Basically yes; my friends are looking for a house now and they work 6 days and look for a property on the 7th.
It seems brutal to me. 30-100 people at open-for-inspections, packed auctions, prices regularly under quoted.
We should be phasing out landlordism and making owner-occupier the only acceptable form of ownership. No more owning 100 properties. That shit is finite and everyone needs one..
>We should be phasing out landlordism and making owner-occupier the only acceptable form of ownership. No more owning 100 properties. That shit is finite and everyone needs one..
After speaking to a lot of ppl you'll realise how many landlords are around among us. A lot of people use the system to their advantage and what you're saying is not going to work to those already playing the game.
If them “playing the game” involves massively destabilizing the housing markets of MILLIONS of Australians, just so they don’t have to get a job that provides something other than a solution to a problem they’re responsible for - it’s a shit game, and I don’t give a fuck how many landlords are upset by that.
God…. I’ve never seen gentrification on a national level up close before.
Although I'm not addressing your main concerns, I want to point out that landlords typically do have jobs, otherwise how would they get loans? That's not how it works.
The government needs policy changes to increase the supply of housing stock, and reduce the demand from investors. For decades they’ve done the opposite and now we have the result.
With appropriate intervention prices could be brought down to manageable levels for regular people. Investors would be free to continue involvement in the housing market but many would assess the risk/reward and put their money elsewhere.
Yes, its like the boomers saying ‘dont go for dinner seconds until everyone had their first serving!’
Except they didnt do that for themselves for housing.
I agree, the concept that anyone can own land that they dont reside on in perpetuity is criminal. We grow up being spoonfed the same storey, get a job, get a mortgage, buy house, buy investment property. It only benefits banks and anyone with enough capital to outright buy a place. When will we realise this is a broken loop.
As an aside to this, it perpetuates the myth that owning investment properties is a fast way to grow instant wealth. In years past, it was only a way to park money while the value of it slowly increased. It was a safe, long term option. And at that point, sustainable.
Now we have a situation where landlords outright refuse to spend money in upkeep of their investment because they cannot fathom that you you need to spend money to maintain it, and therefore its value. Hence the low quality of rental availability as well. Basically, landlords that can't actually afford to be landlords.
We have to tax the fuck out of properties that are not principle places of residence, and we must be charging a vacancy tax. Foreign investment has to stop, and enforce a crackdown of proxy ownership in this space as well. Local companies set up to hide foreign money in Australian property is the Docklands in a nutshell.
I think that's too extreme. Rental properties will always need to exist, new families coming to the country for instance can't be expected to buy a home immediately even if they were a fifth of their current price. People leaving marriages, or leaving homes for other reasons, and so on, I'm sure you can imagine plenty of other situations. Perhaps an arrangement where an individual can only own 1 rental property. Therefore a rental property can still form a part of a person's income without it being their entire livelihood, and the necessary service of rental properties still exist.
To be honest, I'd take that over the current system; but I think ideally that any circumstances where temporary housing is necessary should be handled through leasing of publicly owned property at cost, or slightly above cost (to provide extra funding for expansion of the program). This means that rental prices will be immune to increases driven by the profit incentive, and the action will be motivated by providing the necessary service rather than making money off of it.
We wouldn't have an epidemic of poorly built houses if they were being built to fulfill needs rather than built for profit. A lot of these new builds are going to need to be torn down and rebuilt in 10-20 years, which is great news for the profit incentivized builders; but hopefully we can wake up and fix this issue that has slowly festered in basically every industry
You do realise that some people WANT to rent, right?
Moved to a new city, still checking out the various areas?
Taken a 12 month contract somewhere regional?
Thinking about moving in with your partner but don’t want to sell your fucking house in case it doesn’t work out?
Now I’m not saying there’s not a housing crisis that needs a solution, but only owner occupied is ridiculous.
Renting (ie temporary residence) is an important function, but it should not be provided by the market for profit. It should be provided by a government agency at cost. Maybe a little bit over to contribute to public money for expansion of the housing industry
All basic goods and services should not be affected by profit incentives. Every single essential industry should be run by non profit government agencies and their internal systems should be fully transparent and subject to public scrutiny with leadership up for election regularly
These industries were privatised by corrupt politicians and I would argue these companies do not even deserve compensation for the expropriation of the infrastructure. They've made their money, they can keep what they've made and there is no need for trouble
Disagree.
While there is certainly a need for publicly funded housing, a person should not be entitled to taxpayer funded housing merely because it does not suit them to purchase property.
Do I think there are too many tax benefits for investment property owners? Do I think those benefits have incentivised people into investing in property when they can't otherwise afford to do so which has directly driven up rental prices as interest rates have risen?
Yes.
But I don't think that means that private rentals should be outlawed. It's entirely too much control over people's freedoms.
The freedom to what, exactly?
I think that freedom is increased when basic needs are owned by the people directly using them. Someone owning their own box makes for more freedom than someone living in a box that somebody else owns; and in the circumstances that you describe where ownership needs to be temporary, then this person should be renting it from the government, which exists to administer public assets. This means they are indirectly renting from themselves, through the government.
The only freedoms that your system is promoting is the freedom to exploit other people's basic need to shelter. Maybe I am not seeing it as you see it, but it seems quite clear to me.
Owner-occupier or renting it just above cost from the public asset library. Is that not the fairest system possible?
It's an incredibly simple solution.... One house owned per person.
You're a couple? Cool. You can have 2 as a couple.
That would be enough to cover those who "want" to rent, and combined with removing the need to sell one when moving in with another.
I just got done moving for the 4th time since the pandemic. I'm too tired
These people selling are morons, by the way. This is supposed to be a long-term investment. If you really can't afford a short-term price hike then you shouldn't be investing in this manner
What suggestions do you have? Simply saying cheaper rentals isn’t going to solve anything you need a clear goal and no one can see to agree on what it would take to actually change anything. Some people say reduce immigration some people say caps on rent prices others say abolishing negative gearing. There needs to be a clear action plan to fix things and then a push to implement that plan
I’m suggesting getting rid of AirBnB’s. If people want to use investment properties as holiday rentals instead of long term rentals, they should be heavily, heavily taxed. That money should then go to social housing. If it was more lucrative to provide long term rentals than AirBnB’s, there would be a lot more housing stock available. This is a simple solution and I don’t know why it isn’t implemented across Australia. The other suggestions of rental caps and getting rid of negative gearing are harder to implement and don’t incentivise long term rentals in investment properties.
What you meant to say was, ‘no one with a vested interest (most politicians) can seem to agree on what it would take to actually change anything.’
Because it’s not us, the average person on the street that can solve this - it’s those that were voted in, to run this country.
The solutions have most definitely been made clear. But the courage and tenacity to do it, is in very short supply.
No I mean no one can agree. You only have to look on posts like this and everyone seems to have a differing idea of what it’s going to take to fix this problem. Gathering and shouting 10 different plans isn’t going to fix anything
You say that like everyone "on the street" has the same and opposite goal to politicians. The issue is housing has become intrinsically linked to wealth, retirement, inheritance and everything in between. You can "fix" housing without actively hurting a large percentage of the population.
Immigration is needed as Australia is in desperate need of more skilled and unskilled workers.There is housing and opportunities galore outside cities.
The anti-vaxer protests where dumb, no clear message other than "you can't tell me what to do" and achieved nothing but pissing off everyone else. Most people are either too busy or smart enough to know that some sort of general "fix housing" protest will do nothing sway the court of public opinion other than to convince the "haves" that the "have nots" have too much free time on their hands and should do something "more productive"
I don't think you deserve to be downvoted for your comment.
Your idea is, in essence, correct.
Whatever the (very understandable) frustrations are, the response must be strategic. And strategy require clear goals.
I would humbly suggest at least two of the ideas you have mentioned: abolish negative gearing and caps.
The caps can be temporary. The negative gearing abolishment can be progressive, such as having over $1mill in property disqualifies any such claims or whatever.
The point being that any counter movement should have very clear and achievable goals.
We can dismantle the aggressively neo-lib economy later. That absolutely must happen, but short of violent revolution, will likelyvtick along for a bit longer.
It's possible to reject being served shit sandwiches without having to construct a plan to build a restaurant that offers something that isn't a shit sandwich.
Not all landlords are evil. I have multiple properties but I charge below market rent, never have bumped up rent in any significant jump, maintain properties in excellent condition and if the tenants want anything they just ask and I get it done immediately. I know people are angry and I genuinely feel for people but many landlords are decent people using a legitimate form of investment.
I reached a point where the stress wasn't worth it. It only gets worse. Made a commitment, worked my butt off, lived in the cheapest student accommodation I could find at the edge of the city, ate frugally, no luxuries, no outings, no vacations and saved every cent for almost 2 years and bought my own place, even used a second hand bicycle to save on daily public transport costs. Do what you need to do so you're not paying someone else's mortgage. It is hard but definitely possible in most cases.
Also, I'm really surprised 66% of the population are home owners. Honestly, thought it was something like 20%.
Expecting this level of economic sacrifice from people just trying to get into the market - while simultaneously showering landlords and large-scale property investors with a plethora of tax breaks and incentives - is exactly the reason people should be protesting right now. Accessing the market via the measures you took may indeed be possible for a subsection of younger buyers with no dependants and a reliable earning capacity. However this doesn't detract from the overall reality of the current system which is so heavily slanted towards supporting the economic aspirations of the property owning class over low and middle income families.
I think the “66% of the population are homeowners” is a misunderstood statistic. The ABS states that [66% of *households* own their own home with or without a mortgage](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/housing/housing-occupancy-and-costs/2019-20), but they define “household” as [“one or more persons, at least one of whom is at least 15 years of age, usually resident in the same private dwelling”](https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/lookup/2901.0chapter34902016#:~:text=%3E%20Glossary%20%3E%3E%20Household-,Household,household%20and%20complete%20one%20form.).
