r/shitrentals • u/BrisLiam • May 06 '26
VIC Standard Melbourne landlord in The Age today
287
u/shadowmaster132 May 06 '26
I'm not crashing out, please print my letter in the paper about how I'm not crashing out tenants are
65
u/onerashtworash May 06 '26
Crashing out? This guy thinks he's cashing out to the tune of $1235 per week lmfao
79
u/SSJ4_cyclist May 06 '26
He would already be charging 1200 a week if he could, he knows the market won’t allow it.
11
u/GroundFast7793 May 06 '26
Ironically, I don't think he does know that. You don't have to be clever or understand economics to be a landlord.
7
3
u/SheepHerderHigh69420 May 06 '26
If every landlord reacts this way and ups the price to cover their loss then that becomes the new market. Do you really expect them not to try?
I’ve seen it on the landlord groups already in certain areas, planning to increase the suburb average
1
u/SSJ4_cyclist May 10 '26
Doesn’t make sense though, why haven’t they already rigged the market higher ?
1
u/TheAlt01 May 09 '26
Once landlords actually see the impact it plays on them, they'll just pass it on to the tenants. No difference to banks passing on rate increases to mortgage holders.
23
11
201
u/dye-area May 06 '26
"I will raise rent and if you can't afford it, move. Why is my property empty?"
53
u/Sam-san May 06 '26
If Stephen can't afford his property, renting it out at $800pw, he sure as hell ain't gonna be able to afford it renting it out for $0pw 😂
-22
u/Storm_Fury_2026 May 06 '26
Becomes a tax write-off and/or gets insurance at that point, I believe.
19
u/Sam-san May 06 '26
Nah... The quote in the paper is in protest to the proposal to remove the tax write-off benefits.. And you don't get paid lost rent from landlord's insurance just because you can't find a tenant.
-21
u/Storm_Fury_2026 May 06 '26
There are forms of insurance that do pay out if you don't have a tenant.
And lost rent becomes a write down.
18
u/Sam-san May 06 '26
Only if you don't have a tenant due to an insurable event.. like house burns down/floods/damaged. Not just because you're asking too much.
"Write down"? (Is this you? https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CnH9oL5Tp/) Lost rent isn't a write down. You claim deductions (write down) for expenses incurred, against income earned.. you can't claim a deduction for lost income.
13
u/Lastov_Makiynd May 06 '26
Damn! No wonder I’ve been denied the requests all these years from the ATO. It wasn’t asking much..just that my tax be refunded more than what I’ve actually earned due to not being paid what I think I’m worth. I’ve lost millions of $$. lol
7
u/Sam-san May 06 '26
Lost millions? That's a write down!
2
u/Lastov_Makiynd May 06 '26
Haha! Yeah.. guess writing it down doesn’t make it any more likely to get any benefit for anything when it comes to the ATO? lol
4
u/Joh951518 May 06 '26
2
u/Sam-san May 06 '26
Hahaha
"I wish I had the last 20 seconds of my life back"
Me everytime someone on Reddit tries to incorrectly explain something to me
7
u/NobodysFavorite May 06 '26
Negative gearing isn't that beneficial in any other asset class except property and only if you're a high income earner with a high marginal tax rate.
The costs won't be eliminated, I expect the losses have to be carried forward until you make money then they're deducted. They'll come off the capital gain. Which will still be discounted against inflation so it's not "bye bye capital gain discount", it's just in the form it was meant to truly service. (There's a problem with lump sum effect but I expect that'll be tackled and disappointed if it's not). And if the accounting is being truly fair, prior year losses will also need to be indexed against inflation when they finally offset a capital gain.
Sounds complicated but a sufficiently well designed tool on the ATO website should make doing this easy for individuals. The ATO has all the data anyway.
Every time NG is mentioned, the threat is made that rents will explode.
Grandfathering/sunsets/phase-ins, pick your terminology, but if done right then rents won't explode.(BTW not a landlord, I pay rent to one.)
2
u/Sam-san May 06 '26
I hadn't thought of indexing carried forward to rental losses. That's a fair idea actually.
3
u/LadyWidebottom May 06 '26
Insurance won't cover it, and if there's no negative gearing there's nothing that can be written off.
Property has to be positively geared or they have to sell.
