Brisbane renters fall through the loop due to lack of guidelines, basic living standards needed

    by: Sherine Conyers
    From: Quest Newspapers
    May 23, 2012


STANDARDS: Queensland Shelter executive officer Adrian Pisarski is concerned about overcrowding and poor accommodation options. Source: The Courier-Mail

THE rental situation has become so dire people are renting chicken pens and garages just to maintain shelter according to accommodation support groups.

Rose Brown from the Tenants Union said more must be done to get compliance standards in place to protect tenants.

She said overcrowding, mould issues and getting repairs to property were just some of the challenges for tenants too scared to `rock the boat' for fear of retribution from landlords.    :(

"Market forces don't offer any protection,'' she said.

"There really is a place for more affordable housing and some kind of regulation around standards.''

Queensland Shelter executive officer Adrian Pisarski said he'd seen one couple rent out a chook pen in desperation.    :o 

"It's outrageous really.   

"It was in a mining region where there was really nothing to rent and they were low income folks and that was about the only thing they could find,'' he said.


Around Brisbane, poorly maintained property, illegal boarding houses and people living in garages are becoming the norm as more and more people were priced out of the rental market, he said.    :(

"I've heard reports of many students renting overcrowded properties that aren't properly registered as boarding houses but operating as boarding house.

"Low income people can't compete,'' he said.    :(

According to the Rental Tenancies Authority, whether a dwelling such as a garage is suitable for someone to live in is a matter for the local council, which administers building regulations and local health and safety laws.

Residential Tenancies Authority (RTA) General Manager Fergus Smith said both tenants and landlords had obligations the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act (2008).

"The Act does not set standards for compliance, it sets general requirements about the condition of the property,'' he said.

A spokesperson for Brisbane City Council said in 2009, council amended its House Code ruling that no more than five unrelated persons can legally reside in the same house.

"Garages and sheds are not considered habitable dwellings and need to be converted to operate as such.

"This requires building approval and may need planning approval from Council.

"Council takes breaches of health, safety and local amenity law seriously and investigates any complaints received.

But Mr Pisarski said frustrated home owners "renting down'' had left low-income earners with significantly less accommodation options.    :(   

"Properties that are at the lower-end of the market tend to be occupied, not by low income folk, but by people who could actually probably afford to pay a reasonable bit more.

"The real problem is supply and we still have not done enough to make sufficient supply particularly at the lower end of the market,'' he said.    :(

The minimum legal standards are the reason for the high prices. There are all sorts of requirements for builders and landlords that push up housing prices. If you want cheaper housing, it means lowering standards.

If you want cheaper housing it means getting rid of negative gearing and the introduction of a  government program to build housing.

Who's game to take on the greedy landlords?

Quote:

People Renting Chook Pens And Garages.

New World Order Imperialism and colonization of a peoples land ain't easy - first you have to push the natives onto the reservations, then you move the new comers into their homes... :D

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 9:23am:

If you want cheaper housing it means getting rid of negative gearing and the introduction of a  government program to build housing. Who's game to take on the greedy landlords?

What about the starving landlords? You know not all landlords are greedy and not all ppl that are negative gearing can do anything about it. Some (prolly a lot) of ppl have had to move out of their homes and pay rent somewhere while renting their home out to pay the mortgage while they try to sell which they cant because nobody is buying.

What exactly is the problem with negative gearing?

SOB

We need to stop immigration.

Our population is increasing faster than our ability to house
& provide services for everyone.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 9:23am:

If you want cheaper housing it means getting rid of negative gearing and the introduction of a  government program to build housing. Who's game to take on the greedy landlords?

Have you tried to build a home lately?  The 5 star ratings and the rest, its not cheap.  Cost of materials keeps going up and builders are undercutting each other just to get the work.

Land banking is the biggest issue.

Tell the media and the Government to lift the ban on the migration invasion debate - all we get to hear is the Greens whining about the victims of injustice and the Corporate Maggot demanding skills migration.

Verge wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 9:45am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 9:23am: If you want cheaper housing it means getting rid of negative gearing and the introduction of a  government program to build housing. Who's game to take on the greedy landlords? Have you tried to build a home lately?  The 5 star ratings and the rest, its not cheap.  Cost of materials keeps going up and builders are undercutting each other just to get the work. Land banking is the biggest issue.

Don't build a new house then, buy one that's already built, an older one preferably, that was built to last.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 12:02pm:

Verge wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 9:45am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 9:23am: If you want cheaper housing it means getting rid of negative gearing and the introduction of a  government program to build housing. Who's game to take on the greedy landlords? Have you tried to build a home lately?  The 5 star ratings and the rest, its not cheap.  Cost of materials keeps going up and builders are undercutting each other just to get the work. Land banking is the biggest issue. Don't build a new house then, buy one that's already built, an older one preferably, that was built to last.

*Smacks forehead*

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 12:02pm:

Verge wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 9:45am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 9:23am: If you want cheaper housing it means getting rid of negative gearing and the introduction of a  government program to build housing. Who's game to take on the greedy landlords? Have you tried to build a home lately?  The 5 star ratings and the rest, its not cheap.  Cost of materials keeps going up and builders are undercutting each other just to get the work. Land banking is the biggest issue. Don't build a new house then, buy one that's already built, an older one preferably, that was built to last.