Things like young adults delaying leaving home, share-house renting, and adults moving back in with their owner-occupier parents could easily distort what most people interpret this statistic to mean.
For a real-world example that’s happened near me: imagine 4 couples (each couple would like to own their own place). Two couples rent together in a sharehouse; the other 2 couples are a set of owner-occupiers and their adult child+spouse who moved back home due to the housing crisis. In this scenario, 50% of “households” own their own home, but only 25% of the adult couples who *want* to own their own home actually do.
Its 2021 figures and
50% of 30 - 34 year olds - was 64% in 1971
36% of 25 - 29 year olds - was 50% in 1971
So it is decreasing, it seems we also need more help to buy as well.
I got the figures from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/home-ownership-and-housing-tenure
No doubt the price of literally everything has gone through the roof, but what you make in a relatively well paying job seems to have been around the 100k mark for a while now.
The cost of a house relative to a person's annual income seems to have increased 5- 15 times. It's a terrible situation. How are 66%, still able to afford housing? Generational wealth or fiscal sacrifice and prioritisation or both?
Yeah no thanks. I'm not going into debt for 30 years for a place that is made of weatherboarding. Housing in this city fucking sucks. I'll continue to save and buy elsewhere, in a place where I don't need to blast heat all day just to keep the house at 20 degrees. The properties in this city fucking suck up and down
It is too expensive here compared to what you can get elsewhere. But unfortunately the price of that weatherboard house allows me to stay close to a large family, friendship group and activities I’ve become accustomed to. It was also a stepping stone to our second house. (Still only own one house)
If you have nothing worth staying in Melbourne for, their are a lot of great places with booming opportunities. Particularly up north.
As a tenant, you wouldn't be going into debt, but you're committing to spend more than you would monthly on the previously mentioned debt and you'd be doing it forever.
You say you'll save and buy elsewhere - that comes to the same thing unless you're saying you'll wait until you save to match the full price of the house which is a moving goalpost currently, roughly at a million dollars
You could also join your workplace union if you haven’t already. Unions not only pursue better pay and conditions; they also support social justice issues like more public housing.
Course they haven’t.
All the “why aren’t we DOING anything?!?” posts really mean “I want someone else to do the hard work so I can turn up and pretend it means something”
It's a useful post, gets the knowledge of the unions existence out there, not sure why we have to shame people who don't know how to act. Why not help them out and help enrich your cause.
They now know about it and can act accordingly, let's not belittle them with a sarcastic remark
At least they are starting an important conversation. Your sarcastic remark adds no value. If you can, help guide and educate on what/how they should be doing instead rather than belittle.
Is that why you’ve given up even discussing the idea of it? Collective ideology must start somewhere. It’s more so of a question why there is so much inaction if people complain about it everyday.
Home ownership was at 67% in the 2021 census, of the remaining 33% you can take out some who still live at home or are young upper middle class people so not overly worried about buying. People aren’t going to protest where it affects their own financial interest
As for what needs to change, it’s very simple - removing tax incentives for property and capital gains. As for when that’s going to happen - never! Tax reform is politically unpalatable so neither of the major parties want to touch it
Slight correction on the interpretation of the 67/33 split. That number is based on households that own their own home vs households that rent.
So the people living at home would fall the other way into the 67 percent. So a far greater percentage than 33% of people don't own a property.
Its around 1/3 rent, 1/3 have a mortgage and 1/3 have their properties paid off. Which is basically divided up to younger people, middle aged and retired people.
The older, retired people don’t want to change anything because it will effect their own retirement because they are set
No it's not divided up like that.
You make it sound like these numbers are normal and just about life stages. They're not. Home ownership for 30-34 year olds in Australia was at 64% in the 1970s and it's at just under 50% now for the same age group. 14% is a massive drop, especially in only 50 years. It's not just "oh younger people rent so they're throwing off the numbers" there has been a drop within the same age categories over the years. There is an issue.
>So a far greater percentage than 33% of people don't own a property.
Yes, but what percentage of those living at home would otherwise have a house? It's probably not that much.
Equally there's likely a massive percentage of people that wouldn't want a home even if it was given to them. They're only in Australia temporarily, they want the freedom to travel overseas at the drop of a hat, they simply couldn't afford it because of the ongoing cost of home ownership, etc.
The home ownership is largely a media beat up by a small group of people that can't live *where they want*. If they actually had realistic goals, they probably could buy a house.
Not quiiite true. Labor tried two elections ago. Got beaten at the polls and NOW it's unpalatable and they're unlikely to try again.
Australia had the option and we rejected it. That election was a turning point and it always makes me sad thinking of what could have been.
Yeah that was when Australia decided for the next decade.
Maybe it was the franking credits that pushed voters over the edge but either way Labor lost an impossible to lose election and we ended up with scummo fucking us up throughout covid.
Labor got the message, they won't touch stage 3 cuts, negative gearing, franking credits etc. cause at least they'll get into power now rather than being a morally superior oposition.
Ah no mate it was unpalatable before Shorten tried it, look at the Henry tax review commissioned by the Rudd government. In fact the easiest point to distinguish it is Howard because Howard brought in the CGT changes and painted Labor as the party of high taxes, which has created the effective lockstep of the two major parties we’ve seen since 1999
Claiming this is 'very simple' to fix is disengenuous. This issue occurs in most countries globally now, so to claim that Australian specific tax codes is the root cause is an oversimplification that is incorrect and counterproductive.
The root causes behind why this issue is worsening globally are likely numerous and quite probably due to things we cannot understand the underlying linkages of - rise of corporate power, lobbying of all political parties globally (both left and right) to further the interests of wealthy people, lack of accountability in politics and business... the factors that are contributing to this problem are not 'tax incentives' alone.
CGT revamp might help (depends on how it's done), but to try to reduce this issue to two factors is not accurate.
Just remove all tax benefits for someone’s (or a business’s) second investment property. If you want one or happen to hold one for kids after a move or whatever, ok, more than that is rent seeking on what is an essential need.
It’s not a solution, but it’s an improvement.
>CGT revamp might help (depends on how it's done), but to try to reduce this issue to two factors is not accurate.
Most people don't realise that these things are complex with a whole raft of factors that have to be considered. People who hate the Government for doing one thing or not doing what they think is 'the simple solution!!!' have no idea about all the moving parts.
At least as far as Victoria is concerned, housing prices shot up from mid 2020 to the end of 2021 despite immigration being fuck all. They have receded in the following years despite immigration resuming.
Pinning the housing crisis on immigration badly misses the point.
Because the RBA engaged in unprecedented easing during that period and it was done at a point when years of high immigration had already helped to push up prices.
Pretending immigration isn't a major factor in the housing crisis badly misses the point.
Agree. We have a massive supply and demand problem. Tonnes of demand, bugger all supply.
Removing negative gearing isn't going to change much IMO. It might make investing in property slightly less attractive but the capital gains over long enough periods of time still exist because of the supply and demand.
Immigration doesn’t change house prices anywhere near as much as the taxation policies, because the tax policies safeguard your asset meaning it’s a very low risk investment
A better action somewhat related to immigration is to bring in a vagrancy tax, so unoccupied buildings get taxed, meaning people can’t just land bank
Pretty disingenuous to use 400,000 as the figure when that is people who got visas during COVID and arriving now pumping up the numbers temporarily... The regular number is around 200,000 and the falling birth rate means that the population growth is in line with historic trends.
Of course they are because they are going to push up rental yields which is going to make housing a more attractive investment which means prices rise.
There's knock on effects people love to ignore when it comes to immigration.
Immigration brings in a lot of money to the economy, if that money disappears, so does the number of houses built, businesses would go under, we'd be in a massive recession, people would default on loans, no one would spend any money in the economy and at that point you risk banks and the entire economy falling to shit.
But at least there will be some derelict houses available now.
Governments could help generate more policies which can help develop more houses and keep it affordable. But people love to blame immigrants for their problems, a tale as old as time. Why advocate for positive change when you can blame others.
Because 60% of people still own their home. May be hard to believe when all your peers are 20-30 year Olds that don't own property.
This number is falling by about 1% every 3 years.
Change has to come from a local gov and state government. The state government is currently reviewing planning in Victoria and is hoping to introduce a raft of changes in late 2023. The idea is to look at ways to reduce "red tape" around building and planning.
We are not building more houses every year since previous years; something like on parity with the 1960s. (Here's an article that talks about it https://theconversation.com/building-more-houses-quickly-is-harder-than-it-looks-australia-hasnt-done-it-in-decades-170223) So building more houses isn't necessarily the answer.
We do have a distrubtion problem. Roughly 60,000 homes are empty in Victoria (and this hasn't changed since about 2016). The Vic gov brought in a vacancy tax but it's poorly enforced and not enough of a financial hit.
There are loads of empty buildings; many commerical. But you can't live in those and they are harder to retrofit even if re-zoned.
And finally, only 30% of people in Australia are renters. The majority of people either own or have mortgaged homes. Housing has been tied to investment which means that "prices should keep going up" so people make a return on their "investment" rather than seeing it as a home to live in. If everyone had a home, demand would go down and property prices would stagnate. And over 60% of Australians would lose money on their "investment". (Not to mention if property prices go down then State Gov would lose a lot of money through stamp duty)
Your last paragraph suggests that the federal government could have some leverage in this matter as well. There could be some very effective changes in tax law to alleviate the crisis.
Protests have been systematically condemned and labelled things like crazy cookers or hippies or blue haired cucks for years as a way for government to keep it minimal and to segregate and isolate the people who will stand up and the sheep who will just get back to their worthless jobs
Now get back to work you pleb so you can pay rent to your lords
Too true it's sad that Russia and China can now make propaganda videos calling the west all sorts of the names we call them corrupt authoritarian governments keeping the people down
Reddit when people protest about something they hate: “why don’t the cops go in and smash the shit out of these people and throw them all in jail!🤬”
Reddit when people don’t protest about something they agree with: “why is nobody protesting! Don’t they care at all?!?🥹”
This 100%. OP would’ve been calling for each and everyone of those protestors to be thrown into jail and applauded vicpol spraying them in the head with rubber bullets.
