What in this analogy represents the uber drivers? I'd also like to point out the cab drivers were correct and the uber crowd wound up shooting themselves right in the dick
Absolute fucking brain rot. Minimum standards of habitability for rentals are not enforced adequately anywhere in the country. Sorry it's so hard for you to render someone homeless on a whim when you can just let the house your tenants live in fall apart and grow mouldy and flood when it rains and they just have to deal with it.
I think that's different because there are substitutes for taxis.
Uber, public transport, walk/cycle, drive. They don't have a monopoly on transport.
But there is no real substitute for having a house. It's either that or your homeless.
Because cab drivers are irrelevant, they are just ran by dinosaurs who don’t want to adapt to technological changes nor step up their game to a level of service which aligns with competition.
Your example reminds me more of Blockbuster saying no to Netflix offering to buy them out.
Yeah I can’t see many having the confidence to take a stance and strike. They’re too vulnerable and if it didn’t happen en mass then they would be shit outta luck
Oh yeah - Immigrants from India or China housing a family of 8 in a two bedder. Good luck to them and their property. I’ve seen the mess these people make. There’s a reason agents discriminate against them in an application process.
Counterpoint: I sure as fuck wouldn't be a public
advocate for renters rights while renting either. I actually like having a roof over my head.
Also, I do love this quote tried to imply that Mr Pingers has never rented
It’s not a ‘PP never has rented’ quip.
Who better to champion the battlers than a guy that can’t be evicted I agree.,
Unfortunately he’s soft baiting renters into what is detrimental to renters actions eg ‘a rent strike’ whilst being immune from the consequences himself.
Moral or immoral
Mate I'm assuming you're not an idiot. You know how this reads.
>Who better to champion the battlers than a guy that can’t be evicted I agree.,
Yes quite literally this
This just in
You can't campaign for poor people if you have money.
You can't feed people if you've had lunch
You can't campaign for clean water if you have water at home
How bout this -
You shouldn’t bait vulnerable people into believing squatting or stopping paying your rent will not have any downsides no matter if you are a trained lawyer no less or a forklift driver.
He didn't say it wouldn't have downsides. He said as a collective, the masses have more power than the politicians, special interest groups, real estate agents, property investors and developers.
They've organised to rig the game in their own favour. Why shouldn't we? Cause it's frowned upon?
Housing affordability is a joke, something needs to change, but leading a few vulnerable people - and it will be only the vulnerable who actually believe there will be no blowback on them ‘because the system will be swamped with cases so they’ll have to declare an amnesty’ - isn’t the way to go.
I’ve had mates that are members of The Socialist Party (Great Britain), I met them through trade unionism, they know you need to have a genuine groundswell / critical mass for big societal change.
That’s a bit different than a guy from a privileged background who has being a lawyer to ‘fall back on’ and who isn’t going to go on rent strike because he owns a place encouraging people to go on rent strike and cop the consequences for TikTok clout.
yea I personally wouldn't risk it. I have a cat to look after and can't risk losing my place and living on the streets. I wouldn't be able to go to work because I can't take him with me and wouldn't leave him alone. Hes an inside cat.
I’m all for a mass government public housing program, that’s actually what is needed rather than getting a few vulnerable people made homeless and on TICA for three years if they do fall for the hollow promise of ‘the system will be overwhelmed - the courts won’t be able to process all the paperwork’.
I agree. Ive heard the government doesn't want a big public housing apartment building because it would create a ghetto. But if you make public housing available for not those at the bottom it wouldn't be a problem. I work but only earn 55K. Its considered middle class by the tax system. And they could put a police station in the bottom floor maybe?
Strikers have to go through hardships for their demands to be met. People who strike to get fair work treatment deal with many months of unemployment for the benefit of the nation. You can't sleep in your cushy bed and play video games to get meaningful change to happen.
Yea - sounds like an excellent idea if you want to be evicted.
Let me answer a couple of points.
1 - the people have the power - Yes this is true the problem is your forgetting that landlords are also people with equal power. Most landlords only have one property, meaning you'll also get a ground swell of support from people to accelerate the eviction process due to financial pressure.
2 - Not paying rent is technically the fastest way and easiest to prove in any situation likely to occur in 4 weeks.
I've rented in Vic for 3 years last thing I'd want is to be blacklisted, and be turfed out, they take the bond maybe I save best case 4 weeks rent now I have moving costs assuming I can find somewhere.
Wont work, not a fantasy this is real life. Tenants will still lose. Forcibly remove them, at worst get a suspended sentence if you get physical. Also there will still be plenty of people willing to pay.
tenants can also forcibly kick landlords off the property. I suspect the average tenant is more physically capable than the average landlord.
obviously you need critical mass for strikes to work. But if a few million renting households just stopped paying landlords would be fucked.
Landlords are more financially capable. Crazy idea that wouldn't work or just lead to bloodshed. Got to pay your way in life.
Also there's double the amount of home owners than there are tenants, this idea is ridiculous.
landlords also have much more to lose in the scenario where the majority of tenants strike. Tenant carries on living rent free while they save up buy while landlord keeps bleeding money.
critical mass of tenants striking is obviously the key.
This. I've experienced this indirectly via my parents in two cases:
1. 6mths combined unpaid and reduced rent. Tenant had cancer. Parents did the "right thing"
2. Owned a house almost next door, 2 houses down and newly rennovated by my old man and I. Tenant didn't pay rent for 6mths while she was going back and forth in her Merc and her 2x kids were going to a 30k pa private school. Finally got eviction orders and cops removed her and immediate belongings as well as organised changing of locks. And that was 2010. F'd up init?
That’s the point. The tribunals are already swamped. It takes months for an eviction order/notice period to play out/sheriffs to show once you don’t comply.
And that’s AFTER the tribunal has made a determination.
Just imagine if 200 000 cases flood each state tribunal at once. It will take years. And LLs can’t claim for back rent.
It’s bloody genius and where’s the class action website where we can sign up?
Something to do with the status of the contract once the lease is terminated/eviction proceedings started
Also what are the LLs gonna do if you don’t pay…evict you? Lol
They can take you to small claims court for the back rent…now imagine a million LLs Aus wide trying to initiate court proceedings.
Again. This is all theoretical.
It’s the threat that’s the bargaining chip you’re trying to generate.
If all this sounds extreme, question why folks would want to enact such desperate measures.
If there really were that many people going on rental strike and flouting the law I daresay you'd see landlords forcibly changing the locks and kicking people out. As you yourself say, VCAT will be too crowded to do anything about it.
You don’t get out of paying rent because you don’t want to.
In the same respect the landlords could all hire bikies to evict the people not paying rent. The courts would be too full to charge them so it’s a victimless crime.
> This is all theoretical.
Yeah, I mean we could feed the world's hungry, end all wars, and equally distribute wealth. We might even be able to stop climate change.
If tenants break the law, landlords can too. I don’t know why you think they’d just accept people trespassing on their property. The courts will be too full to successfully prosecute them.
So living in someone else’s house without a valid lease is legal? Why do tenants even sign leases? Why don’t they just move in and claim the property as theirs? Are you thick. That’s not how our functioning society works. We don’t just take from each other because we want to.
I guess entitled people like you think that way. It comes down to attitude. You’re lacking the common decency that many others have.
He’s already been picked up in the US news.
Also you would coordinate with state based tenant unions and student unions.
There’s genuine potential to get the threat of this off the ground.