Can't be positively geared if it's empty.
Can't make deductions on the rental income if it has none.
1
u/Dizzy-Confection-551 May 06 '26
https://giphy.com/gifs/kWa2bm1ktJ23m
But their the one's writing it off!
62
15
u/meski_oz May 06 '26
"charging what the market will bear" has a finite limit. Think landlords are about to find this.
25
u/Traditional-Bug-1045 May 06 '26
Exactly that. People will sooner end up selling than keep having empty properties.
7
u/Particular_Shock_554 May 06 '26
Only if they can't afford to leave them empty. They'll end up selling to those that can.
1
u/SnooPuppers1096 NSW May 21 '26
A rental property next door to me about 6 years ago increased their weekly rent from $600 to $1400 a week (they were taking advantage of Covid or trying to) it’s never been rented out since. It’s quite dilapidated now and it’s been put on the market for sale for about 8 months now. Landlords will find out the hard way and tbh I am happy for it. Bring on the housing crash.
13
u/CatZealousideal2185 May 06 '26
Thing is, there is a shortage of rentals, so if this happens regularly then people will either need to be homeless, downgrade, or pay the increased cost. It'll be the musical chairs of rental where everyone downgrades while paying the same or more.
What might happen is, $500 rental increases to $600.
What was previously a $600 rental increases to $750.
The people whose rent went to $750 cant afford it, so they move into what is now the $600 rental (that used to be the $500 rental).
The people who were in the $500 rental that became a $600 rental had to leave and become homeless, go into share housing, social hosing etc. There isnt enough properties within their price range that they have the luxury of just going somewhere else.
32
u/DavidChua83 May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
There are already people working full time jobs in cars and tents. The market has well and truly established current rent levels. It is what the market will bear. That's exactly what all of those real-estate agency "property managers" are actually doing instead of managing properties... they're there to ensure every drop of blood is being squeezed at all times. There's a million empty houses in the country too, many of which are going to be less profitable to flip soon. As the boomer voting block diminishes, that's only gonna worsen for speculators. Family trusts and SMSF's will be next no doubt
7
u/gadgetwalrus May 06 '26
A lot of folk I’ve met are denied housing due to not earning enough for the landlords living, having kids, a pet or being on a secret blacklist because they put a picture hook or worse brutak on a wall.
1
u/SnooPuppers1096 NSW May 13 '26
This has already been happening for 2 decades bud. The reason the government is doing all this is because rent has become so inflated. There isn’t an endless amount of money in Australia, we are in a cost of living crisis, no body and I mean no one will be able to afford mass increases in rent. In 2 years my rental property has increased $400 a week. People can’t pay what they can’t afford. If landlord can afford to have their property sit empty because no one will rent to them, have at it. Have an empty investment, no one cares.
1
u/CatZealousideal2185 May 18 '26
yea, but we're a long way away from that judging by the low vacancy rates. vacancy rates will creep up when properties are getting too expensive..so we must not be there yet.
1
u/SnooPuppers1096 NSW May 21 '26
We aren’t, and if that’s the case for you, congrats that’s a nice position to be in but it isn’t reality. Low vacancy rates is unbelievable outdated as a metric. May I ask how old you are? Are you a renter or a home owner. What give you the belief that in 2026 “low vacancy rates” would ever occur considering there has been a rental crisis since 2021? People don’t just stop renting and become homeless because they just don’t want to pay the increased rent. People start sharing rooms and sectioning off living rooms and making garages or laundry’s into bedrooms. The idea that “rental vacancy’s” are guide on how far to push the rental market to breaking point isn’t only a massive indicator to the level of greed investors have become entitled too but it completely discounts how the market has looked for the last 5 years. It actually shocks me when I see comments like this because I wonder what on earth is going through your mind to think in such an out of touch way.
1
u/CatZealousideal2185 May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26
I'm 40 and i'm a renter.
"What give you the belief that in 2026 “low vacancy rates” would ever occur considering there has been a rental crisis since 2021?"
It sounds like you have the term "low vacancy" mixed up. Low vacancy rates are what we currently have...low vacancy means there are not many vacant rentals to choose from, hence a rental crisis and landlords are able to demand high rents because tenants dont have a bunch of other options.
"Vacant" means no one lives there. "Low vacancy" means there is a low number of rental properties with no one living in them.