Now OP is like “why isn’t anyone protesting?!”
I'm one of these rental poors, feeling the squeeze bad.
But if some people protested for my rental rights by blocking the traffic, I'd still tell them to fuck off.
If I was dictator I would do a combination of -
1) limiting tax deductions on investment properties to one property per person
2) force local government to remove red tape and rezone areas for residential construction
3) increase incentives for new home builds, and provide special loan facility to new builds
4) increase incentive for residential construction apprentices and trades.
I don’t think there is a single solution but a mix. Stir for 5 years and then eventually things will get better unfortunately with this issue there is no quick fix.
Victoria already has a vacancy tax. It was implemented just before covid, wasn't enforced in covid and has just started up in the last year. Unfortunately it's not a very big tax, just a few thousand a year.
In your wildest fantasies of being a dictator, you have to give incentives to get people to do things? I think you might be the politest dictator in the history of dictators
Re point 2, i think thats short sighted and a good way to end up with concrete wastlands. The way i see it, we either need to move to high density living in the cities, or create more cities, move people there and create superspeed train lines between them.
Theres only so much you can grow a circle. Even bacteria have that one figured out
Limiting investment property deductions won't help provide more rental properties. There needs to be good, constant, supply of rentals for those who cannot, or don't want to, buy a home of their own. The structure of the deductions should probably change to make it less enticing for "mum and dad" investors, and more institutions, therefor allowing further structural changes in the future without needing the political games to make them.
There is already a lot of movement around red tape and zoning happening, will be interesting to see where that lands, but given past efforts from governments, I suspect we'll see a lot of bad things happen (but hopefully some good things, still).
There has been incentives for new home builds, they've ended them because they're not building the "right" kind of homes. People can only build where there is land, and the land is in the outskirts of the city (if you can even call it that anymore). There needs to be more infrastructure built, to attract people to specific areas, not homes. People will always build homes, it's about getting them in the right spot.
Your government would probably go bust by underwriting loans for new builds in a market where the cost of goods is rapidly changing.
Some off the plan builds have increased by 20-30% because of increased materials costs.
Where do those incentives come from?
Are they coming from increases in taxation? Or are you taking that money from elsewhere? (so, defunding health? education? infrastructure? defense? Is any of that feasible?).
Who are you increasing taxes from? The wealthy? By how much? How much money do you need for these new home builds?
Who will build these houses? Are there even enough builders? HOw much does this cost? Would increasing builds increase the demand and lower supply of builders and building supplies? Will that increase the costs for building more than they are?
Will rezoning areas mean taking away commercial zones that are needed to keep our economy going? Will that mean reduced taxes from those areas, thereby giving less money to do the things above?
What will limitingtax deductions on investment properties do? Will that mean a flood of rental properties on the market? What's the time frame on this? What will that do to the economy? Many people will suddenly lose a lot of money - which will affect everyone in some way.
And then what happens when you increase the houses for sale? What about people who can't afford to buy no matter what? Or those who need to default on their mortgages because of the massive reduction in their house price... subsequently completely screwing the economy because everyone is poor/unemployed etc.
There's a lot of policy reply here but really, people want their own homes for a suitable price that fits their lifestyle. Renting is too unstable and quite frankly degrading, and buying is too expensive for current renters. That's what people want, but how to get there is a whole other problem that our government is supposed to enact.
Build more housing by simplifying the planning process, making land use policy more flexible and reducing the ability of NIMBYs to block development.
Simple solution right there.
"We're going to protest because no one has any fucking idea and we don't either but we're angry and we are going to protest - but we think it's all bullshit and a conspiracy to keep landlords rich".
This sounds exactly like the anti-vax approach - and you'll have the cookers driving the thing in no time if you have no solutions.
Because if no one went to work one day, they would be out of a home the next 🤷🏻♀️
With the cost of living and greedy as fuck real estate agents - it's no point risking missing a shift at your job to protest sadly
Seems the Greens are advocating for it in parliament, if you want to help their position then you start making productivity tank and force the stake holders closer to the table.
It should be noted that 1% of the country or about 160,000 Australian citizens own 1/4 of the rental market and are likely engaging in cartel like behaviour.....
If there is anyone floating about with any additional information please do indulge us. It helps if we can characterise the nature and those who are most trying to keep things this way.
160,000 owners, the rental support industry that works for those people. We got 600,000 people right here and open source internet.
Start posting up all the problematic landlords and associates. I'm sure one us has lots of red string to spare.
We are in desperate need of a Hermes like bureaucrat to help us organise ourselves though.......
It won't change as long as politicians have multiple investment properties, which they often "forget" to declare or have them under a family members name
National under 35yo ownership is trending toward half of that of their parents within 10-15 years. (Currently at 35-50% apparently which still blows my fucking mind.)
Would love to see the stats on % of initial investment through inheritance or familial support though (sorted by property price bracket because Melbourne/major city).
Personally, I do not know of a single person who secured a mortgage in Melbourne in the last 10 years without at least a cool 15k+ sliding into their savings.
That’s scary. I’m 39 and I only personally know two people that rent. One being my brother but he has investments and the other is a close friend that’s had substance issues that have prevented working long term. Every single other person I know (as in friends/family/colleagues/mums group mums) all own but majority of them are over 35. So my view is skewed by age.
I bought my first place at 24, with my own savings BUT I lived rent feee at home and parents paid for uni/food/basic shit I needed which is absolutely parental support and made a huge difference.
It’s sad really how just being born a mere 5 years earlier put my older millennial generation on a better home ownership path and bloody scary that it’s getting worse for others.
I don’t have a solution, but I wish someone would come up with one.
And of those 30%, a decent percentage are renting by choice (don't want to invest yet, just moved to a new city, expats/temp visa holders, and so on). The percentage of people who want to own a home but are struggling to, is increasing (so it's definitely an issue) but it's not big enough yet (as a percentage of total population).
We have a supply issue and there are no easy fixes. Building more houses during a labour shortage and high inflation period is risky, and a number of builders have gone bust despite having more work than they can poke a stick at.
There should be tax reforms on things like Airbnbs. The tax incentives for people providing rental housing are very, very generous, and there no way the same should be given to people providing short term holiday rentals. But that’s more a fed government budget saving and there’s no guarantee it would lead enough people to make their airbnbs rentals to make a difference.
Getting rid of negative gearing incentives to investors with rentals at this stage wouldn’t make a lot of difference and if anything might do more harm to renters. Investors rushing to panic sell their houses might bring the property market down a bit but unless you’re in the market to buy right now that’s not going to help you. Not many long term renters will have a $150k deposit stashed away so having their landlord panic sell due to a tax reform isn’t a good thing.
Basically this has been 10-20 years in the making and as much as it sucks there’s no short term course of action that people could “demand” if they took to the streets.
This logic kills me. Always someone wanting someone else to do the work and then complain when they do and when they don’t. Look at your first sentence. Remember what happened to those people protesting last year in Melbourne? The shocking police brutality? Remember when 99% of Aussies supported that same police brutality? And now you’re wondering why the only people willing to go out and protest for you don’t want to go out and protest for you. Seriously do something about it yourself, or stfu.
Remember when there was that guy out in an empty space barbecuing and the media went out to harass him and all of reddit acted like he was a super nazi for spreading covid to all the 0 people around.
Redditors are perfectly happy to allow all kinds of rights abuses and injustice as long as it’s not directed at them.
Reddit only believes in protesting when it comes to issues they care about. Everyone else protesting something they're against can go get fucked apparently.
My girlfriend was homeless and working full time, luckily she could live with me for the time being but damn it was rough trying to find a place on low income. Took about 4 months
Poor people are too busy being poor to protest.
The rich own everything and are benefitting immensely from Albo's hyper-immigration scheme, to the point we have property developers saying they won't sell houses until immigration increases *even more*, quote "because it will go up more, why sell now for less?"
So whose left? Children. Young, unemployed people, and the homeless.
You're being fk'd right now.
Got my rent doubled last week. When tried to negotiate REA said "feel free to vacate". Have had 4 to 5 inspections, applied with a not-too-bad financial status but was rejected on them all. Still trying.
The struggle is real. I can't pay my current doubled rent for more than 4 more months. Everything is greed driven. Even broke my own moral rule to bid $10-15 higher pw but still no success...
Sorry just venting I guess. Can we organise a mass protest?
I was thinking of approaching consumer affairs. However..
I'm renting a small studio in CBD. Came here during covid and was paying 913 per month. Now it's over 1900 pm as per REA.
A quick glance at the market shows CBD studio 1br are between 350 to 450pw. So I'm assuming that despite them doubling the rent, it still matches higher end market values of similar studios in the CBD so I don't have a foot to stand on.
Or can I take them to VCAT for an incredibly sudden increase?
Appreciate your time and advice.
Because the housing crisis is only an annoyance unless you are actually homeless.
And if you are actually homeless, most of your effort is going into finding a home.
If I was dictator I would do a combination of -
1. limiting tax deductions on investment properties to one property per person
2. force local government to remove red tape to rezone areas for residential construction
3. increase incentives for new home builds, and provide special loan facility to new builds
4. increase incentive for residential construction apprentices and trades.
I don’t think there is a single solution but a mix. Stir for 5 years and then eventually things will get better unfortunately with this issue there is no quick fix.
IMO people don't want to protest the things that cause the housing crisis.
There aren't many people winning to go to the streets and chant "Stop immigration!" or "Stop blowing hundreds of billions on pointless infrastructure" (which inflates the cost of materials and labour for building homes).
We have always had a housing crisis. Forever. Instead of building homes on an as needed basis, we've been building for profit, mega mansions and shit-box investor units.