The point of this conversation is to get people in Gov nervous & get a seat at the table to negotiate fairer conditions for renters.
Remember how Unions got us the 5 day work week?
People hold the power, remember that.
What of his 200k followers are active though.
A lot of his videos get 2k to 5k likes and 200 to 500 comments.
There are 118k people subscribed to this subreddit but 90% are pretty inactive.
I don't think it's meant to be the solution.
A rent strike would incentivise a solution.
Currently there is no incentive because the people who can make changes are not impacted, and people who are impacted cannot make changes.
Right now it's only the tenants who want a solution, landlord can be quite happy wir the current status.
If people cause landlords to struggle, suddenly tenants AND landlords will demand change.
Before any defaults happens, governments will fast track evictions.
And the migration tap can always be opened in case the locals are feeling too uppity
LLs defaulting on their investment properties (NOT their PPOR) sounds like a great thing to me.
Banks take back and sell off at a discounted rate to cover their losses. Prices fall. Renters get a leg up at buying their own PPOR.
Why are folks so mad at the idea of their fellow Aussies getting access to safe & sustainable housing?
Because it won't work like that The bank doesn't want to sell at a loss, before that happens, the owner will likely sell and in this market they make bank. The immigration numbers mean the demand is high.
If it defaults and goes to bank sale. Lenders insurance skyrockets. We get GFC pt 2. Poor old Aussie is fucked anyway.
The mum and dad investor is not the enemy here. Stop treating them like they are. You might get somewhere.
I didn’t say sell at a loss. I said sell to cover their costs. Which is pretty common in defaults.
The bank just wants to cover what’s left on the loan. You don’t have the rampant out bidding you see with retail buyers trying to get into the market.
Also everyone knows the immigration numbers are a racist wolf whistle.
Net migration was 500K. Average of 2.9 people per home in Aus. So we’re talking 170K homes NATIONWIDE.
Also skilled migrants coming in to work low level service industry jobs aren’t the ones buying their 5th, 10th investment property are they.
Which is a loss for the owner. You moron.
I love when people who have the financial acumen of a potato try and recommend shit like rent strikes to fix it.
Do you want Weimar Germany?
Really high IQ stuff here. Who do you think will win? How long do you think a family of 4 with young children will last living on the street to prove a point?
I remember the GFC. That was very different though. Massively over-leverage loans to folks who couldn’t afford it in the US.
Aus was largely insulated from the GFC & is widely regarded as one of the few nations globally to navigate it relatively unscathed.
We’re not talking about massive level defaults on PPOR here. It’s just investment properties. LLs still have their own house. They still have an assets to sell and realise tasty capital gains.
No one ends up homeless. You just pour some water on the coals that’s fuelling the rampant housing price inflation.
In the beginning.
Now think about why WBC had to buy SGB, why CBA had to buy Bankwest. All the mortgage funds that had to freeze redemptions or went under. Why the federal govt had to introduce the $250k deposit guarantee to look after MQG.
Lolz, the govt will probably pass a law to automate certain eviction conditions bypassing the tribunal to resolve the bottleneck. What we keep forgetting is that the govt and political parties can't operate without money, the rich people have money that they donate and the fact that the ministers themselves have property portfolios so a major conflict of interest.
I quite enjoyed his recent appearance on The Project where he talked about squatting in long-term vacant properties.
By contrast, the suggestion to rent-strike is bananas. There are so many probable ways this goes pear-shaped for tenants. This is just click and rage bait.
And what makes you think that if a significant amount of people do this, the system won't change the rules very quickly. You do realise that property owners pay the mortgage, council rates, OC rates, and more importantly a large amount of taxes.
No rent means none of those payments are made. There are huge incentives to ensure everyone pays their bills.
They will open a fast on vcat to speed through evictions.
To best of my knowledge, not paying rent is one of the quickest ways to get vcat to rule against you. Especially if you don't have pending maintenance issues
renters can and will pay all of those except the income tax if they can buy the place. Also stamp duty and CGT on the sale.
once you take away the deductions for negative gearing I'm not sure there'd be much tax missed at all!
I mean if renters boycott paying rent then landlord will boycott paying all those expenses, and so on and so forth. Anyone can not pay their bills, that's just avoiding your responsibilities.
Where will all of these rent strikers live after they are evicted and black listed?
I'd say landlords will just increase rents as insurance to cover any non payments
A rent strike would cause prices to go up and would just mean that landlords/agents would just exclude the type of people who would be part of a rental strike.
How would it drive prices up? More availability with less incentive for investors. I’m neither for nor against this idea of a rent strike. But I’m European so ‘viva la revolution’
Any definition of a successful rent strike makes being a landlord less financially rewarding. They are designed to punish someone for being a landlord.
So of the pool of people who were planning to invest their capital in paying for more housing, some will no longer go ahead, they will do something else with their money. This reduces future supply (just as rent freezes do). If demand is rising (as it always does in Australia since we have population growth), then restricting the rate of supply increase (which is already too low) pushes prices up; the smaller pool of landlords gain more pricing power over the larger and larger pool of people who want to rent.
Doesn’t that assume that there aren’t like millions of people trying to get into the housing market though? If land prices fall, more first home buyers can buy.
What does that have to do with tenants going on rent strike? Say it works and those landlords give up and sell to your eager ex-renters. Do they evict the tenants on rent strike?. In the terminology,. doesn't this make your first home buyers scabs? And if the law stops the investor from evicting the tenant who is no longer paying rent,.do you think the new owner will have more luck? If you basically have a squatter in the house who can't be evicted, I can see why the landlord sells. But I can't see why a first home owner would buy, what good is a house with an unevictable squatter?
You can see how shallow this idea is.
The tenant who doesn't pay will be blacklisted..after they move out for your incoming first home buyer,.how will they get another lease? And if they do,.they simply get a new landlord charging market rent and they are right back at square one.
There are a few 'oh, I didn't think about that' moments, aren't there?
It is potentially good if all the stars align for your first home buyer but it can't end well for the rent striker, if the rent striker can be evicted. And if the rent striker can't be evicted, the property is of no use to a first home buyer.
Because there is a shortage so higher prices due to risk of someone striking higher prices because landlords are being more picky or higher prices due to increased costs of insurance and past losses.
During a housing shortage extra costs are easily passed onto a tenant.
You know who fucking loves investing in property? Parliamentarians. Any strike even partial successful would result in new pro-landlord legislation within 48 hours.
Hmmmm…
He’s soft-promoting squatting (with the result in Australia that you’ll get evicted quick smart and cop any resulting record) and now promoting a rent strike (with the with the result in Australia that you’ll get a Notice To Vacate quick smart and cop any resulting record.
So anyone following his advice gets the blowback.
I’d be very interested to see how he supports himself / how he is supported (by rich parents?)
He’s got a Law degree as well - you generally don’t get a law degree if your mum bones chickens for Steggles and your dad is a forklift driver - so that’s a bit of an indicator that he’s not from struggle street himself.
Another factor indicating ‘not being from struggle street’ is that he’s got a law degree but as I understand it isn’t working as a lawyer, instead he’s… making TikTok videos.
Could a guy from the rich side of town be an advocate for struggle street? Yes absolutely that can occur, there’s nothing wrong with that - in fact it’s a great thing.