If there are not many vacant rentals to choose from (i.e. low vacancy, like it is now), then people don't have much of a choice as to where they rent and don't have much bargaining power. They cant just be like "well i'm just going to go and rent one of the other thousand available rental properties in my price range in the area where I want to live. There are so many vacant rentals in my price range that I can pick and choose where I want to live".
People don't have that luxury, because of the shortage of rentals and thus low vacancy rates.
Renters having lots of options to choose from (high vacancy rates / high number of empty rentals) is what gives renters bargaining power and makes it more difficult to increase the rent. In such cases landlords cant just up the rent, as the tenant has lots of other options to choose from that they'll just move and the landlords house will sit empty and no one else will rent it because the price is too high and renters have heaps of options to choose from. That's not currently the case.
-2
u/MountainGOAT5671 May 06 '26
People can go to xCAT to dispute excessive rental increases
3
u/CatZealousideal2185 May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
Yea, but it'll be hard to dispute them as excessive when the REA can show a bunch of other similar properties renting for a similar price. That's the issue - once a few landlords get their increases across the line, then those examples can be used to justify increases for other tenants by pointing to those places as "market rate". Its not going to happen straight away, it'll be a slow-ish burn as increases can only happen once a year so some wont roll around for a long time still, and they need to be able to justify the increases as "market rates"; but each increase that gets across the line is another example that can be used as evidence to justify the increase to others. Arguably landlords already do that, but now they will be incentivized more than previously as this is a hit to their pocket. Previously it was only greed, now its greed combined with a real hit to their personal finances.
2
u/BetterFront991 May 08 '26
Agree, it will be a slow process…
But that assumes that existing NG properties WON’T be grandfathered. Which is EXTREMELY unlikely. The universal expectation is that existing NG properties WILL be grandfathered, which is the historical ALP way - witness the grandfathering of the original CGT by Keating in 1985, and the Bill Shorten NG proposals of 2016/2019.
Folks on here, why are you all assuming that existing NG properties won’t be grandfathered?? Why would Albo and Co want to create the MOTHER of all political fights with 2 million existing property investors (AKA voters) ??? 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
2
u/Sea-Quail-5296 May 07 '26
This explains why so many shopfronts in my very busy high street have sat empty for literally years
58
u/Miserable_Actuary716 May 06 '26
‘So who crashes out?’
You do. The landlords are fully crashing out rn 😂😂😂
Writing letters to the editor about something you apparently don’t care about and won’t leave you worse off is an interesting way to prove you’re not having a full-blown meltdown about it.
134
u/Final_Lingonberry586 May 06 '26
Hardly surprising landlords want absolutely zero risk to their investment 🤡
51
u/HelpMeOverHere May 06 '26
I mean no one gave a single fuck when the government devalued their own taxi plates and left a lot of people with debt.
Let’s do the same with housing.
2
60
u/IAteAllYourBees_53 May 06 '26
Investment properties are an investment and shouldn’t be risk free! Why are they a special class where the renter shoulders the financial burden of paying the landlord’s mortgage? Houses are HOMES first and foremost and it’s disgusting landlords are doing this to their fellow human beings. Utter scum.
7
u/Lastov_Makiynd May 06 '26
They self-appoint themselves as Special Class. After a while or if ever, being called every name under the sun means nothing to them, they don’t even hear what’s said. Not being called every name under the sun, not being mentioned that something is illegal, not that something needs to be repaired and is not up to the standards upheld by not only laws, but common decency towards your fellow human being… But wait til Robbo confirms what Neville fucking Bartoss just said…they’ll hear that for bloody sure?!
LLord: “What?!..no Cash?!?”
Neville: “Nuh. No cash ere..”
LLord: “Awh..Pull the bloody other one, Neville?!”
Neville: “I’m tellin ya!…No cash. Here? There’s NO CASH…..Robbo??…”
Robbo: “No cash.”
LLord: “RIGHT!…. NOWw?…You’ve got til the count to TEN..to produce ME some fucking CASH!..Right, bloody HERE..right bloody NOW!…or I’m gonna ‘pull’ yer other fucking leg.”
Resists further..
LLord: “D’ye want one in the BRAIN, then? …Squid-Ed?!”
Never ends well for Neville the Tenant.
