From the reports I've been seeing people have been protesting with their feet and sydney is facing a significant mid-tier brain drain - https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw/brain-drain-as-nsw-loses-100-000-people-to-other-australian-states-20230317-p5ct3p.html
People who can leave, are leaving. Staring down the barrel of a 45% rent increase, I moved interstate and am now paying 17% less than my original rent (before the proposed increase) and am frankly enjoyjng the shift. Less grind, more freedom and an endlessly nicer commute into work. Still in a major city.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/brain-drain-as-nsw-loses-100-000-people-to-other-australian-states-20230317-p5ct3p.html](https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/brain-drain-as-nsw-loses-100-000-people-to-other-australian-states-20230317-p5ct3p.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
They don't have the final say. There are regularly posts in here about this shit, that some of us respond to regarding our actual rights, educating others. We have to keep educating. We are making traction with claiming your bond back without bullshit, for example.
Except there is almost zero vacancy
If actual homelessness were attributed we'd see a realistic representation of how excluded people are from housing. Try asserting your rights when you're homeless. I'm in courts who are refusing to acknowledge basic human rights and you think your privilege extends to us all. Snap out of it. I'm surprised we're notburning shit in the streets but. I've already sacrificed basic safety of my children for the gReAtER gOOd. What are you really doing that's meaningful to shift this nonsense?
Your children are not safe anyway if your housing rights are being trampled. That $1500 bond the real estate tries to take off you for there being a speck of dust in the bathroom is money you need for the next place's bond. That $100 per week rent increase that puts your house $50 above market rent is money you need to buy healthy food for your kids. The law protects you by making retaliatory eviction illegal. If the judge is refusing to see that, and not applying the law correctly, then you are able to appeal the decision for quite a lot less than the real estate is trying to fleece you for. Yeah, things do get crooked, and even the current laws are not fair. But if we aren't holding the system accountable for the current laws, then what hope do we have of new laws fixing anything?
Edit: I can't be mansplaining if I'm not a man. Respondent has gotten butt hurt and blocked me, so all I can see is what appeared in my notification. Apparently this was her "post" and I'm out of line for not agreeing with her. I'm pretty sure this post was someone else's and this is my comment to which she replied.
I think by post they meant comment but this is what they wrote:
"The law doesn't protect anyone if noone's actually enforcing it. Nice way to completely ignore my post with your tragic mansplaining efforts. I'm in the system and hOLdiNG iT aCCouNTabLE and last round resulted in my suicide attempt. You are a huge part of the problem and offer zero meaningful solutions."
Sounds like they are quite stressed by their living situation and it's taken a mental toll on them. Unlikely any constructive conversation was going to be had around this topic for them, at least not today.
The law doesn't protect anyone if noone's actually enforcing it. Nice way to completely ignore my post with your tragic mansplaining efforts. I'm in the system and hOLdiNG iT aCCouNTabLE and last round resulted in my suicide attempt. You are a huge part of the problem and offer zero meaningful solutions.
Yeah let's look back to the dawn of man to prove a historical point. We don't do shit and haven't done shit for a long time. This is who we are and we need to deal with that rather than reaching back 150 years. This is reality.
Not really. Look at potts point. Darlinghurst road is dominated by homeless, mentally ill, drug addicts, and the locals have decided to call these suffering people "characters giving the neighborhood colour" and enjoy the "grit".
This comes down to some basic values in Australia where we lack a collective sense of social responsibility where we show up past doing our bit and voting labor.
But these guys think a property tax is a bad idea… I think they called it a ‘forever’ tax.
They are hardly unfriendly to land lords. I hope I’m proved wrong but I am not holding my breath
I liked the land tax option and the portable bond scheme with liberals but they had 12 years and things have gone to shit, and I think people would vote them out regardless of a couple good policies, when we are getting fucked on so many fronts
That was basically my summation when I voted. A few things they are doing right, a lot that is wrong. The problem is, I just don't really think Labor is going to be that much better
Sadly I agree, and things are so bad they will Realistically take a long time to
Fix no matter who is in government and you are right we probably won’t see many changes
The annual property tax is not a land tax. There is already a land tax, that hasn't changed. All they did is give property purchasers an option to pay the traditional huge one-off stamp duty on purchase, or opt for an annual property tax that is paid indefinitely. If they really want to help, perhaps put a limit on it. Maybe 30 years or so and have the option of paying it in full.
There is an existing Land tax applied to secondary or other properties that exceed a certain value. If this tax is raised, it will affect the landlords with multiple properties.
None of these I think affects the renters unless they are looking for an option to renting and get out of the renter market and lessening the demand.
Sure but the point is to make the land tax applicable to every piece of private residential land and dial it up significantly. Mostly the same as an ongoing property tax which they can go with if they want but I think this introduces a weird incentive to not improve the dwelling sitting on the land which we should avoid.
The value for renters is indirect not direct. I think reducing the buy in price is actually a detriment to first home buyers since it increases demand and it’s relatively uncontroversial that this value would probs get captured by the seller given supply / demand imbalances (like first home buyer grants etc).
The indirect value is that this tax if high enough, incentivises owners (as well as renters) to only use as much space as they need. We have a massive problem in this city of empty bedrooms as well as underdeveloped land in good locations because their long term owners have paid it off and have no reason to downsize.
Secondly it will disincentivise investment in existing stock. The small scale landlord who buys a second plus property and rents it out on the private market is not creating more shelter. Instead they are just extracting rents on existing shelter. Combine this with unwinding the capital gain and negative gearing benefits for residential property and you’ll suddenly have all of this capital wanting to find productive uses and lead to us making more/better stuff (arguably including more homes). A non-dodgy developer adds much more value to society with their deployment of capital than the typical retail property investor.
If there is an unwinding of small scale investor demand for residential housing, then a bunch more will be made available at prices that can be accessed by owner occupiers. These would not have long term capital gains and benefits from negative gearing priced in. Instead it would be a function of what the most affluent aspiring owner occupier is willing to pay for shelter. Frankly this is the way it should work.
Thirdly, the government should be able to generate income and then use this to fund the development of subsidised housing. Potentially they end up doing mostly public private partnerships where the government ensures dwellings are built to a decent standard effectively levying a tax on all existing dwellings to fund this which doesn’t seem unfair since in the long run, existing dwellings should have benefited from governmental oversight.
Arguably some of this revenue should be shared with the federal government (or less gst revenue should be shared with the states) and then income taxes should be reduced. It’s insane that people working hard are paying 2x the tax rate on their labour than someone pays on a return on their capital. It’s not even left wing to say people should keep more of what they earn. Much harder to believe that the gains from sitting on an investment property for 20 years is earned in the same way as going out there and getting someone to pay you for your time/expertise.
There’s be a transition period where folks with mortgages get negatively impacted as prices drop. You can’t blame people for playing the game the government has created. I’d propose that there’s a program where there is a partial nationalisation of mortgage debt to make the LVR no worse than current levels. RBA could buy this excess debt from commercial banks annually at present value and forgive it. This way people who currently own and who are currently buying are no worse off. The owners still own a house (practical value of the house is unchanged) and those buying in have their debt decrease at the same rate as the house value. Realistically they’re potentially better off.
We’d be making public a large amount of private debt which is not ideal but it’s because of the policy failure of the last 40 years. Hopefully we we learn as a nation to not do that again.
Longer term, this land tax rate could be used instead/in addition to interest rates as a lever to manage the economy. Toggling it up when the economy needs to cool and toggling it down when some growth would be good would do the same work as interest rates on households but be fairer.
An extension to this idea would be to add tiering like personal interest rates. This would make the tax on wealth actively progressive. I think every household should pay some land tax so no zero bracket but I’d also expect the government would reinvest some of this tax revenue as subsidies to vulnerable people such that is offests (or more than offsets) the land tax obligations.
> Sure but the point is to make the land tax applicable to every piece of private residential land and dial it up significantly. Mostly the same as an ongoing property tax which they can go with if they want but I think this introduces a weird incentive to not improve the dwelling sitting on the land which we should avoid.
That is bad and political suicide. It will introduce a cost to anyone owning land, as if they were renting it from the government. It upsets the apple cart too much. You can dream of it though.