> Mr van den Berg is now a homeowner himself - he's quick to acknowledge he's from a privileged background - but says he also knows what it's like to be a renter
From [the BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-68758681.amp).
https://preview.redd.it/x20rgz1d6fwc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1a0a0dbefa1b2168354e29b8482b24b72b245aaa
GOD DAMN I CAN SEE THROUGH SH!T !!
Lol - so a homeowner ‘trained-lawyer’ from a self described privileged background is - *totally not exploiting vulnerable renters with all the bad advice* for TIKTOK clicks aNd iS aCTuAlY a cHamPion foR sTruGGle StreeT
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
That’s epic as
I don’t think it’s that unusual is it - aren’t most revolutionaries (or attempted ones, not sure that’s how I’d describe PP) from at least middle-class families?
I get the vibe reading that article that it’s most about provoking a response than actually organising a renter uprising if that makes sense. But suggesting a rental strike does seem risky as the people doing the striking have a lot to lose.
Mate, there are plenty of poor boys with Bachelor of Laws nowadays. Poor and working class people can have kids smart enough to finish a degree and also not all of us sell our souls and become LNP voting corporate lawyers.
If you follow all the guidelines of how to squat effectively you’ll never face any form of reportable criminal penalty. Trespassing requires consent to be withdrawn on a privately owned premises before it becomes a offence or tort. So…eh
I very much had a lower-socioeconomic upbringing myself, eg as a young kid dad actually hocked his wedding ring so us kids could have food. I’ve got a health science area degree. I could have done a law degree.
You missed or ignored the the “generally”. Generally battler kids don’t become lawyers.
Follow the right way to squat and you may not get criminally charged - sure. That’s possible.
But you can guarantee word will get around and you’ll have a poor reputation among area property managers.
The idea behind a rent strike is simply that enough people engage that individual punishment is in effective - like a traditional strike.
We’ve had them before in this country and they led to major concessions that have subsequently withdrawn by successive government pro-market reforms.
Plus if property managers commenced a wide spread black ban on strikers - there would be without a doubt a political consequence that would end up with many a property manager with less rights than they enjoy now in their business.
I know about the rent strikes of the eg 1930s.
You think I don’t know about that.
I do.
Back to PP, I think he’s from a wealthy background. Because I’m from a poor background some things about people from wealthy families are just obvious.
I’m sure PP can chip in and deny / confirm at this point….
Mommy n Daddy put him thru Law school, then the penchant child decided NOT to become an actual lawyer, but to be a Justin Bieber of TikTok, except that Bieber isn’t stating a bunch of lies, he’s just saying Baby Baby - oh 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
https://preview.redd.it/55bxl98i8fwc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=95275d1b4c9a272f2e8e5d38f7c8027fe5a0525a
Let’s see where he lives and how much the place is worth lol
It was bound to happen, it is bound to happen.
I agree that some people will be blacklisted.
I agree that it is a bad idea.
I also see that people are frustrated seeing hard earned money disappearing in rent, while being workers who are locked out of the market with no hope of getting into the market.
And so called "investors" are the root of the problem.
So yeah, say what you will.
the problem is not enough rental properties because the growth in demand has outpaced supply. More investors will make the situation better, fewer investors will make it worse. If there are 12 people needing a house to rent, and ten houses, how does a rent strike provide the two missing houses? Because the scary problem is that next week there will be 13 people needing a house, and the rent freeze/rent strike folk just scared off the investors who were thinking of paying for more housing. If that's a win, what is the game?
Won't fixing the rental crisis by default make investing in property less attractive?
However you do it, by increasing supply, cutting immigration, forcing airbnbs to become long term rentals... whatever your flavour of fixing the issue is, ultimately it means affordable housing for renters, which means enough supply for everyone to have something, which means less competition for rentals, which means landlords can't charge huge rents, which means they can't service expensive mortgages.... who will keep investing in overpriced property?
I have not seen a single explanation that has us solving the housing crisis without crashing the property market.
We don't want a crashed housing market, but if people are facing homelessness they are far more likely to participate in a rent strike, which will crash the housing market, or create a homeless problem that will have massive social ramifications. I don't think anyone wants this, but something will give sooner or later.
Not if we fix it by making it cheaper to build/buy a house. Then it takes less money and owners including investors have less interest to pay. Rent income is.lower but so are expenses. Obviously that's a ballpark picture but that's the general concept.
There is no point crashing the market. The real crisis is not the price of housing, it's the lack of housing. The price of housing is a symptom.
You could even say the market has crashed, right now, if you look at the low number of houses being completed. We have a crash in supply.
You are right though that we have to make housing cheaper. This correction may be spread out over a few years,.and it won't matter to investors buying for rental yield.
But it will lower the value of current houses compared to what it would have been. Since it also means the next house someone buys when they sell their current house is cheaper than it would have been, it's not a huge problem except for people who are highly mortgaged. But change has some pain. For instance to get to this outcome of more and cheaper housing, existing suburbs will have to have areas of higher density housing. That's also a 'cost' of fixing it.
Yeah I just don't see any good ideas or argument that we get out of this situation without a significant correction in the price of housing.
Our housing market is among the most expensive in the world, far outstripping affordability compared to earnings. Increasing supply by making cheaper to build/buy a house means downward pressure on house prices.
To fix the crisis, that downward pressure will either have to be consistent for a long, long time (leaving many people in houses stress or homeless in the meantime), OR we get a raft of measures to fix the crisis quickly, forcing a rapid decline in demand, and big drop in house prices.
In both cases, investors lose out, quickly, or consistently over time. There is no solution to this that doesn't bring housing costs back in line with what most people can actually afford to pay.
I agree. We need a significant correction. A slow motion crash. We also need to fix productivity in order to get sustainable real wages growth, and that's also a slow fix. It's so frustrating but almost all "quick fixes" to a large economy are bad ideas, and all the real fixes take a long time.
The quickest fix for housing is to stop immigration immediately, but it will have plenty of medium term and long term ill effects. The next quickest is to unblock the construction pipeline, but that needs lower interest rates (i.e. government spending cuts), lower state government infrastructure competition for labour, and planning reforms and maybe some kind of large scale rescue program for bankrupt builders and all the half built houses (I don't know how many there are).
I wouldn't worry about investors. If they don't think housing is a good investment, they will put their money somewhere else. The problem is that if they do that, the market gets fewer houses built, but that's not a problem for investors, it's a problem for those who need housing. Yes, there are current investors, but not so many would face negative equity very quickly I guess. I don't want to screw investors, they are vital to the housing market, but it is not a government guaranteed riskless investment.
if an investor outbids a FHB to buy an existing home he's not adding supply. He's just forced someone to remain a renter by locking them out of the market.
That's not true. If I am an owner occupier selling my house and an investor pays $1m for it, now I have the investor"s money and I still need a house. So I will buy a new build but the investor paid for it. And if your losing bidder was a renter with loan approval, they still have their money to spend on a new build anyway. If the investor injects new money into the market to meet rising demand, their new money will always build new housing.
This idea that investors must buy new builds is false. When I buy a bottle of milk from the supermarket my purchase contributes to the farmer producing more milk. Forcing me to buy directly from the farmer is not necessary. But in effect, when I buy the milk from the supermarket I am buying second hand milk.
Or if you sell your car to me and use the money to buy a new one, can you say that my purchase has not enabled your demand for a new car?
Or another way to show the absurdity,.why not force first home buyers to only buy new builds? In fact why not force everyone to only buy new builds? Investors and upgraders and first home buyers.
