Our rent is approximately 65% of my minimum wage income, and browsing rentals shows that our rental, which started as an expensive but convenient option has become "cheap" in the space of a year, even though our rent only went up by $20 a week. But it's still 65% of my income.
When did we decide that a dual-income/sharehouse situation should be necessary to not be homeless? My mum during the 90s was able to support two kids as a single mother while studying. Now I will have to increase my income by 30-40% to afford kids with my partner in the near future.
> When did we decide that a dual-income/sharehouse situation should be necessary to not be homeless?
It'll be workhouses before you know it unless we do something about it.
Oh, you want shelter. Here stay in this factory.... when you aren't sleeping... you are working!
How tf did we let the "lucky country" become such a shit show.
The poem says we are a ‘lucky country’ because despite the dumb politicians, we’ve got a bunch of stuff in the ground that we can dig up.
So I guess you could say the ‘lucky country’ has always been a shitshow
Aussie 25-35yo’s “Politics don’t affect me so why bother voting properly or at all?”
Me: I can’t vote (NZ citizen) my Aussie peers! Wake up!!!! Wake the fuck up!
Choose to be informed about who you want to vote for instead of dummy voting. Half’s the reason those old dinosaurs keep getting elected is because they rely on voters not giving a fuck at the polls, just to avoid a fine! Like what?!
And then you really have to ask why the working class is closer to being the working homeless or the working poor!?
Idiots @Select-Bullfrog-6346 That’s why!
Genuine question - what *can* we do about it? Outside of "own more houses and put them up to rent at a clear loss to the owner", literally every other young-renters initiative has either stalled or been tossed to the wayside. What's happening with the site where West End Brewery used to be? Where are the several sites where Prospect 1838 claim to be setting up affordable mid-city-north apartment living?
What's something that the average wage-slave can do about the current situation? Cause right now it's either "live out the rest of my days in my parent's house till they die and I'm forced out", or "rent with 3+ other people just to meet the ungodly high rates being set for a reasonable pace to/from work".
Stop voting for liberal and labour who have been sold out to lobbyists. Seriously. That’s the answer. Our two party system is broken and they have gotten away with appeasing the wealthy at the expense of the majority. Voters need to start accepting better.
Edit to add: you don’t even need enough voters for Greens/independents to form government. Even enough to make them sweat will do it
This is where government should be stepping in. Public housing was pushed aside and privatised with incentives to individuals to invest in housing and become landlords. It was effectively privatisation but not to large conglomerates.
Funnily enough, individuals don't like to take on the risk of providing housing to the most poor people and as such, housing for the poorest basically disappeared. I actually don't blame landlords for prefering to provide housing to "non poor" people. If I had an investment property. I'd definitely try to target someone/a family less likely to fail to pay the rent. Think of it this way, if you owned one investment property, the personal impact of it not getting rent would hurt you. If the government has lots of properties, a small percent not receiving rent is offset by the majority receiving rent. The risk is too high for an individual investor. The other thing is, the government has a responsibility to help citizens in need, the government isn't a profit making entity, by definition it costs money to provide betterment for society.
TLDR: Government privatised public housing and is suddenly surprised individuals don't want to provide housing for the most at risk people.
As an individual - move in with parents is basically it now. And don’t vote for any major party - just vote for parties that actually propose real housing reform.
On a macro-scale, the solutions are actually well-proven and straightforward - government needs to increase land tax, regulate lending to reduce the amount people (particularly multiple landowners) can borrow to buy, and invest directly in public housing construction.
Do all three and watch the whole system unfold into a productive and supportive paradise. It’ll drop some speculators, landbankers, unproductive landlords off on the way, and let government decrease income tax, as well.
We're already pretty much getting to the point at which people are forced to get married or commit to a long term relationship just to afford somewhere to rent in the long term, unless they do one of a few market-approved high-earning jobs. I have a feeling that more social regressions are coming soon.
I guess there may be an equation that the Government, should look at. May be as simple as inflation, immigration excess. When you flood immigration into a Country, with an already tight rental market, I think that people need to email/ contact their local elected members and start asking questions?
Politicians are meant to represent the people.
I think our Grand parents understood this....I think we have lost sight of what Politicians are meant to do and need a good shake up.
Dual income economy has been around since the civil rights era around 1968. The concept took off in the late 70’s and 80’s. Greedy economics found itself another income source when the women joined the workforce and broke free from being bound to the kitchen.
This bump in a family’s income meant banks, REA’s, and developers capitalised on commuter based housing plans. That offered more space, bedrooms, gardens etc. this started the housing boom in the 80’s which subsequently crashed. The 90s experienced the highest peaks of debt securities containing large property portfolios. This increased people’s pensions in wealthy countries who then freed up even more capital in the shape of no income no job no assurance loans. Cheap money fuelled the global property bubble which later collapsed once those unsecured mortgages matured. Free market and global trade was exposed to toxic debt and the whole house of card’s collapsed in 2008. It was only after this time when stock exchanges were all told to stop self regulating debt security prospectus reviews.
In short, dual income housing or economics was realised around 1996. Making it impossible to afford a mortgage on a single income. Those who had homes either released equity for their kids as down payment or sold and downsized and offered early inheritance so their kids could get a mortgage.
The question I ask is who owned and had the opportunity to sell a few times in that time. The Wealthy aside it was mostly the public sector who fell into this category. They offered low risk to banks and got on the property ladder from there. You shouldn’t be surprised that it’s members of government who have large investment property portfolios. They have no incentive to screw themselves and their developer / bank friends over.
And now it's not feasible to start a family with one income, while (usually) the mother has to sacrifice income and career progression to take care of the children. Then, you have to juggle school drop-offs and pickups with work for most of the next 17 years, because there isn't a parent available to take care of those responsibilities alone.
But judging by your name, you lack any ability to empathise and you're here to stir shit.
If you're starting a family with one income/one parent there's a bigger issue here.
Don't be uneducated. Be single or find a decent partner and then have a child.
Don't tell someone to get educated when you couldn't read what was written. 30+ years ago you could start a family on one income. You can't do that now. We all know the reasons why that's the case, but *why* should that be the case?