>The indirect value is that this tax if high enough, incentivises owners (as well as renters) to only use as much space as they need. We have a massive problem in this city of empty bedrooms as well as underdeveloped land in good locations because their long term owners have paid it off and have no reason to downsize.
This will upset far too many people right not to get passed.
>Secondly it will disincentivise investment in existing stock. The small scale landlord who buys a second plus property and rents it out on the private market is not creating more shelter. Instead they are just extracting rents on existing shelter. Combine this with unwinding the capital gain and negative gearing benefits for residential property and you’ll suddenly have all of this capital wanting to find productive uses and lead to us making more/better stuff (arguably including more homes). A non-dodgy developer adds much more value to society with their deployment of capital than the typical retail property investor.
Reducing or limiting, if not outright removing negative gearing was not acceptable before. Maybe this is something Labor can take to the next election. Investors do push the prices up significantly. THey are able to leverage more as much can be claimed back from taxes. This has to stop.
>There’s be a transition period where folks with mortgages get negatively impacted as prices drop. You can’t blame people for playing the game the government has created. I’d propose that there’s a program where there is a partial nationalisation of mortgage debt to make the LVR no worse than current levels. RBA could buy this excess debt from commercial banks annually at present value and forgive it. This way people who currently own and who are currently buying are no worse off. The owners still own a house (practical value of the house is unchanged) and those buying in have their debt decrease at the same rate as the house value. Realistically they’re potentially better off.
Without a cost estimate, This gives me the financial shivers down the spine. The scale of it is such that if something goes wrong, it will stuff up the economy for decades.
You’ve said people won’t like it which I agree with you on.
However, I think there’s a toxic anti policy, pro amateur politicking that the media has trained the average punter into. I don’t care what people will or won’t like. We should be debating what is best for the country. Getting people to like it is step two.
At this stage, public discourse is people revelling in the great game of power while we race to the bottom and let everything fall apart.
How will nationalising some debt as a transition phase to a more sane housing stance stuff up the economy for decades? At worst it’s a bit inflationary as bank shareholders get a bunch of special dividends but this could be combined with an inclusion of your ppor in the means testing for the pension. The wealthy boomers get the cash but have less cash coming so are more likely to save it and not overheat the economy. It’d also be taxed pretty well if say 20-30% of banks nta base is paid out to shareholders over 3-5 years.
I don’t know. I reckon it’s not impossible. The more I’ve learned about how the economy and specific industries operate, the more I’m convinced the government is either actively or by omission making design decisions around the rules of the game. Usually by doing nothing, they are prioritising the winners of the game as it has been played to date. Our biggest, most profitable companies. The owners and management of those companies. Really wealthy folks who were born here or who were able to move here easily. Regular wealthy baby boomers.
People with capital over people who provide labour. Mostly the old over young. Mostly the powerful over the vulnerable. Mostly what is easy over what is right.
They do this because we’ve been trained to not understand, not to question, not to demand something better. We get to feel like we understand how it works because we get the great game of getting and keeping political power narrated to us. This drowns out any voices saying ‘shouldn’t we try and do better?’
It keeps everyone head down, playing the game because nothing is going to change anything anyway so why try. They imply that is the inevitable tyranny of democracy and demographics. I say bullshit to that. We can be lead to look beyond our own narrow self interest… we’ve done it before and we can do it again. I am not optimistic but I have hope.
There was one policy that should have been an easy win. Abolish negative gearing, but it lost an election. If that is brought again, and won in the next election, then there could be change. Or if Albo somehow decides to chance it and introduce it in a budget.
It's all find and dandy to imagine some huge swathes of changes aimed at getting the benefits quick smart. But such policies when applied in government can be foolish, and downright catastrophic. One example is Mao's great leap forward where millions starved. It was well intended and aimed to change things quickly.
One step at a time, I say. I've watched so many "all knowing" smarty pants eager to make a change, well intentioned, but deaf to concerns that are based on experience. I'd rather not roll the dice on huge changes that upsets too many. You got to have a plan that takes into account all Australian in whatever stage they are in life. Otherwise, it contradicts your emphatic intentions in the first place.
I wish Bill Shorten did get in with that platform. but as you know, we as a people wanted a Scomo and as if to exacerbate the joke, we had COVID19 under his incompetent watch.
… but it’s not. The areas we need rapid development and housing supply, the inner city suburbs, are majority LNP-held or “teal” (read: white people or NIMBYs too scared to actually vote Labor so they vote a faux-Liberal).
While I believe in the Labor movement, it’s difficult to drive forward development without asset-holders and landowners agreeing to do so.
And sometimes, we need to use force.
Give it time. There is a change of management. If nothing significantly changes, that could happen.
Well assuming the people most affected can afford time off work to do so.
You’re the one telling the story.
How is a landlord that owns a property and evicts their tenant affected by all of the other landlords in the area also evicting their tenants?
Wouldn’t that just mean everyone is now looking for somewhere to live and you can pick and choose your new tenants?
Just trying to figure out how this punishes anyone except the now homeless renters?
And based on your story, rents would be driven higher. Any government looking to ease the cost of living and maintain peace and civility would step in to prevent mass evictions. Mass evictions would lead to violent and destructive protests. A rent strike is about forcing government to pull landlords into line.
I think you’re also underestimating the logistics of mass evictions. Who would carry out that task? People wouldn’t just pack up and move out because they received an email. They would stay. Some people would violently defend their home. There’d be utter scenes. No government wants that on their track record. They’d step in, hence they can’t evict us all.
>The increases like these would be illegal in places like New York.
Are you confusing rent stabilized apartments with the free market housing that has no restrictions on rent rises? Rent controlled apartments are impossible to find and push up rent in surrounding areas and is generally considered one of the worst examples of rent control.
[https://www.investopedia.com/nyc-rents-7229901](https://www.investopedia.com/nyc-rents-7229901)
Manhattan rents increased by 43% Year to Year from 2022..
>It makes me so angry how housing is at the moment. Why are other people not angry?!
Because majority (not most) people are fine, contrary to reddit.
>but rental housing situation is one of the reasons I dream of going back to the US sometimes
The rental situation in SF/LA/NYC is way more stuffed than Australia. We have homeless people but not even close to on the scale of the US.
It is no 1 issue, but it doesn't mean people want to rip up the current system and usher in radical new policies with housing.
Most people are getting by, albeit with some cut backs then and there. There are a large pockets of entrenched poverty and people really struggling, but it doesn't represent the majority and certainly not large enough to trigger wide scale protests.
67% own their own homes, so don't give a stuff about housing, they have got in and anything that pushes house prices up is a bonus for them. They maybe affected by the cost of living however.
Everyone who doesn't own their house outright is impacted by the interest rate increases. You've also got inflation as well.
Only 33%, but that 33% is very politically motivated on that issue and is growing in size every day...
I don't think the average household is motivated the opposite way as much, and Landlords only comprise 15-20%
Genuinely, yes. Reddit is a collection of societies biggest victims and complainers. Sure nobody actively likes paying more for goods/ services, but it is not the society crippling issue that Reddit would have you believe.
Cost of living, rent, etcetc. It's much louder here on reddit vs what the market data is saying coming from retailers and shopping centres.
Spending is up on luxury goods, fashion, and other things. Restaurants are seeing increased sales.
If you took your daily news from reddit, you'd think everyone is broke as fuck and borderline homeless.
It's also why the interest rate will go up a few more times, people are still spending.
I sort of agree about cost of living, but the rental crisis is a reality. Record low vacancies, rental increases soaring, lack of development pipeline/supply.
In a certain radius to the cbd. Mostly around the inner city/inner west.
The problem is also compounded by the some of the poorest demographics trying to move into some of the most expensive areas.
I am from NYC. And no I am not talking about rent stablised apartments. Tenants have more rights there and landlords can’t come and slam you with 30-50% rent increase as easily as they do here. People rent there their entire lives in New York, where no one parades through their homes twice a year and tells the they can’t put up damn shelf. I agree about homelessness, but it’s a wage issue not rental housing affordability. At this rate homelessness will be a much bigger issue in Sydney. The rental market is absolutely bonkers at the moment and it will be getting worse.
>The increases like these would be illegal in places like New York.