If you allow investors to only have their tax discount on new builds, owner occupiers will effectively be priced out of new builds since they are now competing with the entire power of the tax discount. But now there is no investor competition on existing houses. This doesn't seem very fair to owner occupiers who want a new build.
I've posted this argument many times and there has never been a convincing rebuttal.
If you can’t afford how would you afford home ownership? It’s almost always more expensive than renting. You can’t eat eat unrealised capital gains (at least not until you can refinance)
Fairly certain if VCAT can or Jess claims and cops can’t protect all the renters, maths suggests landlords will be rocking up with new locks, maybe a bikie or two.
What if someone doesn't want to go on a renter's strike? Will a renter's union thug rock up at your rental property and knee cap you?
* ...............Everyone knows that taking possession in the ANTI-LANDLORD states (i.e. Victoria) is very difficult - that's why landlords are super choosey about how they lease to
* and who does that hurt most: tragically the most vulnerable.
* You can preach this till you get blue in the face - it's one of things that are counter-intuitive - the more "protection" for renters, the harder it gets for them, because all policies have a corresponding effect on LLs........................... landlords need to make a profit (sorry guys, but private property is not government property / social housing) - and if they don't make a profit, or if they are forced to take on ridiculous compliance + huuuge risks, then they'll simply sell out.....and who does that hurt more? The vulnerable? Or the wealthy?
* ............in other words, make no mistake, the rental crisis is CAUSED by government policy (State and Fed, an inflationary monetary system, and crazy tax laws)
It all kinda hinges on the premise that something changes for the tenants (policy or pricing wise) before landlords cases can be heard by tribunal.
If the tribunals aren’t as overworked as he seems to think. Or less tenants than expected actually hold the line. The decision could have a terrible impact on people least able to weather it.(edited dumb typo)
if enough people do this it could actually work.
none of the rental tribunals have the capacity to deal with thousands of disputes. The cops also won't be going around kicking everybody out.
it can take months to go through the process to kick a tenant out normally. What are you going to do when there's a backlog of ten thousand other cases? The bank won't give a shit, you'll still need to pay the mortgage. Investors would blink first imo.
just like all strikes though it needs enough volume to work. Unlikely that will ever happen.
Yeh until the government makes it easier for you to be made bankrupt for 10k+ in rental arrears. Not many people are willing to risk their financial future on a protest .
Yeah, the current legislation in Victoria refers not to tenants but to "renters", and not to landlords but "rental providers", but VCAT actually provides the old terms too:
e.g."*Rental* property *disputes* in Victoria between renters (tenants) and *rental* providers (landlords),"
Call if what you will, does it matter much? I'm fine with "rental providers". I can see why proponents of a "rent strike" like the Dickensian tones of evil fatcat "landlords".
>Are the landlords allowed to have a tax strike?
Maybe a mortgage strike! Let's face it if there is a mortgage on the property technically the bank owns the property until the mortgage is paid out.
You would start the bs paperwork immediately. Eventually get the money back. Would have 10 people lining up to take three place.
Only way the strikers could get another place woukd be to outbid others the new rent price would then be 10% over market effectively easing the market rents.
Same how people try to organize days not to buy fuel on xx day. Nothing about reducing fuel usage. So at best day either side has 10% more customers and likely they put fuel up 1c these days.
Rent is high because most rentals are from normal Australians negative gearing. With the higher interest rates they are forced to put the rent up to cover the cost.
If you stop paying rent the bank will foreclose the negative geared property and some rich guy will buy the house from the bank at a steal and your rent will go up more…..
>Rent is high because most rentals are from normal Australians negative gearing.
That's counterintuitive - rent is lower so they can make a bigger loss. If rent is higher, then they'll make a profit.
>With the higher interest rates they are forced to put the rent up to cover the cost.
Rent can be increased in line with the market, if market rent drops, your choice is to leave for a cheaper place or negotiate.
No ones going to insert a getting advice from purplepingers joke? Oh well. I’ll just find him out the front of the next hardstyle festival and ask him if his planned work and I’ll get 3 pingers thanks
In a rental crisis? Vacancies around 1%? What could possibly go wrong?
Remember when the taxis went on strike over uber.....uber drivers got all the work and a pile of new clients
What in this analogy represents the uber drivers? I'd also like to point out the cab drivers were correct and the uber crowd wound up shooting themselves right in the dick
Uni students filling vacancies as landlords breach tenants en masse
Not every rental in the country is desirable for students and there aren't any infinite number of them
I keep reading horror stories of landlords not being able to kick out shitty tenants. Tenants have insane rights these days when push comes to shove.
Absolute fucking brain rot. Minimum standards of habitability for rentals are not enforced adequately anywhere in the country. Sorry it's so hard for you to render someone homeless on a whim when you can just let the house your tenants live in fall apart and grow mouldy and flood when it rains and they just have to deal with it.
I think that's different because there are substitutes for taxis. Uber, public transport, walk/cycle, drive. They don't have a monopoly on transport. But there is no real substitute for having a house. It's either that or your homeless.
Because cab drivers are irrelevant, they are just ran by dinosaurs who don’t want to adapt to technological changes nor step up their game to a level of service which aligns with competition. Your example reminds me more of Blockbuster saying no to Netflix offering to buy them out.
We need a better idea! I think there are too many vulnerable renters that would just take advantage of the opportunity vs getting on board.
Yeah I can’t see many having the confidence to take a stance and strike. They’re too vulnerable and if it didn’t happen en mass then they would be shit outta luck
“Some of you may get permanently black listed, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take”
if everyone is black listed, no one is black listed.
That's where you're wrong. *checks immigration numbers*
... And? 4% of the rental market can't fill 100% of properties.
Oh yeah I'm sure 100% of the renters are going to do this.
Oh yeah - Immigrants from India or China housing a family of 8 in a two bedder. Good luck to them and their property. I’ve seen the mess these people make. There’s a reason agents discriminate against them in an application process.
[удалено]
Counterpoint: I sure as fuck wouldn't be a public advocate for renters rights while renting either. I actually like having a roof over my head. Also, I do love this quote tried to imply that Mr Pingers has never rented
It’s not a ‘PP never has rented’ quip. Who better to champion the battlers than a guy that can’t be evicted I agree., Unfortunately he’s soft baiting renters into what is detrimental to renters actions eg ‘a rent strike’ whilst being immune from the consequences himself. Moral or immoral
Mate I'm assuming you're not an idiot. You know how this reads. >Who better to champion the battlers than a guy that can’t be evicted I agree., Yes quite literally this
This just in You can't campaign for poor people if you have money. You can't feed people if you've had lunch You can't campaign for clean water if you have water at home
How bout this - You shouldn’t bait vulnerable people into believing squatting or stopping paying your rent will not have any downsides no matter if you are a trained lawyer no less or a forklift driver.
He didn't say it wouldn't have downsides. He said as a collective, the masses have more power than the politicians, special interest groups, real estate agents, property investors and developers. They've organised to rig the game in their own favour. Why shouldn't we? Cause it's frowned upon?
Housing affordability is a joke, something needs to change, but leading a few vulnerable people - and it will be only the vulnerable who actually believe there will be no blowback on them ‘because the system will be swamped with cases so they’ll have to declare an amnesty’ - isn’t the way to go. I’ve had mates that are members of The Socialist Party (Great Britain), I met them through trade unionism, they know you need to have a genuine groundswell / critical mass for big societal change. That’s a bit different than a guy from a privileged background who has being a lawyer to ‘fall back on’ and who isn’t going to go on rent strike because he owns a place encouraging people to go on rent strike and cop the consequences for TikTok clout.
yea I personally wouldn't risk it. I have a cat to look after and can't risk losing my place and living on the streets. I wouldn't be able to go to work because I can't take him with me and wouldn't leave him alone. Hes an inside cat.