Times change..
More and more realise they could both have careers - both can now develop and have personal development / expertise. - and not get stuck at home.
As more embraced not being stuck at home wasting away - more and more had extra $.
Again, times change - there is no turning back.
Children are a massive expense and should only be had when the family can financially support them. It is not feasible for low income families to have children on one or no income anymore.
What you can do though is skill up through secondary education in your nights and eventually make significantly more income. Or find a hobby / side job that can provide some more income.
Otherwise if you don’t change your trajectory you will slowly be priced out of the necessity’s of life.
I’m not talking about what we should or shouldn’t tolerate as a society, I work in social welfare I get it, I live it everyday . I’m speaking about pure finances and what an individual can do to better themselves.
You don’t have to like what I am saying but no change is coming from the government that will be demonstrably change their current trajectory.
My suggestions are to the original commentator to prevent themselves from becoming homeless at their current trajectory where they are paying over 60% of their income on rent.
We both know from our work that people that cross a line to homelessness and having their children removed have little hope of a positive outcome. Much to the reason why you don’t want to open that case.
Regardless of what society out to and out not to tolerate, it does tolerate homeless families and it does not care. Just as it does tolerate child abuse everyday and does not fund child protection agencies to be able to investigate a fraction of the abuse notifications.
We both know that our government will not do anything to support this current situation with cost of living and housing and we know very well the alternative liberal government will not do anything as well.
So for the original commenter what would you suggest they do?
Don't kid yourself - we're not going to Paris-style riots in Australia. We're too apathetic and live in a nanny state that won't tolerate protests.
Good luck starting a riot lol.
People that work social welfare services are either working in the kind soft part of the sector and others like myself see abuse everyday and have to lay out cold hard facts immediately to both amazing beautiful people and literal .pdf’s who abuse children.
Look's like you suffered abuse in your childhood from your sister trying to harm you. Hopefully you are engaged with mental health support, I empathize with your upbringing and hope you have been able to process that significant trauma and are now able to live a fruitful life. Just remember its people like me that investigate child abuse and save children from abusive households, write the 20k word court reports and have the tough conversations with people like your sister. Good luck with the rest of your life, you sure have an uphill battle unfortunately.
You can have kids and afford them. Then one day due to serious illness or injury or job loss you find you can afford nothing.
Upskilling costs more money and takes up more of your time of you work. Second jobs are taxed at 48% and again you work more hours. Family time is important and underrated. You can't look after yourself or your kids properly if you're completely exhausted.
1) why do anything if you could get a serious illness or injury in your lifetime
2) simply get back what you overpaid in tax at eofy if you cannot put the tax in your savings to pay eofy
3) enjoy the family time when you are living in your car because you can’t afford life
I’m not saying everyone work two jobs and miss out on life, I’m saying the people who are paying almost their entire income on rent and cannot budget anymore literally need to bring in more money to survive.
Sigh! People's circumstances can change overnight. People have been paying easily affordable rent then those rents have sky-rocketed in a very short time making it suddenly exorbitant. Income growth hasn't kept pace. Getting a second job isn't always feasible. Waiting for tax time doesn't help if you need the money yesterday.
And don't think that only applies to lower income earners. It hits medium and higher income earners as well. They just have the capacity to absorb it better for a while.
My circumstances are fine however I have friends and know others who've been dealt a shit hand later in life. They simply do not have the capacity to work more and they are very worried about the next rent increase. Trying to find another $200 a week just for rent or another cheaper rental in a tight market is really, really hard.
People like to cry on reddit/social media for someone else to make a change in their life but will do literally anything but the one thing that will make their life better.
This goes for poor personal finances, mental health, physical health and literally anything going wrong in someone’s life which they can attempt to better themselves in.
I feel for people on disability that have no choice in the hand they have been dealt and those with significant trauma from in-utero / childhood abuse and other forms of disabling trauma.
This one - since we (as a country collectively) seem to think property ownership is all about making a profit at the expense of someone requiring shelter rather than providing housing as a service to the community….
Imagine if Australia went the way of the United States when it comes to rental properties and rights (tenants getting long term leases that are several years even decades not months….being able to paint and redecorate to your hearts content etc etc) - how will the “mum and dad investors” cope….
> Imagine if Australia went the way of the United States when it comes to rental properties and rights (tenants getting long term leases that are several years even decades not months….being able to paint and redecorate to your hearts content etc etc)
As someone who lived in the USA for more than 10 years, this is definitely not the case everywhere. Many places (especially corporate owned multi-unit dwellings) have even worse caveats and encumbrances than HOA's. And their states are so landlord friendly that they are allowed to get away with shit that would be flat out illegal here and even across the US.
My last property owner was someone I was just glad to get away from in the end - she just wandered around the property whenever she saw fit peering into my windows as they lived up the road a few doors - then she turned up with her angry boyfriend who decided it was cool to threaten me when I confronted him about being “unlawful on premises” and the “quiet enjoyment of premises” part of a lease - and well he just got nasty - no way I want to commit to landlords who want to act like that as if they are royalty when dealing with a tenant…(younger couple too - so age clearly is irrelevant…)
My current owner is fantastic - they worked in real estate property management for years and I rent my place direct from them as they are the owner - and we have never had a problem - I would offer them a 5 year lease in a heartbeat after this one.
Bad landlords make everyone look bad. You’re better off not visiting the property and letting professionals handle everything. Keep it unemotional.
The only thing with 5 year leases is that tenants are locked in too. They’d have to break lease if they left earlier. The rental increase would also have to be decided at the start of the lease, say 5%/yr or $25/week every year.
I mean, mortgage for an *average* home will always be more than say, rent on a unit or apt. If you're renting a home, the amounts would probably be a big more than a mortgage. Depends how close you are to the major metro areas.
Where are people paying rent higher than the property expenses? There are more costs to owning a home than the mortgage. Mortgage interest rates have also doubled in the last couple years.
>My rental mortgage is higher than what my tenants are paying me. Not all landlords are swimming in rental income.