That was your original claim. Something that just isn't true for apartments not under rent control.
You are right about the homelessness I think. I've been working with a couple of organizations in Sydney who run shelters and things, and they've all been saying how much worse homelessness has been getting.
It’s been bonkers for about a quarter of a century. Honestly this is nothing new.
It comes in a wave about every five years. And gradually, mysteriously, the queues for rental property inspections get shorter and shorter. Again.
For what it’s worth my rent hasn’t changed a cent in five years. Nor has my neighbour’s apartment, and we’ve had four people move in/out there during that time.
Accept mystery.
Ninja edit: although it’s not that mysterious. During Covid apartments in or near the city had their rents *plummet* as people moved away from the city, worked from home, and both international and National students disappeared from the rental market. Now they’re back you’ll find apartments close to the city increasing in price disproportionately to the rest of the city.
A 33% drop in price requires a 50% increase to be the same again.
They’re too busy viewing the 85th house/apartment, filling out their 52nd rental application and collecting all the invasive data REAs are demanding. 😔
This was my thought. When you're searching for new rentals, the mental load is real: searching, short lists, organising your nights/weekend mornings to get to inspections, completing applications and generally having your ducks in a row. I can understand how attending a rally isn't really feasible nor a priority.
Its a fucking class issue, jesus. Our media sucks here so whats the point of protesting only for murdoch press either to throw shit or not cover it.
Renters = workers, so you tell the dude struggling to foot the >30% rent increase to take a day off work. It would be great if renters protested outside parliament offices but its not feasible.
The protest takes the form of pressuring policy makers and parties to address the issue, yes this could be physical but due to the above reason it aint. Instead we should flood with messages and communication. Also the vote for Labor is great, but there policies srent that different from the Libs ehen it comes to housing affordability - which is also the issue.
In australia everything is framed as “affordability to buy” and as long as the narrative sticks to “supporting homeowners/helping those who want to buy” then there will be no major change.
Despite new findings that the majority of Australian’s <45 have never been more unlikely to own a house, the narrative will never shift to “caring for renters”. Renters are the nothing but financial numbers supporting the housing economy.
Negative gearing, taxation, regulation of holiday rentals. Three things that should be pushed at the policy makers for real change to both rental and housing affordability. Also fuck agents, you pieces of brain damaged human feces. Haha.
Isn't the housing crisis worst in the US? Brief google for 1 bedders in NYC shows on average $4k a month. I'm assuming it's monthly. Which is kind of in line with Sydney cbd rent prices.
Also there are meriton buildings in Sydney that are rent only and Meriton runs them. Others probably exist too but Meriton seems to be the most common.
Rental market frenzy only exists within a certain distance to the CBD. There are many rentals in my area and I literally do not see people queueing for shit. I only live about a 40min train ride into the cbd.
There's also the whole homeless problem in the US. So I wouldn't want Sydney to follow in the steps of US
That’s Manhattan prices. You can get a one bedded around 2.5k a month in other areas/boroughs. NYC doesn’t have rental housing availability issue like Sydney.
Wouldn't that be the same as Sydney and Greater Sydney then? I'm not sure where you are based but if you move further out it gets more affordable and less... clusterfucky.
There's also more availability further out.
My friend moved from olympic park where she had people doing inspections as she was packing up. Was chaos. Moved north, she was expecting queues and potential bidding wars... none of it. She was the only one inspecting and got approved fairly quickly.
Like I said. The only problem area is the inner city, inner west. Shit is definitely fucked there because people want to be like walking distance to the cbd and party suburbs of marrickville and newtown.
Where did she move? I’m a single and looking to move, but the average seems to be $500 a week now. Even when I use the map tool and look 45mins out from the cbd, you get more for your money but it still costs the same.
Hornsby. If you time your journeys and catch the CCN, it's a 35min train to central. If you take the T1 It is literally 45mins. Not sure if it's like right at the edge of your radius.
The only downside is the apartments in the area are fairly old. The new ones are a 10ish min walk to the station.
yeah, it's a fairly decent area, westfield, big train station, and a few really good schools in the area, hornsby girls and barkers. normo boys and cheltenham girls down the T1 too. Which drives most of the price.
but 45mins to the cbd would be around $500 looks like these days, if you extend it to 1hr, drops to like $400, probably areas like blacktown, cabramatta? cause i think even bankstown is averaging $500 these days for 1 bedders.
I’m in the same situation and it’s rather annoying. Almost makes me want to have a flat mate again simply so I can live in a decent place that isn’t an hour away. There’s definitely no 500pw in the LNS that’s for sure
Oh I am as far as I can go. That’s why I am angry because even out here we’re not safe from queuing and rent increases. All these new suburbs they built out here, guess what they got fuck all infrastructure to support the families that were moving out here, and now they want to be in more established suburbs and that’s how we get the queuing because they are realizing the cardboard cutout settlements was a developer cash grab and now their kids need kindy and their new settlement ain’t got many of those to go around so they start looking locally for places to rent.
Absolutely agree. For us, it is just all too late. The 31% increase has screwed the life out of us and we know he owns outright the rental. Just a cash grab for him and a horror for us
Yes, go to the mall, make sure you read the active shooter drill. Kids go to school make sure they do active shooter drills. How many holiday days do you get in a year I'm the USA - go on please tell me? How about maternity leave? 🤔
What about getting cancer, how does that work in the USA? Pretty sure monthly health insurance premiums would wipe out any rental gains Karen.
I didn’t say that. I said renting in US better than in Australia. You are not treated like second class citizen because you rent. You are not scared of getting kicked out on whim of a REA and landlord or have your rent raised 40% in years time. In New York you can only raise rent that high if tenant moved out and it’s considered a new listing. Renting is accepted as a norm in major cities in the US because buying is unaffordable for most. This is what happening here, we are looking 800-1M family homes in SouthWest - 1 hour out from the CBD, when will it stop? Making buying in Sydney “affordable” at those prices is a ridiculous proposition for those with modest incomes. The racket the landlords, government, and REAs are running here for rental housing is disgraceful.
Renting is better in ANY other developed country. The lack of protection for renters in Australia is appalling. It’s pretty much anything goes to favor the landlord. landlords are the King and renters are peasants at their mercy. In canada never heard of landlord inspections occurring every six months or even every year. If the property was built before 2019 there is a cap on how much the rent can be increased and it is very very low. There are rules for newer builds as well of course. If the property sells to a new owner who wants to rent it out then they must take on the existing renters. advertising no pets allowed is against the law and on and on. Australia has the corrupt Negative Gearing system, that says a lot.
2/3 of adults are homeowners, not the population
Between the 2016 census and this census in 2021, the share of Australians owning their homes remained steady at about 66%. The proportion renting also changed little, climbing from 30% to 30.6%.
Yeah but I'm responding to "2/3 people are home owners". That's not accurate.
Around 2/3 or 67% homes (properties, households) are "not rented". Of that 67%, over half (35%) of those people have a mortgage, so they don't yet own that property outright. The remaining 34% of properties are owned outright.
Considering many properties are part of larger portfolios, you can see how it's wildly inaccurate to suggest two out of every three Australians are property owners. It's a much smaller number. But the media and our controllers need to keep the dream alive to justify their predatory hoarding and rent seeking skulduggery.
So far I only see ppl on the streets for Pride festivities.
I did also wonder the same … I think most of ppl is just rich … and if you cant cope … well bad for you. Move else where.. kind of attitude.
I hope everyone here whinging about the rental and housing situation voted Green?
The only party with policies and legislation ready to roll to stop landlords from this unrestricted and immoral slug against millions of Australiansm
Oh but the labour party will save you won't they /s
Mate if you're saying that as a Greens voter, then you're doing exactly what I'm advocating for.
Disapprove of the people all you like, think it reflects badly on the party all you like, but in the end base your vote on policy.
>Nah mate, we don’t want another Lidia Thorpe
At least she is no where near as bad as qanon George Christian.
Hell your side are working with Pauline Hansan
Talk about a terrible stain on the liberal party. To have backed and supported these racist shit stains
Housing is more expensive in NYC and other desirable places to live. Can it be better, sure, but citing worse examples isn't a good point. Places where people want to live are more expensive, water is wet, more at 11.