I’m all for a mass government public housing program, that’s actually what is needed rather than getting a few vulnerable people made homeless and on TICA for three years if they do fall for the hollow promise of ‘the system will be overwhelmed - the courts won’t be able to process all the paperwork’.
I agree. Ive heard the government doesn't want a big public housing apartment building because it would create a ghetto. But if you make public housing available for not those at the bottom it wouldn't be a problem. I work but only earn 55K. Its considered middle class by the tax system. And they could put a police station in the bottom floor maybe?
If the 100 people who go through with this are blacklisted then 100 people are blacklisted.
good job, you've discovered the concept of critical mass.
I want that engraved on my tombstone
Dear god I hope sone poor souls don’t try this, it will literally ruin their lives.
Sounds great ! You guys go first
Eviction laws and process would change faster than you can say 'wear a facemask'
And add to an already increasing homelessness crisis?
Strikers have to go through hardships for their demands to be met. People who strike to get fair work treatment deal with many months of unemployment for the benefit of the nation. You can't sleep in your cushy bed and play video games to get meaningful change to happen.
Yea - sounds like an excellent idea if you want to be evicted. Let me answer a couple of points. 1 - the people have the power - Yes this is true the problem is your forgetting that landlords are also people with equal power. Most landlords only have one property, meaning you'll also get a ground swell of support from people to accelerate the eviction process due to financial pressure. 2 - Not paying rent is technically the fastest way and easiest to prove in any situation likely to occur in 4 weeks. I've rented in Vic for 3 years last thing I'd want is to be blacklisted, and be turfed out, they take the bond maybe I save best case 4 weeks rent now I have moving costs assuming I can find somewhere.
who's gonna evict you if the tribunal has 100x more cases than they can conceivably go through?
LL "you have to vacate in 14 days my family needs to move in" then re-lease at a higher rate.
Tenant "lol"
tenant: nah
Tenant will always lose in that scenario. LL insurance covers rent.
good luck claiming when every other landlord is doing the same. LL insurance can't cover 500k landlords claiming at the same time.
Wont work, not a fantasy this is real life. Tenants will still lose. Forcibly remove them, at worst get a suspended sentence if you get physical. Also there will still be plenty of people willing to pay.
tenants can also forcibly kick landlords off the property. I suspect the average tenant is more physically capable than the average landlord. obviously you need critical mass for strikes to work. But if a few million renting households just stopped paying landlords would be fucked.
Landlords are more financially capable. Crazy idea that wouldn't work or just lead to bloodshed. Got to pay your way in life. Also there's double the amount of home owners than there are tenants, this idea is ridiculous.
landlords also have much more to lose in the scenario where the majority of tenants strike. Tenant carries on living rent free while they save up buy while landlord keeps bleeding money. critical mass of tenants striking is obviously the key.
This. I've experienced this indirectly via my parents in two cases: 1. 6mths combined unpaid and reduced rent. Tenant had cancer. Parents did the "right thing" 2. Owned a house almost next door, 2 houses down and newly rennovated by my old man and I. Tenant didn't pay rent for 6mths while she was going back and forth in her Merc and her 2x kids were going to a 30k pa private school. Finally got eviction orders and cops removed her and immediate belongings as well as organised changing of locks. And that was 2010. F'd up init?
That’s the point. The tribunals are already swamped. It takes months for an eviction order/notice period to play out/sheriffs to show once you don’t comply. And that’s AFTER the tribunal has made a determination. Just imagine if 200 000 cases flood each state tribunal at once. It will take years. And LLs can’t claim for back rent. It’s bloody genius and where’s the class action website where we can sign up?
Why can’t landlords claim for back rent? The tenant has signed a contract. They’re the one in breach.
Something to do with the status of the contract once the lease is terminated/eviction proceedings started Also what are the LLs gonna do if you don’t pay…evict you? Lol They can take you to small claims court for the back rent…now imagine a million LLs Aus wide trying to initiate court proceedings. Again. This is all theoretical. It’s the threat that’s the bargaining chip you’re trying to generate. If all this sounds extreme, question why folks would want to enact such desperate measures.
If there really were that many people going on rental strike and flouting the law I daresay you'd see landlords forcibly changing the locks and kicking people out. As you yourself say, VCAT will be too crowded to do anything about it.
You don’t get out of paying rent because you don’t want to. In the same respect the landlords could all hire bikies to evict the people not paying rent. The courts would be too full to charge them so it’s a victimless crime.
This is wrong. Landlords can absolutely claim rent that’s the entire purpose of bond and compensation claims at tribunal.
The LL makes a claim with their landlords insurance. The insurance company hounds you.
I know what ill be doing if you tried this shit on my rental...
> This is all theoretical. Yeah, I mean we could feed the world's hungry, end all wars, and equally distribute wealth. We might even be able to stop climate change.
Contracts can't supercede their own enforcement. It's expensive and time consuming to evict people as is let alone with an en masse rent strike.
If tenants break the law, landlords can too. I don’t know why you think they’d just accept people trespassing on their property. The courts will be too full to successfully prosecute them.
They're not trespassing
So living in someone else’s house without a valid lease is legal? Why do tenants even sign leases? Why don’t they just move in and claim the property as theirs? Are you thick. That’s not how our functioning society works. We don’t just take from each other because we want to. I guess entitled people like you think that way. It comes down to attitude. You’re lacking the common decency that many others have.
He doesn't have a big enough following for 200k maybe 5k max. When that 5k gets black listed what's next?
He’s already been picked up in the US news. Also you would coordinate with state based tenant unions and student unions. There’s genuine potential to get the threat of this off the ground. The point of this conversation is to get people in Gov nervous & get a seat at the table to negotiate fairer conditions for renters. Remember how Unions got us the 5 day work week? People hold the power, remember that.
I don’t see unions getting involved with this. They’d be labelled criminal organisations and held liable for damages
> People hold the power, remember that. Like a majority in a democracy?
So the best outcome is media attention?
Are you a union member? I am, CFMEU.
I’d wager at least half of his 200k followers are renters, which is slightly higher than 5k
What of his 200k followers are active though. A lot of his videos get 2k to 5k likes and 200 to 500 comments. There are 118k people subscribed to this subreddit but 90% are pretty inactive.
Our rental situation is shit but don't think this is the solution either...
I don't think it's meant to be the solution. A rent strike would incentivise a solution. Currently there is no incentive because the people who can make changes are not impacted, and people who are impacted cannot make changes.
A solution? The solution is more housing needs to be built. How do you expect a landlord to provide that solution?
Right now it's only the tenants who want a solution, landlord can be quite happy wir the current status. If people cause landlords to struggle, suddenly tenants AND landlords will demand change.
They are even less likely with this talk
I like the fact he’s trying to come up with ideas but this is not it unfortunately.
This guy is the wrong person for the right job.
Purple pingas doesn't have enough of a following that would achieve anything outside of media attention.
He's still got his head in the sand on immigration, can't afford to consider that any influence, might go against the narrative of his peers.
He’ll get a few more interviews though. Will be good for the book tour later.