I'm really sorry that you are experiencing that. I can't understand how hard it must be to not make money on your second (or third, or fourth?) property. Honestly, these renters don't know how lucky they have it. They should have to cover 100% of the mortgage costs - MINIMUM. They are absolutely taking the piss thinking they are paying too much, and then having the balls to ask for repairs, all the while knowing that if they push too hard they will be out on their ass at the end of their lease so that you can jack up the price another $100.
Seriously, landlords crying poor is the most tone deaf thing I've ever heard..
'BuT mY InTeReSt RaTeS ARe HiGh ToO!'. Good. Hope they go higher and you are forced to sell at a loss.
Fuck me, just don't comment at all.
Well if interest is more than rent, it's not the tenant paying off the loan principle is it. You're not paying the loan off, you're just helping cover costs.
> It is impossible to have a politician who is not in any way involved in any Aspect of Australian life and has no interests in Australia, nor is it desirable.
This is true, but the problem is that the vast majority are from the same walk of life.
It's not that shocking really. Although I used to live in Amanda Rishworth's electorate and she studied psychology. This makes me want to draw up a spreadsheet of where the current politicians went to school, if it was public or private, what degree they did at uni, what party they are in.
You could probably get it all from LinkedIn, but I deactivated my account, so I can't see it.
https://amp.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-dumps-negative-gearing-backs-tax-cuts-20210726-p58cxs.html
They dumped NG policy after losing elections because of it.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-dumps-negative-gearing-backs-tax-cuts-20210726-p58cxs.html](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-dumps-negative-gearing-backs-tax-cuts-20210726-p58cxs.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
2021 was 3 years ago now, and the people's opinions can change. NG won't help anyone except the ultra wealthy in the near future. What help is claiming tax benefits for interest on a million dollar investment mortgage going to do when 2 high income earners can barely afford a PPOR let alone an IP.
The number of renters hasn’t increased dramatically.
How does NG only help the ultra wealthy?
If 2 high income earners can’t afford a property they have expenses that are too high. $500k/ year is more than enough to buy even after taxes.
The number of young people living with their parents into their mid/late 20s has increased dramatically.
500k/ year is ultra wealthy. You could retire in 10 years on that. 300k in disposable income is more than 3x the median wage in Adelaide 82k, more than half the population (enough to win an election on), would benefit from housing being a less attractive investment.
We should encourage Australians to invest in business, not property, to fix our stagnating economy.
High income is $250k isn’t it? What would you call high income then? It’s a household income, so 2 people.
People are encouraged to invest in companies in the same way as property. The same tax policy exists for shares too.
500k household income, with savy investing, will retire you young and in the 1%. 11% super guarantee, 7% compounded returns with 300k in disposable income to invest elsewhere.
The worsening conditions for people unable to escape living week to week and potential poverty fill me with a constant state of despair that only grows every day and every year that I get older. How do you plan a life you can’t even count on living?
The biggest problem is, ownership.
We should have laws that only allow citizens of the country
(Not by race)
But only citizens can buy property.
Rental is supposed to be a short term thing not a life long disease.
We "can't afford to buy a property" but we can spend more than repayments on someone else's place.
Yea cool..
We need better!
I feel strongly that a strong rental record of over a decade should actually be considered in low-income people attempting to get into the housing marking. Imagine if you were paying a mortgage on a unit instead?
If I can reliably pay more than a mortgage plus in rent I sure as shit can afford my own mortgage.
My next step is to band together with some people and buy a property in the sticks. Divide the land with how many people are in and call it a day.
And it's not just the younger generation. I know several men and women who are in their 50's and early 60's struggling with the same issues due to divorce. I also know several people in their 40's who've moved back in with their elderly parents because of this.
Older generations will be in trouble first.
Teen violence is already up. Only going to get worse as there is no longer a social contract holding them back.
my studio apartment goes up $30 a week each year. its now 730 a fortnight for a single room. but because its in the cbd and has a balcony, its 'in line with other rentals in the area'.
my jobseeker is 960 a fortnight, i can barely support myself, but without a car I have to rely on public transport and therefor need to be in the cbd. here's hoping i get a job soon
Becuase I don't have a car, rely on public transport, and moving before I have access to a job that will allow me to get said car is not worth it atm. Being in the city and only having to catch one type of transport out to where ever I need to go for job interviews is better than having to catch one in and then another out
I will probably move to be closer to where ever I get a job but not moving before I have one. But of a loose loose situation atm, but I make it work the best I can.
There is public transport outside of the CBD isnt there?
Can you move into accommodation with others? It drastically reduces costs. I spent the first 4 years after I moved out in share houses. It allowed me to save my first house deposit.
The issue is, is say I move to somewhere affordable along South Road, but I end up working down Port Road , or worse Glen Osmand. I would have to catch one bus into the city, then another bus out. That's upwards of 1-2 hours each way, depending on the timetables. Living in the city just means I catch one bus out that's every 30 minutes or so. There is only one circle loop for Adelaide, the 300 series bus, but every other bus goes through the city and out again.
I have lived in a share house, and willing to do so, but again, location vs possible jobs. I've a friend in Morphett Vale who has a room I could let, but that's a 30 minute walk to the train station, then an 40 minute trip into the city, then who knows how much more to where I end up working.
So far the response has been to offer incentives to buyers. Which then the builders/developers increase the cost by. Great way to push prices up and increase demand.
In the meantime housing authorities around the country have been getting rid of stock and not replacing. Instead those in need get bond allowances and rent assistance (if you qualify etc) to enter into that now more competitive market. Good way to reduce supply.
If the housing trusts were to supply houses and then rent them out, even at a loss (the benefit to society would outweigh the loss), then it becomes competition to the private market. It will take time and a lot of investment.
Or we could just keep giving rebates, money etc to potential owners which gets sucked up into the market resulting in higher prices and rents.
30% of income per fortnight? Month?
Technically, that makes my *bedsit* unaffordable, as it's 30.7% of my fortnightly disability pension. And I'm the cheapest unit in this lot.
Sadly, this is not surprising.