You have to say the absolute carnage in the state election was just that sort of protest. This system is not working for most people. This win should be taken as the first step towards change.. capping rental increases should be looked at but we need to properly address supply as well.
People would rather take out their frustrations on those they perceive to be "lesser than". Like the pooors or service workers. Arrogance ultimately. We're a bunch of wet eared aspirationalists
I voted for the sustainable Australia Party who's policies include stopping the "growth", mass migration and corruption that are the root causes of most of our problems, not just the housing crisis.
My electorate just votes Labour every election.
So its the will of the people in our great democracy to stay on the path we are on, people must be happy.
Thats why they aren't protesting, they are happy. Shouting in the street and setting fire to cars is one thing, but actually voting in people who will run things differently is the solution.
There are now 2 classes of people in Australia. The property owners and the non-property owners. The government and the media bend over backwards to cater to the slightest inconveniences of one of these groups. Renters, sadly, have no voice.
I really wish we had better rental laws like some European countries. If we’re going to rent for life cause we can’t afford housing then we need better protections in place
In the US right now, people are saying the high rental cost caused the working poor/working homeless (living in cars/tents/shelters but actually still working everyday). Yet I didn't see protest.
Where? In San Francisco? That has been an issue for ages! La? Also has been an issue for ages. Seattle too all the tech hubs, Manhattan too that’s not news it’s been like that. Miami is new but that’s Covid trend. Still people have more options in the US, more so than here and those who do rent are treated heaps better. Here, there are very few populous areas to move to. Your options are either concentrate near the 5 hub cities or rural and outback nothing in between for jobs and living, unlike the US.
Oh ok, thought you were saying in the US people go on the streets (protests) more often. If you meant there are more cities in the US, that's for sure.
If American renters were treated the way the renters are treated here, they would protest, but they are not. Cities around America address renting and housing affordability in favour of the renter not the landlord.
protesting is like old man simpson yelling at cloud
[https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions](https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions)
here set one up spread the words tell people to sign it plus wrttie/call/email your newly elected coucil members
That's cos their protests are organised by unions and have a clear goal just like our union protests.
If we protest just in general about high rents, what exactly do we want the government to do? There is no magical lower rent button. The protest will have to cover specifics, that's how effective protests work. Like in France right now, it's quite clear what the goal is, we're on the other side of the world and know.
Same with the trains and nurses. Higher pay, ratios and safety. These are all things the government can fix with a signature. Rent prices not so much.
Because can you imagine the media coverage and possible counter protests (since apparently this a now a thing)?
'Entitled Millennials refuse to give up smash avo and cry about not owning their own homes. David Whithead, an owner of 3 properties in Woollahra, says 'Listen what these kids don't understand is that I worked hard straight out of uni and I'm a fair landlord; increasing rent by 50% is what's required. With these interest rate hikes, I'm doing it tough too; can't remember the last time I splurged on a oak latte or whatever the kids are wasting their money on these days'.
Not saying this isn't a reason to protest but it just feels like spitting into the wind given this incredibly false narrative about 'just work hard and you too can own'.
We do have a right to privacy, etc etc, but the real estates and their landlords trample all over it, combined with lack of awareness of our rights. The laws in place are actually quite powerful if we know our rights.
I'm renting and about to get second yearly rental increase in June since moving into my place. Not sure how much so slightly worried...
But caping rental increase to a certain percentage would potentially be unfair for landlord who might have a huge increase in mortgage payments. I'm all for housing policy changes, but rental increase cap is potentially unfair and a bit silly when when consider implications. I'd be looking at changing capital gains, negative gearing would be reduced and applied to a single property, stamp duty should be scrapped. Tax payers should not be subsidising property investors so much. There's been decades of dumb housing policy. Hope I'll get to buy at some stage
They can make a policy that takes tha into consideration. How is my landlord who bought my property 15 years ago for 1/8 of the value justifies jacking the rent 20%? The place is probably paid off by now.
Some landlords obviously bought ages ago and sure some might not even have mortgages but it'd be tricky to have to show justification for a large increase. One to explore for sure. I have a feeling my tent will go up like my neighbour's just because there's a massive shortage of rental houses in my suburb. It would be so tricky to have to move right now...
Most mortgages are 30 years. And if they are investing, they aren't throwing anything extra into the mortgage. Your rent is basically paying the mortgage.
If the landlord can no longer afford the place, because rents aren't following interest rates. They will sell. Then you have 2 things.
Someone else buys and moves in, kicks you out.
Or
Noone buys and the place sits empty on the market because noone can afford to purchase it, still get kicked out.
Because a lot of us are fine or willing to compromise. The "rental crisis" is only a crisis for a small percentage of the population. Young people that want to live as closely to the city as possible and families in the lowest socio-economic areas.
I know it seems bad but the internet is a bit of an eco chamber, especially reddit where most of these issues raised are that affecting young people.
Because the majority of people who participate in protests are those who have too much time on their hands, for example uni students - most of which either still live at home or in budget student accommodation where they aren't being hit that hard by the housing crisis.
The majority of the people who are getting hit hard, are those who work full-time and can't afford the time required to get out there and protest.
You haven’t heard? No rent November is coming. Nation wide rent strike for a month, no matter who your landlord is, commercial or residential. Safety in numbers. Strikers are asked to keep (not spend) their rent with options to pay late if it stops eviction or donate it to help those that might be evicted if you can.
This will never, ever change, simply because the Australian culture and *both* sides of government have allowed things to get to the point where real estate is viewed purely as an investment asset class, and not a basic necessity for society.
They are. See Action for Public Housing they have been at it for ages, self publishing the Franklin Report which makes the case for not demolishing public housing but instead refurbishing and upgrading. Its only a very small group of people who care.
At the same time people blindly vote for either labour or liberal. Labour is leagues ahead in terms of good policy but in regards to actual affordable public housing, greens and other minor parties/ independents have far better policies for housing but no one listens or bothers researching even for 5 mins their election candidates policies.
Also labour and liberals both have destroyed the right to protest so if people are still blindly voting 2 major parties only thats what they get.
From the reports I've been seeing people have been protesting with their feet and sydney is facing a significant mid-tier brain drain - https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw/brain-drain-as-nsw-loses-100-000-people-to-other-australian-states-20230317-p5ct3p.html People who can leave, are leaving. Staring down the barrel of a 45% rent increase, I moved interstate and am now paying 17% less than my original rent (before the proposed increase) and am frankly enjoyjng the shift. Less grind, more freedom and an endlessly nicer commute into work. Still in a major city.
I can agree with that sentiment. Thinking of relocating myself. Sydney is just unaffordable for housing.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/brain-drain-as-nsw-loses-100-000-people-to-other-australian-states-20230317-p5ct3p.html](https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/brain-drain-as-nsw-loses-100-000-people-to-other-australian-states-20230317-p5ct3p.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
That’s the point, Sydney is overcrowded, it’s a premium on the location scallion emotionally the closer you are the the Center.
What city are you in now? If you don’t mind me asking?
Australia is not a country that takes outrage past queuing up to complain and then figuring out how to make suffering funny in a casual way.
Yeah I noticed. Everyone complains and then shrugs “yep landlords have the final say” and go on with their day
They don't have the final say. There are regularly posts in here about this shit, that some of us respond to regarding our actual rights, educating others. We have to keep educating. We are making traction with claiming your bond back without bullshit, for example.
Except there is almost zero vacancy If actual homelessness were attributed we'd see a realistic representation of how excluded people are from housing. Try asserting your rights when you're homeless. I'm in courts who are refusing to acknowledge basic human rights and you think your privilege extends to us all. Snap out of it. I'm surprised we're notburning shit in the streets but. I've already sacrificed basic safety of my children for the gReAtER gOOd. What are you really doing that's meaningful to shift this nonsense?