If it's in the same market, it will be affected by the prices. The price is dictated by the marginal cost of supply, not the total cost. Everyone who seeks out an older house to avoid the regulations also pushes up the price of those older houses. The price difference comes to reflect only the difference in what people are willing to pay, not the difference in the original cost of building it.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 9:30am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 9:23am: If you want cheaper housing it means getting rid of negative gearing and the introduction of a  government program to build housing. Who's game to take on the greedy landlords? What about the starving landlords? You know not all landlords are greedy and not all ppl that are negative gearing can do anything about it. Some (prolly a lot) of ppl have had to move out of their homes and pay rent somewhere while renting their home out to pay the mortgage while they try to sell which they cant because nobody is buying. What exactly is the problem with negative gearing? SOB

It should only apply to brand new house and land packages.  It should not be used to recycle old junk properties that were built in the 1920's. This would stop the speculators and hoarders pumping up the bubble.

Also increase land tax to discourage speculators and hoarders inflating the bubble. At the end of the day you only need one joint to live in so it is imperative that you discourage hoarders :(

Regarding house prices everyone should watch dick smith's documentary on population growth. It seems that property developers are behind population growth so they can flog their over inflated properties to desperate people :(

Again the property parasites get their way at the expense of the rest of us !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ui27Zlf4iY

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 12:33pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 9:30am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 9:23am: If you want cheaper housing it means getting rid of negative gearing and the introduction of a  government program to build housing. Who's game to take on the greedy landlords? What about the starving landlords? You know not all landlords are greedy and not all ppl that are negative gearing can do anything about it. Some (prolly a lot) of ppl have had to move out of their homes and pay rent somewhere while renting their home out to pay the mortgage while they try to sell which they cant because nobody is buying. What exactly is the problem with negative gearing? SOB It should only apply to brand new house and land packages.  It should not be used to recycle old junk properties that were built in the 1920's. This would stop the speculators and hoarders pumping up the bubble. Also increase land tax to discourage speculators and hoarders inflating the bubble. At the end of the day you only need one joint to live in so it is imperative that you discourage hoarders :(

I dont understand. What difference would it make if the house is new or old to negative gearing?

As for hoarders most ppl that have a house to rent are not hoarders. There are a couple who wreck it for everyone else of course but isnt that capitalism?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 1:12pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 12:33pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 9:30am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 9:23am: If you want cheaper housing it means getting rid of negative gearing and the introduction of a  government program to build housing. Who's game to take on the greedy landlords? What about the starving landlords? You know not all landlords are greedy and not all ppl that are negative gearing can do anything about it. Some (prolly a lot) of ppl have had to move out of their homes and pay rent somewhere while renting their home out to pay the mortgage while they try to sell which they cant because nobody is buying. What exactly is the problem with negative gearing? SOB It should only apply to brand new house and land packages.  It should not be used to recycle old junk properties that were built in the 1920's. This would stop the speculators and hoarders pumping up the bubble. Also increase land tax to discourage speculators and hoarders inflating the bubble. At the end of the day you only need one joint to live in so it is imperative that you discourage hoarders :( I dont understand. What difference would it make if the house is new or old to negative gearing? As for hoarders most ppl that have a house to rent are not hoarders. There are a couple who wreck it for everyone else of course but isnt that capitalism? SOB

if it was only applied to new houses it would force people to invest in building new joints instead of flipping old joints and creating nothing new except scarcity and a bigger bubble :(

if it's capitalism then why the corporate welfare and tax breaks for property developers and speculators ?? Let the market take car of itself with NO concessions for anyone ;)

Quote:

if it's capitalism then why the corporate welfare and tax breaks for property developers and speculators ?? Let the market take car of itself with NO concessions for anyone

This is the 2nd time I have seen this mentioned. What are these tax breaks? The negative gearing? Thats been there a very long time. This govt certainly didnt bring it in. As far as I know its just for ppl that are renting out a house and paying a mortgage. Are there other "tax breaks" or "handouts" because I want to claim them if there are.

SOB

Actually.
Just come out to Ganmain and learn how to build a Straw Bale House (as invented by Nevada Farmers in the US).
Average around 60% Cheaper to build
Average around 80% Quicker to build
Average around 60% DIY
Average around 70% More Insulation than a Double-Brick Veneer.
Isn't 'brittle' in an EarthQuake like a Double-Brick Veneer ...50% actually stays uprights and 'bales' don't CRUSH.
Far more durable against a Cyclone.
Takes 1/2 to 1hour to burn through during Bushfire.
You can build 'Straight' rendered walls and corners and some Straw Bale Houses have been built to $million specifications for mansions.
One University and 35 Engineers approve Straw Bale Buildings so no Building Industry or Council can deny them these days.
...Especially when they are Environmentally Friendly.

So Cheaper Housing can be INCREASED QUALITY. ;)
If you ain't afraid to be 'different'. :P

That's the way to go Jas, back to the future. I know a couple who built a mud brick house, made all their own bricks in plastic ice cream containers. Nature supplies the best insulation.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 3:48pm:

That's the way to go Jas, back to the future. I know a couple who built a mud brick house, made all their own bricks in plastic ice cream containers. Nature supplies the best insulation.