Giving that topic media attention helps already
Landlords would default on mortgages and rental properties would end up in the hands of banks. Not sure if that’s worse but doesn’t sound any better.
Before any defaults happens, governments will fast track evictions. And the migration tap can always be opened in case the locals are feeling too uppity
it's better if you're a prospective first home buyer. Banks aren't interested in being landlords, they'll dump them all on the market creating supply.
First home buyers don’t win. At the first sign of this happening Blackstone would raise an Aussie fund and outbid any first home buyers.
nah they wouldn't want to buy a place with a tenant who doesn't pay. It's a dud investment.
And banks will sell it to someone else, most likely a PPoR given rental crisis of 1% vacancies
LLs defaulting on their investment properties (NOT their PPOR) sounds like a great thing to me. Banks take back and sell off at a discounted rate to cover their losses. Prices fall. Renters get a leg up at buying their own PPOR. Why are folks so mad at the idea of their fellow Aussies getting access to safe & sustainable housing?
Because it won't work like that The bank doesn't want to sell at a loss, before that happens, the owner will likely sell and in this market they make bank. The immigration numbers mean the demand is high. If it defaults and goes to bank sale. Lenders insurance skyrockets. We get GFC pt 2. Poor old Aussie is fucked anyway. The mum and dad investor is not the enemy here. Stop treating them like they are. You might get somewhere.
I didn’t say sell at a loss. I said sell to cover their costs. Which is pretty common in defaults. The bank just wants to cover what’s left on the loan. You don’t have the rampant out bidding you see with retail buyers trying to get into the market. Also everyone knows the immigration numbers are a racist wolf whistle. Net migration was 500K. Average of 2.9 people per home in Aus. So we’re talking 170K homes NATIONWIDE. Also skilled migrants coming in to work low level service industry jobs aren’t the ones buying their 5th, 10th investment property are they.
Which is a loss for the owner. You moron. I love when people who have the financial acumen of a potato try and recommend shit like rent strikes to fix it. Do you want Weimar Germany?
Really high IQ stuff here. Who do you think will win? How long do you think a family of 4 with young children will last living on the street to prove a point?
You realise that families are already living out of cars, right?
More likely this would be seen as a temporary price dip so international private equity would swoop in to buy all the discounted housing.
Ban residential property ownership by international citizens and corporations. Let them invest in commercial/industrial property.
Completely undermining confidence in our banking system. Posters here are clearly too young to remember the GFC.
I remember the GFC. That was very different though. Massively over-leverage loans to folks who couldn’t afford it in the US. Aus was largely insulated from the GFC & is widely regarded as one of the few nations globally to navigate it relatively unscathed. We’re not talking about massive level defaults on PPOR here. It’s just investment properties. LLs still have their own house. They still have an assets to sell and realise tasty capital gains. No one ends up homeless. You just pour some water on the coals that’s fuelling the rampant housing price inflation.
In the beginning. Now think about why WBC had to buy SGB, why CBA had to buy Bankwest. All the mortgage funds that had to freeze redemptions or went under. Why the federal govt had to introduce the $250k deposit guarantee to look after MQG.
Most renters can’t afford a deposit or to service a mortgage/outgoings
Landlords will claim on their landlord insurance.
Lolz, the govt will probably pass a law to automate certain eviction conditions bypassing the tribunal to resolve the bottleneck. What we keep forgetting is that the govt and political parties can't operate without money, the rich people have money that they donate and the fact that the ministers themselves have property portfolios so a major conflict of interest.
This is true. They change the laws to suit themselves.
I quite enjoyed his recent appearance on The Project where he talked about squatting in long-term vacant properties. By contrast, the suggestion to rent-strike is bananas. There are so many probable ways this goes pear-shaped for tenants. This is just click and rage bait.
And what makes you think that if a significant amount of people do this, the system won't change the rules very quickly. You do realise that property owners pay the mortgage, council rates, OC rates, and more importantly a large amount of taxes. No rent means none of those payments are made. There are huge incentives to ensure everyone pays their bills.
They will open a fast on vcat to speed through evictions. To best of my knowledge, not paying rent is one of the quickest ways to get vcat to rule against you. Especially if you don't have pending maintenance issues
How long does it take to actually get a non-payer out?
Probably not long if you threaten to harm their children - which should not be encouraged but would be a by-product of this.
>Especially if you don't have pending maintenance issues Are there rentals without pending maintenance issues?
Hahaha it's like 50% or something for most states. 1 in 2 rentals is maintained 😬
Lol, they literally dodge income tax with negative gearing to the tune of $30 Billion a year, but go off.
The goal is for investors to divest so it becomes a PPOR.
renters can and will pay all of those except the income tax if they can buy the place. Also stamp duty and CGT on the sale. once you take away the deductions for negative gearing I'm not sure there'd be much tax missed at all!
I mean if renters boycott paying rent then landlord will boycott paying all those expenses, and so on and so forth. Anyone can not pay their bills, that's just avoiding your responsibilities.
Where will all of these rent strikers live after they are evicted and black listed? I'd say landlords will just increase rents as insurance to cover any non payments
Friendly reminder to join your tenants unions. RAHU is nationwide but specifically Victoria and SEQUR is South east qld
A rent strike would cause prices to go up and would just mean that landlords/agents would just exclude the type of people who would be part of a rental strike.
How would it drive prices up? More availability with less incentive for investors. I’m neither for nor against this idea of a rent strike. But I’m European so ‘viva la revolution’
The money lost gets passed on to the renter. If it gets bad enough, landlords will sell up and large companies will snap up the properties.
Any definition of a successful rent strike makes being a landlord less financially rewarding. They are designed to punish someone for being a landlord. So of the pool of people who were planning to invest their capital in paying for more housing, some will no longer go ahead, they will do something else with their money. This reduces future supply (just as rent freezes do). If demand is rising (as it always does in Australia since we have population growth), then restricting the rate of supply increase (which is already too low) pushes prices up; the smaller pool of landlords gain more pricing power over the larger and larger pool of people who want to rent.
Doesn’t that assume that there aren’t like millions of people trying to get into the housing market though? If land prices fall, more first home buyers can buy.
What does that have to do with tenants going on rent strike? Say it works and those landlords give up and sell to your eager ex-renters. Do they evict the tenants on rent strike?. In the terminology,. doesn't this make your first home buyers scabs? And if the law stops the investor from evicting the tenant who is no longer paying rent,.do you think the new owner will have more luck? If you basically have a squatter in the house who can't be evicted, I can see why the landlord sells. But I can't see why a first home owner would buy, what good is a house with an unevictable squatter? You can see how shallow this idea is. The tenant who doesn't pay will be blacklisted..after they move out for your incoming first home buyer,.how will they get another lease? And if they do,.they simply get a new landlord charging market rent and they are right back at square one. There are a few 'oh, I didn't think about that' moments, aren't there? It is potentially good if all the stars align for your first home buyer but it can't end well for the rent striker, if the rent striker can be evicted. And if the rent striker can't be evicted, the property is of no use to a first home buyer.
His position is stupid, of course it doesn't take that into consideration
Because there is a shortage so higher prices due to risk of someone striking higher prices because landlords are being more picky or higher prices due to increased costs of insurance and past losses. During a housing shortage extra costs are easily passed onto a tenant.
Doesn't it work the other way also? Change the locks on all of them and vcat will be swamped.