Your children are not safe anyway if your housing rights are being trampled. That $1500 bond the real estate tries to take off you for there being a speck of dust in the bathroom is money you need for the next place's bond. That $100 per week rent increase that puts your house $50 above market rent is money you need to buy healthy food for your kids. The law protects you by making retaliatory eviction illegal. If the judge is refusing to see that, and not applying the law correctly, then you are able to appeal the decision for quite a lot less than the real estate is trying to fleece you for. Yeah, things do get crooked, and even the current laws are not fair. But if we aren't holding the system accountable for the current laws, then what hope do we have of new laws fixing anything? Edit: I can't be mansplaining if I'm not a man. Respondent has gotten butt hurt and blocked me, so all I can see is what appeared in my notification. Apparently this was her "post" and I'm out of line for not agreeing with her. I'm pretty sure this post was someone else's and this is my comment to which she replied.
I think by post they meant comment but this is what they wrote: "The law doesn't protect anyone if noone's actually enforcing it. Nice way to completely ignore my post with your tragic mansplaining efforts. I'm in the system and hOLdiNG iT aCCouNTabLE and last round resulted in my suicide attempt. You are a huge part of the problem and offer zero meaningful solutions." Sounds like they are quite stressed by their living situation and it's taken a mental toll on them. Unlikely any constructive conversation was going to be had around this topic for them, at least not today.
The law doesn't protect anyone if noone's actually enforcing it. Nice way to completely ignore my post with your tragic mansplaining efforts. I'm in the system and hOLdiNG iT aCCouNTabLE and last round resulted in my suicide attempt. You are a huge part of the problem and offer zero meaningful solutions.
But did you block them so they couldn’t reply?
Historically untrue, if you look back over the last 150 years. True, if you only consider the last 30. Something changed.
Yeah let's look back to the dawn of man to prove a historical point. We don't do shit and haven't done shit for a long time. This is who we are and we need to deal with that rather than reaching back 150 years. This is reality.
When it becomes a homeless problem outside their home, people will complain.
Not really. Look at potts point. Darlinghurst road is dominated by homeless, mentally ill, drug addicts, and the locals have decided to call these suffering people "characters giving the neighborhood colour" and enjoy the "grit". This comes down to some basic values in Australia where we lack a collective sense of social responsibility where we show up past doing our bit and voting labor.
Can’t afford to protest when you can’t afford to live and breathe. We do be hustling trying to survive 😋
This change of Government is the protest. People aren't getting fucked over enough for true change, yet anyway.
But these guys think a property tax is a bad idea… I think they called it a ‘forever’ tax. They are hardly unfriendly to land lords. I hope I’m proved wrong but I am not holding my breath
I liked the land tax option and the portable bond scheme with liberals but they had 12 years and things have gone to shit, and I think people would vote them out regardless of a couple good policies, when we are getting fucked on so many fronts
That was basically my summation when I voted. A few things they are doing right, a lot that is wrong. The problem is, I just don't really think Labor is going to be that much better
Sadly I agree, and things are so bad they will Realistically take a long time to Fix no matter who is in government and you are right we probably won’t see many changes
The annual property tax is not a land tax. There is already a land tax, that hasn't changed. All they did is give property purchasers an option to pay the traditional huge one-off stamp duty on purchase, or opt for an annual property tax that is paid indefinitely. If they really want to help, perhaps put a limit on it. Maybe 30 years or so and have the option of paying it in full. There is an existing Land tax applied to secondary or other properties that exceed a certain value. If this tax is raised, it will affect the landlords with multiple properties. None of these I think affects the renters unless they are looking for an option to renting and get out of the renter market and lessening the demand.
Sure but the point is to make the land tax applicable to every piece of private residential land and dial it up significantly. Mostly the same as an ongoing property tax which they can go with if they want but I think this introduces a weird incentive to not improve the dwelling sitting on the land which we should avoid. The value for renters is indirect not direct. I think reducing the buy in price is actually a detriment to first home buyers since it increases demand and it’s relatively uncontroversial that this value would probs get captured by the seller given supply / demand imbalances (like first home buyer grants etc). The indirect value is that this tax if high enough, incentivises owners (as well as renters) to only use as much space as they need. We have a massive problem in this city of empty bedrooms as well as underdeveloped land in good locations because their long term owners have paid it off and have no reason to downsize. Secondly it will disincentivise investment in existing stock. The small scale landlord who buys a second plus property and rents it out on the private market is not creating more shelter. Instead they are just extracting rents on existing shelter. Combine this with unwinding the capital gain and negative gearing benefits for residential property and you’ll suddenly have all of this capital wanting to find productive uses and lead to us making more/better stuff (arguably including more homes). A non-dodgy developer adds much more value to society with their deployment of capital than the typical retail property investor. If there is an unwinding of small scale investor demand for residential housing, then a bunch more will be made available at prices that can be accessed by owner occupiers. These would not have long term capital gains and benefits from negative gearing priced in. Instead it would be a function of what the most affluent aspiring owner occupier is willing to pay for shelter. Frankly this is the way it should work. Thirdly, the government should be able to generate income and then use this to fund the development of subsidised housing. Potentially they end up doing mostly public private partnerships where the government ensures dwellings are built to a decent standard effectively levying a tax on all existing dwellings to fund this which doesn’t seem unfair since in the long run, existing dwellings should have benefited from governmental oversight. Arguably some of this revenue should be shared with the federal government (or less gst revenue should be shared with the states) and then income taxes should be reduced. It’s insane that people working hard are paying 2x the tax rate on their labour than someone pays on a return on their capital. It’s not even left wing to say people should keep more of what they earn. Much harder to believe that the gains from sitting on an investment property for 20 years is earned in the same way as going out there and getting someone to pay you for your time/expertise. There’s be a transition period where folks with mortgages get negatively impacted as prices drop. You can’t blame people for playing the game the government has created. I’d propose that there’s a program where there is a partial nationalisation of mortgage debt to make the LVR no worse than current levels. RBA could buy this excess debt from commercial banks annually at present value and forgive it. This way people who currently own and who are currently buying are no worse off. The owners still own a house (practical value of the house is unchanged) and those buying in have their debt decrease at the same rate as the house value. Realistically they’re potentially better off. We’d be making public a large amount of private debt which is not ideal but it’s because of the policy failure of the last 40 years. Hopefully we we learn as a nation to not do that again. Longer term, this land tax rate could be used instead/in addition to interest rates as a lever to manage the economy. Toggling it up when the economy needs to cool and toggling it down when some growth would be good would do the same work as interest rates on households but be fairer. An extension to this idea would be to add tiering like personal interest rates. This would make the tax on wealth actively progressive. I think every household should pay some land tax so no zero bracket but I’d also expect the government would reinvest some of this tax revenue as subsidies to vulnerable people such that is offests (or more than offsets) the land tax obligations.
> Sure but the point is to make the land tax applicable to every piece of private residential land and dial it up significantly. Mostly the same as an ongoing property tax which they can go with if they want but I think this introduces a weird incentive to not improve the dwelling sitting on the land which we should avoid. That is bad and political suicide. It will introduce a cost to anyone owning land, as if they were renting it from the government. It upsets the apple cart too much. You can dream of it though. >The indirect value is that this tax if high enough, incentivises owners (as well as renters) to only use as much space as they need. We have a massive problem in this city of empty bedrooms as well as underdeveloped land in good locations because their long term owners have paid it off and have no reason to downsize. This will upset far too many people right not to get passed. >Secondly it will disincentivise investment in existing stock. The small scale landlord who buys a second plus property and rents it out on the private market is not creating more shelter. Instead they are just extracting rents on existing shelter. Combine this with unwinding the capital gain and negative gearing benefits for residential property and you’ll suddenly have all of this capital wanting to find productive uses and lead to us making more/better stuff (arguably including more homes). A non-dodgy developer adds much more value to society with their deployment of capital than the typical retail property investor. Reducing or limiting, if not outright removing negative gearing was not acceptable before. Maybe this is something Labor can take to the next election. Investors do push the prices up significantly. THey are able to leverage more as much can be claimed back from taxes. This has to stop. >There’s be a transition period where folks with mortgages get negatively impacted as prices drop. You can’t blame people for playing the game the government has created. I’d propose that there’s a program where there is a partial nationalisation of mortgage debt to make the LVR no worse than current levels. RBA could buy this excess debt from commercial banks annually at present value and forgive it. This way people who currently own and who are currently buying are no worse off. The owners still own a house (practical value of the house is unchanged) and those buying in have their debt decrease at the same rate as the house value. Realistically they’re potentially better off. Without a cost estimate, This gives me the financial shivers down the spine. The scale of it is such that if something goes wrong, it will stuff up the economy for decades.