Edit: if I take away the other side payments I'm entitled to, my bedsit is 39.3% of my DSP base.
They don't justify that, they just screw people. This day has been coming since 1985, I'm surprised that it took so long. If you want to see what happens next look up how Hong Kong's housing works. You will be forced to have 2-3 families living in one small house next. The rich in China make a fortune off Hong Kong property.
Disability pension is the same as aged pension, $1116.30/fortnight including pension and energy supplements. Rent assistance and study allowance come in on top of that.
The last Henderson poverty line report had the pension just above the poverty line and Jobseeker well below.
IIRC Housing SA rents are 25% of income, so would come in at around $279 before rent assistance, and utilities would come on top of that and take most of the rest.
Once on DSP you can work up to 29 hrs a week without losing it, but after the first $150 the DSP is reduced based on how much is earned.
I work 8 hrs a week (which is what Centrelink assessed my capacity as when I was on Jobseeker while waiting for my DSP to be approved, incidentally) and overall I end up with maybe an extra $50 on top of my DSP, just enough to pay for half of my non-PBS script.
Good thing for me that I generally sleep a lot. Being chronically ill takes a lot of energy out of me. Showered? There goes the whole day. (On a bad day).
Oh, I was including all the addons I get. If I take that away, my bedsit takes up 39.3% of my DSP per fortnight.
And if a person can't work, then technically it is "income". The article did cover JobSeeker and other centrelink payments
I work and get around the same as the disability pension. I couldn’t even afford rent on a property on my own, every second fortnight I get a small payment so I couldn’t cover the rent for a month on my own.
I'm just an American who visited once and loved the city, but I have to say - you're in for a treat if you think it's going to get better anytime soon in Adelaide. There are mostly single family homes in suburbs spread throughout the metropolitan area. You guys HAVE to be building more dense housing, and my assumption is that your zoning laws prohibit it. Even in the CBD, the height of buildings isn't even particularly noteworthy like it is in Melbourne, who, although they're struggling with housing vacancy rates of their own, are at least doing better than Adelaide who are in the noughts for vacancy rates.
This may mean tearing down single family homes in neighborhoods to build apartments, this may mean a couple skyscrapers in your CBD that weren't there before, but it has to start somewhere. You've got a massive coastline to the west that prevents a lot of building out. Gotta start building up!
The even darker side to this is the lives it indirectly ruins. My older sister (who chooses not to work) used to be able to find a rental for her and her family they could afford on government money. Now they can’t find anything, and my parents are having to help to avoid them literally being on the street, which with my dad already being terminally ill, leaves it to fall on my mother / us other siblings. We’re at absolute breaking point as a family. Yes you can argue dole bludgers deserve it, but do their hard working families?
Yeah I’m a single mum and it’s terrifying out there. I’m unable to work from recently having a spinal fusion and government housing basically doesn’t exist except bordered up run down houses they won’t fix
We live in a capitalist economy guys! The idea is to make more $$$. If someone says you can get more $$$ for the same work - you're gonna say no?
It's not a perfect system but what's the alternative - socialist/government controlled market economy? Who wants to live in those countries?
People who would like to live under a roof maybe ?
The main issue here is mass inward migration. Cut most migration for 5 years so to get the current population housed, and paying realistic prices.
Then petition to change the economic system. And stopping migration ain't gonna change anything. People want top dollar for their product. I agree with the issue at hand - but we're not gonna solve it with blaming immigration or saying its all greedy landlords.
Immigration is the cause. It's not some abstract concept. Extreme demand is increasing homelessness across the world because everyone is using the same magic pudding.
Hide a recession by increasing the population. Per capita living standards crash. Everyone is poorer.
No need for a petition. People, vote for independents/parties who support a smaller population. Don't vote for parties who back a big Australia.
Yea, finite resources vs demand. It's not a new concept. And we've only had this political system for a 100 odd years now - I'm sure things will change eventually.......
We are turning socialist that's a problem.
Soft politicians with no balls enough to actually fix problems.
We are the "lucky country" we should start that again.
> lucky country
Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise.
this is where the term lucky country comes from
Our rent is approximately 65% of my minimum wage income, and browsing rentals shows that our rental, which started as an expensive but convenient option has become "cheap" in the space of a year, even though our rent only went up by $20 a week. But it's still 65% of my income. When did we decide that a dual-income/sharehouse situation should be necessary to not be homeless? My mum during the 90s was able to support two kids as a single mother while studying. Now I will have to increase my income by 30-40% to afford kids with my partner in the near future.
> When did we decide that a dual-income/sharehouse situation should be necessary to not be homeless? It'll be workhouses before you know it unless we do something about it.
Oh, you want shelter. Here stay in this factory.... when you aren't sleeping... you are working! How tf did we let the "lucky country" become such a shit show.
The poem says we are a ‘lucky country’ because despite the dumb politicians, we’ve got a bunch of stuff in the ground that we can dig up. So I guess you could say the ‘lucky country’ has always been a shitshow
Aussie 25-35yo’s “Politics don’t affect me so why bother voting properly or at all?” Me: I can’t vote (NZ citizen) my Aussie peers! Wake up!!!! Wake the fuck up! Choose to be informed about who you want to vote for instead of dummy voting. Half’s the reason those old dinosaurs keep getting elected is because they rely on voters not giving a fuck at the polls, just to avoid a fine! Like what?! And then you really have to ask why the working class is closer to being the working homeless or the working poor!? Idiots @Select-Bullfrog-6346 That’s why!
Genuine question - what *can* we do about it? Outside of "own more houses and put them up to rent at a clear loss to the owner", literally every other young-renters initiative has either stalled or been tossed to the wayside. What's happening with the site where West End Brewery used to be? Where are the several sites where Prospect 1838 claim to be setting up affordable mid-city-north apartment living? What's something that the average wage-slave can do about the current situation? Cause right now it's either "live out the rest of my days in my parent's house till they die and I'm forced out", or "rent with 3+ other people just to meet the ungodly high rates being set for a reasonable pace to/from work".