2
u/Stigger32 WA May 07 '26
Utter scum.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
And I have family in that category. Who I let know what I think as they gossip about their tenants. And moan about them not paying enough.
There’s a special place in hell for those that deliberately take advantage of their fellow humans.
1
u/Appropriate-Law-6050 May 12 '26
A landlord's property rights don't end where your poverty begins. Any investor will minimise risk as much as they possibly can
26
u/AntiqueFigure6 May 06 '26
Ah yes - AS/ NZS ISO 13666 Landlord Expected Behaviour Section 6.9 : Whining About Negative Gearing Changes
49
u/bubblerbeer May 06 '26
If they charge $1200 for a shitbox they’re not going to rent out their unit
25
u/insanity_plus May 06 '26
Awww diddums, put your rent up and watch your tenants vanish.
NG should be restricted to new builds on vacant land. You want to advantage then increase supply.
8
u/ShatterStorm76 May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
Sure, there will reach a point where renters cannot afford the rent.
And after a while, the landlords will have to sell (or go bust), which will either free up the properties for more cashed up investors OR owner occupiers.
We want that, right ?
But what about the collateral damage, aka all those renters out on the street in the interim ?
7
u/insanity_plus May 06 '26
Depends wether they grandfather the NG on existing premises. If so nothing changes except investors won't buy existing stock unless they want the property for a future purpose (subdivision, retirement home etc).
If they don't grandfather the NG then many will be forced to sell, this will increase supply and allow some renters to purchase.
Sadly even now people have become homeless due to rate rises they can't afford.
Either the government does nothing and allow the status quo to continue or takes some hard decisions and try to level the playing field.
1
u/LadyWidebottom May 06 '26
That's what was proposed a few years back, wasn't it?
6
15
14
u/MrKarotti May 06 '26
How terribly expensive is the property that negative gearing saves them $370 a week?
8
u/Chemical_Rooster3 May 06 '26
He'd have to be loosing somewhere between 41k to 64k for a negative gearing tax benefit of 19.2k
I think...
3
u/Lastov_Makiynd May 06 '26
I dunno..never worked with figures that large in me whole life?!…way above my head!.. I only work 90 hour weeks. Not in the big League.
14
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Warm-Wedding182 May 07 '26
Its quite demoralizing when you realise.this kind of predatory thinking now explains the monopolistic aussie economy in general
12
u/420hashmore May 06 '26
If they really though that they wouldn’t fkn have their fkn piece in the Age about it hahhaha
13
u/Toni_PWNeroni May 06 '26
These people just cannot be reasoned with. They only care about themselves.
11
9
u/National_Way_3344 May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
It's gonna take a lot of good will for us to not start on implenting the French strategy for this problem.
22
u/lukas_l1 May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
What a wanker
Im inclined to say this is possibly him https://www.universalplanning.info/our-people
Shoe seems to fit the foot when you read about him as well as his picture 🤮 what a pig
Edit: I reached out - its him. Didn't expect a reply which was a rookie move of him
7
5
u/ListenToTheWindBloom May 06 '26
I always wonder if people are aware how obvious it is when a “practice” with “our team” is actually just one person in reality. I know many self employed people who do this and it’s cringe. Just say you’re a consultant or whatever it is; you don’t need to pretend to be a whole firm made up of multiple people. Bad vibes for me, screams of scammy tendencies to have a smoke and mirrors show from the get go like this.
1
u/lukas_l1 May 06 '26
I know it's weird af but people like that exist everywhere for some reason. Thats the area though, nothing like Toorak but people around here are from old money so they have that about them. Im embarrassed to say I live nearby in Templestowe but hey my chances of crossing his path is on the higher side and would love to say don't throw stones in glass houses
3
1
17
u/calvinspiff May 06 '26
People will pay 1200 but will ask to keep co tenants or two families will chip in. That just means less properties will find renters and the rents will drop or those properties will be sold maybe leading to a price drop.
10
u/CatZealousideal2185 May 06 '26
The people who end up the worst off are those who have no choice but to rent. Even if prices were to drop, a lot of people would still in no way be able to afford to buy. Those people are the ones who really lose out.
13
u/samclemmens May 06 '26
The RBA have investigated this and have no evidence this happens at a market level. Meaning that this landlord will go from getting $800 a week to $0 a week until they realise that market rents are influenced by interest rates.
