The future of Australian property prices

[sptrawler]

Without a readjusted Govt policy they would probably blow out of proportion. It's one of the reasons I think the fed Govt should revisit negative gearing and state Govts look at their stamp duty % for expensive highrises held together with elastic bands and gold cladding

Absolutely, remove negative gearing for a period of time, then if it is required re introduce it.
To just have it on new builds and not on established, will just skew property investment to the wealthy and the resulting drop in established values would encourage land banking.
Stamp duty IMO should be replaced by a land tax, the tax being mainly on the cost of purchase unfairly loads the purchase price.

 

[matty77]

I wouldnt be doing anything right now to reduce the value for investing in property, its probably going to go down or at at least not go up for some time, too many factors happening at once that will cause this, the only thing that isn't going to happen is high interest rates....

Unemployment will go up
Foreign investment in house will go down
Rental returns will be reduced
The ability to actually get to a property to view is harder at the moment
Commercial property is screwed, with people in both commercial and residential they may look to sell to reduce debt

I just cant see property going up at the moment, its more of a hold on and see what happens type thing I think.

 

[orr]

Some subscribe to the fairy tales of Ayn Rand...
For others there are the lessons of History...
I'd more than welcome critique on the following;
https://thesocialist.org.au/short-history-rent-control-australia/

Leveraged in property??? ........ooh dear...
Over leveraged in property... Oh ooOh dear....and pray for rent control. You'll might well be needing it.

Small wonder why Dutton(8 negatively geared properties? or more?) & co in the Government are stepping wide from the suggestion of any form of pay cut... putting themselves in the same basket as the rest of the citizenry......Pull team OZ we're all in it together... parasites and all.

 

[wayneL]

Oh for Gawdsake @orr

What a mishmash of ideological bias and bullcrap. This is how threads get derailed.

 

[matty77]

you lost me at socialist...

 

[sptrawler]

Some subscribe to the fairy tales of Ayn Rand...
For others there are the lessons of History...
I'd more than welcome critique on the following;
https://thesocialist.org.au/short-history-rent-control-australia/

Leveraged in property??? ........ooh dear...
Over leveraged in property... Oh ooOh dear....and pray for rent control. You'll might well be needing it.

Small wonder why Dutton(8 negatively geared properties? or more?) & co in the Government are stepping wide from the suggestion of any form of pay cut... putting themselves in the same basket as the rest of the citizenry......Pull team OZ we're all in it together... parasites and all.

I'm sure I read Nick Xenophon, champion for the downtrodden had 20 negative geared properties lol
Also lets not forget, the proposed changes to negative gearing, were only to stop funding for cheap properties not all properties.
The only proposed changes to negative gearing, favoured those wealthy enough to build a new one and it was going to include not only negative gearing but government rental assistance also.

 

[Dona Ferentes]

I'm sure I read Nick Xenophon, champion for the downtrodden had 20 negative geared properties lol

as have the 'progressive left' and greens in ACT Legislature. Not 20, but enough.

 

[macca]

I'm sure I read Nick Xenophon, champion for the downtrodden had 20 negative geared properties lol
Also lets not forget, the proposed changes to negative gearing, were only for cheap properties not all properties.
the only proposed changes to negative gearing, favoured those wealthy enough to build a new one and it was going to include not only negative gearing but government rental assistance also.

Nick listed assets as owning 8 properties in 2014, no mention if negative geared or not

 

[Dona Ferentes]

Nick listed assets as owning 8 properties in 2014, no mention if negative geared or not

Not geared! What do you reckon? Dream on. Overpaid poodlefanciers, that have a 'marginal tax problem' so they take the bait and gear up, hear the siren call and aim for that deduction ..... pretty good wicket when you have job security (until it isn't)

Now Covid is 'shaking the tree' and its going to be interesting to see what is littering the ground in the aftermath.

Leverage works both ways.

 

[sptrawler]

Nick listed assets as owning 8 properties in 2014, no mention if negative geared or not

I may be wrong but usually when I read something like that it sticks, if not i appologies.
Not because because I think he has done anything wrong, because he wouldn't have, if the rules allow it anyone can do it.
Those heavily into negative gearing now will be burnt badly, that is the name of the game, you take your chances and the ups and downs.
What I dislike is when anything is changed to affect only a certain group, if you want to have equity i.e risk and return, make it overall.
Just stop negative gearing for a period of time if the market is distorted, don't just distort one section, because the section you want to distort in Sydney, has the same distortion in country towns which might suffer much more.