Yes but I hear that ice cream containers are an endangered species after some premiere or other decreed its legal to shoot them.''

SOB

I've got a chook pen for rent if anyones interested.  You'll be sharing with half a dozen chooks, but that just means you get to split the expenses 7 ways.  I will expect at least 4 eggs a week from you though. 

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 12:49pm:

Regarding house prices everyone should watch dick smith's documentary on population growth. It seems that property developers are behind population growth so they can flog their over inflated properties to desperate people :( Again the property parasites get their way at the expense of the rest of us !! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ui27Zlf4iY

Hear hear Nail,
Dick Smith is right -

it's caused by over population - the fault of both Labor & Libbos.
We have never had good government in this country.
They allow the dregs of the world to come here
without housing & services for them.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 2:41pm:

Quote: if it's capitalism then why the corporate welfare and tax breaks for property developers and speculators ?? Let the market take car of itself with NO concessions for anyone This is the 2nd time I have seen this mentioned. What are these tax breaks? The negative gearing? Thats been there a very long time. This govt certainly didnt bring it in. As far as I know its just for ppl that are renting out a house and paying a mortgage. Are there other "tax breaks" or "handouts" because I want to claim them if there are. SOB

so what !! get rid of it !!

why should someone who already owns their own family home get a tax break for owning another and denying someone else a family home ??

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 5:45pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 2:41pm: Quote: if it's capitalism then why the corporate welfare and tax breaks for property developers and speculators ?? Let the market take car of itself with NO concessions for anyone This is the 2nd time I have seen this mentioned. What are these tax breaks? The negative gearing? Thats been there a very long time. This govt certainly didnt bring it in. As far as I know its just for ppl that are renting out a house and paying a mortgage. Are there other "tax breaks" or "handouts" because I want to claim them if there are. SOB so what !! get rid of it !! why should someone who already owns their own family home get a tax break for denying someone else a family home ??

How does it deny someone else a family house? REally the thing thats denying ppl family houses ATM is the prices of family houses and the banks reluctance to lend that much.

SOB

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 8:17am:

The minimum legal standards are the reason for the high prices. There are all sorts of requirements for builders and landlords that push up housing prices. If you want cheaper housing, it means lowering standards.

They are not the only variables and you know it!

  ;) ;)

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 5:51pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 5:45pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 2:41pm: Quote: if it's capitalism then why the corporate welfare and tax breaks for property developers and speculators ?? Let the market take car of itself with NO concessions for anyone This is the 2nd time I have seen this mentioned. What are these tax breaks? The negative gearing? Thats been there a very long time. This govt certainly didnt bring it in. As far as I know its just for ppl that are renting out a house and paying a mortgage. Are there other "tax breaks" or "handouts" because I want to claim them if there are. SOB so what !! get rid of it !! why should someone who already owns their own family home get a tax break for denying someone else a family home ?? How does it deny someone else a family house? REally the thing thats denying ppl family houses ATM is the prices of family houses and the banks reluctance to lend that much. SOB

It means it's not available to be bought by someone to own and live in for themselves because someone who wants to own more than one home gets unfair tax advantages over the person who just wants a home to live in :( I don't know why this inequitable situation is so hard for you to grasp !!

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 5:56pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 5:51pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 5:45pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 2:41pm: Quote: if it's capitalism then why the corporate welfare and tax breaks for property developers and speculators ?? Let the market take car of itself with NO concessions for anyone This is the 2nd time I have seen this mentioned. What are these tax breaks? The negative gearing? Thats been there a very long time. This govt certainly didnt bring it in. As far as I know its just for ppl that are renting out a house and paying a mortgage. Are there other "tax breaks" or "handouts" because I want to claim them if there are. SOB so what !! get rid of it !! why should someone who already owns their own family home get a tax break for denying someone else a family home ?? How does it deny someone else a family house? REally the thing thats denying ppl family houses ATM is the prices of family houses and the banks reluctance to lend that much. SOB It means it's not available to be bought by someone to own for themselves because someone who wants to own more than one home gets unfair tax advantages over the person who just wants a home to live in :( I don't know why this inequitable situation is so hard for you to grasp !!

That sounds like sheer jealousy to me. Mummy mummy he got more than me! WAhhhhh. Doesnt sound like it would effect others getting a house though. you sure it isnt other factors for example house prices and banks not lending?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 6:19pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 5:56pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 5:51pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 5:45pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 2:41pm: Quote: if it's capitalism then why the corporate welfare and tax breaks for property developers and speculators ?? Let the market take car of itself with NO concessions for anyone This is the 2nd time I have seen this mentioned. What are these tax breaks? The negative gearing? Thats been there a very long time. This govt certainly didnt bring it in. As far as I know its just for ppl that are renting out a house and paying a mortgage. Are there other "tax breaks" or "handouts" because I want to claim them if there are. SOB so what !! get rid of it !! why should someone who already owns their own family home get a tax break for denying someone else a family home ?? How does it deny someone else a family house? REally the thing thats denying ppl family houses ATM is the prices of family houses and the banks reluctance to lend that much. SOB It means it's not available to be bought by someone to own for themselves because someone who wants to own more than one home gets unfair tax advantages over the person who just wants a home to live in :( I don't know why this inequitable situation is so hard for you to grasp !! That sounds like sheer jealousy to me. Mummy mummy he got more than me! WAhhhhh. Doesnt sound like it would effect others getting a house though. you sure it isnt other factors for example house prices and banks not lending? SOB

It's not jealousy at all. It's pure greed supported by the tax system :( I don't think any other country in the world has this sort of system but then Australia is a corporate crooks paradise isn't it !!