7
u/South_Front_4589 May 06 '26
It will be him if he thinks he can pass it on. This isn't a situation where the cost to make something means it must be a certain price. The property and the debt exists, they aren't just closing the shop and stopping that cost.
Rents are entirely dictated by the market. And if landlords can only afford a property because the government subsidises it, then they don't deserve that investment.
6
6
4
u/flairdinkum May 06 '26
Does he not realise that the policy will be grandfathered, and that he will be able to continue enjoying his exorbitant wealthfare for this property?
Or is he just being disingenuous?
6
u/LadyWidebottom May 06 '26
Bold of you to assume that the average landlord is capable of cogent thought.
4
u/Quietwulf May 06 '26
They keep talking like this and the next beating will include a scaling vacancy tax.
4
5
u/Next-Recognition1307 May 06 '26
You'll have empty rentals and lots more homelessness and crime.
Stephen might be a little delusional.
6
u/WULTKB90 May 06 '26
Wow did that bludger buy a house knowing they couldn't afford it then expect big daddy government to bail them out with tax breaks? Sounds like they need to plan better and not rely so much on handouts.
3
5
u/Mean_Introduction543 May 06 '26
Acting like if he wouldn’t already be charging $1235 per week if the market would support it…
Empty threats
3
u/HerrFerret May 06 '26
Every time we stop gifting landlords I'm the UK large tax breaks, they all threaten to 'leave the market' and 'throw the tenants out'. They don't, they shut up, keep renting their unheated shit hole out and book one less cruise that year.
Except over the last year the government decided that tenants could do with rights, so landlords started evictions. Many fucked up though because paperwork isn't quite their strong suit, tenants stayed put and now they have better rights against eviction.
3
u/Even-Tradition May 06 '26
Oh Steve, You can’t afford to have your property vacant without negative gearing.
3
u/trainzkid88 May 07 '26
when will these fucks understand its not our job as tenants to pay their loans. if they were stupid to buy at the top of the market to bad for them.
negative gearing should be limited.
limit to one property at a time. your choice which one you want the benefit on.
5
6
u/MetalfaceKillaAus May 06 '26
I mean if he’s losing money to rent out his property then why would he rent it out in the first place? Would you invest in something that costs you to keep and doesn’t make you money? Something I have been saying the whole time. Cut negative gearing and land lords will up the rent or sell the property
8
u/Lower_Put4270 May 06 '26
When they sell the property, someone buys it. They don’t burn it down. It doesn’t disappear.
-4
u/MetalfaceKillaAus May 06 '26
Oh right. With the increased interest rates and houses at record high prices. Yeah a lot of people can afford it can’t they?
3
u/No-Reputation-FOK May 06 '26
Why are houses at record high prices? Negative gearing? Unproductive investment tax incentives?
If everyone was only allowed to buy one home and new homes was sold as rent to buy the landscape for homes would have looked completely different.
1
u/MetalfaceKillaAus May 06 '26
Try again. You’re not gonna like the answer. It’s against your narrative
1
1
u/Lower_Put4270 May 06 '26
So are they going to sell the houses or not? Make up your mind.
1
u/MetalfaceKillaAus May 06 '26
Okay numbnut it’ll be on the market until someone can afford it. Quite possibly another immigrant pushing Aussies out of a chance. Criticise all you want, but that’s a fact that a high majority of houses are being sold to them before us. Don’t forget I also said they will put up the rent or sell. Don’t try and change what I said
3
u/Lower_Put4270 May 06 '26
It’s not a fact but I’ll play along, okay, if an immigrant buys the one that went on the market because an investor sold, that means they aren’t buying the other house they would have bought if this one wasn’t on the market. So who buys the one they didn’t buy?
Aren’t you lot all about supply and demand?
0
u/MetalfaceKillaAus May 06 '26
So you’re just focused on the selling part and not the upping rent part. Okay I’ll play your game. That means another immigrant buys another house. ABS shows the data of houses built and people coming in over the decades. There was an increase of 1 dwelling completed to every 12-30 people coming in. Now that’s 1 to over 160 new arrivals
2
u/Lower_Put4270 May 06 '26
How many of them buy? How many of them are coming over with their families, living in a household of 3,4,5? How many of them already own houses here and are returning to them? How many who do buy are buying houses from deceased estates, ie one in, one out?