 

[sptrawler]

Not geared! What do you reckon? Dream on. Overpaid poodlefanciers, that have a 'marginal tax problem' so they take the bait and gear up, hear the siren call and aim for that deduction ..... pretty good wicket when you have job security (until it isn't)

Now Covid is 'shaking the tree' and its going to be interesting to see what is littering the ground in the aftermath.

Leverage works both ways.

Absolutely, what gets up my nose is when you have to hear the bleeding hearts on t.v, when they get burnt.
Like I said a while back and was slammed for it, I hope the recession is hard , short and sharp, it blows the ponsi schemes.
The property market has become an absolute ponsi scheme and needs to be shot to $hit, it does nothing for the economy and makes people wage slaves IMO.
El Dorado, come to Sydney or Melbourne, hock yourself up to the eyeballs and wait for a profit.
That isn't a great way to try and build Australia's future wealth and it isn't a healthy plan for our youth to aspire to. IMO
There is much more productive and creative ways to produce wealth, than join a Government funded, Sydney- Melbourne based ponsi scheme.

 

[macca]

To slow negative gearing activity the RBA needs to mandate a minimum unencumbered deposit of X on investment properties, perhaps 20% would mean that Negative gearing is far less attractive

In NZ it has been the rule for a while now

<<First, because of the loan to value ratio (LVR) restrictions, investors have required a deposit of at least 30% for several years now and, on average, will be less likely to be making operating losses than in the past – hence, less likely to actually be utilising the tax advantage. Sure, many will still be using it. But it’ll be less common than in the absence of the LVR rules. Second, and perhaps most importantly, it’s a ring-fence, not complete removal. Investors will still be able to use losses to reduce their tax bill, just on>>

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/05/nz-go-alone-negative-gearing-reform/

 

[sptrawler]

If you want to deflate house prices, yet allow first home buyers into the market, allow first home buyers to be able to clain their home interest as a tax offset upto a certain house price say $750k.
Then cancel negative gearing untill the market settles.
That would encourage first home buyers to either build or buy upto $750k, anyone else can only claim a tax offset upto the value of the rent received.
So if an investor buys a house and get $30k rent, they can claim a $30k max offset for interest and maintenance etc.
Then the property is bought for a realistic return, not just as a tax offset.
The property market then has to return to sustainable market values, also non Australian citisens should not be allowed to buy, only lease.

 

[Dona Ferentes]

a Government subsidised, Sydney- Melbourne based Ponzi scheme.

And even worse distortion, in regional Aust! Where Capital Gains are sluggish, but yields are high. Clever Richard Accountant or Ms Takin (yr money) points out the deduction to be realised against tax, and the mugs rush in. Destroys the local economy, where median incomes are low and prospects precarious.

Watch Cairns and Hobart, and most places in between, plummet.

 

[sptrawler]

And even worse distortion, in regional Aust! Where Capital Gains are sluggish, but yields are high. Clever Richard Accountant or Ms Takin (yr money) points out the deduction to be realised against tax, and the mugs rush in. Destroys the local economy, where median incomes are low and prospects precarious.

Watch Cairns and Hobart, and most places in between, plummet.

The result of 20 years of filling the vacuum left by loss of manufacturing, with a ponsi based housing boom, it has to end in crash and burn or else we will end up like Bali.
Waiters to overseas rich tourists and holiday property owners, we are living in a fools paradise IMO.
Everyone sitting back cruising, thinking life is great, while everything of value is either being stripped or bought by overseas interests.

 

[orr]

Oh for Gawdsake @orr

What a mishmash of ideological bias and bullcrap. This is how threads get derailed.

Difficult I know Anyle; It's a three minute read... It's history not propaganda.
Try, if possible to be enlightening, for once. Find me a potted history of rent control from any conservative view point.
There may be one but it was way too tempting to hit the buttons of the learn nothing know nothing brigade of reactionary conservatives that haunt these threads with their most feared boogie man....

And more pertinent son, it's very relavant to this thread, for those with any analytical capacity.