Quote:

Also increase land tax to discourage speculators and hoarders inflating the bubble.

This will push up rents. People need to rent. There is good reason to have landlords, but they will not pocket the loss. They will pass it on.


Quote:

if it was only applied to new houses it would force people to invest in building new joints instead of flipping old joints and creating nothing new except scarcity and a bigger bubbl

What holds back new developments is restrictions on approvals and high standards.


Quote:

Average around 60% Cheaper to build

Are you serious? It costs 40% of a real house and washes away when it rains?

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 7:14pm:

Quote: Also increase land tax to discourage speculators and hoarders inflating the bubble. This will push up rents. People need to rent. There is good reason to have landlords, but they will not pocket the loss. They will pass it on. [quote]if it was only applied to new houses it would force people to invest in building new joints instead of flipping old joints and creating nothing new except scarcity and a bigger bubbl

What holds back new developments is restrictions on approvals and high standards.


Quote:

Average around 60% Cheaper to build

Are you serious? It costs 40% of a real house and washes away when it rains?[/quote]

then no one will rent their dumps if they are too dear and they will have to sell them thus bringing the price of property down ;)

Poor people don't complain about the price of buying a house. They complain about the price of renting one. It is hardly fair to make the renters pay more so wealthier people can buy a house.

People have to live somewhere, so in practice they do have to pay the higher price. Chookpens are not exactly a trend.

FD,

Quote:

Chookpens are not exactly a trend.

My brother converted his garage into a granny flat complete with
shower, toilet, wash room, with a stove & living room, bedroom combo
& he rents it out for $200 a week.

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 7:49pm:

Poor people don't complain about the price of buying a house. They complain about the price of renting one. It is hardly fair to make the renters pay more so wealthier people can buy a house. People have to live somewhere, so in practice they do have to pay the higher price. Chookpens are not exactly a trend.

renters would pay less if the price of property dropped. This can only happen if no incentives are given to property speculators to hoard property and blow up property bubbles by making property scarce.

Property speculation receives the same incentives as share speculation and any other form of investment.

It beats bear and cigarettes. Or yachts and caviar.

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 9:00pm:

Property speculation receives the same incentives as share speculation and any other form of investment. It beats bear and cigarettes. Or yachts and caviar.

yes but you can't live in a share !! Property is a necessity not a luxury. Speculating in property and blowing up bubbles has wrecked major economies around the world causing instability as we are now seeing :(

People who buy land and make capital gains from doing no work off the backs of real businesses are nothing more than parasites and is sending the wrong message to people where you don't have to work to create wealth because you can chisel it out of some sucker with a whole lot of bank debt. This explains why Australia has divested itself of manufacturing and replaced it with property ponzi scams which creates nothing in the end except debt :(

Bobby. wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 7:53pm:

FD, Quote: Chookpens are not exactly a trend. My brother converted his garage into a granny flat complete with shower, toilet, wash room, with a stove & living room, bedroom combo & he rents it out for $200 a week.

Heh nobody on the dole could afford your brothers garage.

I paid $50 a week for a while to live in a shipping container in canberra.

SOB

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23^rd, 2012 at 11:43pm:

freediver wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 9:00pm: Property speculation receives the same incentives as share speculation and any other form of investment. It beats bear and cigarettes. Or yachts and caviar. yes but you can't live in a share !! Property is a necessity not a luxury. Speculating in property and blowing up bubbles has wrecked major economies around the world causing instability as we are now seeing :( People who buy land and make capital gains from doing no work off the backs of real businesses are nothing more than parasites and is sending the wrong message to people where you don't have to work to create wealth because you can chisel it out of some sucker with a whole lot of bank debt. This explains why Australia has divested itself of manufacturing and replaced it with property ponzi scams which creates nothing in the end except debt :(

Gawd you are annoying. Anyone that has a house or even 2 houses has to work to pay them off. Nobody NOW is going to buy a 2nd house for investment purposes negative gearing or not because they cost so much.

Ppl that are stuck with houses they bought when it was cheaper are not able to get rid of them.