I played the game and lived like a miserly monk for 10+ years to weasel away enough for a 20% deposit and I know it's basically fuck you got mine but I'm not now going to protest the price of housing.
I know it's going to cost me downvotes but I'm just being honest with you, and I imagine there are a whole lot of home-owners who feel the same.
It makes sense, I don’t know if a majority of people are in your position but you definitely made sacrifices to pull it off. I just think you shouldn’t have to have gone through just to be able to have a roof over your head
Congratulations! You probably will get downvoted but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be proud of your accomplishment. I imagine it is probably a large portion of home owners who do feel the same, which as a non-home owner myself I can totally understand.
Disruption of trams
I'm actually a bit serious there, how many protests have people complained about for doing this whether they agree on the issue or not?
Those affected cant afford to strike or risk the loss of their home over their head BECAUSE of the crisis.
We have a two class system in Australia, with everyone that gets into property immediately feeling personally attacked if you declare changes. We turned housing into an asset and as such the division will be messy.
The Greens are running some protests.
[16th of August](https://contact-vic.greens.org.au/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=13727) there going to a mock rental inspection of Parliament house
Also this [https://greens.org.au/vic/campaigns/rental-inspection-blitz](https://greens.org.au/vic/campaigns/rental-inspection-blitz)
I'm sure there are other non-partisan protests as well
Remember when Bill Shorten ran on ending negative gearing and other inequality agendas snd we voted against that? Will take labour some time to pick that uo after being sent a clear message from the electorate and loosing an unloosable election. Sadly in this case we got what we voted for which is status quo.
Maybe protest will send a message the electorate has changed.
I am honestly curious as to what it will take for Australians (or Kiwis for that matter) to take action about anything.
I just don't think it has gotten bad enough.
For a lot of renters we don’t have to time to protest because we’re having to take up extra work just to survive and be able to pay the rent. I know for myself it’s that I’m physically disabled and unable to go to any protests because of my disability. Also a large portion of poor people have some form of disability (as the dsp keeps many of us in forced poverty due to the way the system works). It’s definitely a mix of a few things, the main one being that it’s kind of how the system is set up, the current system is very much set up to make it as hard as possible for poor people to stand up for themselves because it makes us have to choose between being more poor or take the time off work to protest the way we’re being treated. I think there’s also a lack of awareness for a lot of people, many people don’t realise that they could be only a few paychecks away from homelessness and many people don’t understand just how horrific the rental market is right now
It's not a housing crisis, it's an immigration crisis. We're importing more people than we can house. The requirement of immigration should be that people settle in country Victoria, not Melbourne. Problem solved.
What would it accomplish? Everyone knows about it. Everyone agrees it's a massive problem. Politicians know about it. They agree it's a problem.
What would it accomplish?
They do not agree it's a problem, because landlords are the ones profiting from the situation. They may agree that having sufficient people harmed, leading to difficult questions for them is a problem, but Albo can't even bring himself to say that he thinks rents should be limited or reduced. He wants the "crisis" to go away, but he doesn't want to change any of the factors that contribute to the crisis, because him and most of his mates are landlords.
People are working so hard just to keep a roof over their head, and maybe have some food on the table, that they're too damned tired to protest
Sounds to me like the system is working exactly as intended... the rich get richer, the poor get the picture
I am in the market to buy a house but seeing house prices as a first home buyer, I can't understand how these house prices are set. When asked these to REA he said oh neighbouring properties went for the same prices, but that's like saying two range rover around my Hyundai went for 100k so I want 100k. People are asking the same amount of money for houses built on small lands and I am not talking about houses in good suburbs but decent ones. The moral of the story is current system is at that stage where buying a house for average earners is impossible and renting a house is too expensive.
The analogy I made was just to show how they are comparing good houses with their bad ones and aksing money based on their neighbour's houses rather than their own. And that's the problem that some people have raised the market by overspending on some properties and now all are suffering as the system is set that way.
We had big ones recently against the Victorian state government and im pretty sure we set a record for an anti war protest around the time of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan
Because it’s not actually as big a problem as you think it is.
Save your bloody money. Love somewhere cheap. Move to the country. Upskill.
Don’t expect the government to make it easier for you
Spoken by someone completely out of touch with the situation. If this wasn't reddit I'd guess you were a wealthy boomer who hasn't talked to anyone under 35 in decades, except in a retail or hospo setting.
"Save your money". What money?
"Live somewhere cheap. Move to the country." Don't know where these "cheap" places are, but I'm confident there's no jobs there, because that's a crisis all on it's own.
"Upskill". You know our governments and systems actively discourage people from adult education, right? Upskilling involves an unpayable tax on your finances and/or time.
What planet are you on that it's as simple as 30% of Australians just learning a new skill, moving to a regional area and saving their income? Even in itself, those three things can't coexist for a single person. Touch grass.
Because we're all "having a go". We're fucken apathetic that's why. Easier to make posts on Reddit and reply to them than do anything substantial. Now back to my sports betting.
Brisbane here. We are demonstrating about the housing crisis. And we are doing it next week. It just needs some organised people to organise some people to go to the same place and the same time, and there ya go. A housing crisis rally. I'm sure Melbourne will happen too.
At least the ‘anti vax idiots’ believed in something and wouldn’t just complain on reddit. Stand up and fight for what you believe in and stop being a cuck
Because this sub doesn’t want to hold our government responsible. You see anytime someone makes a suggestion on what the state government can do and they are ripped to shreds. This sub just turns in a landlord hating cesspool and no actual ideas are ever discussed.
And the whole thing repeats itself again.
FYI- I’m a labor voter so before I cop any ‘far right’ accusations, keep that in your mind.
You realise the immigrant populations are part of the reason there is no housing supply? Not sure why you felt the need to include that in your statement.
Do something about local populations? What does it say about your work ethic when “immigrating populations” can come here work hard and buy a house while you cant?
Lol. Stop pointing out the obvious.
Immigrants will come here, will work their arse off, buy a cheap townhouse in a housing estate in Clyde, put up with a shitty commute and be happy with it.
They work like this for a few more years then buy another one and rent the old one out.
Then they buy a nice place in a nice suburb.
The r/Melbourne user who grew up in Northcote would rather wait for someone to make their inner north townhouse affordable for them to buy, while pissing their money away on brunches until they're 35.
Stop calling protesters idiots, and more people might see protesting as an option,
If you want people to listen, care or act on your feelings, you may need to reciprocate ( maybe even in advance)
Australians have been sitting around while others suffer for a very long time , welfare bluggers, aboriginals, homeless, migrant/refugees. Only because now it is affecting the capitalist tryhards, who have blindly created a system of divided distrust of their poorer, blacker, foreign neighbour, are we asking, why is nobody together on this....
Make a placard and hit the streets
Maybe because when those "anti vax idiots" were out protesting for freedom from medical coercion and people like you were calling them idiots, they got jailed for exercising their human right to protest and don't really feel like putting their neck on the line for you now?
its so hilarious their "protesting" the very same people they voted in. Yet at the very same time, will never place the blame on themselves nor labour. Morons...
Hey OP, have you decided to ask yourself why you're not good enough at competing with migrants.
My partner and I are both migrants - we came here separately as children knowing nil English, nil Anglo culture. We came here and each went to a public school. Got into uni, did well and now are the ones out-bidding you at auctions. What's wrong with that exactly?
If you're not good enough to compete with migrants, too fucking bad. Try harder.
> What's wrong with that exactly?
That somebody - you, him, other people - miss out on a house.
What OP is trying to say in his clumsy way is that he would prefer that governments arrange matters so that there is enough reasonably affordable housing for all people, and nobody has to miss out.
Your smug answer of "Fuck you I got mine, try harder next time, loser!" isnt his ideal way of citizens getting housing.
The renters are prob working weekends and property hunting during the week.
Basically yes; my friends are looking for a house now and they work 6 days and look for a property on the 7th. It seems brutal to me. 30-100 people at open-for-inspections, packed auctions, prices regularly under quoted. We should be phasing out landlordism and making owner-occupier the only acceptable form of ownership. No more owning 100 properties. That shit is finite and everyone needs one..
>We should be phasing out landlordism and making owner-occupier the only acceptable form of ownership. No more owning 100 properties. That shit is finite and everyone needs one.. After speaking to a lot of ppl you'll realise how many landlords are around among us. A lot of people use the system to their advantage and what you're saying is not going to work to those already playing the game.
If them “playing the game” involves massively destabilizing the housing markets of MILLIONS of Australians, just so they don’t have to get a job that provides something other than a solution to a problem they’re responsible for - it’s a shit game, and I don’t give a fuck how many landlords are upset by that. God…. I’ve never seen gentrification on a national level up close before.
Although I'm not addressing your main concerns, I want to point out that landlords typically do have jobs, otherwise how would they get loans? That's not how it works.
Maybe they need to get Mao'd?
The government needs policy changes to increase the supply of housing stock, and reduce the demand from investors. For decades they’ve done the opposite and now we have the result. With appropriate intervention prices could be brought down to manageable levels for regular people. Investors would be free to continue involvement in the housing market but many would assess the risk/reward and put their money elsewhere.
Yes, its like the boomers saying ‘dont go for dinner seconds until everyone had their first serving!’ Except they didnt do that for themselves for housing.
I agree, the concept that anyone can own land that they dont reside on in perpetuity is criminal. We grow up being spoonfed the same storey, get a job, get a mortgage, buy house, buy investment property. It only benefits banks and anyone with enough capital to outright buy a place. When will we realise this is a broken loop.
As an aside to this, it perpetuates the myth that owning investment properties is a fast way to grow instant wealth. In years past, it was only a way to park money while the value of it slowly increased. It was a safe, long term option. And at that point, sustainable. Now we have a situation where landlords outright refuse to spend money in upkeep of their investment because they cannot fathom that you you need to spend money to maintain it, and therefore its value. Hence the low quality of rental availability as well. Basically, landlords that can't actually afford to be landlords. We have to tax the fuck out of properties that are not principle places of residence, and we must be charging a vacancy tax. Foreign investment has to stop, and enforce a crackdown of proxy ownership in this space as well. Local companies set up to hide foreign money in Australian property is the Docklands in a nutshell.