A short history of rent control in Australia
EDITOR, SEPTEMBER 24, 2018

Reading Time: 3 minutes


Lots of people have heard that rent control, or rent regulation, exists in some counties in Europe, or in some states in the US, but very few are aware that it has also existed at various times in Australia.

For the most part governments have been forced to reign in private landlords during times of economic and social crisis.

Rent control was first introduced in New South Wales during the First World War in 1916, as part of the Fair Rents Act. This Act was amended in 1928 to wind back rent controls, but during the Great Depression rent controls were reintroduced with the Reduction of Rent Act (1931). This resulted in a 23% reduction in rents and restrictions on evictions.

The powers-that-be once again ended rent control with the Landlords and Tenants (Amendment) Act in 1932. This chopping and changing mostly coincided with changes of government at the New South Wales state level.

At the beginning of World War Two, 50% of all households were tenants of private landlords. The Commonwealth, under its defence powers, introduced the National Security (Fair Rents) Regulations 1939. This gave the states the power to freeze rents and establish Fair Rent Boards.

A form of rent control existed in most states across Australia and continued until August 1948. At this point there was a constitutional challenge against the government’s right to continue wartime price controls.

These controls were kept in the context of social unrest, strikes, communist agitation and the recent experience of the Great Depression. The constitutional challenge led to an unsuccessful referendum, where the Chifley government attempted to gain back rent and other price control measures.

The Landlord and Tenants Act 1948 maintained rent control in New South Wales beyond this, in order to provide security of tenure to all tenants. This was because of the dire need for accommodation following the war.

In 1954 however, all newly constructed buildings were exempted from the Act, and by 1956 a premise could be ‘decontrolled’ when vacated if registered with the Fair Rent Board.

In 1960 there were still 207,000 controlled dwellings, which amounted to two thirds of all private rental properties. In 1968, ‘wealthy tenant provisions’ were introduced to bring rents up to market value, winding back rent control further.

By 1974 there were only 20,000 rent-controlled tenancies in New South Wales and by 1986 no new protected tenancies could be created. The exception to this was ‘inheritance’, where if tenant died then a spouse or dependent could continue the lease.

A similar story played out in Victoria, where the Landlord and Tenants Act 1958 restricted the application of rent control provisions to ‘prescribed premises’.

In 1956 there were 180,000 protected tenants, but this was slowly whittled away. The Residential Tenancy Act 1980 aimed to remove rent control on the remaining premises over a period of two years. It was estimated that up to 10,000 pensioners still had rent control at that stage, and this Act caused a massive increase in rents for those least able to afford it.

In place of rent control, a new system was established in Victoria where a tenant could complain to the Residential Tenancy Tribunal if an increase in their rent was considered excessive. This was nowhere near as effective as proper government regulation.

Western Australia commenced the decontrol of rent in 1951. In Tasmania, rent control ended in 1955. In Queensland, protected tenancies were abolished in 1970 and in South Australia in 1962.

Today renters face renewed financial pressures, with millions once again suffering from rent stress. This is a direct consequence of landlords, developers and speculators making billions of dollars from people’s intrinsic need for a place to live.

As it stands, the rights of renters in Australia have been severely curtailed. There is a desperate need to build a movement of renters to pressure governments to overhaul the laws and grant renters much improved rights.

Rent control and other reforms have been won in the past, they can be won again. Let’s renew the fight!

**

 

[Bill M]

Rent control and other reforms have been won in the past, they can be won again. Let’s renew the fight!

Why on earth would anyone want to buy a residential investment property only to have even more government controls put on you. I am so very glad I sold my investment property, now I have absolutely no worries at all.

 

[macca]

Why on earth would anyone want to buy a residential investment property only to have even more government controls put on you. I am so very glad I sold my investment property, now I have absolutely no worries at all.

This is an investment forum so surely all can understand that should more controls be brought in then there would be less investment properties available for rent.

In the initial stages it would work in tenants favour but as properties got sold and less investments properties were purchased, rents would escalate dramatically at the time of the initial tenancy.

Market forces work both ways, if it is not profitable then it won't happen.

 

[sptrawler]

Why on earth would anyone want to buy a residential investment property only to have even more government controls put on you. I am so very glad I sold my investment property, now I have absolutely no worries at all.