Saying that ppl that invested in property are lazy is just stupid though. Oh and capital gains is a thing of the past.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 9:17am:

Bobby. wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 7:53pm: FD, Quote: Chookpens are not exactly a trend. My brother converted his garage into a granny flat complete with shower, toilet, wash room, with a stove & living room, bedroom combo & he rents it out for $200 a week. Heh nobody on the dole could afford your brothers garage. I paid $50 a week for a while to live in a shipping container in canberra. SOB

It's actually quite nice inside that garage.
It's fully lined & you'd never know that it used to be a garage.
He is renting it to a Malaysian student who's parents have plenty of money.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 9:21am:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 11:43pm: freediver wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 9:00pm: Property speculation receives the same incentives as share speculation and any other form of investment. It beats bear and cigarettes. Or yachts and caviar. yes but you can't live in a share !! Property is a necessity not a luxury. Speculating in property and blowing up bubbles has wrecked major economies around the world causing instability as we are now seeing :( People who buy land and make capital gains from doing no work off the backs of real businesses are nothing more than parasites and is sending the wrong message to people where you don't have to work to create wealth because you can chisel it out of some sucker with a whole lot of bank debt. This explains why Australia has divested itself of manufacturing and replaced it with property ponzi scams which creates nothing in the end except debt :( Gawd you are annoying. Anyone that has a house or even 2 houses has to work to pay them off. Nobody NOW is going to buy a 2nd house for investment purposes negative gearing or not because they cost so much. Ppl that are stuck with houses they bought when it was cheaper are not able to get rid of them. Saying that ppl that invested in property are lazy is just stupid though. Oh and capital gains is a thing of the past. SOB

What work are you talking about ?

They buy an investment property hopping to off load the risk  by renting it out and getting the tenant to pay it off for them. They just sit on their arse collecting rent and getting tax deductions for the interest they pay or any maintenance they need. They can even offset any costs from their own income stream and all of the whilst benefiting from capital gains !!

What do the tenants get out of all of this and why can't first home buyers get these concessions ?

You should watch this doco. It explains the scam in detail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL3n59wC8kk

Bobby. wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 9:17am: Bobby. wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 7:53pm: FD, Quote: Chookpens are not exactly a trend. My brother converted his garage into a granny flat complete with shower, toilet, wash room, with a stove & living room, bedroom combo & he rents it out for $200 a week. Heh nobody on the dole could afford your brothers garage. I paid $50 a week for a while to live in a shipping container in canberra. SOB It's actually quite nice inside that garage. It's fully lined & you'd never know that it used to be a garage. He is renting it to a Malaysian student who's parents have plenty of money.

I hope you have cast the capitalist pig greedy landlord of a brother out for taking advantage of poor renters.

Hope you brother has a firewall between the garage and the house up to the top of the roof line, or your bro is in some deep shyte.

Bobby. wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 9:17am: Bobby. wrote on May 23rd, 2012 at 7:53pm: FD, Quote: Chookpens are not exactly a trend. My brother converted his garage into a granny flat complete with shower, toilet, wash room, with a stove & living room, bedroom combo & he rents it out for $200 a week. Heh nobody on the dole could afford your brothers garage. I paid $50 a week for a while to live in a shipping container in canberra. SOB It's actually quite nice inside that garage. It's fully lined & you'd never know that it used to be a garage. He is renting it to a Malaysian student who's parents have plenty of money.

I lived in a converted train carriage for 8 years.

It was rough and primitive, but I loved it.

$75 a week rent when I moved in, that rose to $90 over the 8 years.

Electricity and free veges thrown-in.

---

Wow. Thats pretty cool

Not sure if its legal though. Not sure about the shipping container either. Apparently theres a law that ceilings have to be a certain height.

SOB

The carriage's interior - the lounge-room.

---

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 4:49pm:

Wow. Thats pretty cool Not sure if its legal though. Not sure about the shipping container either. Apparently theres a law that ceilings have to be a certain height. SOB

Um....it wasn't (technically) because the wiring (until I re-wired it) and
the plumbing (again, until I re-did it) were sub-standard.

We didn't care, tho......well, I certainly didn't.

I was escaping from a violent situation, and it was this or homelessness.

No contest, really.

i could definitely live in one of those, kat

it doesnt look that bad at all to me

As boys, growing-up in the 1950s and 1960s, most of us wished we could
live in a light-house, a train carriage, or a house-boat.

(And yes, we did grow up on a diet of Enid Blyton adventures...).

For most of us, those wishes remained just that....wishes.

So, for one out of three to actually come true is pretty bloody good, I reckon.

In fact, if I only had some land, I'd buy three more of them (at least one would
need to be a double-decker) and that would be my home until I reach EOL.

Then, I'd leave it to my grand-kids (so they could enjoy the experience too).

> Chookpens are not exactly a trend.

There's a further issue that IS becoming a trend, and was explained by a Sri Lankan friend who's lived here many years. He lives in the inner city, and was disturbed one evening by a police gathering at a neighbouring block of single-tenant studio (i.e one-room) apartments. It seems that fifteen young Indian taxidrivers had collaborated to rent one of them as sleeping quarters for all on rotating shifts, and a neighbour, fed up with the continual comings and goings, had finally called the police.

How common and undetected do you reckon this sort of thing is?

52midnight wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:11pm:

> Chookpens are not exactly a trend. There's a further issue that IS becoming a trend, and was explained by a Sri Lankan friend who's lived here many years. He lives in the inner city, and was disturbed one evening by a police gathering at a neighbouring block of single-tenant studio (i.e one-room) apartments. It seems that fifteen young Indian taxidrivers had collaborated to rent one of them as sleeping quarters for all on rotating shifts, and a neighbour, fed up with the continual comings and goings, had finally called the police. How common and undetected do you reckon this sort of thing is?

Heh I did that. In sydney. I had a 1 room place in a decent building and rented out sleeping space and had 11 ppl living there. mostly shift workers.