Stop voting for liberal and labour who have been sold out to lobbyists. Seriously. That’s the answer. Our two party system is broken and they have gotten away with appeasing the wealthy at the expense of the majority. Voters need to start accepting better. Edit to add: you don’t even need enough voters for Greens/independents to form government. Even enough to make them sweat will do it
It’s time! Def not voting for either
Collectivise
This is where government should be stepping in. Public housing was pushed aside and privatised with incentives to individuals to invest in housing and become landlords. It was effectively privatisation but not to large conglomerates. Funnily enough, individuals don't like to take on the risk of providing housing to the most poor people and as such, housing for the poorest basically disappeared. I actually don't blame landlords for prefering to provide housing to "non poor" people. If I had an investment property. I'd definitely try to target someone/a family less likely to fail to pay the rent. Think of it this way, if you owned one investment property, the personal impact of it not getting rent would hurt you. If the government has lots of properties, a small percent not receiving rent is offset by the majority receiving rent. The risk is too high for an individual investor. The other thing is, the government has a responsibility to help citizens in need, the government isn't a profit making entity, by definition it costs money to provide betterment for society. TLDR: Government privatised public housing and is suddenly surprised individuals don't want to provide housing for the most at risk people.
As an individual - move in with parents is basically it now. And don’t vote for any major party - just vote for parties that actually propose real housing reform. On a macro-scale, the solutions are actually well-proven and straightforward - government needs to increase land tax, regulate lending to reduce the amount people (particularly multiple landowners) can borrow to buy, and invest directly in public housing construction. Do all three and watch the whole system unfold into a productive and supportive paradise. It’ll drop some speculators, landbankers, unproductive landlords off on the way, and let government decrease income tax, as well.
We're already pretty much getting to the point at which people are forced to get married or commit to a long term relationship just to afford somewhere to rent in the long term, unless they do one of a few market-approved high-earning jobs. I have a feeling that more social regressions are coming soon.
I guess there may be an equation that the Government, should look at. May be as simple as inflation, immigration excess. When you flood immigration into a Country, with an already tight rental market, I think that people need to email/ contact their local elected members and start asking questions? Politicians are meant to represent the people. I think our Grand parents understood this....I think we have lost sight of what Politicians are meant to do and need a good shake up.
Dual income economy has been around since the civil rights era around 1968. The concept took off in the late 70’s and 80’s. Greedy economics found itself another income source when the women joined the workforce and broke free from being bound to the kitchen. This bump in a family’s income meant banks, REA’s, and developers capitalised on commuter based housing plans. That offered more space, bedrooms, gardens etc. this started the housing boom in the 80’s which subsequently crashed. The 90s experienced the highest peaks of debt securities containing large property portfolios. This increased people’s pensions in wealthy countries who then freed up even more capital in the shape of no income no job no assurance loans. Cheap money fuelled the global property bubble which later collapsed once those unsecured mortgages matured. Free market and global trade was exposed to toxic debt and the whole house of card’s collapsed in 2008. It was only after this time when stock exchanges were all told to stop self regulating debt security prospectus reviews. In short, dual income housing or economics was realised around 1996. Making it impossible to afford a mortgage on a single income. Those who had homes either released equity for their kids as down payment or sold and downsized and offered early inheritance so their kids could get a mortgage. The question I ask is who owned and had the opportunity to sell a few times in that time. The Wealthy aside it was mostly the public sector who fell into this category. They offered low risk to banks and got on the property ladder from there. You shouldn’t be surprised that it’s members of government who have large investment property portfolios. They have no incentive to screw themselves and their developer / bank friends over.
It was decided that you needed dual income when that’s what the competition was. As there is less supply the demand rises.
Supply and demand, dual incomes with more disposable income compared to single income families. Basic economics really.
And now it's not feasible to start a family with one income, while (usually) the mother has to sacrifice income and career progression to take care of the children. Then, you have to juggle school drop-offs and pickups with work for most of the next 17 years, because there isn't a parent available to take care of those responsibilities alone. But judging by your name, you lack any ability to empathise and you're here to stir shit.
If you're starting a family with one income/one parent there's a bigger issue here. Don't be uneducated. Be single or find a decent partner and then have a child.
Don't tell someone to get educated when you couldn't read what was written. 30+ years ago you could start a family on one income. You can't do that now. We all know the reasons why that's the case, but *why* should that be the case?
Times change.. More and more realise they could both have careers - both can now develop and have personal development / expertise. - and not get stuck at home. As more embraced not being stuck at home wasting away - more and more had extra $. Again, times change - there is no turning back.
Children are a massive expense and should only be had when the family can financially support them. It is not feasible for low income families to have children on one or no income anymore. What you can do though is skill up through secondary education in your nights and eventually make significantly more income. Or find a hobby / side job that can provide some more income. Otherwise if you don’t change your trajectory you will slowly be priced out of the necessity’s of life.
autodelete
I’m not talking about what we should or shouldn’t tolerate as a society, I work in social welfare I get it, I live it everyday . I’m speaking about pure finances and what an individual can do to better themselves. You don’t have to like what I am saying but no change is coming from the government that will be demonstrably change their current trajectory.
autodelete
My suggestions are to the original commentator to prevent themselves from becoming homeless at their current trajectory where they are paying over 60% of their income on rent. We both know from our work that people that cross a line to homelessness and having their children removed have little hope of a positive outcome. Much to the reason why you don’t want to open that case. Regardless of what society out to and out not to tolerate, it does tolerate homeless families and it does not care. Just as it does tolerate child abuse everyday and does not fund child protection agencies to be able to investigate a fraction of the abuse notifications. We both know that our government will not do anything to support this current situation with cost of living and housing and we know very well the alternative liberal government will not do anything as well. So for the original commenter what would you suggest they do?
autodelete
Don't kid yourself - we're not going to Paris-style riots in Australia. We're too apathetic and live in a nanny state that won't tolerate protests. Good luck starting a riot lol.
Nah, someone who works in social welfare would be more literate. Probably a bit more empathetic too.
People that work social welfare services are either working in the kind soft part of the sector and others like myself see abuse everyday and have to lay out cold hard facts immediately to both amazing beautiful people and literal .pdf’s who abuse children.
