The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

[Flow-Rider]

That type of investor we can do without. Vacant and derelict blocks across metropolitan Melbourne are rife because people just sit on land speculating the prices will rise. It increases demand on the remaining housing stock which does drive up prices (improving their investment collectively), but also prices many people out of the market due to the increased competition. It's an 'industry' that's been protected for far too long IMO.

The other levy that @Minlak linked is not horrible in principle, until it inevitably becomes permanent and just gets dumped into general tax base to be wasted on rorts and re-election campaigns.

People hold onto land for many reasons but all I can see is a future where no one will want to invest in residential, Vic brought in a whole set of new laws just to fuck investors over. The govt is doing basically doing nothing to add new stock to the housing market, only making the land value go up with stupid taxes. I saw the housing shortage a mile away and govt would have a lot more data at their hands than I. The pitchfork after investors is another problem, more people own their own homes than investors own rentals, so when an owner sells his home to upgrade after making a capital gain, they pay no tax on the gain, and yet they're pushing the house prices up.

Investors risk their own money, the govt doesn't pay the investors back if the tenant does a runner or if the house gets eaten out by termites, and insurances cover fuck all when it comes to rentals.

Hard agree.

Government assists people in buying multiple properties, driving property values up artificially and making it increasingly difficult for people to jump on the bottom rung of that ladder.
This is just the government stepping in and taking a little back from select people that are hoarding properties or choosing to rent short stay instead of to those that need a home. I doubt it'd have much impact outside of political suicide (or at least a sky news talking point for a few months), but I think it's a step in the right direction.



Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

You see how expensive the rents are, how cheap were rents before all the reforms came in, have a think about that.

 

[ForkinGreat]

A good policy that won’t ever get up as most politicians have multiple investment properties.

Or they would just write a grandfathering clause into the legislation to exempt themselves.

 

[Flow-Rider]

I would love to see this as federal tax legislation. Let people have one investment property then ramp it up after a second, third, fourth etc. And no negative gearing after the first property.

Multiple rental owners is another BS story, last time I looked 72% of investors had one rental, 10% had more than 2.

 

[ForkinGreat]

http://instagr.am/p/C1ZE-hcRFVB/

 

[beeb]

Multiple rental owners is another BS story, last time I looked 72% of investors had one rental, 10% had more than 2.

It's more the amount of properties that the multiple investors hold that's the problem...
A quarter of Australia’s property investments held by 1% of taxpayers, data reveals - The Guardian

...7% of property investors – or 215,321 people – accounting for 25% of all property investments.

That 7% also have three or more interests in investment properties across the country, with 1% of investors – or just 19,895 people – currently holding six or more investment interests...

 

[wesdadude]

I wish we could go back to a housing market instead of a property one. And, let's be honest, it's usually property prices, not values.

 

[Dales Cannon]

Multiple rental owners is another BS story, last time I looked 72% of investors had one rental, 10% had more than 2.

What's your point? It isn't single investment house owners who are screwing the market and avoiding tax. Wo cares if the others are 1% or 99% just take away their freebies.

 

[Haakon]

That type of investor we can do without. Vacant and derelict blocks across metropolitan Melbourne are rife because people just sit on land speculating the prices will rise. It increases demand on the remaining housing stock which does drive up prices (improving their investment collectively), but also prices many people out of the market to the increased competition. It's an 'industry' that's been protected for far too long IMO.

The other levy that @Minlak linked is not horrible in principle, until it inevitably becomes permanent and just gets dumped into general tax base to be wasted on rorts and re-election campaigns.

I'm sitting on a residential block in an urban area, close to the town centre and the train station.I'd love to unload the bloody thing to someone who can build on it - and I would have years ago were it not for incompetent mendacious chunts in the planning department of the local council...

 

[beeb]

I'm sitting on a residential block in an urban area, close to the town centre and the train station.I'd love to unload the bloody thing to someone who can build on it - and I would have years ago were it not for incompetent mendacious chunts in the planning department of the local council...

I seen you mention this before. What reason(s) did they give for knocking back development approval?

 

[pink poodle]

I'm sitting on a residential block in an urban area, close to the town centre and the train station.I'd love to unload the bloody thing FOR THE RIGHT PRICE to someone who can build on it - and I would have years ago were it not for incompetent mendacious chunts in the planning department of the local council...

I think you left something out.

 

[Flow-Rider]

The govt could do more to help first homeowners but it doesn't, they're always 2 steps behind the pace. Many problems around the housing industry and it just can't keep up with the supply. The govt has seen the housing shortfall projection from years ago and done nothing. The public housing that they're going to build will be too late and numbers are too small to make a real impact.

What's your point? It isn't single investment house owners who are screwing the market and avoiding tax. Wo cares if the others are 1% or 99% just take away their freebies.

There aren't many multiple rental owners like the media likes to make out, and most owners are at the lower end of the spectrum when it comes to income. Negative gearing favours professionals with a high income, they're going to have wealth no matter what , it's play money to them and they'll invest elsewhere to rort the tax system. In the end, I doubt it would make that much of a difference in the market if they changed laws to discourage them. If the returns on capital gains and rents stay high, it still beats most other types of investments and it's a lot safer to park your money there.

There's no free for all like many make out, if you think there is buy 10 homes and discount the rent on them, and see how much time you waste of your day looking after them and how far you get. Yes, there are scummy owners out there but you'll find them in every industry.

