And as the article says - this data is only from individual tax returns. It doesn’t cover companies.
Cunts
Isn’t that just a generic term for Australians? Like not even an insult? I think there’s gotta be something much worse to call them. “Landlords” might do, it’s basically synonymous with scum of the earth.
Nope. Cunt as a singular can be a term of affection. Cunt as a plural is only a positive when used with some adjectives like “crazy” or “mad”. Used without an adjective like that, it’s a harsh put down.
The differences are subtle but unmistakable.
It depends how hard you go on the ‘c’ at the start, IMO
Thank you, that’s helpful. It’s important to learn these cultural nuances of other countries so one doesn’t accidentally offend.
nods
It’s all context. You can tell from the context (an article about landlords) it’s an insult that conveys disgust for the subjects of the article
don’t form opinions based on reddit comments.
The full stop was unspoken, but present to all aussies.
Maybe it wasn’t about the houses, maybe it was about the class divide that we made along the way.
My partner and I find ourselves in a very similar situation to the couple listed at the end of the article. Ever saving every cent only to have the goal posts pushed further and further back. And then our landlord decides to jack the rent up for our current place every 12 months by absurd amounts because “its what the market says”. Bull fucking shit you greedy fucks.
But what are our other options? Move out into whoop whoop away from all of our friends, family and work? Aim lower and get a place that we don’t fit in? What do we do?
Or even if we get approved for a mortgage, it will be with us until we are 70 based on interest rates and stagnant wages. I feel hopeless and at the whims of those that only want my hard earned money.
our landlord decides to jack the rent up for our current place every 12 months by absurd amounts because “its what the market says”. Bull fucking shit you greedy fucks.
This is how I found out the “rental reviews” the department of justice does in Victoria are an absolute joke. If everyone colludes to raise rents by 20-30% 2 years in a row (as they did), then you’re shit out of luck.
They even use advertised listings in their calculations, which is an even bigger joke.
Canberra are the only ones (that I know of) who have something vaguely okay. 2% above inflation per year. No more.
Absolute joke of a “strong” housing market we find ourselves…
They’re using “Mr Kumar” as an example here, but this story goes back a long way. Huge parts of the wealthy northern suburbs, and prime real estate near the most popular beaches in Sydney are held by a handful of people. They bought this property a long time ago, but the “newer” property investors are basically working off that template. You can actually walk around those suburbs and find a bunch of empty properties. They don’t care about the rent, they prefer to show as little income as possible. They just want the capital gains when they sell. Often these people are retired and can get significant tax concessions.
The “newer” investors are doing this but with properties which are much cheaper. They do it like a job or a business. It’s not healthy for the country either, but it’s actually less of a rort than the institutional wealth in this country.
Save some for the rest of us!
This is a nation of convicts who aspires to become wardens.
I don’t have an issue with people owning multiple properties, but doing so should be subservient to the provision of a core component of subsistence.
A broad proposal I’ve been mulling is the realisation of profit anywhere in the real estate industry (construction, (re)development, ownership, management, etc.) should only be tolerated contingent to the size of the social housing wait list.
As a broad example, if the wait list is over a year, tax any profit above 5% at 50%. The figures are arbitrary, the point is to make it the responsibility of the group to fix the problem they’ve caused.
tbh landlords occupy a special place that was carved out of necessity nearly a century ago that no longer applies.
We need to revise the laws and start treating rental properties as the business they are.
Is there a downside to limiting houses to a 1per person maximum?
This is always where it gets complicated. One house is pretty limiting. Lots of people have holiday homes - should that become illegal? People buy homes to support family (particularly elderly or disabled family) members in an environment that allows them some space and independence.
Should a married couple be allowed to have two homes? Should I be allowed to buy homes in my kids’ names to get around such a limitation?
I don’t have the answers to any of this. Housing is a super complicated and politically charged topic. There are a million millionaires out there with the bulk of their net worth tied up in the value of their homes. The scary truth is they don’t really want to solve this problem, because if houses stop costing most of a million (or more) dollars to buy, they stop being millionaires.
I would rather have it be a case of everyone gets a house before anyone gets a second, regardless of an individuals economic ability.
Taxing tends to even that out. Increasing the % for every property over ppr.
Of the multifacets there are two bigguns: the cash cow of investment properties and tax breaks, and developer landbanking and artificial restriction of supply on new builds.
Tax the shit out of both of these.
I don’t think limiting is necessary.
Instead we could start by getting rid of John Howard’s capital gains tax discounts on properties. That alone massively distorts where investment dollars go in this country. Of all the fucked things about real estate that has to be the one that is most unfair. Why the hell should you pay less tax on speculating existing property than you do when you work on something that actually produces value?
If that didn’t correct things enough there are more things that could be done: banning ownership by non citizens, replacing stamp duty with annual land tax, incentives to discourage land banking, realistic population targets, and dare I say it; limiting negative gearing to new builds only.
Yes. Many. Here’s the first: mobility.
In my 20s, I didn’t live in the same city for more than a couple years at a time. If I had not been able to rent, I’d have wasted tons of money.
Good point
I have no issue with 2. But they have to live in it for part of the year. If someone wants a summer home that they earn after working hard then why deny them.
However any more houses should be taxed at a rate that makes them untenable.
The downside for them is they’ll have to get a real job instead of relying on passive income.
There shouldn’t be any apartment buildings? Wait, are these people buying houses? That’s weird. The article says they just keep borrowing money and buying properties.
is it me or does Mr Kumar look a lot like Tommy Tallarico?
Eat them when?