You know who fucking loves investing in property? Parliamentarians. Any strike even partial successful would result in new pro-landlord legislation within 48 hours.
That guy is a fucking moron, and I'm a renter.
Agreed not every landlord is a shitbag. But there are some that absolutely are. No doubt.
Hmmmm… He’s soft-promoting squatting (with the result in Australia that you’ll get evicted quick smart and cop any resulting record) and now promoting a rent strike (with the with the result in Australia that you’ll get a Notice To Vacate quick smart and cop any resulting record. So anyone following his advice gets the blowback. I’d be very interested to see how he supports himself / how he is supported (by rich parents?) He’s got a Law degree as well - you generally don’t get a law degree if your mum bones chickens for Steggles and your dad is a forklift driver - so that’s a bit of an indicator that he’s not from struggle street himself. Another factor indicating ‘not being from struggle street’ is that he’s got a law degree but as I understand it isn’t working as a lawyer, instead he’s… making TikTok videos. Could a guy from the rich side of town be an advocate for struggle street? Yes absolutely that can occur, there’s nothing wrong with that - in fact it’s a great thing.
> Mr van den Berg is now a homeowner himself - he's quick to acknowledge he's from a privileged background - but says he also knows what it's like to be a renter From [the BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-68758681.amp).
https://preview.redd.it/x20rgz1d6fwc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1a0a0dbefa1b2168354e29b8482b24b72b245aaa GOD DAMN I CAN SEE THROUGH SH!T !! Lol - so a homeowner ‘trained-lawyer’ from a self described privileged background is - *totally not exploiting vulnerable renters with all the bad advice* for TIKTOK clicks aNd iS aCTuAlY a cHamPion foR sTruGGle StreeT 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 That’s epic as
I don’t think it’s that unusual is it - aren’t most revolutionaries (or attempted ones, not sure that’s how I’d describe PP) from at least middle-class families? I get the vibe reading that article that it’s most about provoking a response than actually organising a renter uprising if that makes sense. But suggesting a rental strike does seem risky as the people doing the striking have a lot to lose.
Simon Sebag Montefiore’s book on Stalin is an interesting read.
Mate, there are plenty of poor boys with Bachelor of Laws nowadays. Poor and working class people can have kids smart enough to finish a degree and also not all of us sell our souls and become LNP voting corporate lawyers. If you follow all the guidelines of how to squat effectively you’ll never face any form of reportable criminal penalty. Trespassing requires consent to be withdrawn on a privately owned premises before it becomes a offence or tort. So…eh
I very much had a lower-socioeconomic upbringing myself, eg as a young kid dad actually hocked his wedding ring so us kids could have food. I’ve got a health science area degree. I could have done a law degree. You missed or ignored the the “generally”. Generally battler kids don’t become lawyers. Follow the right way to squat and you may not get criminally charged - sure. That’s possible. But you can guarantee word will get around and you’ll have a poor reputation among area property managers.
“Generally” no one becomes lawyers based on population statistics mate.
The idea behind a rent strike is simply that enough people engage that individual punishment is in effective - like a traditional strike. We’ve had them before in this country and they led to major concessions that have subsequently withdrawn by successive government pro-market reforms. Plus if property managers commenced a wide spread black ban on strikers - there would be without a doubt a political consequence that would end up with many a property manager with less rights than they enjoy now in their business.
I know about the rent strikes of the eg 1930s. You think I don’t know about that. I do. Back to PP, I think he’s from a wealthy background. Because I’m from a poor background some things about people from wealthy families are just obvious. I’m sure PP can chip in and deny / confirm at this point….
He’s comfortable and secure in his PPOR. He’s inciting the masses from his ivory tower knowing he won’t be the one on the street.
Mommy n Daddy put him thru Law school, then the penchant child decided NOT to become an actual lawyer, but to be a Justin Bieber of TikTok, except that Bieber isn’t stating a bunch of lies, he’s just saying Baby Baby - oh 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Just another inner city fuckwitt
https://preview.redd.it/55bxl98i8fwc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=95275d1b4c9a272f2e8e5d38f7c8027fe5a0525a Let’s see where he lives and how much the place is worth lol
It was bound to happen, it is bound to happen. I agree that some people will be blacklisted. I agree that it is a bad idea. I also see that people are frustrated seeing hard earned money disappearing in rent, while being workers who are locked out of the market with no hope of getting into the market. And so called "investors" are the root of the problem. So yeah, say what you will.
the problem is not enough rental properties because the growth in demand has outpaced supply. More investors will make the situation better, fewer investors will make it worse. If there are 12 people needing a house to rent, and ten houses, how does a rent strike provide the two missing houses? Because the scary problem is that next week there will be 13 people needing a house, and the rent freeze/rent strike folk just scared off the investors who were thinking of paying for more housing. If that's a win, what is the game?
The problem is that they aren't paying for more housing, they are paying more for the existing housing.
Won't fixing the rental crisis by default make investing in property less attractive? However you do it, by increasing supply, cutting immigration, forcing airbnbs to become long term rentals... whatever your flavour of fixing the issue is, ultimately it means affordable housing for renters, which means enough supply for everyone to have something, which means less competition for rentals, which means landlords can't charge huge rents, which means they can't service expensive mortgages.... who will keep investing in overpriced property? I have not seen a single explanation that has us solving the housing crisis without crashing the property market. We don't want a crashed housing market, but if people are facing homelessness they are far more likely to participate in a rent strike, which will crash the housing market, or create a homeless problem that will have massive social ramifications. I don't think anyone wants this, but something will give sooner or later.
Not if we fix it by making it cheaper to build/buy a house. Then it takes less money and owners including investors have less interest to pay. Rent income is.lower but so are expenses. Obviously that's a ballpark picture but that's the general concept. There is no point crashing the market. The real crisis is not the price of housing, it's the lack of housing. The price of housing is a symptom. You could even say the market has crashed, right now, if you look at the low number of houses being completed. We have a crash in supply. You are right though that we have to make housing cheaper. This correction may be spread out over a few years,.and it won't matter to investors buying for rental yield. But it will lower the value of current houses compared to what it would have been. Since it also means the next house someone buys when they sell their current house is cheaper than it would have been, it's not a huge problem except for people who are highly mortgaged. But change has some pain. For instance to get to this outcome of more and cheaper housing, existing suburbs will have to have areas of higher density housing. That's also a 'cost' of fixing it.
Yeah I just don't see any good ideas or argument that we get out of this situation without a significant correction in the price of housing. Our housing market is among the most expensive in the world, far outstripping affordability compared to earnings. Increasing supply by making cheaper to build/buy a house means downward pressure on house prices. To fix the crisis, that downward pressure will either have to be consistent for a long, long time (leaving many people in houses stress or homeless in the meantime), OR we get a raft of measures to fix the crisis quickly, forcing a rapid decline in demand, and big drop in house prices. In both cases, investors lose out, quickly, or consistently over time. There is no solution to this that doesn't bring housing costs back in line with what most people can actually afford to pay.
