very interesting Q&A about housing tonight

Quite the leap you have taken there. Not sure how you could infer that I don’t realise it is up for debate from my post.

 

...? Literally the last sentence in your post that I was replying to:

 

Of course there is a power imbalance, one person is the service provider who is taking on the risk and responsibility of ownership so should have the balance of power.

Owners and private businesses should be able to run their business as they see fit and take or deny custom as they see fit.

if the government have an issue with it they can provide their own rental accomodation.

 

I don’t think you comprehension is as good as you think it is.

 

The people on that show are just clapping seals.

The Greens dude was just regurgitating the same old story. I honestly can't stand that guy.

"All renters are allegedly poor, all landlords are apparently rich slumlords with endless swathes of cash to burn."

You have two self funded retirees who are not burdening the system but cause they own some houses apparently they can go to hell according to the greens dude.

The reason now one takes the Greens seriously is because they have no basic understanding of how society functions. Money isn't endless and you need there to be the reward of success to have people take the risk to start new business ventures. Why on earth would I start a new business or build new property if there is no reward of selling it for a profit or making money from rental income. Im cautious of my words because I dont want to get banned but I cannot stress how badly I dislikle the Greens and their socialist policies. If you try to change a country from Capitalist to Socialist you should be tried for treason.

 

How about extending this logic to Coles, chemist warehouse, K-Mart ? Hope you see the problem

 

Nope....never can happen or let it happen.

There always needs to be a balance.....

 

Different situation with Duopolies. There is actual laws to prevent duopolies in media etc. That is completely different to some mum dad investors barely afloat trying to buy an investment property.

 

You'll find that if there was an excess of properties in the market Landlords would be doing anything to keep tenants happy etc. Same situation as when employment was so low you couldnt get anyone to work. Wages went through the roof etc. Employers where at the whim of workers and it wasn't pretty. Tim gurner said it best, respect to him.

 

Is the suggestion that as long it is not a mono/duopoly, its ok to restrict the marketplace participants or abdicate customer protection? How about banks pull their loans every 6 months on the basis of 'no-grounds' as was suggested ?

 

Maybe....but I see a lot of right fisted landlords in Vic. So a balance is required.

 

A bank can and does do that. Its called calling a loan. They can also closed down your accounts without giving you a formal explanation. This has happened and does happen in Australia. A good example is Nigel Farrow in the UK where his bank account was closed because of his political comments/positions. Nigel Farage row: minister warns banks against closing accounts

 

Im not saying you don't have responsibilties, I am saying that ultimately YOU are the asset owner. If I want to evict a tenant who has been there for 10 years because I want to use my property to store all my vynil records then that is my perogative. I own the asset.

You can give people an extended time to find a new place 6 months or 12 months but to say no grounds evictions should be banned is insanity.

As I said above. A bank can call a loan at any time it wants. A bank can close your account and any time it wants. Any store can price an item and whatever they see fit regardless of what item they are selling. A public company can force all shareholders to sell back shares to it by mandatory buyback which happens all the time.

Property is no different. Tenants do not own these properties. They do not pay rates, they do not pay building insurance, they dont pay land tax (resi) they dont pay water rates. They dont pay misc repair costs. It is not their property and in turn they do not have the choice of staying there forever. Yes you shouldnt just be able to kick someone out onto the street with no notice. 6 - 12 months is enough time.

 

but banks and supermarkets want to make money on you. They change rate or price anytime they want, you either accept it or choose somewhere else.

in my eyes it’s the same as no ground eviction. If contract is up, and the landlord wants someone else, he’s got the right to do so.

I’m just curious, when the market is tight, it favours the landlords. When the market goes down, it favours the renters. What’s actually debatable here? Is there any renter say: oh, you are having a hard time as landlord, I don’t need any rent cut so as to help you out.

I think the biggest problem is the people in power. They never got the will or balls or ability to do anything. (Maybe a little bit) Instead they just throwing out landlord as the soft apple so anyone can step on it.

 

Pretty poor showing from Cameron Murray - I think he’s one of the best commentators out there and his analysis on the market is spot on IMO.

He was pulling the right thread but failed to hold the politicians to account on some of their policy.

His position on monetary policy being tight therefore by proxy restricting building activity is objectively correct - the greens suggesting that they want to build 350k homes is an incredibly inflationary policy that works directly against what politicians are trying to achieve as far as reducing inflation is concerned. What do the pollies want? Increase purchasing power for most Aussies via reduced inflation or to build 350k houses for a small cohort of society?

The greens argument is dead in the water if you model out the impact on building cost inflation their policy would have as well as throwing the private market into disarray with so many resources being diverted.

If the greens ever get into power, were all well and truly gone!

 

It must be great to be a Greens MP though you can make up any policy you like, the madder the better. Because you know you will never have to follow through on it.

 

Very hard to get tenants out in vic a lease continuing past 12 months. Sneaky way to do it is to raise rents so high they have to move but you need a solid justification. About to put rent from 440pw to 570pw. This about market. Tenants a PIA

 

Why don't we give the Greens what they want and revisit the housing market in five years. I'm fairly certain they won't exist as a party as we emerge from the ashes.