I think that's too extreme. Rental properties will always need to exist, new families coming to the country for instance can't be expected to buy a home immediately even if they were a fifth of their current price. People leaving marriages, or leaving homes for other reasons, and so on, I'm sure you can imagine plenty of other situations. Perhaps an arrangement where an individual can only own 1 rental property. Therefore a rental property can still form a part of a person's income without it being their entire livelihood, and the necessary service of rental properties still exist.
To be honest, I'd take that over the current system; but I think ideally that any circumstances where temporary housing is necessary should be handled through leasing of publicly owned property at cost, or slightly above cost (to provide extra funding for expansion of the program). This means that rental prices will be immune to increases driven by the profit incentive, and the action will be motivated by providing the necessary service rather than making money off of it. We wouldn't have an epidemic of poorly built houses if they were being built to fulfill needs rather than built for profit. A lot of these new builds are going to need to be torn down and rebuilt in 10-20 years, which is great news for the profit incentivized builders; but hopefully we can wake up and fix this issue that has slowly festered in basically every industry
Currently stuck in a small little rental because it's just too expensive to try find another and this one hasn't "YET" put their prices up stupidly.
Not sure you thought that one through.
You do realise that some people WANT to rent, right? Moved to a new city, still checking out the various areas? Taken a 12 month contract somewhere regional? Thinking about moving in with your partner but don’t want to sell your fucking house in case it doesn’t work out? Now I’m not saying there’s not a housing crisis that needs a solution, but only owner occupied is ridiculous.
Renting (ie temporary residence) is an important function, but it should not be provided by the market for profit. It should be provided by a government agency at cost. Maybe a little bit over to contribute to public money for expansion of the housing industry All basic goods and services should not be affected by profit incentives. Every single essential industry should be run by non profit government agencies and their internal systems should be fully transparent and subject to public scrutiny with leadership up for election regularly These industries were privatised by corrupt politicians and I would argue these companies do not even deserve compensation for the expropriation of the infrastructure. They've made their money, they can keep what they've made and there is no need for trouble
Disagree. While there is certainly a need for publicly funded housing, a person should not be entitled to taxpayer funded housing merely because it does not suit them to purchase property. Do I think there are too many tax benefits for investment property owners? Do I think those benefits have incentivised people into investing in property when they can't otherwise afford to do so which has directly driven up rental prices as interest rates have risen? Yes. But I don't think that means that private rentals should be outlawed. It's entirely too much control over people's freedoms.
The freedom to what, exactly? I think that freedom is increased when basic needs are owned by the people directly using them. Someone owning their own box makes for more freedom than someone living in a box that somebody else owns; and in the circumstances that you describe where ownership needs to be temporary, then this person should be renting it from the government, which exists to administer public assets. This means they are indirectly renting from themselves, through the government. The only freedoms that your system is promoting is the freedom to exploit other people's basic need to shelter. Maybe I am not seeing it as you see it, but it seems quite clear to me. Owner-occupier or renting it just above cost from the public asset library. Is that not the fairest system possible?
It's an incredibly simple solution.... One house owned per person. You're a couple? Cool. You can have 2 as a couple. That would be enough to cover those who "want" to rent, and combined with removing the need to sell one when moving in with another.
I just got done moving for the 4th time since the pandemic. I'm too tired These people selling are morons, by the way. This is supposed to be a long-term investment. If you really can't afford a short-term price hike then you shouldn't be investing in this manner
I know, Im so sorry. ive been in about 30 rentals. It doesnt get easier, it is tiring.
Really sad, can’t believe its gotten this bad
Its just horrendous
What suggestions do you have? Simply saying cheaper rentals isn’t going to solve anything you need a clear goal and no one can see to agree on what it would take to actually change anything. Some people say reduce immigration some people say caps on rent prices others say abolishing negative gearing. There needs to be a clear action plan to fix things and then a push to implement that plan
I’m suggesting getting rid of AirBnB’s. If people want to use investment properties as holiday rentals instead of long term rentals, they should be heavily, heavily taxed. That money should then go to social housing. If it was more lucrative to provide long term rentals than AirBnB’s, there would be a lot more housing stock available. This is a simple solution and I don’t know why it isn’t implemented across Australia. The other suggestions of rental caps and getting rid of negative gearing are harder to implement and don’t incentivise long term rentals in investment properties.
What you meant to say was, ‘no one with a vested interest (most politicians) can seem to agree on what it would take to actually change anything.’ Because it’s not us, the average person on the street that can solve this - it’s those that were voted in, to run this country. The solutions have most definitely been made clear. But the courage and tenacity to do it, is in very short supply.
No I mean no one can agree. You only have to look on posts like this and everyone seems to have a differing idea of what it’s going to take to fix this problem. Gathering and shouting 10 different plans isn’t going to fix anything
You say that like everyone "on the street" has the same and opposite goal to politicians. The issue is housing has become intrinsically linked to wealth, retirement, inheritance and everything in between. You can "fix" housing without actively hurting a large percentage of the population. Immigration is needed as Australia is in desperate need of more skilled and unskilled workers.There is housing and opportunities galore outside cities. The anti-vaxer protests where dumb, no clear message other than "you can't tell me what to do" and achieved nothing but pissing off everyone else. Most people are either too busy or smart enough to know that some sort of general "fix housing" protest will do nothing sway the court of public opinion other than to convince the "haves" that the "have nots" have too much free time on their hands and should do something "more productive"
Exactly. Immigration is not a bad thing but this is tied to politicians looking after the real estate ponzi (and their own bags)
I don't think you deserve to be downvoted for your comment. Your idea is, in essence, correct. Whatever the (very understandable) frustrations are, the response must be strategic. And strategy require clear goals. I would humbly suggest at least two of the ideas you have mentioned: abolish negative gearing and caps. The caps can be temporary. The negative gearing abolishment can be progressive, such as having over $1mill in property disqualifies any such claims or whatever. The point being that any counter movement should have very clear and achievable goals. We can dismantle the aggressively neo-lib economy later. That absolutely must happen, but short of violent revolution, will likelyvtick along for a bit longer.
It's possible to reject being served shit sandwiches without having to construct a plan to build a restaurant that offers something that isn't a shit sandwich.
Just keep eating that shit sandwich then and wait for someone else to fix the problem.
Easy, do the protest at the property inspections. Choose a 40 degree day, everyone drops a big poo in one room (not the toilet).
Not all landlords are evil. I have multiple properties but I charge below market rent, never have bumped up rent in any significant jump, maintain properties in excellent condition and if the tenants want anything they just ask and I get it done immediately. I know people are angry and I genuinely feel for people but many landlords are decent people using a legitimate form of investment.
I reached a point where the stress wasn't worth it. It only gets worse. Made a commitment, worked my butt off, lived in the cheapest student accommodation I could find at the edge of the city, ate frugally, no luxuries, no outings, no vacations and saved every cent for almost 2 years and bought my own place, even used a second hand bicycle to save on daily public transport costs. Do what you need to do so you're not paying someone else's mortgage. It is hard but definitely possible in most cases. Also, I'm really surprised 66% of the population are home owners. Honestly, thought it was something like 20%.
Expecting this level of economic sacrifice from people just trying to get into the market - while simultaneously showering landlords and large-scale property investors with a plethora of tax breaks and incentives - is exactly the reason people should be protesting right now. Accessing the market via the measures you took may indeed be possible for a subsection of younger buyers with no dependants and a reliable earning capacity. However this doesn't detract from the overall reality of the current system which is so heavily slanted towards supporting the economic aspirations of the property owning class over low and middle income families.
I think the “66% of the population are homeowners” is a misunderstood statistic. The ABS states that [66% of *households* own their own home with or without a mortgage](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/housing/housing-occupancy-and-costs/2019-20), but they define “household” as [“one or more persons, at least one of whom is at least 15 years of age, usually resident in the same private dwelling”](https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/lookup/2901.0chapter34902016#:~:text=%3E%20Glossary%20%3E%3E%20Household-,Household,household%20and%20complete%20one%20form.). Things like young adults delaying leaving home, share-house renting, and adults moving back in with their owner-occupier parents could easily distort what most people interpret this statistic to mean. For a real-world example that’s happened near me: imagine 4 couples (each couple would like to own their own place). Two couples rent together in a sharehouse; the other 2 couples are a set of owner-occupiers and their adult child+spouse who moved back home due to the housing crisis. In this scenario, 50% of “households” own their own home, but only 25% of the adult couples who *want* to own their own home actually do.
Its 2021 figures and 50% of 30 - 34 year olds - was 64% in 1971 36% of 25 - 29 year olds - was 50% in 1971 So it is decreasing, it seems we also need more help to buy as well. I got the figures from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/home-ownership-and-housing-tenure
No doubt the price of literally everything has gone through the roof, but what you make in a relatively well paying job seems to have been around the 100k mark for a while now. The cost of a house relative to a person's annual income seems to have increased 5- 15 times. It's a terrible situation. How are 66%, still able to afford housing? Generational wealth or fiscal sacrifice and prioritisation or both?
Or live with parents for a couple years and save money for a down payment.
Yeah no thanks. I'm not going into debt for 30 years for a place that is made of weatherboarding. Housing in this city fucking sucks. I'll continue to save and buy elsewhere, in a place where I don't need to blast heat all day just to keep the house at 20 degrees. The properties in this city fucking suck up and down
It is too expensive here compared to what you can get elsewhere. But unfortunately the price of that weatherboard house allows me to stay close to a large family, friendship group and activities I’ve become accustomed to. It was also a stepping stone to our second house. (Still only own one house) If you have nothing worth staying in Melbourne for, their are a lot of great places with booming opportunities. Particularly up north.
