Society/Culture Landlords - What is the point?

Remove this Banner Ad

Carringbush2010 said:
Thanks faible:

I might have a look at that some time in the future. Not sure I'd qualify for though.

I doubt that 45k commercial properties are the norm. The link I posted, those properties are certainly out of reach for mum and dad investors and myself.
Click to expand...

Their book is well worth a read, commercial loans function differently and might be more accessible than you'd expect, in many cases moreso than a residential loan.

If nothing else it's interesting to learn more about it, I've got a family member who was really in to their podcast who got me on to them.
 
faible said:
I'm trying to illustrate that 'rich' is a relative term. You say you're not rich, but recognise you're a lot better off than some others. So to those others you would be rich. You're the aspiration ahole to them.
Click to expand...
Yes it's subject to opinion, imo I'm certainly not rich.

I've edited this paragraph for accuracy.
faible said:
I said the renter subsidises your investment. Some tenancies the renter does more than subsidise it, some they don't. They receive no tax benefits for that - which again, is what purplepingers (his name is Jordan btw) was trying to point out.
Click to expand...
That purple wan*er is portraying investors as bad people in that post.

If you can't see that then that says all we need to know.
faible said:
because you don't like the pingers has said the mum and dad investor trope is used as a cover for those who are investors that own far more than 1 investment property
Click to expand...
Like I said, it's a clear allusion that property investors are bad people.
faible said:
for example our politicians.
Click to expand...
If you think this is the norm, then.......................

I think we're done here, you're clearly not able to understand or refuse to, that the purple is clearly alluding something that is incorrect. He is not alone, but the allusion is incorrect none the less.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Carringbush2010 said:
I don't disagree that the tax laws around property investment are rather damaging for those that cannot obtain property.

Regardless, that does not equate, me a property investor, as a greedy ahole, I passionately reject that notion and I also passionately reject the notion that ALL investors are greedy aholes.

I'm just tryna get ahead to make a better life for myself, guess that makes me the anti christ, amirite?

Most are investing to make a better life for themselves, HOW DARE THEY?!?1?

They're just middle class mid life to elderly who are not billionaires just buying up properties as a hobby.

Like I said earlier, if one has a problem with the way property investment is structured, play the ball not the person.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that’s bullshit.
 
faible said:
I appreciate that you read the 'risk-free' bit and ignored everything else, such as when I used the word 'subsidised' elsewhere. Funny which part people fixate on.
Click to expand...
I don't agree at all with the extra help they get (mainly because I'm never going to be a landlord ;)) but saying that is so silly it removes any credibility.
 
There is no such thing as a risk free investment

Landlords sure think residential property should be though

They also don't think the handouts they get are welfar

They also don't think they're rich

They also think they're self funding their retirement

They also all think they're one of the good ones but get very offended on behalf of the bad ones it seems
 
Kram said:
I don't agree at all with the extra help they get (mainly because I'm never going to be a landlord ;)) but saying that is so silly it removes any credibility.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth I'm a landlord and I think negative gearing should be removed.

Deductions should only be based on the income from the investment itself, it shouldn't be used as a way to reduce the tax you pay related to your job.

Labor had a sensible policy to remove NG about 8 years ago. Unfortunately it wasn't a vote winner and people didn't vote for it. I can't see them reintroducing it any time soon due to losing two elections with that as a central policy for them.
 
Frank Grimes said:
For what it's worth I'm a landlord and I think negative gearing should be removed.

Deductions should only be based on the income from the investment itself, it shouldn't be used as a way to reduce the tax you pay related to your job.

Labor had a sensible policy to remove NG about 8 years ago. Unfortunately it wasn't a vote winner and people didn't vote for it. I can't see them reintroducing it any time soon due to losing two elections with that as a central policy for them.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't remove it, but I'd limit it to investors who are adding stock to the market. There will be a push for medium density developments in the middle rings of Melbourne and Sydney over the next 20-30 years as the greenspace on the city dries up which will need some level of private investor involvement - those sorts of things should get discounts. I'm not sold that people building new standalone houses on newly released subdivided blocks of land are really doing their bit for society but maybe there's a counter argument I'm missing. The group that definitely don't need it are people who buy a house to hold it without improving the property.
 
Nuggs Bunny said:
I wouldn't remove it, but I'd limit it to investors who are adding stock to the market. There will be a push for medium density developments in the middle rings of Melbourne and Sydney over the next 20-30 years as the greenspace on the city dries up which will need some level of private investor involvement - those sorts of things should get discounts. I'm not sold that people building new standalone houses on newly released subdivided blocks of land are really doing their bit for society but maybe there's a counter argument I'm missing. The group that definitely don't need it are people who buy a house to hold it without improving the property.
Click to expand...
Investors and developers are already creating scarcity and build to invest properties are some of the worst built places I've ever lived in

Any model that requires giving money to private interests to solve a public problem invariably just syphons public money into profits and not fixes
 
Gralin said:
Investors and developers are already creating scarcity and build to invest properties are some of the worst built places I've ever lived in

Any model that requires giving money to private interests to solve a public problem invariably just syphons public money into profits and not fixes
Click to expand...
The government doesn't have the means to deliver enough properties required and likely never will in Australia's current structure. For low and affordable housing, sure, the government can and should do more. For people who have the means to pay for their own housing, private sector development has always been the way that new houses get built and I would think there's value in targeting incentives for people to invest in this.

Building standards in general for commercial and residential construction have been on a steady decline for a twenty year period now, perhaps unless you're working in high rise in the CBD. When chippies and concreters are getting paid $200k per year on the tunnel jobs and level crossing removals, there are few worthwhile who want to earn $90k per year in domestic construction where union EBAs aren't found.