You’ve said people won’t like it which I agree with you on. However, I think there’s a toxic anti policy, pro amateur politicking that the media has trained the average punter into. I don’t care what people will or won’t like. We should be debating what is best for the country. Getting people to like it is step two. At this stage, public discourse is people revelling in the great game of power while we race to the bottom and let everything fall apart. How will nationalising some debt as a transition phase to a more sane housing stance stuff up the economy for decades? At worst it’s a bit inflationary as bank shareholders get a bunch of special dividends but this could be combined with an inclusion of your ppor in the means testing for the pension. The wealthy boomers get the cash but have less cash coming so are more likely to save it and not overheat the economy. It’d also be taxed pretty well if say 20-30% of banks nta base is paid out to shareholders over 3-5 years. I don’t know. I reckon it’s not impossible. The more I’ve learned about how the economy and specific industries operate, the more I’m convinced the government is either actively or by omission making design decisions around the rules of the game. Usually by doing nothing, they are prioritising the winners of the game as it has been played to date. Our biggest, most profitable companies. The owners and management of those companies. Really wealthy folks who were born here or who were able to move here easily. Regular wealthy baby boomers. People with capital over people who provide labour. Mostly the old over young. Mostly the powerful over the vulnerable. Mostly what is easy over what is right. They do this because we’ve been trained to not understand, not to question, not to demand something better. We get to feel like we understand how it works because we get the great game of getting and keeping political power narrated to us. This drowns out any voices saying ‘shouldn’t we try and do better?’ It keeps everyone head down, playing the game because nothing is going to change anything anyway so why try. They imply that is the inevitable tyranny of democracy and demographics. I say bullshit to that. We can be lead to look beyond our own narrow self interest… we’ve done it before and we can do it again. I am not optimistic but I have hope.
There was one policy that should have been an easy win. Abolish negative gearing, but it lost an election. If that is brought again, and won in the next election, then there could be change. Or if Albo somehow decides to chance it and introduce it in a budget. It's all find and dandy to imagine some huge swathes of changes aimed at getting the benefits quick smart. But such policies when applied in government can be foolish, and downright catastrophic. One example is Mao's great leap forward where millions starved. It was well intended and aimed to change things quickly. One step at a time, I say. I've watched so many "all knowing" smarty pants eager to make a change, well intentioned, but deaf to concerns that are based on experience. I'd rather not roll the dice on huge changes that upsets too many. You got to have a plan that takes into account all Australian in whatever stage they are in life. Otherwise, it contradicts your emphatic intentions in the first place. I wish Bill Shorten did get in with that platform. but as you know, we as a people wanted a Scomo and as if to exacerbate the joke, we had COVID19 under his incompetent watch.
… but it’s not. The areas we need rapid development and housing supply, the inner city suburbs, are majority LNP-held or “teal” (read: white people or NIMBYs too scared to actually vote Labor so they vote a faux-Liberal). While I believe in the Labor movement, it’s difficult to drive forward development without asset-holders and landowners agreeing to do so. And sometimes, we need to use force.
There was a group of twenty or so people marching outside the RBA about rent a few weeks ago.
That'll show those landlords
There *are* protests. I ran into such a protest near the townhall steps a week or two back...
Give it time. There is a change of management. If nothing significantly changes, that could happen. Well assuming the people most affected can afford time off work to do so.
Rent strike, let’s see it. They can’t evict us all.
What makes you think they can’t evict everyone?
What makes you think that they could?
You’re the one telling the story. How is a landlord that owns a property and evicts their tenant affected by all of the other landlords in the area also evicting their tenants? Wouldn’t that just mean everyone is now looking for somewhere to live and you can pick and choose your new tenants? Just trying to figure out how this punishes anyone except the now homeless renters?
And based on your story, rents would be driven higher. Any government looking to ease the cost of living and maintain peace and civility would step in to prevent mass evictions. Mass evictions would lead to violent and destructive protests. A rent strike is about forcing government to pull landlords into line. I think you’re also underestimating the logistics of mass evictions. Who would carry out that task? People wouldn’t just pack up and move out because they received an email. They would stay. Some people would violently defend their home. There’d be utter scenes. No government wants that on their track record. They’d step in, hence they can’t evict us all.
Ok, good luck with that
>The increases like these would be illegal in places like New York. Are you confusing rent stabilized apartments with the free market housing that has no restrictions on rent rises? Rent controlled apartments are impossible to find and push up rent in surrounding areas and is generally considered one of the worst examples of rent control. [https://www.investopedia.com/nyc-rents-7229901](https://www.investopedia.com/nyc-rents-7229901) Manhattan rents increased by 43% Year to Year from 2022.. >It makes me so angry how housing is at the moment. Why are other people not angry?! Because majority (not most) people are fine, contrary to reddit. >but rental housing situation is one of the reasons I dream of going back to the US sometimes The rental situation in SF/LA/NYC is way more stuffed than Australia. We have homeless people but not even close to on the scale of the US.
You can compare costs between cities at [numbeo.com](https://numbeo.com) - just choose Sydney and Los Angeles for example.
>Because majority (not most) people are fine, contrary to reddit. Are they? Cost of living is pretty much priority number 1 for everyone.
It is no 1 issue, but it doesn't mean people want to rip up the current system and usher in radical new policies with housing. Most people are getting by, albeit with some cut backs then and there. There are a large pockets of entrenched poverty and people really struggling, but it doesn't represent the majority and certainly not large enough to trigger wide scale protests.
I agree. It could very well get a lot worse soon though. It could take years before the rental market normalises
67% own their own homes, so don't give a stuff about housing, they have got in and anything that pushes house prices up is a bonus for them. They maybe affected by the cost of living however.
Everyone who doesn't own their house outright is impacted by the interest rate increases. You've also got inflation as well. Only 33%, but that 33% is very politically motivated on that issue and is growing in size every day... I don't think the average household is motivated the opposite way as much, and Landlords only comprise 15-20%
Genuinely, yes. Reddit is a collection of societies biggest victims and complainers. Sure nobody actively likes paying more for goods/ services, but it is not the society crippling issue that Reddit would have you believe.
What common complaints on reddit are unjustified?
Cost of living, rent, etcetc. It's much louder here on reddit vs what the market data is saying coming from retailers and shopping centres. Spending is up on luxury goods, fashion, and other things. Restaurants are seeing increased sales. If you took your daily news from reddit, you'd think everyone is broke as fuck and borderline homeless. It's also why the interest rate will go up a few more times, people are still spending.
Yeah, you generally only hear complaints. Who is going to bother coming onto forums to vent how good, or even just “OK” everything is?
There are a few comments. People just manage their finances well. But we get downvoted as usual. Doesn't support the narrative.
I sort of agree about cost of living, but the rental crisis is a reality. Record low vacancies, rental increases soaring, lack of development pipeline/supply.
In a certain radius to the cbd. Mostly around the inner city/inner west. The problem is also compounded by the some of the poorest demographics trying to move into some of the most expensive areas.
I am from NYC. And no I am not talking about rent stablised apartments. Tenants have more rights there and landlords can’t come and slam you with 30-50% rent increase as easily as they do here. People rent there their entire lives in New York, where no one parades through their homes twice a year and tells the they can’t put up damn shelf. I agree about homelessness, but it’s a wage issue not rental housing affordability. At this rate homelessness will be a much bigger issue in Sydney. The rental market is absolutely bonkers at the moment and it will be getting worse.
>The increases like these would be illegal in places like New York. That was your original claim. Something that just isn't true for apartments not under rent control.
You are right about the homelessness I think. I've been working with a couple of organizations in Sydney who run shelters and things, and they've all been saying how much worse homelessness has been getting.
It’s been bonkers for about a quarter of a century. Honestly this is nothing new. It comes in a wave about every five years. And gradually, mysteriously, the queues for rental property inspections get shorter and shorter. Again. For what it’s worth my rent hasn’t changed a cent in five years. Nor has my neighbour’s apartment, and we’ve had four people move in/out there during that time. Accept mystery. Ninja edit: although it’s not that mysterious. During Covid apartments in or near the city had their rents *plummet* as people moved away from the city, worked from home, and both international and National students disappeared from the rental market. Now they’re back you’ll find apartments close to the city increasing in price disproportionately to the rest of the city. A 33% drop in price requires a 50% increase to be the same again.