Im with you on that Bill, it is hard work for a very average rate of return, my guess is it is going to be even harder in the current climate.
No migrant intake, jobless rates increasing, very little sympathy for landlords = a world of pain for landlords, especially those with loans that have PPR as collateral.
Just my opinion, lots of family stress in those households.

 

[jbocker]

Difficult I know Anyle; It's a three minute read... It's history not propaganda.
Try, if possible to be enlightening, for once. Find me a potted history of rent control from any conservative view point.
There may be one but it was way too tempting to hit the buttons of the learn nothing know nothing brigade of reactionary conservatives that haunt these threads with their most feared boogie man....

And more pertinent son, it's very relavant to this thread, for those with any analytical capacity.

A short history of rent control in Australia
EDITOR, SEPTEMBER 24, 2018

Reading Time: 3 minutes


Lots of people have heard that rent control, or rent regulation, exists in some counties in Europe, or in some states in the US, but very few are aware that it has also existed at various times in Australia.

For the most part governments have been forced to reign in private landlords during times of economic and social crisis.

Rent control was first introduced in New South Wales during the First World War in 1916, as part of the Fair Rents Act. This Act was amended in 1928 to wind back rent controls, but during the Great Depression rent controls were reintroduced with the Reduction of Rent Act (1931). This resulted in a 23% reduction in rents and restrictions on evictions.

The powers-that-be once again ended rent control with the Landlords and Tenants (Amendment) Act in 1932. This chopping and changing mostly coincided with changes of government at the New South Wales state level.

At the beginning of World War Two, 50% of all households were tenants of private landlords. The Commonwealth, under its defence powers, introduced the National Security (Fair Rents) Regulations 1939. This gave the states the power to freeze rents and establish Fair Rent Boards.

A form of rent control existed in most states across Australia and continued until August 1948. At this point there was a constitutional challenge against the government’s right to continue wartime price controls.

These controls were kept in the context of social unrest, strikes, communist agitation and the recent experience of the Great Depression. The constitutional challenge led to an unsuccessful referendum, where the Chifley government attempted to gain back rent and other price control measures.

The Landlord and Tenants Act 1948 maintained rent control in New South Wales beyond this, in order to provide security of tenure to all tenants. This was because of the dire need for accommodation following the war.

In 1954 however, all newly constructed buildings were exempted from the Act, and by 1956 a premise could be ‘decontrolled’ when vacated if registered with the Fair Rent Board.

In 1960 there were still 207,000 controlled dwellings, which amounted to two thirds of all private rental properties. In 1968, ‘wealthy tenant provisions’ were introduced to bring rents up to market value, winding back rent control further.

By 1974 there were only 20,000 rent-controlled tenancies in New South Wales and by 1986 no new protected tenancies could be created. The exception to this was ‘inheritance’, where if tenant died then a spouse or dependent could continue the lease.

A similar story played out in Victoria, where the Landlord and Tenants Act 1958 restricted the application of rent control provisions to ‘prescribed premises’.

In 1956 there were 180,000 protected tenants, but this was slowly whittled away. The Residential Tenancy Act 1980 aimed to remove rent control on the remaining premises over a period of two years. It was estimated that up to 10,000 pensioners still had rent control at that stage, and this Act caused a massive increase in rents for those least able to afford it.

In place of rent control, a new system was established in Victoria where a tenant could complain to the Residential Tenancy Tribunal if an increase in their rent was considered excessive. This was nowhere near as effective as proper government regulation.

Western Australia commenced the decontrol of rent in 1951. In Tasmania, rent control ended in 1955. In Queensland, protected tenancies were abolished in 1970 and in South Australia in 1962.

Today renters face renewed financial pressures, with millions once again suffering from rent stress. This is a direct consequence of landlords, developers and speculators making billions of dollars from people’s intrinsic need for a place to live.

As it stands, the rights of renters in Australia have been severely curtailed. There is a desperate need to build a movement of renters to pressure governments to overhaul the laws and grant renters much improved rights.

Rent control and other reforms have been won in the past, they can be won again. Let’s renew the fight!

**

In history how was relaxing rent controls offset by things like state housing, Home Start Assistance Home grants etc? Nice summary of history but seems an incomplete view of rental housing.
Could we promote extensive State housing as competition against the landlords. If we have more state housing then everyone pays to create homes for those who choose to rent. And you have rent control. Could fight for that.