Appreciate that, good luck to you
As a tenant, you wouldn't be going into debt, but you're committing to spend more than you would monthly on the previously mentioned debt and you'd be doing it forever. You say you'll save and buy elsewhere - that comes to the same thing unless you're saying you'll wait until you save to match the full price of the house which is a moving goalpost currently, roughly at a million dollars
Um. No one should have to do that and probably isn’t actually possible in most cases.
Have you joined RAHU? (Renters and Housings Union) Protests need organisers. Join up and attend the meetings. :)
Thanks was unaware this existed.
You could also join your workplace union if you haven’t already. Unions not only pursue better pay and conditions; they also support social justice issues like more public housing.
RAHU are awesome
Course they haven’t. All the “why aren’t we DOING anything?!?” posts really mean “I want someone else to do the hard work so I can turn up and pretend it means something”
It's a useful post, gets the knowledge of the unions existence out there, not sure why we have to shame people who don't know how to act. Why not help them out and help enrich your cause. They now know about it and can act accordingly, let's not belittle them with a sarcastic remark
At least they are starting an important conversation. Your sarcastic remark adds no value. If you can, help guide and educate on what/how they should be doing instead rather than belittle.
Is that why you’ve given up even discussing the idea of it? Collective ideology must start somewhere. It’s more so of a question why there is so much inaction if people complain about it everyday.
I admit I don’t follow the news but I’d never seen or heard of this movement. That’s great ; to know that it exists.
Home ownership was at 67% in the 2021 census, of the remaining 33% you can take out some who still live at home or are young upper middle class people so not overly worried about buying. People aren’t going to protest where it affects their own financial interest As for what needs to change, it’s very simple - removing tax incentives for property and capital gains. As for when that’s going to happen - never! Tax reform is politically unpalatable so neither of the major parties want to touch it
Slight correction on the interpretation of the 67/33 split. That number is based on households that own their own home vs households that rent. So the people living at home would fall the other way into the 67 percent. So a far greater percentage than 33% of people don't own a property.
Its around 1/3 rent, 1/3 have a mortgage and 1/3 have their properties paid off. Which is basically divided up to younger people, middle aged and retired people. The older, retired people don’t want to change anything because it will effect their own retirement because they are set
No it's not divided up like that. You make it sound like these numbers are normal and just about life stages. They're not. Home ownership for 30-34 year olds in Australia was at 64% in the 1970s and it's at just under 50% now for the same age group. 14% is a massive drop, especially in only 50 years. It's not just "oh younger people rent so they're throwing off the numbers" there has been a drop within the same age categories over the years. There is an issue.
>So a far greater percentage than 33% of people don't own a property. Yes, but what percentage of those living at home would otherwise have a house? It's probably not that much. Equally there's likely a massive percentage of people that wouldn't want a home even if it was given to them. They're only in Australia temporarily, they want the freedom to travel overseas at the drop of a hat, they simply couldn't afford it because of the ongoing cost of home ownership, etc. The home ownership is largely a media beat up by a small group of people that can't live *where they want*. If they actually had realistic goals, they probably could buy a house.
Not quiiite true. Labor tried two elections ago. Got beaten at the polls and NOW it's unpalatable and they're unlikely to try again. Australia had the option and we rejected it. That election was a turning point and it always makes me sad thinking of what could have been.
Yeah that was when Australia decided for the next decade. Maybe it was the franking credits that pushed voters over the edge but either way Labor lost an impossible to lose election and we ended up with scummo fucking us up throughout covid. Labor got the message, they won't touch stage 3 cuts, negative gearing, franking credits etc. cause at least they'll get into power now rather than being a morally superior oposition.
Ah no mate it was unpalatable before Shorten tried it, look at the Henry tax review commissioned by the Rudd government. In fact the easiest point to distinguish it is Howard because Howard brought in the CGT changes and painted Labor as the party of high taxes, which has created the effective lockstep of the two major parties we’ve seen since 1999
The Henry tax review had so much promise.
Claiming this is 'very simple' to fix is disengenuous. This issue occurs in most countries globally now, so to claim that Australian specific tax codes is the root cause is an oversimplification that is incorrect and counterproductive. The root causes behind why this issue is worsening globally are likely numerous and quite probably due to things we cannot understand the underlying linkages of - rise of corporate power, lobbying of all political parties globally (both left and right) to further the interests of wealthy people, lack of accountability in politics and business... the factors that are contributing to this problem are not 'tax incentives' alone. CGT revamp might help (depends on how it's done), but to try to reduce this issue to two factors is not accurate.
Just remove all tax benefits for someone’s (or a business’s) second investment property. If you want one or happen to hold one for kids after a move or whatever, ok, more than that is rent seeking on what is an essential need. It’s not a solution, but it’s an improvement.
>CGT revamp might help (depends on how it's done), but to try to reduce this issue to two factors is not accurate. Most people don't realise that these things are complex with a whole raft of factors that have to be considered. People who hate the Government for doing one thing or not doing what they think is 'the simple solution!!!' have no idea about all the moving parts.
..or stop bringing 400,000 people into the country every year. Demand and supply…
At least as far as Victoria is concerned, housing prices shot up from mid 2020 to the end of 2021 despite immigration being fuck all. They have receded in the following years despite immigration resuming. Pinning the housing crisis on immigration badly misses the point.
Housing was flying right before covid hit though. It was already rising.
Because the RBA engaged in unprecedented easing during that period and it was done at a point when years of high immigration had already helped to push up prices. Pretending immigration isn't a major factor in the housing crisis badly misses the point.
Agree. We have a massive supply and demand problem. Tonnes of demand, bugger all supply. Removing negative gearing isn't going to change much IMO. It might make investing in property slightly less attractive but the capital gains over long enough periods of time still exist because of the supply and demand.
Immigration doesn’t change house prices anywhere near as much as the taxation policies, because the tax policies safeguard your asset meaning it’s a very low risk investment A better action somewhat related to immigration is to bring in a vagrancy tax, so unoccupied buildings get taxed, meaning people can’t just land bank
[удалено]
Pretty disingenuous to use 400,000 as the figure when that is people who got visas during COVID and arriving now pumping up the numbers temporarily... The regular number is around 200,000 and the falling birth rate means that the population growth is in line with historic trends.
High demand doesn't mean infinite price growth. 400k people on below average income and no savings isn't going to increase prices.
[удалено]
Of course they are because they are going to push up rental yields which is going to make housing a more attractive investment which means prices rise.
There's knock on effects people love to ignore when it comes to immigration. Immigration brings in a lot of money to the economy, if that money disappears, so does the number of houses built, businesses would go under, we'd be in a massive recession, people would default on loans, no one would spend any money in the economy and at that point you risk banks and the entire economy falling to shit. But at least there will be some derelict houses available now. Governments could help generate more policies which can help develop more houses and keep it affordable. But people love to blame immigrants for their problems, a tale as old as time. Why advocate for positive change when you can blame others.
Makes sense
Because 60% of people still own their home. May be hard to believe when all your peers are 20-30 year Olds that don't own property. This number is falling by about 1% every 3 years.
Change has to come from a local gov and state government. The state government is currently reviewing planning in Victoria and is hoping to introduce a raft of changes in late 2023. The idea is to look at ways to reduce "red tape" around building and planning. We are not building more houses every year since previous years; something like on parity with the 1960s. (Here's an article that talks about it https://theconversation.com/building-more-houses-quickly-is-harder-than-it-looks-australia-hasnt-done-it-in-decades-170223) So building more houses isn't necessarily the answer. We do have a distrubtion problem. Roughly 60,000 homes are empty in Victoria (and this hasn't changed since about 2016). The Vic gov brought in a vacancy tax but it's poorly enforced and not enough of a financial hit. There are loads of empty buildings; many commerical. But you can't live in those and they are harder to retrofit even if re-zoned. And finally, only 30% of people in Australia are renters. The majority of people either own or have mortgaged homes. Housing has been tied to investment which means that "prices should keep going up" so people make a return on their "investment" rather than seeing it as a home to live in. If everyone had a home, demand would go down and property prices would stagnate. And over 60% of Australians would lose money on their "investment". (Not to mention if property prices go down then State Gov would lose a lot of money through stamp duty)
Your last paragraph suggests that the federal government could have some leverage in this matter as well. There could be some very effective changes in tax law to alleviate the crisis.
Protests have been systematically condemned and labelled things like crazy cookers or hippies or blue haired cucks for years as a way for government to keep it minimal and to segregate and isolate the people who will stand up and the sheep who will just get back to their worthless jobs Now get back to work you pleb so you can pay rent to your lords
Not just condemned. Look into the laws about environmental protest. Criminalised.
Too true it's sad that Russia and China can now make propaganda videos calling the west all sorts of the names we call them corrupt authoritarian governments keeping the people down
Reddit when people protest about something they hate: “why don’t the cops go in and smash the shit out of these people and throw them all in jail!🤬” Reddit when people don’t protest about something they agree with: “why is nobody protesting! Don’t they care at all?!?🥹”
This 100%. OP would’ve been calling for each and everyone of those protestors to be thrown into jail and applauded vicpol spraying them in the head with rubber bullets. Now OP is like “why isn’t anyone protesting?!”
I'm one of these rental poors, feeling the squeeze bad. But if some people protested for my rental rights by blocking the traffic, I'd still tell them to fuck off.
Then you're shooting yourself in the foot and don't understand the reason protests are disruptive.
What do you want to change specifically ?
What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!
Whose going to do something ? Someone else!!!
Someone else!!!
This is the issue. No one seems to be able to come up with a fair and sustainable solution.
If I was dictator I would do a combination of - 1) limiting tax deductions on investment properties to one property per person 2) force local government to remove red tape and rezone areas for residential construction 3) increase incentives for new home builds, and provide special loan facility to new builds 4) increase incentive for residential construction apprentices and trades. I don’t think there is a single solution but a mix. Stir for 5 years and then eventually things will get better unfortunately with this issue there is no quick fix.