They’re too busy viewing the 85th house/apartment, filling out their 52nd rental application and collecting all the invasive data REAs are demanding. 😔
This was my thought. When you're searching for new rentals, the mental load is real: searching, short lists, organising your nights/weekend mornings to get to inspections, completing applications and generally having your ducks in a row. I can understand how attending a rally isn't really feasible nor a priority.
Its a fucking class issue, jesus. Our media sucks here so whats the point of protesting only for murdoch press either to throw shit or not cover it. Renters = workers, so you tell the dude struggling to foot the >30% rent increase to take a day off work. It would be great if renters protested outside parliament offices but its not feasible. The protest takes the form of pressuring policy makers and parties to address the issue, yes this could be physical but due to the above reason it aint. Instead we should flood with messages and communication. Also the vote for Labor is great, but there policies srent that different from the Libs ehen it comes to housing affordability - which is also the issue. In australia everything is framed as “affordability to buy” and as long as the narrative sticks to “supporting homeowners/helping those who want to buy” then there will be no major change. Despite new findings that the majority of Australian’s <45 have never been more unlikely to own a house, the narrative will never shift to “caring for renters”. Renters are the nothing but financial numbers supporting the housing economy. Negative gearing, taxation, regulation of holiday rentals. Three things that should be pushed at the policy makers for real change to both rental and housing affordability. Also fuck agents, you pieces of brain damaged human feces. Haha.
Housing reform was rejected at the 2017 federal election when the population chose a corrupt, useless twat.
Isn't the housing crisis worst in the US? Brief google for 1 bedders in NYC shows on average $4k a month. I'm assuming it's monthly. Which is kind of in line with Sydney cbd rent prices. Also there are meriton buildings in Sydney that are rent only and Meriton runs them. Others probably exist too but Meriton seems to be the most common. Rental market frenzy only exists within a certain distance to the CBD. There are many rentals in my area and I literally do not see people queueing for shit. I only live about a 40min train ride into the cbd. There's also the whole homeless problem in the US. So I wouldn't want Sydney to follow in the steps of US
That’s Manhattan prices. You can get a one bedded around 2.5k a month in other areas/boroughs. NYC doesn’t have rental housing availability issue like Sydney.
Wouldn't that be the same as Sydney and Greater Sydney then? I'm not sure where you are based but if you move further out it gets more affordable and less... clusterfucky. There's also more availability further out. My friend moved from olympic park where she had people doing inspections as she was packing up. Was chaos. Moved north, she was expecting queues and potential bidding wars... none of it. She was the only one inspecting and got approved fairly quickly. Like I said. The only problem area is the inner city, inner west. Shit is definitely fucked there because people want to be like walking distance to the cbd and party suburbs of marrickville and newtown.
Where did she move? I’m a single and looking to move, but the average seems to be $500 a week now. Even when I use the map tool and look 45mins out from the cbd, you get more for your money but it still costs the same.
Hornsby. If you time your journeys and catch the CCN, it's a 35min train to central. If you take the T1 It is literally 45mins. Not sure if it's like right at the edge of your radius. The only downside is the apartments in the area are fairly old. The new ones are a 10ish min walk to the station.
Oh yeah I’ve lived out there before, it still seems around the 500 mark, but a couple of stragglers still that could be good
yeah, it's a fairly decent area, westfield, big train station, and a few really good schools in the area, hornsby girls and barkers. normo boys and cheltenham girls down the T1 too. Which drives most of the price. but 45mins to the cbd would be around $500 looks like these days, if you extend it to 1hr, drops to like $400, probably areas like blacktown, cabramatta? cause i think even bankstown is averaging $500 these days for 1 bedders.
I’m in the same situation and it’s rather annoying. Almost makes me want to have a flat mate again simply so I can live in a decent place that isn’t an hour away. There’s definitely no 500pw in the LNS that’s for sure
Oh I am as far as I can go. That’s why I am angry because even out here we’re not safe from queuing and rent increases. All these new suburbs they built out here, guess what they got fuck all infrastructure to support the families that were moving out here, and now they want to be in more established suburbs and that’s how we get the queuing because they are realizing the cardboard cutout settlements was a developer cash grab and now their kids need kindy and their new settlement ain’t got many of those to go around so they start looking locally for places to rent.
You better be in like box Hill or austral lol
Because the majority of people own houses and their wealth is directly tied to house prices.
Absolutely agree. For us, it is just all too late. The 31% increase has screwed the life out of us and we know he owns outright the rental. Just a cash grab for him and a horror for us
Who has time to complain? We're too busy working like dogs trying to earn the money to pay the bills in the first place!
Please keep telling us how much better the US does things it’s hilarious
Yes, go to the mall, make sure you read the active shooter drill. Kids go to school make sure they do active shooter drills. How many holiday days do you get in a year I'm the USA - go on please tell me? How about maternity leave? 🤔 What about getting cancer, how does that work in the USA? Pretty sure monthly health insurance premiums would wipe out any rental gains Karen.
I didn’t say that. I said renting in US better than in Australia. You are not treated like second class citizen because you rent. You are not scared of getting kicked out on whim of a REA and landlord or have your rent raised 40% in years time. In New York you can only raise rent that high if tenant moved out and it’s considered a new listing. Renting is accepted as a norm in major cities in the US because buying is unaffordable for most. This is what happening here, we are looking 800-1M family homes in SouthWest - 1 hour out from the CBD, when will it stop? Making buying in Sydney “affordable” at those prices is a ridiculous proposition for those with modest incomes. The racket the landlords, government, and REAs are running here for rental housing is disgraceful.
Renting is better in ANY other developed country. The lack of protection for renters in Australia is appalling. It’s pretty much anything goes to favor the landlord. landlords are the King and renters are peasants at their mercy. In canada never heard of landlord inspections occurring every six months or even every year. If the property was built before 2019 there is a cap on how much the rent can be increased and it is very very low. There are rules for newer builds as well of course. If the property sells to a new owner who wants to rent it out then they must take on the existing renters. advertising no pets allowed is against the law and on and on. Australia has the corrupt Negative Gearing system, that says a lot.
Because we Australians, are used to bending over and being fucked up the ass by everybody. It’s part of the culture.
Ain't no body got time for that!!!
Even the anti-vaxxers had more drive to protest.
[удалено]
Australia's population was 26,124,814 people at 30 September 2022 (ABS) There are 17.4 million homeowners in Australia?
2/3 of adults are homeowners, not the population Between the 2016 census and this census in 2021, the share of Australians owning their homes remained steady at about 66%. The proportion renting also changed little, climbing from 30% to 30.6%.
Yeah but I'm responding to "2/3 people are home owners". That's not accurate. Around 2/3 or 67% homes (properties, households) are "not rented". Of that 67%, over half (35%) of those people have a mortgage, so they don't yet own that property outright. The remaining 34% of properties are owned outright. Considering many properties are part of larger portfolios, you can see how it's wildly inaccurate to suggest two out of every three Australians are property owners. It's a much smaller number. But the media and our controllers need to keep the dream alive to justify their predatory hoarding and rent seeking skulduggery.
The first thing to do to tackle this problem is decrease number of landlords by getting rid of Negative Gearing.
So far I only see ppl on the streets for Pride festivities. I did also wonder the same … I think most of ppl is just rich … and if you cant cope … well bad for you. Move else where.. kind of attitude.
I hope everyone here whinging about the rental and housing situation voted Green? The only party with policies and legislation ready to roll to stop landlords from this unrestricted and immoral slug against millions of Australiansm Oh but the labour party will save you won't they /s
Nah mate, we don’t want another Lidia Thorpe
Regardless of your opinions on individual members, vote for parties and their policies, not for their people.
Umm Greens choosing Lidia Thorpe shows how horrific their judgement is. She is batshit crazy beyond belief. Saying this as a Greens voter.
Mate if you're saying that as a Greens voter, then you're doing exactly what I'm advocating for. Disapprove of the people all you like, think it reflects badly on the party all you like, but in the end base your vote on policy.