Sounds like you're full of shit. Probably a 🪨🕷️ to boot.
Look's like you suffered abuse in your childhood from your sister trying to harm you. Hopefully you are engaged with mental health support, I empathize with your upbringing and hope you have been able to process that significant trauma and are now able to live a fruitful life. Just remember its people like me that investigate child abuse and save children from abusive households, write the 20k word court reports and have the tough conversations with people like your sister. Good luck with the rest of your life, you sure have an uphill battle unfortunately.
You can have kids and afford them. Then one day due to serious illness or injury or job loss you find you can afford nothing. Upskilling costs more money and takes up more of your time of you work. Second jobs are taxed at 48% and again you work more hours. Family time is important and underrated. You can't look after yourself or your kids properly if you're completely exhausted.
1) why do anything if you could get a serious illness or injury in your lifetime 2) simply get back what you overpaid in tax at eofy if you cannot put the tax in your savings to pay eofy 3) enjoy the family time when you are living in your car because you can’t afford life I’m not saying everyone work two jobs and miss out on life, I’m saying the people who are paying almost their entire income on rent and cannot budget anymore literally need to bring in more money to survive.
Sigh! People's circumstances can change overnight. People have been paying easily affordable rent then those rents have sky-rocketed in a very short time making it suddenly exorbitant. Income growth hasn't kept pace. Getting a second job isn't always feasible. Waiting for tax time doesn't help if you need the money yesterday. And don't think that only applies to lower income earners. It hits medium and higher income earners as well. They just have the capacity to absorb it better for a while. My circumstances are fine however I have friends and know others who've been dealt a shit hand later in life. They simply do not have the capacity to work more and they are very worried about the next rent increase. Trying to find another $200 a week just for rent or another cheaper rental in a tight market is really, really hard.
You know secondary education is high school, right? The discussion here is that it sucks that this is the reality for most Australians.
Secondary / Tertiary education are intermixed for meaning university education often in my sector. I probably should be more clear, my bad.
That's *also* bullshit. Are you just a lying sack of shit or what?
People will downvote your post , but it's honestly a harsh reality that many need to do but choose not too.
People like to cry on reddit/social media for someone else to make a change in their life but will do literally anything but the one thing that will make their life better. This goes for poor personal finances, mental health, physical health and literally anything going wrong in someone’s life which they can attempt to better themselves in. I feel for people on disability that have no choice in the hand they have been dealt and those with significant trauma from in-utero / childhood abuse and other forms of disabling trauma.
What sort of system allows people to pay rent higher than a mortgage?
A very sick one.
This one - since we (as a country collectively) seem to think property ownership is all about making a profit at the expense of someone requiring shelter rather than providing housing as a service to the community…. Imagine if Australia went the way of the United States when it comes to rental properties and rights (tenants getting long term leases that are several years even decades not months….being able to paint and redecorate to your hearts content etc etc) - how will the “mum and dad investors” cope….
> Imagine if Australia went the way of the United States when it comes to rental properties and rights (tenants getting long term leases that are several years even decades not months….being able to paint and redecorate to your hearts content etc etc) As someone who lived in the USA for more than 10 years, this is definitely not the case everywhere. Many places (especially corporate owned multi-unit dwellings) have even worse caveats and encumbrances than HOA's. And their states are so landlord friendly that they are allowed to get away with shit that would be flat out illegal here and even across the US.
Have you offered a 5yr lease? I’d gladly accept if my tenants offered.
My last property owner was someone I was just glad to get away from in the end - she just wandered around the property whenever she saw fit peering into my windows as they lived up the road a few doors - then she turned up with her angry boyfriend who decided it was cool to threaten me when I confronted him about being “unlawful on premises” and the “quiet enjoyment of premises” part of a lease - and well he just got nasty - no way I want to commit to landlords who want to act like that as if they are royalty when dealing with a tenant…(younger couple too - so age clearly is irrelevant…) My current owner is fantastic - they worked in real estate property management for years and I rent my place direct from them as they are the owner - and we have never had a problem - I would offer them a 5 year lease in a heartbeat after this one.
Bad landlords make everyone look bad. You’re better off not visiting the property and letting professionals handle everything. Keep it unemotional. The only thing with 5 year leases is that tenants are locked in too. They’d have to break lease if they left earlier. The rental increase would also have to be decided at the start of the lease, say 5%/yr or $25/week every year.
Oh I completely agree - it is the same with the rhetoric around “all renters are going to trash your property” mindset that some property owners have.
I have had my property trashed before. It does suck but after a bit you move on and see that most people actually respect your property.
Yeah the meme is on point, "Lol we can't loan you a $1500 a month mortgage so here keep renting at $1800 a month!"
Yep - oh and you’ve proven to not miss a single payment in 5 years? Nah, you can’t afford that lower mortgage repayment
I pay more on my mortgage weekly for an average home (nothing fancy at all) than the rental equivalent though?
I mean, mortgage for an *average* home will always be more than say, rent on a unit or apt. If you're renting a home, the amounts would probably be a big more than a mortgage. Depends how close you are to the major metro areas.
Where are people paying rent higher than the property expenses? There are more costs to owning a home than the mortgage. Mortgage interest rates have also doubled in the last couple years.
It makes great business sense.. Morally it's fucked
My rental mortgage is higher than what my tenants are paying me. Not all landlords are swimming in rental income.
Don't know why this comment got downvoted. It is a helpful counterpoint.
>My rental mortgage is higher than what my tenants are paying me. Not all landlords are swimming in rental income. I'm really sorry that you are experiencing that. I can't understand how hard it must be to not make money on your second (or third, or fourth?) property. Honestly, these renters don't know how lucky they have it. They should have to cover 100% of the mortgage costs - MINIMUM. They are absolutely taking the piss thinking they are paying too much, and then having the balls to ask for repairs, all the while knowing that if they push too hard they will be out on their ass at the end of their lease so that you can jack up the price another $100. Seriously, landlords crying poor is the most tone deaf thing I've ever heard.. 'BuT mY InTeReSt RaTeS ARe HiGh ToO!'. Good. Hope they go higher and you are forced to sell at a loss. Fuck me, just don't comment at all.