SOB

52midnight wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:11pm:

> Chookpens are not exactly a trend. There's a further issue that IS becoming a trend, and was explained by a Sri Lankan friend who's lived here many years. He lives in the inner city, and was disturbed one evening by a police gathering at a neighbouring block of single-tenant studio (i.e one-room) apartments. It seems that fifteen young Indian taxidrivers had collaborated to rent one of them as sleeping quarters for all on rotating shifts, and a neighbour, fed up with the continual comings and goings, had finally called the police. How common and undetected do you reckon this sort of thing is?

Quite common I think. Never trust a real estate agent to look after your property.

Quote:

yes but you can't live in a share !! Property is a necessity not a luxury.

You can rent, and for many renting and putting their money into shares is the sensible option.


Quote:

Speculating in property and blowing up bubbles has wrecked major economies around the world causing instability as we are now seeing

Actually no, property has always been the least volatile market.


Quote:

They buy an investment property hopping to off load the risk  by renting it out and getting the tenant to pay it off for them. They just sit on their arse collecting rent and getting tax deductions for the interest they pay or any maintenance they need.

You are pretty poor at accounting. The rent does not cover the interest repayments, let alone the capital repayments. They have to work to get the money together then work to pay the rest off. They only get tax deductions on the amount of repayments above the rental income they get - ie, they get tax deductions because they are making a loss.

Quote:

You are pretty poor at accounting. The rent does not cover the interest repayments, let alone the capital repayments. They have to work to get the money together then work to pay the rest off. They only get tax deductions on the amount of repayments above the rental income they get - ie, they get tax deductions because they are making a loss.

hence the "negative" in negative gearing.

SOB

<<Speculating in property and blowing up bubbles has wrecked major economies around the world causing instability as we are now seeing >>
..................................................................

What caused the 2008 collapse in the USA?

Answer: predominantly sub prime lending and other things.

What caused the financial collapse in Ireland?

Answer: The housing bubble that burst.

<<You can rent, and for many renting and putting their money into shares is the sensible option.>>
....................................................................

oops! the share market has almost collapsed.....again, pity those people who are at almost retiring age, losing tens of thousands year on year.
That's the last place I would want my money.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:54pm:

Quote: You are pretty poor at accounting. The rent does not cover the interest repayments, let alone the capital repayments. They have to work to get the money together then work to pay the rest off. They only get tax deductions on the amount of repayments above the rental income they get - ie, they get tax deductions because they are making a loss. hence the "negative" in negative gearing. SOB

So how does the whole 'sitting on your arse while the free money comes in' thing work?

freediver wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 7:25pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:54pm: Quote: You are pretty poor at accounting. The rent does not cover the interest repayments, let alone the capital repayments. They have to work to get the money together then work to pay the rest off. They only get tax deductions on the amount of repayments above the rental income they get - ie, they get tax deductions because they are making a loss. hence the "negative" in negative gearing. SOB So how does the whole 'sitting on your arse while the free money comes in' thing work?

I wish I knew - it would be handy

SOB

If my power bills get much higher, I'll be back there.

$280/qtr for a single, middle-aged man who's seldom home?

Sorry, I REFUSE to pay.

You are ROBBING me!

freediver wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:45pm:

Quote: yes but you can't live in a share !! Property is a necessity not a luxury. You can rent, and for many renting and putting their money into shares is the sensible option. [quote]Speculating in property and blowing up bubbles has wrecked major economies around the world causing instability as we are now seeing

Actually no, property has always been the least volatile market.


Quote:

They buy an investment property hopping to off load the risk  by renting it out and getting the tenant to pay it off for them. They just sit on their arse collecting rent and getting tax deductions for the interest they pay or any maintenance they need.

You are pretty poor at accounting. The rent does not cover the interest repayments, let alone the capital repayments. They have to work to get the money together then work to pay the rest off. They only get tax deductions on the amount of repayments above the rental income they get - ie, they get tax deductions because they are making a loss. [/quote]

Are you kidding !! Tell us what caused the GFC ?? Does Freddie Mac and Fanny May ring any bells ?? Have a look at the burst property bubbles in Spain, Ireland which are now ruined economies :(

And too bad if you are an owner occupier because you get no rent and no deductions on interest payments which means you have to work much harder than the hoarder who is not satisfied with owning the one joint he lives in :(

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:54pm:

Quote: You are pretty poor at accounting. The rent does not cover the interest repayments, let alone the capital repayments. They have to work to get the money together then work to pay the rest off. They only get tax deductions on the amount of repayments above the rental income they get - ie, they get tax deductions because they are making a loss. hence the "negative" in negative gearing. SOB

So if it's so bad then you won't mind getting rid of it or are you trying to tell us that property speculators hoard properties because they like to lose whilst doing renters a big big favour :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 11:00pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:54pm: Quote: You are pretty poor at accounting. The rent does not cover the interest repayments, let alone the capital repayments. They have to work to get the money together then work to pay the rest off. They only get tax deductions on the amount of repayments above the rental income they get - ie, they get tax deductions because they are making a loss. hence the "negative" in negative gearing. SOB So if it's so bad then you won't mind getting rid of it or are you trying to tell us that property speculators hoard properties because they like to lose whilst doing renters a big big favour :D LOL