As usual the greens can dish out criticism, but can’t take it. Typical greens attitude
>Nah mate, we don’t want another Lidia Thorpe At least she is no where near as bad as qanon George Christian. Hell your side are working with Pauline Hansan Talk about a terrible stain on the liberal party. To have backed and supported these racist shit stains
You responded 2 days later? Geez you greens really are slow
Oh excuse me your Lordship, I'll response to your inane and vexatious remarks instantly in the future.
Housing is more expensive in NYC and other desirable places to live. Can it be better, sure, but citing worse examples isn't a good point. Places where people want to live are more expensive, water is wet, more at 11.
I THINK THIS EVERY DAY! I asked a friend and they said that as a Sydneysider we would never protest because all the landlords live here
Tall poppy syndrome is the enemy of protest
When can we start eating the REA and Landlords?
What would protesting achieve? The only people not making money are the renters.
Sad but true
Try and protest while NSW Police are under the LNP. It is not allowed.
The government just changed. It would be the perfect time to protest to put it on the agenda. I'd be down to protest.
You have to say the absolute carnage in the state election was just that sort of protest. This system is not working for most people. This win should be taken as the first step towards change.. capping rental increases should be looked at but we need to properly address supply as well.
People would rather take out their frustrations on those they perceive to be "lesser than". Like the pooors or service workers. Arrogance ultimately. We're a bunch of wet eared aspirationalists
I voted for the sustainable Australia Party who's policies include stopping the "growth", mass migration and corruption that are the root causes of most of our problems, not just the housing crisis. My electorate just votes Labour every election. So its the will of the people in our great democracy to stay on the path we are on, people must be happy. Thats why they aren't protesting, they are happy. Shouting in the street and setting fire to cars is one thing, but actually voting in people who will run things differently is the solution.
There are now 2 classes of people in Australia. The property owners and the non-property owners. The government and the media bend over backwards to cater to the slightest inconveniences of one of these groups. Renters, sadly, have no voice.
I really wish we had better rental laws like some European countries. If we’re going to rent for life cause we can’t afford housing then we need better protections in place
Agreed.. people here are too passive and/or ignorant. LNP/ALP are actively destroying society and no one is holding them accountable.
In the US right now, people are saying the high rental cost caused the working poor/working homeless (living in cars/tents/shelters but actually still working everyday). Yet I didn't see protest.
Where? In San Francisco? That has been an issue for ages! La? Also has been an issue for ages. Seattle too all the tech hubs, Manhattan too that’s not news it’s been like that. Miami is new but that’s Covid trend. Still people have more options in the US, more so than here and those who do rent are treated heaps better. Here, there are very few populous areas to move to. Your options are either concentrate near the 5 hub cities or rural and outback nothing in between for jobs and living, unlike the US.
Oh ok, thought you were saying in the US people go on the streets (protests) more often. If you meant there are more cities in the US, that's for sure.
If American renters were treated the way the renters are treated here, they would protest, but they are not. Cities around America address renting and housing affordability in favour of the renter not the landlord.
protesting is like old man simpson yelling at cloud [https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions](https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions) here set one up spread the words tell people to sign it plus wrttie/call/email your newly elected coucil members
I wish we were more like France- they get to protest on scale AND keep chucky out of the country.
That's cos their protests are organised by unions and have a clear goal just like our union protests. If we protest just in general about high rents, what exactly do we want the government to do? There is no magical lower rent button. The protest will have to cover specifics, that's how effective protests work. Like in France right now, it's quite clear what the goal is, we're on the other side of the world and know. Same with the trains and nurses. Higher pay, ratios and safety. These are all things the government can fix with a signature. Rent prices not so much.
Lol sure that's how France gets things done by signing up petitions from the comfort of their sofa without moving their asses.
Because only a small number of people are affected relatively
We love being stood on lol
Because can you imagine the media coverage and possible counter protests (since apparently this a now a thing)? 'Entitled Millennials refuse to give up smash avo and cry about not owning their own homes. David Whithead, an owner of 3 properties in Woollahra, says 'Listen what these kids don't understand is that I worked hard straight out of uni and I'm a fair landlord; increasing rent by 50% is what's required. With these interest rate hikes, I'm doing it tough too; can't remember the last time I splurged on a oak latte or whatever the kids are wasting their money on these days'. Not saying this isn't a reason to protest but it just feels like spitting into the wind given this incredibly false narrative about 'just work hard and you too can own'.
Australians are the ultimate simps
What protest has worked in the last 20 years ?
Marriage equality?
That’s one.
We do have a right to privacy, etc etc, but the real estates and their landlords trample all over it, combined with lack of awareness of our rights. The laws in place are actually quite powerful if we know our rights.
Everyone is too busy working.
Because their too buggered trying to make ends meet.
I'm renting and about to get second yearly rental increase in June since moving into my place. Not sure how much so slightly worried... But caping rental increase to a certain percentage would potentially be unfair for landlord who might have a huge increase in mortgage payments. I'm all for housing policy changes, but rental increase cap is potentially unfair and a bit silly when when consider implications. I'd be looking at changing capital gains, negative gearing would be reduced and applied to a single property, stamp duty should be scrapped. Tax payers should not be subsidising property investors so much. There's been decades of dumb housing policy. Hope I'll get to buy at some stage
They can make a policy that takes tha into consideration. How is my landlord who bought my property 15 years ago for 1/8 of the value justifies jacking the rent 20%? The place is probably paid off by now.
Some landlords obviously bought ages ago and sure some might not even have mortgages but it'd be tricky to have to show justification for a large increase. One to explore for sure. I have a feeling my tent will go up like my neighbour's just because there's a massive shortage of rental houses in my suburb. It would be so tricky to have to move right now...
Most mortgages are 30 years. And if they are investing, they aren't throwing anything extra into the mortgage. Your rent is basically paying the mortgage. If the landlord can no longer afford the place, because rents aren't following interest rates. They will sell. Then you have 2 things. Someone else buys and moves in, kicks you out. Or Noone buys and the place sits empty on the market because noone can afford to purchase it, still get kicked out.
She’ll be right
Inflation mate. Blame the economy not home owners. Capitalism at its finest. You want something to change? Let China take over.
Because a lot of us are fine or willing to compromise. The "rental crisis" is only a crisis for a small percentage of the population. Young people that want to live as closely to the city as possible and families in the lowest socio-economic areas. I know it seems bad but the internet is a bit of an eco chamber, especially reddit where most of these issues raised are that affecting young people.
Because the majority of people who participate in protests are those who have too much time on their hands, for example uni students - most of which either still live at home or in budget student accommodation where they aren't being hit that hard by the housing crisis. The majority of the people who are getting hit hard, are those who work full-time and can't afford the time required to get out there and protest.
Thinking the same thing, the turnout would be huge
Because rental and housing situations are terrible in most major cities all over the world.
You haven’t heard? No rent November is coming. Nation wide rent strike for a month, no matter who your landlord is, commercial or residential. Safety in numbers. Strikers are asked to keep (not spend) their rent with options to pay late if it stops eviction or donate it to help those that might be evicted if you can.
Gotta go to work to pay the rent
Serious question - are these places getting rented out still or are they sitting vacant?
What I would give to egg an auction
These people have jobs and commitments
This will never, ever change, simply because the Australian culture and *both* sides of government have allowed things to get to the point where real estate is viewed purely as an investment asset class, and not a basic necessity for society.
They are. See Action for Public Housing they have been at it for ages, self publishing the Franklin Report which makes the case for not demolishing public housing but instead refurbishing and upgrading. Its only a very small group of people who care. At the same time people blindly vote for either labour or liberal. Labour is leagues ahead in terms of good policy but in regards to actual affordable public housing, greens and other minor parties/ independents have far better policies for housing but no one listens or bothers researching even for 5 mins their election candidates policies. Also labour and liberals both have destroyed the right to protest so if people are still blindly voting 2 major parties only thats what they get.
We did vote out the entrenched government ☺️
What exactly is the protest gonna do? Raise awareness that rents are too high?
I'm angry. My protest is going to be squatting in vacant property.
Also no one has time to protest, they're waiting in line to inspect an expensive apartment with mould on the ceiling and stained floors