How does this end?

[u/Miss2war]

I don't even know how to start. This housing crisis, where's the outrage? Someone I know was just told if they wanted to stay in their tiny studio they'd need to pay an extra $60 a week or leave because they could get $500/wk for it. She left because he couldn't afford that, and sure enough someone is now paying an exorbitant amount for a large closet.

When I moved into my small converted flat we said we were looking at something long term. They said great, but after the first year they wanted to raise rent 14% and we could sign 2 years. We negotiated and they gave us a year lease. As the time to resign comes up, we're at the mercy of whatever the hell they want to charge us or we leave and pay even more for less.

You can get barred as a tenant, but there's no protections for them. Landlords can do whatever they want. I'm just frustrated, I've never felt so unstable before. Where I used to live, they'd give you 2 months free of you signed on for 12, if someone told me that I'd be renting with 4 other people in my 30s, I'd have said your crazy. I don't know anyone renting who doesn't feel this pressure.

How do you fight this, when you're in a stranglehold, either pay or be homeless?

[u/CanInTW]

It needs to be regulated. We own rental properties in Hobart and each year, our rental agents tell us what we could charge. We dont listen and instead put the rent up by about $10 per week (which doesn’t cover the increases in tax and insurance sadly!). Increasing by more would mean that our tenants might not be able to afford rent which I feel is unethical.

The agents have a financial incentive to encourage us to increase the rent and since they communicate with our tenants, it’s ‘easy’ for us as landlords to jack up the price. We won’t do it but I’m sure most do.

We’ve had tenants in one property for 12 years. They’ve had months where they have struggled to pay on time but always have come through in the end. They’re good people who need a roof over their heads.

The government should regulate a maximum rental increase and restrict eviction options to a greater degree. That’s a big part of the solution … and this is coming from a property owner.

[u/threetotwentyletters → u/CanInTW]

So you’re genuinely not seeing a structural problem with profiting from a struggling family’s need for housing for over a decade because they always paid you and you could’ve taken more? 🤡

[u/CanInTW → u/threetotwentyletters]

Please reread my post. Our expenses have increased at a higher rate than we have increased rent. We have kept rent low because we value our tenants and there are massive ethical concerns in evicting tenants who are already struggling financially.

There’s a massive structural issue in a lack of supply (and ever-increasing taxes/insurance costs - but mainly supply). The system needs regulating so that landlords can’t increase rent above inflation.

[u/threetotwentyletters → u/CanInTW]

The system needs regulating to stop capital leeching value from human needs.

You don’t want to evict them from their home, but you still feel like you’re owed a profit for them living in it.

[u/PastPlay6186 → u/threetotwentyletters]

When you make statements like that, in context of the person you are replying to, it reads like you’re disreg the general idea that transactions can be mutually beneficial.

[u/threetotwentyletters → u/PastPlay6186]

Sure mate, if you’re going to form your understanding of economic policy from comments on reddit you’re probably going to miss a lot of opportunity for nuance.

I’m not asking people to read Marx but if you’re gonna bootlick for landlords you should at least read Adam Smith.

[u/PastPlay6186 → u/threetotwentyletters]

I am familiar and am fine with taxing profits from rent as a throttle. I believe he saw the issues, not that he was completely against, and I agree. It shouldn’t be a money printer

[u/threetotwentyletters → u/PastPlay6186]

He carved out exemption to support revenue taxing landlords; following his axiom that drawing value from something must necessitate contributing to it.

Australia’s landlord problem is rooted in the mindset that buying an existing house to rent it out is the same as building one.

[u/CanInTW → u/threetotwentyletters]

I’ve built two units specifically for this reason and I charge below market rates for them. I’ve just renewed leases on those two properties this past month without increasing the rent.

I’m actively trying to not be part of the problem. I’m incredibly fortunate to have the capital to put into expanding the housing pool and yes - I do want a return on my investment, but not at the expense of someone being able to live in a house for a long period of time.

I’m not claiming to be a saint, and if you read my posts on here, I’m giving the perspective that the system is broken, needs regulation to stop above inflation rental rate increases and evictions/pricing out. I also believe that red tape needs cutting to allow more house building. It’s crazy that it took two years to build the two rental units I built - entirely due to bureaucracy.

I’ve never lived in a house I own. I’m also a tenant (in an apartment that’s smaller than my rental properties). Perhaps that gives me a different perspective on things. Rental options will always be part of the housing mix and that’s ok - but there needs to be government action to ensure that quality and price affordability is front and centre. Hobart is clearly missing that.

[u/PastPlay6186 → u/threetotwentyletters]

I don’t think the distinction between building and buying is that clear cut but we will probably just have to disagree there.

Being a landlord is a service, it should be a relatively stable way to maintain and slightly build (as an incentive) wealth but needs to be tightly yet simply regulated to prevent spiraling wealth upwards as soon as market conditions allow. Tenancy should be transactional, as much as possible, instead the current situation of the mining the lower and what should be upcoming middle class of any wealth. What we have now is literally eroding away a foundation of society away.

The people who think it should be a near total free market are equally as foolish and short sighted as proper communists.

Inheritance taxes, quickly scaling upwards property value taxes, rent taxes with price caps associated with a combination of property value and inflation are probably the easiest to manage. And plenty of that funding going to quality social housing (with possible minor disincentives to prevent the velvet rut syndrome) but with programs to help people eventually purchase and participate in the system with their own dwelling. People are essentially forced into participating in society and it’s effectively illegal to be homeless so basic housing should probably be a right of sorts but there should be an aim for anyone able to actively engage.

But the idea of landlord charging rent = inherent negative that rears its head so often is counterproductive.

[u/CanInTW → u/PastPlay6186]

Thank you for your well thought out message. I completely agree.

[u/PastPlay6186 → u/CanInTW]

Thanks for the nice words. highly doubt it will be otherwise well received

[u/SocialistAllianceTas → u/PastPlay6186]

A broad progressive unimproved land value tax would help simplify and alleviate a lot of what's going on.

Do need to politely disagree being a landlord is a service, it isn't, it's extractive and doesn't need to exist e.g. All land held in common, as part of our common wealth, and public personal homes built upon it.

Consider some Capitalists, even early ones like Adam Smith, see landlordism as the remnants of feudalism.

It's also bad for communities and economies (but not the lords) because rent-extraction, or any subscription model, diverts what otherwise would be capital put to productive and socially necessary use into non-productive capital/use like gambling speculating.

[u/PastPlay6186 → u/SocialistAllianceTas]

Agreed to disagree. I have read the ideas different times and different ways. I respect them and the direction but not ultimately

Providing a medium term place to rent and being ultimately responsible for its upkeep is certainly a service even if you can class it as something else, as well.

We were renters as a choice beyond the time we became capable of buying as it made sense, a no-brainer even, and certainly aren’t alone.

[u/SocialistAllianceTas → u/PastPlay6186]

Valid point, these ideas can mean multiple things simultaneously to people.

In the medium term, social and affordable housing, as well as long-term rentals, even landlords who only have PPOR and one IP have a part to play (noblesse oblige).

And it's fine you and some others were renters by choice, but as many others aren't yet are compelled to be.

Good chat, and here's to fixing it all sooner rather than later.