I am not sure what you are talking about but if you mean I should get rid of any rental property I might have then how exactly would I do that when nobody is buying?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 7:26am:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 11:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:54pm: Quote: You are pretty poor at accounting. The rent does not cover the interest repayments, let alone the capital repayments. They have to work to get the money together then work to pay the rest off. They only get tax deductions on the amount of repayments above the rental income they get - ie, they get tax deductions because they are making a loss. hence the "negative" in negative gearing. SOB So if it's so bad then you won't mind getting rid of it or are you trying to tell us that property speculators hoard properties because they like to lose whilst doing renters a big big favour :D LOL I am not sure what you are talking about but if you mean I should get rid of any rental property I might have then how exactly would I do that when nobody is buying? SOB

This is the exact thing that happened in those other countries that we mentioned.

No one is buying and the more properties that hit the market, the less chance you have of selling.

The desperate sellers, and there will be plenty of them, will sell at rock bottom, hence cheaper housing.

Do you want to buy a $100 house in America? or go for a better place for around $20,000.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 8:10am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:26am: Sir lastnail wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 11:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:54pm: Quote: You are pretty poor at accounting. The rent does not cover the interest repayments, let alone the capital repayments. They have to work to get the money together then work to pay the rest off. They only get tax deductions on the amount of repayments above the rental income they get - ie, they get tax deductions because they are making a loss. hence the "negative" in negative gearing. SOB So if it's so bad then you won't mind getting rid of it or are you trying to tell us that property speculators hoard properties because they like to lose whilst doing renters a big big favour :D LOL I am not sure what you are talking about but if you mean I should get rid of any rental property I might have then how exactly would I do that when nobody is buying? SOB This is the exact thing that happened in those other countries that we mentioned. No one is buying and the more properties that hit the market, the less chance you have of selling. The desperate sellers, and there will be plenty of them, will sell at rock bottom, hence cheaper housing. Do you want to buy a $100 house in America? or go for a better place for around $20,000.

I actually do have a house for sale. I have mentioned it before on here. It has been for sale for almost 2 years now. I have the price down as far as I can go to what I paid for it. So far only 1 person EVER has looked @ it and they couldn't get finance. If it had anything whatsoever to do with price there would be ppl looking then rejecting or offering less wouldn't there?

Meanwhile I have to pay rates and water and all that crap as well as a mortgage. If theres nobody renting its worse - luckily ATM there is someone in there.  It doesnt cover the mortgage but @ least its something.

I am not "hoarding" I have the 1 house. I cant live in it because it is in a rural area and I need to be in the city ATM. So I am renting in the city for more than I am getting in rent from the house and all I have is 1 room. the house is 3brs!

Dont tell me negative gearing is the cause of all this. BS. Negative gearing may provide some relief but not a lot. Prolly no relief this year in fact since the tax threshold changed.

SOB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo&feature=channel&list=UL

All this talk about living in chook pens,shipping containers,garages,train carriages etc reminds me of pythons
"the four yorkshiremen"  :-? :)

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 7:26am:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 11:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:54pm: Quote: You are pretty poor at accounting. The rent does not cover the interest repayments, let alone the capital repayments. They have to work to get the money together then work to pay the rest off. They only get tax deductions on the amount of repayments above the rental income they get - ie, they get tax deductions because they are making a loss. hence the "negative" in negative gearing. SOB So if it's so bad then you won't mind getting rid of it or are you trying to tell us that property speculators hoard properties because they like to lose whilst doing renters a big big favour :D LOL I am not sure what you are talking about but if you mean I should get rid of any rental property I might have then how exactly would I do that when nobody is buying? SOB

get rid of negative gearing and don't go on about the myth of a shortage of rental property. Only 1 in 10 purchases of property by investors are brand new house and land packages. The rest is recycling the same old junk that was built decades ago.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:26am: Sir lastnail wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 11:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:54pm: Quote: You are pretty poor at accounting. The rent does not cover the interest repayments, let alone the capital repayments. They have to work to get the money together then work to pay the rest off. They only get tax deductions on the amount of repayments above the rental income they get - ie, they get tax deductions because they are making a loss. hence the "negative" in negative gearing. SOB So if it's so bad then you won't mind getting rid of it or are you trying to tell us that property speculators hoard properties because they like to lose whilst doing renters a big big favour :D LOL I am not sure what you are talking about but if you mean I should get rid of any rental property I might have then how exactly would I do that when nobody is buying? SOB get rid of negative gearing and don't go on about the myth of a shortage of rental property. Only 1 in 10 purchases of property by investors are brand new house and land packages. The rest is recycling the same old junk that was built decades ago.

Its no myth mate. I tried to rent in canberra and there was NOTHING. Eventually a couple flats came up that were something like $600 a week and they went so fast I wouldn't have had a chance to get them even if i could afford that much.