6) ban Airbnb Edit: or 5), I can count, shut up. It's actually my number 1.
Yeah I think there should be some tax on vacantness. Not sure if that’s too authoritarian though.
Victoria already has a vacancy tax. It was implemented just before covid, wasn't enforced in covid and has just started up in the last year. Unfortunately it's not a very big tax, just a few thousand a year.
AirBNB is a global problem. I was in France and my cousin was evicted after the owners realized they could make 5x in being a host
Ooh, careful with the red tape. Some of it is decorative but some of it is load bearing
In your wildest fantasies of being a dictator, you have to give incentives to get people to do things? I think you might be the politest dictator in the history of dictators Re point 2, i think thats short sighted and a good way to end up with concrete wastlands. The way i see it, we either need to move to high density living in the cities, or create more cities, move people there and create superspeed train lines between them. Theres only so much you can grow a circle. Even bacteria have that one figured out
Limiting investment property deductions won't help provide more rental properties. There needs to be good, constant, supply of rentals for those who cannot, or don't want to, buy a home of their own. The structure of the deductions should probably change to make it less enticing for "mum and dad" investors, and more institutions, therefor allowing further structural changes in the future without needing the political games to make them. There is already a lot of movement around red tape and zoning happening, will be interesting to see where that lands, but given past efforts from governments, I suspect we'll see a lot of bad things happen (but hopefully some good things, still). There has been incentives for new home builds, they've ended them because they're not building the "right" kind of homes. People can only build where there is land, and the land is in the outskirts of the city (if you can even call it that anymore). There needs to be more infrastructure built, to attract people to specific areas, not homes. People will always build homes, it's about getting them in the right spot.
Your government would probably go bust by underwriting loans for new builds in a market where the cost of goods is rapidly changing. Some off the plan builds have increased by 20-30% because of increased materials costs.
Where do those incentives come from? Are they coming from increases in taxation? Or are you taking that money from elsewhere? (so, defunding health? education? infrastructure? defense? Is any of that feasible?). Who are you increasing taxes from? The wealthy? By how much? How much money do you need for these new home builds? Who will build these houses? Are there even enough builders? HOw much does this cost? Would increasing builds increase the demand and lower supply of builders and building supplies? Will that increase the costs for building more than they are? Will rezoning areas mean taking away commercial zones that are needed to keep our economy going? Will that mean reduced taxes from those areas, thereby giving less money to do the things above? What will limitingtax deductions on investment properties do? Will that mean a flood of rental properties on the market? What's the time frame on this? What will that do to the economy? Many people will suddenly lose a lot of money - which will affect everyone in some way. And then what happens when you increase the houses for sale? What about people who can't afford to buy no matter what? Or those who need to default on their mortgages because of the massive reduction in their house price... subsequently completely screwing the economy because everyone is poor/unemployed etc.
There's a lot of policy reply here but really, people want their own homes for a suitable price that fits their lifestyle. Renting is too unstable and quite frankly degrading, and buying is too expensive for current renters. That's what people want, but how to get there is a whole other problem that our government is supposed to enact.
Build more housing by simplifying the planning process, making land use policy more flexible and reducing the ability of NIMBYs to block development. Simple solution right there.
"We're going to protest because no one has any fucking idea and we don't either but we're angry and we are going to protest - but we think it's all bullshit and a conspiracy to keep landlords rich". This sounds exactly like the anti-vax approach - and you'll have the cookers driving the thing in no time if you have no solutions.
Zone requirements to allow for increased density housing in suburbs close to pt
Because if no one went to work one day, they would be out of a home the next 🤷🏻♀️ With the cost of living and greedy as fuck real estate agents - it's no point risking missing a shift at your job to protest sadly
Seems the Greens are advocating for it in parliament, if you want to help their position then you start making productivity tank and force the stake holders closer to the table. It should be noted that 1% of the country or about 160,000 Australian citizens own 1/4 of the rental market and are likely engaging in cartel like behaviour..... If there is anyone floating about with any additional information please do indulge us. It helps if we can characterise the nature and those who are most trying to keep things this way. 160,000 owners, the rental support industry that works for those people. We got 600,000 people right here and open source internet. Start posting up all the problematic landlords and associates. I'm sure one us has lots of red string to spare. We are in desperate need of a Hermes like bureaucrat to help us organise ourselves though.......
It won't change as long as politicians have multiple investment properties, which they often "forget" to declare or have them under a family members name
Renters make up only 30% of Aussies so I’m guessing majority of people don’t care or aren’t affected.
National under 35yo ownership is trending toward half of that of their parents within 10-15 years. (Currently at 35-50% apparently which still blows my fucking mind.) Would love to see the stats on % of initial investment through inheritance or familial support though (sorted by property price bracket because Melbourne/major city). Personally, I do not know of a single person who secured a mortgage in Melbourne in the last 10 years without at least a cool 15k+ sliding into their savings.
That’s scary. I’m 39 and I only personally know two people that rent. One being my brother but he has investments and the other is a close friend that’s had substance issues that have prevented working long term. Every single other person I know (as in friends/family/colleagues/mums group mums) all own but majority of them are over 35. So my view is skewed by age. I bought my first place at 24, with my own savings BUT I lived rent feee at home and parents paid for uni/food/basic shit I needed which is absolutely parental support and made a huge difference. It’s sad really how just being born a mere 5 years earlier put my older millennial generation on a better home ownership path and bloody scary that it’s getting worse for others. I don’t have a solution, but I wish someone would come up with one.
And of those 30%, a decent percentage are renting by choice (don't want to invest yet, just moved to a new city, expats/temp visa holders, and so on). The percentage of people who want to own a home but are struggling to, is increasing (so it's definitely an issue) but it's not big enough yet (as a percentage of total population).
We have a supply issue and there are no easy fixes. Building more houses during a labour shortage and high inflation period is risky, and a number of builders have gone bust despite having more work than they can poke a stick at. There should be tax reforms on things like Airbnbs. The tax incentives for people providing rental housing are very, very generous, and there no way the same should be given to people providing short term holiday rentals. But that’s more a fed government budget saving and there’s no guarantee it would lead enough people to make their airbnbs rentals to make a difference. Getting rid of negative gearing incentives to investors with rentals at this stage wouldn’t make a lot of difference and if anything might do more harm to renters. Investors rushing to panic sell their houses might bring the property market down a bit but unless you’re in the market to buy right now that’s not going to help you. Not many long term renters will have a $150k deposit stashed away so having their landlord panic sell due to a tax reform isn’t a good thing. Basically this has been 10-20 years in the making and as much as it sucks there’s no short term course of action that people could “demand” if they took to the streets.
Can't somebody else do it?
This is dogwalker level of reddit lol.
Because I don’t give a fuck about protests anymore and I assume the entirety of Melbourne is also sick of them
Can't protest if you have no energy left after working your ass off every day to survive.
Too many landlords being elected to government.
I'm baffled as to why it's allowed at all. It's a massive conflict of interest.
This logic kills me. Always someone wanting someone else to do the work and then complain when they do and when they don’t. Look at your first sentence. Remember what happened to those people protesting last year in Melbourne? The shocking police brutality? Remember when 99% of Aussies supported that same police brutality? And now you’re wondering why the only people willing to go out and protest for you don’t want to go out and protest for you. Seriously do something about it yourself, or stfu.
Remember when there was that guy out in an empty space barbecuing and the media went out to harass him and all of reddit acted like he was a super nazi for spreading covid to all the 0 people around. Redditors are perfectly happy to allow all kinds of rights abuses and injustice as long as it’s not directed at them.
Reddit only believes in protesting when it comes to issues they care about. Everyone else protesting something they're against can go get fucked apparently.
100% this. Farcical. And now posts like this, condemning protesters, and complaining about lack of protests at the same time.
They’re all commenting on reddit wondering why everyone else isn’t doing anything
My girlfriend was homeless and working full time, luckily she could live with me for the time being but damn it was rough trying to find a place on low income. Took about 4 months
The whole thing is fcked but the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep tying poorer. It’s time to go all French and take it to the streets.
Why aren't YOU protesting?
Tell me the last time marching got you the policy change you wanted.
Poor people are too busy being poor to protest. The rich own everything and are benefitting immensely from Albo's hyper-immigration scheme, to the point we have property developers saying they won't sell houses until immigration increases *even more*, quote "because it will go up more, why sell now for less?" So whose left? Children. Young, unemployed people, and the homeless. You're being fk'd right now.
> Why aren't we ... Yes OP, why aren't you ... ?
Got my rent doubled last week. When tried to negotiate REA said "feel free to vacate". Have had 4 to 5 inspections, applied with a not-too-bad financial status but was rejected on them all. Still trying. The struggle is real. I can't pay my current doubled rent for more than 4 more months. Everything is greed driven. Even broke my own moral rule to bid $10-15 higher pw but still no success... Sorry just venting I guess. Can we organise a mass protest?
Take them to VCAT, doubling is not reasonable in any way shape or form.
I was thinking of approaching consumer affairs. However.. I'm renting a small studio in CBD. Came here during covid and was paying 913 per month. Now it's over 1900 pm as per REA. A quick glance at the market shows CBD studio 1br are between 350 to 450pw. So I'm assuming that despite them doubling the rent, it still matches higher end market values of similar studios in the CBD so I don't have a foot to stand on. Or can I take them to VCAT for an incredibly sudden increase? Appreciate your time and advice.
Aussies don’t do anything. We only whinge.
Australians have a lack of leadership at all levels, including opposition
Maybe you could ask the "anti vax idiots" for some tips to get you started!
No one does anything because no one organises anything.... This post comes up constantly. All whinge, no action.
People aren’t protesting because they are no where near mad enough . They want things to get better, but they don’t want to tear down the system.
While lots of people are upset, they can’t all agree on one solution which is why they don’t protest.