On top of that, ever since the Block came out there's no shortage of people doing things on the weekend that they just should not be doing.
 
l
Nuggs Bunny said:
The government doesn't have the means to deliver enough properties required and likely never will in Australia's current structure. For low and affordable housing, sure, the government can and should do more. For people who have the means to pay for their own housing, private sector development has always been the way that new houses get built and I would think there's value in targeting incentives for people to invest in this.

Building standards in general for commercial and residential construction have been on a steady decline for a twenty year period now, perhaps unless you're working in high rise in the CBD. When chippies and concreters are getting paid $200k per year on the tunnel jobs and level crossing removals, there are few worthwhile who want to earn $90k per year in domestic construction where union EBAs aren't found.

On top of that, ever since the Block came out there's no shortage of people doing things on the weekend that they just should not be doing.
Click to expand...
I don't think there needs to be tax subsidies for property investing at all

Developers will build if they can get paid, or if they'll lose the land if they don't develop it, land banking being another issue.

If residential property is only an attractive investment wirh billions in subsidies then its an artificial market
 
Nuggs Bunny said:
Building standards in general for commercial and residential construction have been on a steady decline for a twenty year period now, perhaps unless you're working in high rise in the CBD. When chippies and concreters are getting paid $200k per year on the tunnel jobs and level crossing removals, there are few worthwhile who want to earn $90k per year in domestic construction where union EBAs aren't found.
Click to expand...
This but it was already like that 20+ years ago, the quality of the mass produced residential homes from the big builders that the vast majority of people use is very, very ordinary. Just slapped together with the cheapest possible materials. And unlike the big commercial jobs pretty much nobody watches over the build as it progresses properly, so it ends up being basically for the main part unsupervised workmanship.

Only way around it is using the small high end builders but few are able or willing to pay for quality these days.
 
Carringbush2010 said:
Yes it's subject to opinion, imo I'm certainly not rich.

I've edited this paragraph for accuracy.

That purple wan*er is portraying investors as bad people in that post.

If you can't see that then that says all we need to know.

Like I said, it's a clear allusion that property investors are bad people.

If you think this is the norm, then.......................

I think we're done here, you're clearly not able to understand or refuse to, that the purple is clearly alluding something that is incorrect. He is not alone, but the allusion is incorrect none the less.
Click to expand...

I've followed pingers for a long time, I think you're generally misconstruing what he's going after, and what I've been saying. He's come from a background of bringing attention to the appalling condition many rental properties are kept in (below the minimum standards) and the limited ability tenants have had to do anything about that, where if they reported the property they mysteriously found themselves kicked out. I also happen to think REA's are some of the worst people and companies in society so I enjoy that he relentlessly attacks how shitty they are.

Whether you view yourself as rich or not, doesn't change that you're (much) better off than a lot of people in this country, let alone another.

That landlords receive tax breaks whilst renters don't is just another way the system is heavily tilted against one side, and there's very few people out there willing to do anything about it. Pingers at the very least has managed to bring a large amount of attention to just how bad this space is for a lot of renters and has had some traction.

If offending landlords is the worst thing he does along the way, I don't think that's such a bad thing.

Residential property is simply not a thing that should be incentivised as an investment category by government policy, we seem to even agree on that front.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Carringbush2010 said:
Yeah he's getting traction from easily influenced life's not fair morons with wa*ky views like that one I replied to.

Stirring up sh*t is what he's doing, broad brushing all investors as aholes is not the way to go about. If this dickhead has a problem with how property investment is structured, play the ball not the person.
Click to expand...
Meh, it doesn't bother me too much he has it out for landlords. He appears to heavily support communism so it's to be expected (he quotes Karl Marx a fair bit and in some of his videos he's holding a Lenin book).

Putting his beliefs aside. Most of the properties he highlights appear to be in poor condition and the rent appears to be over valued; or in a couple of videos I've seen they shouldn't be fit for living in.
 
Last edited:
Frank Grimes said:
Meh, it doesn't bother me too much he has it out for landlords. He appears to heavily support communism so it's to be expected (he quotes Karl Marx a fair bit and in some of his videos he's holding a Lenin book).

Putting his beliefs aside. Most of the properties he highlights appear to be in poor condition and the rent appears to be over valued; or in a couple of videos I've seen they shouldn't be fit for living in.
Click to expand...
Yes that would be why they're called shit rentals
 
ShanDog said:
Am I a shit human if my landlording is limited to the fact I have a super fund that invests in property, or have I successfully leapt through an ethical loophole?
Click to expand...
Is it a self managed super fund?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chief
Society/Culture School Old Boys clubs - what is the obsession?
Replies
14
Views
1K
Blue1980
Blue1980
Cmarsh
Society/Culture To what extent are Universities to blame for the current children's literacy crisis?
Replies
18
Views
1K
the_interloper
the_interloper
Footy Is The Win
  • Locked
Society/Culture What will be the false flag created to divert attention away from the Epstein leaks?
Replies
2
Views
580
Malifice
Malifice
FireKrakouer
Society/Culture Progressives, what is the most conservative belief you hold? And vice-versa for conservatives?
2 3 4
Replies
87
Views
7K
Rusty Brookes
R
Johnny Bananas
Politics The economy is set up to screw young people
2 3
Replies
72
Views
2K
Seeds
Seeds
Seeds
Politics What in your view should be the goal of government?
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Rotayjay
Rotayjay
Gough
Trump Bibles and trainers, what products should other Presidents have endorsed?
Replies
1
Views
440
Satan
Satan

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top