Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Great Aussie Housing Bubble - Reality or Fantasy?

Jump to new
TimeISmoney said:
I've put them on ignore, don't have much time for ignorant people, and most likely don't own a home by the looks of things. The insurance for my one of my rentals is 8x the gross weekly rent, you can't even get a plumber out to fix a tap washer they're just not interested unless it's over $400. It's always the same useless crap coming from the type of people who have never had anything to do with supplying housing and have no idea about the holding costs. The reason the govt didn't keep up with social housing is because they knew the cost of it and tried to push it onto defenseless mum and dad investors who are naive and gullible. I've got over 40 years of experience with rentals and that's why I migrated over to this site because I no longer want to deal with all the garbage around the rental industry.
Click to expand...

I am not ignorant on the matter at all.

1, As I said I am both a home owner (you must not be reading my posts correctly)

2, I own 2 rentals. (So understand the cost of owning vs renting)

3, I have substantial other investments, so understand capital allocation, and the various taxes etc.

Your only really arguments to defend the sweet heart deal home owners get are emotional, I think that’s the real reason you have blocked me, you are emotional, your arguments are not based on math.

Your opinions are based on self interest, but as I said I am a home owner, so am arguing against my self interest, so who is more credible???

You say you have been investing for 40 years, but some how still hope to qualify for the pension??? You must not be that good at investing.
 
Value Collector said:
As a home owner this “profit” (eg difference between cost you actually pay to live in your home vs what you would have to pay in rent) goes to you untaxed, and doesn’t stop you claiming the pension.
Click to expand...
Yet if that same person sold their home and put the money into their super, then rented so that they didn't have to claim the pension, they would be told they shouldn't get their franking credits.

Life is full of irony and hypocrisy, yet those most guilty of it, don't recognise it.

On one hand the person who lives in a $2m house and pulls a $26k pension, is considered more deserving.
Than someone who sells the $2m dollar house, puts $1.7m of the money in their super and gets say $20k of franking credits which is less than the pension, they should lose those credits.
 
Last edited:
Value Collector said:
When you decide to own a home you are deciding to allocate capital towards providing you a place to live that you would other wise have to rent. So that capital you allocate towards your home is a productive asset,
Click to expand...
In an economics sense agreed, no problem.

Home ownership does however also have non-economic benefits which leads many people to prefer it over renting even if, financially, there's no gain.

There are good landlords around, no question.

There are however also landlords who drag their feet over even basic matters such as fixing something that's broken, providing adequate heating and cooling, or who arc up that oddly enough their 20 year old carpet's looking a bit worn so let's blame the tenant and keep their bond.

Then there's the hoops to jump through to get a rental in the first place. A retired millionaire who sells their own house then rents might actually have some trouble passing the tests - can't show a payslip since the don't work, can't provide a rental referee because they haven't rented for decades, etc. But almost certainly they'd be an outstandingly good tenant - if someone's aged 50+ and worth millions then odds are they're not going to throw wild parties and it's a given they can pay the rent. They're probably not going to move out anytime soon either.

All the nonsense that comes with renting is a very real deterrent regardless of the economics. That alone skews people to favour ownership and the older they get, the more daunting renting becomes.

Sorry Sir, I know you're worth a few $ million but you need to get a job otherwise you can't rent a house. That's alarmingly close to the truth with the way many RE agents and landlords work. :2twocents
 
TimeISmoney said:
The Greens are on a resi investor sites with legal aid lawyers attacking them every day, they want to bring in new laws where pensioners have to disperse their assets like homes around and above the 1 mil mark before they go on the pension. So working hard and saving will not pay off in the future. Labor has always been hopeless at running an economy, they're just desperate to find money to fund their crazy Robinhood ventures.

You have to be crazier than what they are to hold a rental these days, by the time you go through all the legal avenues to remove a tenant that hasn't paid rent it could be up to 3 months, and by that time, they could have punched a hole in every room of the house or burnt your house down. Insurances are looking at every avenue to sidestep paying out, so one mistake from a property manager could void an insurance claim.
Click to expand...
Been there and had that done. Only have 1 house that was rented now and is now vacant and will be in the forseeable futute.
 
Smurf1976 said:
In an economics sense agreed, no problem.

Home ownership does however also have non-economic benefits which leads many people to prefer it over renting even if, financially, there's no gain.

There are good landlords around, no question.

There are however also landlords who drag their feet over even basic matters such as fixing something that's broken, providing adequate heating and cooling, or who arc up that oddly enough their 20 year old carpet's looking a bit worn so let's blame the tenant and keep their bond.

Then there's the hoops to jump through to get a rental in the first place. A retired millionaire who sells their own house then rents might actually have some trouble passing the tests - can't show a payslip since the don't work, can't provide a rental referee because they haven't rented for decades, etc. But almost certainly they'd be an outstandingly good tenant - if someone's aged 50+ and worth millions then odds are they're not going to throw wild parties and it's a given they can pay the rent. They're probably not going to move out anytime soon either.

All the nonsense that comes with renting is a very real deterrent regardless of the economics. That alone skews people to favour ownership and the older they get, the more daunting renting becomes.

Sorry Sir, I know you're worth a few $ million but you need to get a job otherwise you can't rent a house. That's alarmingly close to the truth with the way many RE agents and landlords work. :2twocents
Click to expand...
Agreed, that’s why I own my home and don’t rent.

But, none of that is a reason to offer home owners such a sweet heart deal over those who do decide to rent, and hold their capital in another asset class.
 
