT discount to encourage property speculation.

And oh, the joke that renters are somehow better off under this system because they're getting their rent subsidized... what a load of garbage.

Rent is charged at market rates. That's how it works. If that landlord could get $700 per week they would. They're not charging $490 per week out of the goodness of their hearts or because some of their $210 per week loss is subsidized by negative gearing.

If we wiped out negative gearing tomorrow, the rent of that property doesn't magically jump to $700 per week.

I get that this is a forum for property investment but seriously, you need to be able to understand and explain why people hold the positions they do around negative gearing, the CGT discount and the affects on housing affordability even if you don't agree with those positions.

If you are so blinded then you risk losing it all as you go blithely along ignoring the reality around you.
Click to expand...

That is far too sensible, pls stop.

Perthguy · 24th May, 2017

DaveyB said: ↑

That is far too sensible, pls stop.
Click to expand...

Sensible? It needs a comprehensive fact check. There are a lot of errors.

Colin Rice · 24th May, 2017

Rolf Latham said: ↑

As Tony robbins says emotion is faster than thought and when you let emotions run all of life, perhaps unchecked without much analysis I expect many of us would be in a similar reaction loop.
Click to expand...

If you allow emotions to rule and reign over reason and logic you will have a **** life, period.

Emotions are important and not to be ignored but not at the expense of reason and logic.

Log in or Sign up

Non property owners complaining about landlords

Zoolander Well-Known Member

chylld Well-Known Member

Phase2 Well-Known Member

DaveyB Well-Known Member

Perthguy Well-Known Member

Colin Rice Mortgage Broker Business Member

Log in or Sign up

Non property owners complaining about landlords

Zoolander Well-Known Member

chylld Well-Known Member

Phase2 Well-Known Member

DaveyB Well-Known Member

Perthguy Well-Known Member

Colin Rice Mortgage Broker Business Member

Useful Searches