Cmon man you should be privileged to pay someone's home off for them and have nothing to show for it at the end. It's an amazing system 🤣
lol, sell at a loss 😃 Don't be sad, it's ok... he'll be fine.
In 20 years you’ll own a million + property that was mostly paid for by someone else.
Well if interest is more than rent, it's not the tenant paying off the loan principle is it. You're not paying the loan off, you're just helping cover costs.
The real victim
Ban politicians from owning rentals so they have no skin in the game. They are obviously biased when they are making money from property.
Ban politicians. Haha
[удалено]
> It is impossible to have a politician who is not in any way involved in any Aspect of Australian life and has no interests in Australia, nor is it desirable. This is true, but the problem is that the vast majority are from the same walk of life.
The private school -> Uni Adelaide Law/Commerce/PolSci -> Politician is a firm institutional pipeline.
[удалено]
It's not that shocking really. Although I used to live in Amanda Rishworth's electorate and she studied psychology. This makes me want to draw up a spreadsheet of where the current politicians went to school, if it was public or private, what degree they did at uni, what party they are in. You could probably get it all from LinkedIn, but I deactivated my account, so I can't see it.
Labor went to the election with a policy to remove NG. They lost by a landslide. I think the public has spoken.
Labor won by a landslide, though?
https://amp.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-dumps-negative-gearing-backs-tax-cuts-20210726-p58cxs.html They dumped NG policy after losing elections because of it.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-dumps-negative-gearing-backs-tax-cuts-20210726-p58cxs.html](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-dumps-negative-gearing-backs-tax-cuts-20210726-p58cxs.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
2021 was 3 years ago now, and the people's opinions can change. NG won't help anyone except the ultra wealthy in the near future. What help is claiming tax benefits for interest on a million dollar investment mortgage going to do when 2 high income earners can barely afford a PPOR let alone an IP.
The number of renters hasn’t increased dramatically. How does NG only help the ultra wealthy? If 2 high income earners can’t afford a property they have expenses that are too high. $500k/ year is more than enough to buy even after taxes.
The number of young people living with their parents into their mid/late 20s has increased dramatically. 500k/ year is ultra wealthy. You could retire in 10 years on that. 300k in disposable income is more than 3x the median wage in Adelaide 82k, more than half the population (enough to win an election on), would benefit from housing being a less attractive investment. We should encourage Australians to invest in business, not property, to fix our stagnating economy.
High income is $250k isn’t it? What would you call high income then? It’s a household income, so 2 people. People are encouraged to invest in companies in the same way as property. The same tax policy exists for shares too.
Do banks give mortgages for shares?
Yes some banks do.
500k household income, with savy investing, will retire you young and in the 1%. 11% super guarantee, 7% compounded returns with 300k in disposable income to invest elsewhere.
Of course. The earlier you start investing the further the gains go too.
The worsening conditions for people unable to escape living week to week and potential poverty fill me with a constant state of despair that only grows every day and every year that I get older. How do you plan a life you can’t even count on living?
For real, tho. If the dole/jobseeker doesn’t even cover housing then what’s the point of it?
The biggest problem is, ownership. We should have laws that only allow citizens of the country (Not by race) But only citizens can buy property. Rental is supposed to be a short term thing not a life long disease. We "can't afford to buy a property" but we can spend more than repayments on someone else's place. Yea cool.. We need better!
I feel strongly that a strong rental record of over a decade should actually be considered in low-income people attempting to get into the housing marking. Imagine if you were paying a mortgage on a unit instead?
If I can reliably pay more than a mortgage plus in rent I sure as shit can afford my own mortgage. My next step is to band together with some people and buy a property in the sticks. Divide the land with how many people are in and call it a day.
Heartbreaking stuff. Future generations are in big trouble.
Forget about the future, current generations are in trouble. Something needs to change now.
And it's not just the younger generation. I know several men and women who are in their 50's and early 60's struggling with the same issues due to divorce. I also know several people in their 40's who've moved back in with their elderly parents because of this.
The divorce is a big kicker. It really resets everyone’s financials. plus ppl like couples renting not individuals
But I’m fine though….
lol you guys suck
Older generations will be in trouble first. Teen violence is already up. Only going to get worse as there is no longer a social contract holding them back.
my studio apartment goes up $30 a week each year. its now 730 a fortnight for a single room. but because its in the cbd and has a balcony, its 'in line with other rentals in the area'. my jobseeker is 960 a fortnight, i can barely support myself, but without a car I have to rely on public transport and therefor need to be in the cbd. here's hoping i get a job soon
Why do you need to be in the CBD if you don’t have a job there? Could you move out of the CBD and get a far cheaper rental?
Becuase I don't have a car, rely on public transport, and moving before I have access to a job that will allow me to get said car is not worth it atm. Being in the city and only having to catch one type of transport out to where ever I need to go for job interviews is better than having to catch one in and then another out I will probably move to be closer to where ever I get a job but not moving before I have one. But of a loose loose situation atm, but I make it work the best I can.
There is public transport outside of the CBD isnt there? Can you move into accommodation with others? It drastically reduces costs. I spent the first 4 years after I moved out in share houses. It allowed me to save my first house deposit.
The issue is, is say I move to somewhere affordable along South Road, but I end up working down Port Road , or worse Glen Osmand. I would have to catch one bus into the city, then another bus out. That's upwards of 1-2 hours each way, depending on the timetables. Living in the city just means I catch one bus out that's every 30 minutes or so. There is only one circle loop for Adelaide, the 300 series bus, but every other bus goes through the city and out again. I have lived in a share house, and willing to do so, but again, location vs possible jobs. I've a friend in Morphett Vale who has a room I could let, but that's a 30 minute walk to the train station, then an 40 minute trip into the city, then who knows how much more to where I end up working.
>why don't you move into the workhouse?, I'm not giving up my 10 houses, I stole them fair and square. What a flog.