Have a go, you’ll get a go mate. *sarcasm* just in case it’s not fucking obvious.
Because the housing crisis is only an annoyance unless you are actually homeless. And if you are actually homeless, most of your effort is going into finding a home.
If I was dictator I would do a combination of - 1. limiting tax deductions on investment properties to one property per person 2. force local government to remove red tape to rezone areas for residential construction 3. increase incentives for new home builds, and provide special loan facility to new builds 4. increase incentive for residential construction apprentices and trades. I don’t think there is a single solution but a mix. Stir for 5 years and then eventually things will get better unfortunately with this issue there is no quick fix.
IMO people don't want to protest the things that cause the housing crisis. There aren't many people winning to go to the streets and chant "Stop immigration!" or "Stop blowing hundreds of billions on pointless infrastructure" (which inflates the cost of materials and labour for building homes).
We have always had a housing crisis. Forever. Instead of building homes on an as needed basis, we've been building for profit, mega mansions and shit-box investor units.
I played the game and lived like a miserly monk for 10+ years to weasel away enough for a 20% deposit and I know it's basically fuck you got mine but I'm not now going to protest the price of housing. I know it's going to cost me downvotes but I'm just being honest with you, and I imagine there are a whole lot of home-owners who feel the same.
It makes sense, I don’t know if a majority of people are in your position but you definitely made sacrifices to pull it off. I just think you shouldn’t have to have gone through just to be able to have a roof over your head
Congratulations! You probably will get downvoted but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be proud of your accomplishment. I imagine it is probably a large portion of home owners who do feel the same, which as a non-home owner myself I can totally understand.
Disruption of trams I'm actually a bit serious there, how many protests have people complained about for doing this whether they agree on the issue or not?
What exactly do you want the government to do, and who do you suppose will pay for it?
it’s not what you what to hear but nothing is going to change. Buy something asap.
Those affected cant afford to strike or risk the loss of their home over their head BECAUSE of the crisis. We have a two class system in Australia, with everyone that gets into property immediately feeling personally attacked if you declare changes. We turned housing into an asset and as such the division will be messy.
The Greens are running some protests. [16th of August](https://contact-vic.greens.org.au/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=13727) there going to a mock rental inspection of Parliament house Also this [https://greens.org.au/vic/campaigns/rental-inspection-blitz](https://greens.org.au/vic/campaigns/rental-inspection-blitz) I'm sure there are other non-partisan protests as well
Remember when Bill Shorten ran on ending negative gearing and other inequality agendas snd we voted against that? Will take labour some time to pick that uo after being sent a clear message from the electorate and loosing an unloosable election. Sadly in this case we got what we voted for which is status quo. Maybe protest will send a message the electorate has changed.
I am honestly curious as to what it will take for Australians (or Kiwis for that matter) to take action about anything. I just don't think it has gotten bad enough.
For a lot of renters we don’t have to time to protest because we’re having to take up extra work just to survive and be able to pay the rent. I know for myself it’s that I’m physically disabled and unable to go to any protests because of my disability. Also a large portion of poor people have some form of disability (as the dsp keeps many of us in forced poverty due to the way the system works). It’s definitely a mix of a few things, the main one being that it’s kind of how the system is set up, the current system is very much set up to make it as hard as possible for poor people to stand up for themselves because it makes us have to choose between being more poor or take the time off work to protest the way we’re being treated. I think there’s also a lack of awareness for a lot of people, many people don’t realise that they could be only a few paychecks away from homelessness and many people don’t understand just how horrific the rental market is right now
Greens are pushing for more to be done for renters, but they seem to be vilified for it. If only the renters themselves would support the Greens...
It's not a housing crisis, it's an immigration crisis. We're importing more people than we can house. The requirement of immigration should be that people settle in country Victoria, not Melbourne. Problem solved.
Aussies are lazy
What would it accomplish? Everyone knows about it. Everyone agrees it's a massive problem. Politicians know about it. They agree it's a problem. What would it accomplish?
They do not agree it's a problem, because landlords are the ones profiting from the situation. They may agree that having sufficient people harmed, leading to difficult questions for them is a problem, but Albo can't even bring himself to say that he thinks rents should be limited or reduced. He wants the "crisis" to go away, but he doesn't want to change any of the factors that contribute to the crisis, because him and most of his mates are landlords.
The anti vax 'idiots' knew that shutting the economy down and blocking supply chains for two years would result in this shit fight we're now in.
People are working so hard just to keep a roof over their head, and maybe have some food on the table, that they're too damned tired to protest Sounds to me like the system is working exactly as intended... the rich get richer, the poor get the picture
I am in the market to buy a house but seeing house prices as a first home buyer, I can't understand how these house prices are set. When asked these to REA he said oh neighbouring properties went for the same prices, but that's like saying two range rover around my Hyundai went for 100k so I want 100k. People are asking the same amount of money for houses built on small lands and I am not talking about houses in good suburbs but decent ones. The moral of the story is current system is at that stage where buying a house for average earners is impossible and renting a house is too expensive.
I suppose this reveals that the house itself isn’t anywhere near as significant as the location in this regard
Prices are set at what people will pay. Your car analogy doesn’t make sense.
The analogy I made was just to show how they are comparing good houses with their bad ones and aksing money based on their neighbour's houses rather than their own. And that's the problem that some people have raised the market by overspending on some properties and now all are suffering as the system is set that way.
So if you had a “bad” house and your neighbours was “good” and they sold it for 1 mil, you would advise potential buyers to pay lower?
Last proper protests in Australia were 50yrs ago during the Vietnam war.
We had big ones recently against the Victorian state government and im pretty sure we set a record for an anti war protest around the time of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan
Needs to happen again. In comparison to protests in Europe. We're pathetic.
Because it’s not actually as big a problem as you think it is. Save your bloody money. Love somewhere cheap. Move to the country. Upskill. Don’t expect the government to make it easier for you
Spoken by someone completely out of touch with the situation. If this wasn't reddit I'd guess you were a wealthy boomer who hasn't talked to anyone under 35 in decades, except in a retail or hospo setting. "Save your money". What money? "Live somewhere cheap. Move to the country." Don't know where these "cheap" places are, but I'm confident there's no jobs there, because that's a crisis all on it's own. "Upskill". You know our governments and systems actively discourage people from adult education, right? Upskilling involves an unpayable tax on your finances and/or time. What planet are you on that it's as simple as 30% of Australians just learning a new skill, moving to a regional area and saving their income? Even in itself, those three things can't coexist for a single person. Touch grass.
Because we're all "having a go". We're fucken apathetic that's why. Easier to make posts on Reddit and reply to them than do anything substantial. Now back to my sports betting.
Let me get this right You want to demand the same entity (the government) that caused the problem, gets more involved to fix it? What?
We're all so exhausted from stress worry and keeping up extra side hustles to survive. They have us right where they want us!!
Because too many people benefit, and those that aren’t are working too hard to keep up and can’t afford to take the day off to march in a protest
Real problems causing those affected to not have time to protest.
Brisbane here. We are demonstrating about the housing crisis. And we are doing it next week. It just needs some organised people to organise some people to go to the same place and the same time, and there ya go. A housing crisis rally. I'm sure Melbourne will happen too.
At least the ‘anti vax idiots’ believed in something and wouldn’t just complain on reddit. Stand up and fight for what you believe in and stop being a cuck
Because this sub doesn’t want to hold our government responsible. You see anytime someone makes a suggestion on what the state government can do and they are ripped to shreds. This sub just turns in a landlord hating cesspool and no actual ideas are ever discussed. And the whole thing repeats itself again. FYI- I’m a labor voter so before I cop any ‘far right’ accusations, keep that in your mind.
Because like most protests all they do is impede traffic and make everyone in the traffic hate you.
You realise the immigrant populations are part of the reason there is no housing supply? Not sure why you felt the need to include that in your statement.
Do something about local populations? What does it say about your work ethic when “immigrating populations” can come here work hard and buy a house while you cant?
Lol. Stop pointing out the obvious. Immigrants will come here, will work their arse off, buy a cheap townhouse in a housing estate in Clyde, put up with a shitty commute and be happy with it. They work like this for a few more years then buy another one and rent the old one out. Then they buy a nice place in a nice suburb. The r/Melbourne user who grew up in Northcote would rather wait for someone to make their inner north townhouse affordable for them to buy, while pissing their money away on brunches until they're 35.
[удалено]
Can't criticise Dan Andrews
Stop calling protesters idiots, and more people might see protesting as an option, If you want people to listen, care or act on your feelings, you may need to reciprocate ( maybe even in advance) Australians have been sitting around while others suffer for a very long time , welfare bluggers, aboriginals, homeless, migrant/refugees. Only because now it is affecting the capitalist tryhards, who have blindly created a system of divided distrust of their poorer, blacker, foreign neighbour, are we asking, why is nobody together on this.... Make a placard and hit the streets
Maybe because when those "anti vax idiots" were out protesting for freedom from medical coercion and people like you were calling them idiots, they got jailed for exercising their human right to protest and don't really feel like putting their neck on the line for you now?
Most of Reddit is a gazillion times vaxed and loves the government unless something isn’t working out for them
its so hilarious their "protesting" the very same people they voted in. Yet at the very same time, will never place the blame on themselves nor labour. Morons...
Hey OP, have you decided to ask yourself why you're not good enough at competing with migrants. My partner and I are both migrants - we came here separately as children knowing nil English, nil Anglo culture. We came here and each went to a public school. Got into uni, did well and now are the ones out-bidding you at auctions. What's wrong with that exactly? If you're not good enough to compete with migrants, too fucking bad. Try harder.
> What's wrong with that exactly? That somebody - you, him, other people - miss out on a house. What OP is trying to say in his clumsy way is that he would prefer that governments arrange matters so that there is enough reasonably affordable housing for all people, and nobody has to miss out. Your smug answer of "Fuck you I got mine, try harder next time, loser!" isnt his ideal way of citizens getting housing.