I'm sitting on a residential block in an urban area, close to the town centre and the train station.I'd love to unload the bloody thing to someone who can build on it - and I would have years ago were it not for incompetent mendacious chunts in the planning department of the local council...

This happens all the time, it can take anywhere from 3 months to 3 years to get a DA passed. The more times they knock it back the more money they make on the next application fee.

It's more the amount of properties that the multiple investors hold that's the problem...
A quarter of Australia’s property investments held by 1% of taxpayers, data reveals - The Guardian

Rich, old property moguls? Not the typical landlord!

We know property investors are 'public enemy number one' at the moment, with every politician across the country racing to blame us for the rental housing crisis. Rents are rising and the challenges for tenants are real. But landlords are not to blame and the long held view that Australia's...

www.beesnees.com.au

 

[Haakon]

The govt could do more to help first homeowners but it doesn't, they're always 2 steps behind the pace. Many problems around the housing industry and it just can't keep up with the supply. The govt has seen the housing shortfall projection from years ago and done nothing. The public housing that they're going to build will be too late and numbers are too small to make a real impact.


There aren't many multiple rental owners like the media likes to make out, and most owners are at the lower end of the spectrum when it comes to income. Negative gearing favours professionals with a high income, they're going to have wealth no matter what , it's play money to them and they'll invest elsewhere to rort the tax system. In the end, I doubt it would make that much of a difference in the market if they changed laws to discourage them. If the returns on capital gains and rents stay high, it still beats most other types of investments and it's a lot safer to park your money there.

There's no free for all like many make out, if you think there is buy 10 homes and discount the rent on them, and see how much time you waste of your day looking after them and how far you get. Yes, there are scummy owners out there but you'll find them in every industry.


This happens all the time, it can take anywhere from 3 months to 3 years to get a DA passed. The more times they knock it back the more money they make on the next application fee.

View attachment 405739

Rich, old property moguls? Not the typical landlord!

We know property investors are 'public enemy number one' at the moment, with every politician across the country racing to blame us for the rental housing crisis. Rents are rising and the challenges for tenants are real. But landlords are not to blame and the long held view that Australia's...

www.beesnees.com.au

Not even a DA - just a subdivision… It has fuckwit heritage people involved

 

[Haakon]

I think you left something out.

At this point I’m just looking to get out without taking a massive hit. I’m a good $50K in the hole as a direct result of those fuckwits.

 

[Haakon]

I seen you mention this before. What reason(s) did they give for knocking back development approval?

Not when a DA, just a simple sub division. It has a heritage overlay on it for reasons that have zero to do with this block, but it was their excuse to be chunts. They’ve made up at least a dozen different “reasons”, coming up with a new one every time I address the last one. It’s going to be going to VCAT.

 

[Flow-Rider]

Not even a DA - just a subdivision… It has fuckwit heritage people involved

Heritage listing on a vacant block, not trying to protect some type of tree or vegetation, are they?

 

[Haakon]

Heritage listing on a vacant block, not trying to protect some type of tree or vegetation, are they?

Dont get me started... Its totally overgrown and neglected for decades, but they found an aerial photo from 80 years ago that has a fuzzy outline that might be a garden so have decided to protect "historical gardens". I shit you not.

They also are setbacks of the building envelope isn't enough despite approving a DA on the neighbouring block with less setback, they want to retain the streetscape ambience (ie the overgrown frontage) so I agree to replant trees. And on and on its gone over 3 years. They've made up at least a dozen different reasons but it all boils down to " we dont wanna" and I have no idea why. Its a fucking joke and I am going to kick their fucking arses at VCAT and I'll e pursuing costs. Chunts.

 

[pink poodle]

See here is why you want to use a certifier rather than a DA whenever you can.

 

[Flow-Rider]

Dont get me started... Its totally overgrown and neglected for decades, but they found an aerial photo from 80 years ago that has a fuzzy outline that might be a garden so have decided to protect "historical gardens". I shit you not.

They also are setbacks of the building envelope isn't enough despite approving a DA on the neighbouring block with less setback, they want to retain the streetscape ambience (ie the overgrown frontage) so I agree to replant trees. And on and on its gone over 3 years. They've made up at least a dozen different reasons but it all boils down to " we dont wanna" and I have no idea why. Its a fucking joke and I am going to kick their fucking arses at VCAT and I'll e pursuing costs. Chunts.

I've seen similar stuff before, then developers buy the block on the cheap, just flatten the place overnight, and pay the fines later.

 

[Sky_Collapsed]

Mate, you come in here sporadically to crop dust this thread with tedious, mildly provocative posts and zero desire to engage in anything meaningful.

Perfectly happy to have a meaningful conversation but whnever I do try all i get is a bunch of immature comments from you guys.

Also I come in here at random intervals because i get busy and kinda forget about rotorburn for a bit.

Certainly nothing to do with mountain biking.

Well this is the off topic forum afterll remember.

Tbh the general mountain biking forum here isn't all that interesting. there's like one or three interesting threads but that is really it

 

[Tubbsy]

Tbh the general mountain biking forum here isn't all that interesting. there's like one or three interesting threads but that is really it

You’re being generous indeed.

What you’ll find here is that the mods are more lenient on people who contribute to the mtb side of things if they do then get involved in off-topic argie-bargie.

If the forum is largely either too boring or immature for your liking, well…