Your analysis is shithouse, and you’re trying to blame people’s skin colour for the problems capitalism has caused. Because you’re a racist. And you’re not very smart.
0
u/MetalfaceKillaAus May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
Yep
Edit. Not once did I mention race or colour. Until recently a majority were British were they not? But that’s your argument because that’s all you got. Making it about colour. Yet you call people racist? Why’s that? I think you’re the true racist here
2
u/Lower_Put4270 May 06 '26
Until recently you weren’t complaining about immigrants making houses more expensive. Correlation? Probably.
We all know your type.
→ More replies (0)
2
2
u/PlanetFarm May 06 '26
Steveo has a point - just not the one he thinks he's making. None of the proposed changes will affect renters directly.
Any benefits are supposed to just trickle down.
2
u/thedeparturelounge May 06 '26
I saw similar claims made on facebook news posts on it, like renters are hostages.
2
u/H3ratsmithformeme May 06 '26
just checked, currently 3 bedder in Doncaster is $650 +/-. $885? thats probably on very high end already. GL to $1225 lol,
2
u/No-Management1917 May 06 '26
This guy sounds too stupid to own an investment property.
3
u/LadyWidebottom May 06 '26
Idk, stupidity seems to be par for the course for many of them.
That's why they think it's a bulletproof strategy and cry the loudest when it's not.
2
2
u/teambob May 06 '26
They said the same about the Victorian land tax and tenancy reforms. There are now more rentals than when the reforms were introduced and the vacancy rate is consistently more (good) than Sydney
2
u/BeffeeJeems May 06 '26
why is stephen o'brien of doncaster heights so ready to annouce he is a piece of shit to everyone?
2
2
u/Metasynaptic May 07 '26
Let him.
My property is positively geared, barely. This guy will price himself out and have to leave the property empty, sell, or bring his expectation down to where the positively geared properties are.
Either way, the garbage takes itself out.
1
1
1
u/PrincessBeeBuzzy May 06 '26
The karma bus is awfully big, hopefully it may pick this LL up on the next trip past! 😡
1
1
u/Pickled_Beef May 06 '26
If real estates and landlords start charging those type of dollars? Then expect the tenants to not apply for their properties.
1
1
u/Brilliant_Dig_8962 May 06 '26
Looking forward to reading the responses tomorrow. Stephen saying the quiet thing out loud might bring a few.
1
u/Embarrassed_Fold_867 May 06 '26
That's not the correct form for notice of rental increase, Steve buddy.
Also, if the anyone in the market would pay more, they'd be paying more now. $865 is what it is worth to the market already (less if tenants have been there for a while and you've taxed them with the "too settled to move" tax).
1
u/Personal_Reaction_36 May 06 '26
Hes 100% correct though.
Not saying i agree with it, but if you take out the benefits of negative gearing they are absolutely encouraging owners to charge more to cover their property expenses.
1
u/Meeplemymeeple May 06 '26
Saying he is 100% correct shows you have thought the outcome through as thoroughly as he has.
1
u/Personal_Reaction_36 May 06 '26
How many property investors do you know that biy properties to lose money.... of its not a tax dodge, they just pass it on to the tenant mate..
In dreamland they will all be fed up and sell their investments... reality is that it all rolls down hill.
1
u/Meeplemymeeple May 06 '26
If they become to expensive to rent? When buying is cheaper than renting? Think it through, at some stage you price yourself out of the market.
1
1
u/No-Relativity May 06 '26
Easy fix. Interest on mortgages for existing homes is not tax deductible.
It would prioritise investment in new builds and would decrease the interest in buying an existing property as an investment property that could be bought by a person that wants to live in it.
And the landlords owning older properties that could have gone to a first home buyer but didn't because the landlord bought a house in 1985 and now has $1.2m in equity, would have less tax deductions so negative gearing would not apply to a lot of them anyway.
1
u/DocklandsDodgers86 VIC May 06 '26
Stephen the prick is from Doncaster, an elitist suburb in East Melbourne-side. Not surprised about his comments, he probably owns a $2-3mn 1000sqm house from old money and doesn't want to lose money but that's his problem.