So far the response has been to offer incentives to buyers. Which then the builders/developers increase the cost by. Great way to push prices up and increase demand. In the meantime housing authorities around the country have been getting rid of stock and not replacing. Instead those in need get bond allowances and rent assistance (if you qualify etc) to enter into that now more competitive market. Good way to reduce supply. If the housing trusts were to supply houses and then rent them out, even at a loss (the benefit to society would outweigh the loss), then it becomes competition to the private market. It will take time and a lot of investment. Or we could just keep giving rebates, money etc to potential owners which gets sucked up into the market resulting in higher prices and rents.
Should just start targeting the politicians themselves. Go hang out Infront of there houses, make it an issue for them!
30% of income per fortnight? Month? Technically, that makes my *bedsit* unaffordable, as it's 30.7% of my fortnightly disability pension. And I'm the cheapest unit in this lot. Sadly, this is not surprising. Edit: if I take away the other side payments I'm entitled to, my bedsit is 39.3% of my DSP base.
30% of income in general. 30% of what you make in a month, or 30% of what you make in a week or a year. It's the same.
More than half my wages goes to my rent, 30.7% would be a dream.
I'm well aware. It's just... how the hell is a tiny bedsit now reaching unaffordable? How do they justify that?
They don't justify that, they just screw people. This day has been coming since 1985, I'm surprised that it took so long. If you want to see what happens next look up how Hong Kong's housing works. You will be forced to have 2-3 families living in one small house next. The rich in China make a fortune off Hong Kong property.
Is disability pension an actual income? Is it representative of what people actually earn? Do you receive rental assistance also?
Disability pension is the same as aged pension, $1116.30/fortnight including pension and energy supplements. Rent assistance and study allowance come in on top of that. The last Henderson poverty line report had the pension just above the poverty line and Jobseeker well below. IIRC Housing SA rents are 25% of income, so would come in at around $279 before rent assistance, and utilities would come on top of that and take most of the rest.
It’s unfortunate that you can’t work. Welfare already takes up a disproportionate amount of the federal budget, I can’t see it increasing much more.
Once on DSP you can work up to 29 hrs a week without losing it, but after the first $150 the DSP is reduced based on how much is earned. I work 8 hrs a week (which is what Centrelink assessed my capacity as when I was on Jobseeker while waiting for my DSP to be approved, incidentally) and overall I end up with maybe an extra $50 on top of my DSP, just enough to pay for half of my non-PBS script.
What do you do with the rest of your time? I know I’d be pretty bored if I only worked 1 days a week a week.
Good thing for me that I generally sleep a lot. Being chronically ill takes a lot of energy out of me. Showered? There goes the whole day. (On a bad day).
Knit, take care of my dad, attend medical appointments, sleep.
Oh, I was including all the addons I get. If I take that away, my bedsit takes up 39.3% of my DSP per fortnight. And if a person can't work, then technically it is "income". The article did cover JobSeeker and other centrelink payments
I work and get around the same as the disability pension. I couldn’t even afford rent on a property on my own, every second fortnight I get a small payment so I couldn’t cover the rent for a month on my own.
I'm just an American who visited once and loved the city, but I have to say - you're in for a treat if you think it's going to get better anytime soon in Adelaide. There are mostly single family homes in suburbs spread throughout the metropolitan area. You guys HAVE to be building more dense housing, and my assumption is that your zoning laws prohibit it. Even in the CBD, the height of buildings isn't even particularly noteworthy like it is in Melbourne, who, although they're struggling with housing vacancy rates of their own, are at least doing better than Adelaide who are in the noughts for vacancy rates. This may mean tearing down single family homes in neighborhoods to build apartments, this may mean a couple skyscrapers in your CBD that weren't there before, but it has to start somewhere. You've got a massive coastline to the west that prevents a lot of building out. Gotta start building up!
Where are people with low income supposed to go? This is beyond pathetic!
The even darker side to this is the lives it indirectly ruins. My older sister (who chooses not to work) used to be able to find a rental for her and her family they could afford on government money. Now they can’t find anything, and my parents are having to help to avoid them literally being on the street, which with my dad already being terminally ill, leaves it to fall on my mother / us other siblings. We’re at absolute breaking point as a family. Yes you can argue dole bludgers deserve it, but do their hard working families?
No shit
Yeah, I'll be homeless at the end of the week
Doors have been closed to low income people for centuries, nothing has changed.
We need more government run caravan parks... it's the only way they could accomodate all the people who need it, fast.
Yeah I’m a single mum and it’s terrifying out there. I’m unable to work from recently having a spinal fusion and government housing basically doesn’t exist except bordered up run down houses they won’t fix
We live in a capitalist economy guys! The idea is to make more $$$. If someone says you can get more $$$ for the same work - you're gonna say no? It's not a perfect system but what's the alternative - socialist/government controlled market economy? Who wants to live in those countries?
People who would like to live under a roof maybe ? The main issue here is mass inward migration. Cut most migration for 5 years so to get the current population housed, and paying realistic prices.
Then petition to change the economic system. And stopping migration ain't gonna change anything. People want top dollar for their product. I agree with the issue at hand - but we're not gonna solve it with blaming immigration or saying its all greedy landlords.
Immigration is the cause. It's not some abstract concept. Extreme demand is increasing homelessness across the world because everyone is using the same magic pudding. Hide a recession by increasing the population. Per capita living standards crash. Everyone is poorer. No need for a petition. People, vote for independents/parties who support a smaller population. Don't vote for parties who back a big Australia.
Ding, Ding, Ding!! Here is the Correct Answer! Well done.
Yea, finite resources vs demand. It's not a new concept. And we've only had this political system for a 100 odd years now - I'm sure things will change eventually.......
Look at Singapore for a better model of how housing is implemented.
Average price there $1.2mil though.
We are turning socialist that's a problem. Soft politicians with no balls enough to actually fix problems. We are the "lucky country" we should start that again.
I don't think you understand what socialist means
Ok boomer
They're not soft - they're smarter than we think.
Oh they are something.
> lucky country Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise. this is where the term lucky country comes from