Alan Kohler discusses the disappearing Australian dream ( from his quarterly essay ) in the first hour of ABC Radio's " Nightlife " program last night .
Podcast out now .
 
TimeISmoney said:
I've put them on ignore, don't have much time for ignorant people, and most likely don't own a home by the looks of things. The insurance for my one of my rentals is 8x the gross weekly rent, you can't even get a plumber out to fix a tap washer they're just not interested unless it's over $400. It's always the same useless crap coming from the type of people who have never had anything to do with supplying housing and have no idea about the holding costs. The reason the govt didn't keep up with social housing is because they knew the cost of it and tried to push it onto defenseless mum and dad investors who are naive and gullible. I've got over 40 years of experience with rentals and that's why I migrated over to this site because I no longer want to deal with all the garbage around the rental industry.
Click to expand...
and that is why i sold the ( inherited ) family home that was being rented out .

sometimes you get good tenants and sometimes you don't , add in the potential job-insecurity of some tenants

the sold rental was in an area where burglaries were doubling , so even good tenants were facing rent rises to cover increased insurance premiums , and don't get me started on tradies , and the worthiness of 'extended warranties '

and i will remember all this when the government begs for housing investors next time their schemes and scams implode
 
Value Collector said:
I am not ignorant on the matter at all.

1, As I said I am both a home owner (you must not be reading my posts correctly)

2, I own 2 rentals. (So understand the cost of owning vs renting)

3, I have substantial other investments, so understand capital allocation, and the various taxes etc.

Your only really arguments to defend the sweet heart deal home owners get are emotional, I think that’s the real reason you have blocked me, you are emotional, your arguments are not based on math.

Your opinions are based on self interest, but as I said I am a home owner, so am arguing against my self interest, so who is more credible???

You say you have been investing for 40 years, but some how still hope to qualify for the pension??? You must not be that good at investing.
Click to expand...
( almost ) nobody would invest anywhere ( any asset class ) without self-interest

even most charities claw back significant running costs
 
divs4ever said:
and that is why i sold the ( inherited ) family home that was being rented out .

sometimes you get good tenants and sometimes you don't , add in the potential job-insecurity of some tenants

the sold rental was in an area where burglaries were doubling , so even good tenants were facing rent rises to cover increased insurance premiums , and don't get me started on tradies , and the worthiness of 'extended warranties '

and i will remember all this when the government begs for housing investors next time their schemes and scams implode
Click to expand...
The laws are in favour of the tenant these days, the ones that know how to flaunt the law can run real havoc.

My painter was telling me he had to rush back to a multi-million home after previously painting it six months ago, where the tenant's kids were on drugs and chainsawed a main timber collum out of the house.

I do a lot of the simple repairs myself but I'm getting sick and tired of it. Not only do I have to go back to repair things from misuse, I have the privilege of paying for it out of my own pocket and smiling at the same time. Things in my own house last for years, carpets, taps, curtains, toilets, in a rental all screwed in a small number of years and they then wonder why the rent is so high.
 
Had rentals for over 20 years one place was the cheapest rent in the area, good tenants, bad tenants, dead tenants, drug dealers absolute lunatics etc you name it none of it was ever a problem just the cost of doing business and TBH wasn't that hard met some amazing people over the years most would be classed from the lower socioeconomic level.

BTW did very well return wise, it's a business I guess not for all.
 
TimeISmoney said:
Story after story, most people don't believe it until it happens to them.
Click to expand...
i was fairly lucky like that , but at one time one of my casual jobs was to go and help clean up places like that , so they do happen both to nice homes and rather basic ones

part of doing business to be sure , but if the landlord/owner factors in that extra risk you are liable to be labelled with cruel names ( even defamed on social media or 'investigative TV shows ' ) and God forbid you cut corners repairing the carnage from a previous tenant
 
IFocus said:
Had rentals for over 20 years one place was the cheapest rent in the area, good tenants, bad tenants, dead tenants, drug dealers absolute lunatics etc you name it none of it was ever a problem just the cost of doing business and TBH wasn't that hard met some amazing people over the years most would be classed from the lower socioeconomic level.

BTW did very well return wise, it's a business I guess not for all.
Click to expand...
Years ago people used to be a lot more honest, and when they were ratbags you just throw them out but different story these days.
 
divs4ever said:
i was fairly lucky like that , but at one time one of my casual jobs was to go and help clean up places like that , so they do happen both to nice homes and rather basic ones

part of doing business to be sure , but if the landlord/owner factors in that extra risk you are liable to be labelled with cruel names ( even defamed on social media or 'investigative TV shows ' ) and God forbid you cut corners repairing the carnage from a previous tenant
Click to expand...
I've got thick skin they can label me what they want :D, and when they pay for the damage I'll accept their criticisms.;)

If it wasn't for a large capital gains tax bill I would sell tomorrow.
 
TimeISmoney said:
Story after story, most people don't believe it until it happens to them.

View attachment 166841
View attachment 166843
Click to expand...
Hmm had a similar situation a few years ago.
We had to put all the cretons "belongings" into a secure stoarage container at our expense until the magistrate found in our favour.
Took over 6 months to be rid of this druggies belongings.
We did get reimbursed for out efforts but the shyt bags then returned and burnt the house to the ground sometime later.
No more rentals for us.
The one house we still have will remain empty, the only tenants being the locals rodent family.
These are well fed with the appropiate poison.
 

Similar threads

R
The Financial Endgame
Replies
18
Views
9K
qldfrog
qldfrog
Top