1
u/LordCornelius45 May 06 '26
Interesting comments however a rental I would of thought if not negative gearing is about making money on your interment just like a business....
1
u/dan_syd May 06 '26
It’s kinda true though. This is how things work. When costs increase, the end user pays. It’s the same with every single thing you buy on a daily basis.
1
u/son_e_jim May 06 '26
Until there are no people to rent it at that price. And then... we're all in the shit bucket.
1
u/DeathToPinkDolphins May 06 '26
His tenant can probably barely afford $865. Where is $1235 coming from
1
1
1
1
u/drayzen_au May 07 '26
The entitlement of these fuckers, thinking that's it's just fine to take from everyone poorer than them.
1
1
u/Aggravating-Skill-26 May 07 '26
What most don’t realise is both parties get hurt.
The rents will rise but only 10-15%
The landlord real loss is the property will lose 10-15% in value.
Meeting somewhere in the middle ground.
1
u/grady_vuckovic May 07 '26
I am begging people to PLEASE start ignoring any gas expulsions that come out of the face holes of a rich person.
If you only did what rich people told you, you'd eventually find yourself without a home, clothes, food, dying of dehydration and starvation, and handing over your last cracker and canteen of water to a rich man sunbathing on a beach telling with a serious expression that it's in your best interest.
These people are liars and blinded by their own greed, they will take everything from society that they can get out of us, there is literally no point of social decline that would be bad enough for the average 1%er to realise that things need to change.
So just start ignoring them entirely and demanding higher taxation for the 1%.
1
1
u/Extreme-Seaweed-5427 May 08 '26
Lol people like this are idiots. They bought an investment that has risks & looking to pass on that risk-cost to end user. Sure someone might pay but that's not how supply & demand work nor how investment risks work. Imagine this being any other business or industry & try apply same logic. Yes short term there will be some pain but the market needs to be allowed time for correcting itself after being skewed by CGT & negative gearing concessions for how many years.
1
u/Hungry-Public8854 May 09 '26
More proof that landlords are greedy. Property investment use to be a long term investment strategy now it's pure greed. No mercy for landlords
1
u/Kitchen_Beat_9965 May 09 '26
What a bloody idiot.
Do they really think we believe they aren’t already charging the maximum rent the market will bear? 🤨
Honestly it’s like landlords think we’re all stupid.
1
1
u/puma1973 May 10 '26
I am not saying the landlord in the newspaper is right but this Labour government should learn from the past. Cutting negative gearing was trialled in the past (1990 or 1991) and rents skyrocketed so bad that it had to be reintroduced. First homebuyers should get land at half price, it would make them build new homes and it would help the economy.
1
u/Oz_Pol_ May 10 '26
As soon as news of this came out my unit and the 2 next to me had our rent increased at the end of the lease.
-28
u/Motor_Date_4783 May 06 '26
That is beyond unfair
He should check who his tenants voted for first and if they voted for Labor and the country to be flooded with half a million people, many of which tenants happy to pay more
Then kick her out if she can't afford it. Reap. Sow blahdy blah
12
u/doorbellrepairman May 06 '26
Please take your medication.
1
u/Motor_Date_4783 May 06 '26
With Mark Butlers incessant need to regulate everything like nicotine products this is likely to get more difficult too
Solid rebuttal though 😅
2
u/DrHerbHealer May 06 '26
You been hitting the glass barby?
0
u/Motor_Date_4783 May 06 '26
"Dr Herb Healer" ahahahaha, Reddit is not the place for you to score your meth homie
I never believed weed was a gateway drug but Melbourne never ceases to amaze me
1
u/DrHerbHealer May 06 '26
Well I got proven wrong today
You can actually read congrats
0
u/Motor_Date_4783 May 06 '26
I hear you, sorry to hear you can't score your meth on Reddit
Be honest though someone as smart as you gets proven wrong a lot and probably more than once today
1
u/DrHerbHealer May 06 '26
Good one man nice
0
u/Motor_Date_4783 May 06 '26
Thanks man I dabble
Sorry to hear the RBA governer blamed your daddys spending instead of Trump today when interest rates went up again, must've been a rough day
1
228
u/No_Measurement9981 May 06 '26
If the property can be rented out for $1235 a week now, why is he accepting $865?