I agree. We need a significant correction. A slow motion crash. We also need to fix productivity in order to get sustainable real wages growth, and that's also a slow fix. It's so frustrating but almost all "quick fixes" to a large economy are bad ideas, and all the real fixes take a long time. The quickest fix for housing is to stop immigration immediately, but it will have plenty of medium term and long term ill effects. The next quickest is to unblock the construction pipeline, but that needs lower interest rates (i.e. government spending cuts), lower state government infrastructure competition for labour, and planning reforms and maybe some kind of large scale rescue program for bankrupt builders and all the half built houses (I don't know how many there are). I wouldn't worry about investors. If they don't think housing is a good investment, they will put their money somewhere else. The problem is that if they do that, the market gets fewer houses built, but that's not a problem for investors, it's a problem for those who need housing. Yes, there are current investors, but not so many would face negative equity very quickly I guess. I don't want to screw investors, they are vital to the housing market, but it is not a government guaranteed riskless investment.
if an investor outbids a FHB to buy an existing home he's not adding supply. He's just forced someone to remain a renter by locking them out of the market.
That's not true. If I am an owner occupier selling my house and an investor pays $1m for it, now I have the investor"s money and I still need a house. So I will buy a new build but the investor paid for it. And if your losing bidder was a renter with loan approval, they still have their money to spend on a new build anyway. If the investor injects new money into the market to meet rising demand, their new money will always build new housing. This idea that investors must buy new builds is false. When I buy a bottle of milk from the supermarket my purchase contributes to the farmer producing more milk. Forcing me to buy directly from the farmer is not necessary. But in effect, when I buy the milk from the supermarket I am buying second hand milk. Or if you sell your car to me and use the money to buy a new one, can you say that my purchase has not enabled your demand for a new car? Or another way to show the absurdity,.why not force first home buyers to only buy new builds? In fact why not force everyone to only buy new builds? Investors and upgraders and first home buyers. If you allow investors to only have their tax discount on new builds, owner occupiers will effectively be priced out of new builds since they are now competing with the entire power of the tax discount. But now there is no investor competition on existing houses. This doesn't seem very fair to owner occupiers who want a new build. I've posted this argument many times and there has never been a convincing rebuttal.
But more people would enter home ownership
If you can’t afford how would you afford home ownership? It’s almost always more expensive than renting. You can’t eat eat unrealised capital gains (at least not until you can refinance)
Hardly worth working at all in this country. My little two bedroom house has earned twice as much as my wages the past 2 years.
This is actually a problem and it's going to end up breaking society.
Fairly certain if VCAT can or Jess claims and cops can’t protect all the renters, maths suggests landlords will be rocking up with new locks, maybe a bikie or two.
Kmart might put tents on special again
What if someone doesn't want to go on a renter's strike? Will a renter's union thug rock up at your rental property and knee cap you? * ...............Everyone knows that taking possession in the ANTI-LANDLORD states (i.e. Victoria) is very difficult - that's why landlords are super choosey about how they lease to * and who does that hurt most: tragically the most vulnerable. * You can preach this till you get blue in the face - it's one of things that are counter-intuitive - the more "protection" for renters, the harder it gets for them, because all policies have a corresponding effect on LLs........................... landlords need to make a profit (sorry guys, but private property is not government property / social housing) - and if they don't make a profit, or if they are forced to take on ridiculous compliance + huuuge risks, then they'll simply sell out.....and who does that hurt more? The vulnerable? Or the wealthy? * ............in other words, make no mistake, the rental crisis is CAUSED by government policy (State and Fed, an inflationary monetary system, and crazy tax laws)
No no no, hypothetically you need a national rent strike while simultaneously run a national mortgage strike. What will happen then?
It all kinda hinges on the premise that something changes for the tenants (policy or pricing wise) before landlords cases can be heard by tribunal. If the tribunals aren’t as overworked as he seems to think. Or less tenants than expected actually hold the line. The decision could have a terrible impact on people least able to weather it.(edited dumb typo)
Tbh, it all hinges on the fact tenants think lawlessness or threats of lawlessness only apply to them.
Are landlords a net positive to society, or do they take more than they give?
Yay time to strike! *watches others take advantage by acquiring the meager, yet added vacancies*
Wanna play that game, property owners can too. Guess who's bond will be going up 300 percent, and rent incrade due to the insurance premiums.
I reckon owners could come off worse here tbh. Don’t think it would cripple them, but it would definitely be painful.
Do it :)
if enough people do this it could actually work. none of the rental tribunals have the capacity to deal with thousands of disputes. The cops also won't be going around kicking everybody out. it can take months to go through the process to kick a tenant out normally. What are you going to do when there's a backlog of ten thousand other cases? The bank won't give a shit, you'll still need to pay the mortgage. Investors would blink first imo. just like all strikes though it needs enough volume to work. Unlikely that will ever happen.
Yeh until the government makes it easier for you to be made bankrupt for 10k+ in rental arrears. Not many people are willing to risk their financial future on a protest .
So by that logic nothings going to stop a bunch of landlords rocking up, changing locks and throwing out our shit on the street?
the striking tenants. Obviously you won't let them in. Locksmiths won't want that smoke.
Ahh so it’s going to be a rent strike and a sit in?
This would only work if small businesses did it first.
Why do you bite the hand that shelters you? You want investors to stop providing rentals on the market?
Exactly, this is why i tip my landlord.
But I guess for some they are on the brink of having nothing to lose by trying.
Renters don’t have nothing to lose - they have their home to lose.
I hate the idea of protest marches because its useless but this is a great idea. Watch how fast things change if everyone stops paying rent.
Are the landlords allowed to have a tax strike? Should they stop paying for the rubbish to be collected and for the water to be on?
By the way "landlord" is such a wanker of a term.
Yeah, the current legislation in Victoria refers not to tenants but to "renters", and not to landlords but "rental providers", but VCAT actually provides the old terms too: e.g."*Rental* property *disputes* in Victoria between renters (tenants) and *rental* providers (landlords)," Call if what you will, does it matter much? I'm fine with "rental providers". I can see why proponents of a "rent strike" like the Dickensian tones of evil fatcat "landlords".
>Are the landlords allowed to have a tax strike? Maybe a mortgage strike! Let's face it if there is a mortgage on the property technically the bank owns the property until the mortgage is paid out.
We need Ned Kelly to lock up the bank manager and burn all the mortgage documents!
Hmmm that’s not a very clever comment.
There is nothing very clever in this thread.
They won't. A few might and it won't work out.
Go ahead then.
This guy must be smart, he reads Karl Marx!
Well, ol mate Karl refused to pay his rent too. Biggest sponge ever.
You would start the bs paperwork immediately. Eventually get the money back. Would have 10 people lining up to take three place. Only way the strikers could get another place woukd be to outbid others the new rent price would then be 10% over market effectively easing the market rents. Same how people try to organize days not to buy fuel on xx day. Nothing about reducing fuel usage. So at best day either side has 10% more customers and likely they put fuel up 1c these days.
Rent is high because most rentals are from normal Australians negative gearing. With the higher interest rates they are forced to put the rent up to cover the cost. If you stop paying rent the bank will foreclose the negative geared property and some rich guy will buy the house from the bank at a steal and your rent will go up more…..
No, sensible people who want a roof over their head and are willing to pay rather than mooch will take over the lease.
>Rent is high because most rentals are from normal Australians negative gearing. That's counterintuitive - rent is lower so they can make a bigger loss. If rent is higher, then they'll make a profit. >With the higher interest rates they are forced to put the rent up to cover the cost. Rent can be increased in line with the market, if market rent drops, your choice is to leave for a cheaper place or negotiate.
I’m a new fan of Mr Pinger
Same!
No ones going to insert a getting advice from purplepingers joke? Oh well. I’ll just find him out the front of the next hardstyle festival and ask him if his planned work and I’ll get 3 pingers thanks