Doesn't have anything to do with negative gearing.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 11:31am:

Its no myth mate. I tried to rent in canberra and there was NOTHING. Eventually a couple flats came up that were something like $600 a week and they went so fast I wouldn't have had a chance to get them even if i could afford that much. Doesn't have anything to do with negative gearing. SOB

It is a myth simply because it doesn't work. Prices of rental accommodation are higher than ever. So much for negative gearing creating this fictional over supply of dwellings. It is a scam brought on by vested interest groups who care so dearly about screwing renters. The poor renters will have to pay more so lets bring in negative gearing :D Since when did property speculators ever care about renters ?? They are very quick to toss the tenants out on the street when they want to make a quick buck flipping properties :(  Give me a break will you !!

Sir lastnail wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 1:22pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 11:31am: Its no myth mate. I tried to rent in canberra and there was NOTHING. Eventually a couple flats came up that were something like $600 a week and they went so fast I wouldn't have had a chance to get them even if i could afford that much. Doesn't have anything to do with negative gearing. SOB It is a myth simply because it doesn't work. Prices of rental accommodation are higher than ever. So much for negative gearing creating this fictional over supply of dwellings. It is a scam brought on by vested interest groups who care so dearly about screwing renters. The poor renters will have to pay more so lets bring in negative gearing :D Since when did property speculators ever care about renters ?? Give me a break will you !!

The vacancy rates are pretty low that might have something to do with rents going up, supply and demand tends to do that.

So how many places will be available for renters when you tax all the investors out of property?

I looked at buying a house years ago
Land tax $14,000 per year
Rates $5000 per year
Water $1000 per year
Then you have insurance, management fees along with maintaing the property, improvements are counted as a capital gain so cannot claim improvements only fixing it up.

So what rents could i charge when nearly $500 per week is spent by the landlord on taxes and rates?

Those who think property is a good investment are clueless, you pay a lot of taxes when you have investment properties and when you sell you get slugged with CGT.

The land tax is jacking the rents up.

Baronvonrort wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 1:32pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 1:22pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 11:31am: Its no myth mate. I tried to rent in canberra and there was NOTHING. Eventually a couple flats came up that were something like $600 a week and they went so fast I wouldn't have had a chance to get them even if i could afford that much. Doesn't have anything to do with negative gearing. SOB It is a myth simply because it doesn't work. Prices of rental accommodation are higher than ever. So much for negative gearing creating this fictional over supply of dwellings. It is a scam brought on by vested interest groups who care so dearly about screwing renters. The poor renters will have to pay more so lets bring in negative gearing :D Since when did property speculators ever care about renters ?? Give me a break will you !! The vacancy rates are pretty low that might have something to do with rents going up, supply and demand tends to do that. So how many places will be available for renters when you tax all the investors out of property? I looked at buying a house years ago Land tax $14,000 per year Rates $5000 per year Water $1000 per year Then you have insurance, management fees along with maintaing the property, improvements are counted as a capital gain so cannot claim improvements only fixing it up. So what rents could i charge when nearly $500 per week is spent by the landlord on taxes and rates? Those who think property is a good investment are clueless, you pay a lot of taxes when you have investment properties and when you sell you get slugged with CGT. The land tax is jacking the rents up.

The don't buy it !! Demand will go down and so will prices and then it will be more affordable to people who want to buy ONE joint for themselves to live in. Take the concessions away from speculators and give them to owner occupiers or investors who invest in brand new dwellings !!

If you just want to flip existing properties built decades ago there is absolutely no benefit to renters !!

Population growth is another scam employed by governments to keep a floor under house prices and to stop the market from collapsing but renters get screwed as a result of it.

freediver wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:45pm:

Quote: [quote]They buy an investment property hopping to off load the risk  by renting it out and getting the tenant to pay it off for them. They just sit on their arse collecting rent and getting tax deductions for the interest they pay or any maintenance they need. You are pretty poor at accounting. The rent does not cover the interest repayments, let alone the capital repayments. They have to work to get the money together then work to pay the rest off. They only get tax deductions on the amount of repayments above the rental income they get - ie, they get tax deductions because they are making a loss.

.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 8:39am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 8:10am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:26am: Sir lastnail wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 11:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:54pm: Quote: You are pretty poor at accounting. The rent does not cover the interest repayments, let alone the capital repayments. They have to work to get the money together then work to pay the rest off. They only get tax deductions on the amount of repayments above the rental income they get - ie, they get tax deductions because they are making a loss. hence the "negative" in negative gearing. SOB So if it's so bad then you won't mind getting rid of it or are you trying to tell us that property speculators hoard properties because they like to lose whilst doing renters a big big favour :D LOL I am not sure what you are talking about but if you mean I should get rid of any rental property I might have then how exactly would I do that when nobody is buying? SOB This is the exact thing that happened in those other countries that we mentioned. No one is buying and the more properties that hit the market, the less chance you have of selling. The desperate sellers, and there will be plenty of them, will sell at rock bottom, hence cheaper housing. Do you want to buy a $100 house in America? or go for a better place for around $20,000. I actually do have a house for sale. I have mentioned it before on here. It has been for sale for almost 2 years now. I have the price down as far as I can go to what I paid for it. So far only 1 person EVER has looked @ it and they couldn't get finance. If it had anything whatsoever to do with price there would be ppl looking then rejecting or offering less wouldn't there? Meanwhile I have to pay rates and water and all that crap as well as a mortgage. If theres nobody renting its worse - luckily ATM there is someone in there.  It doesnt cover the mortgage but @ least its something. I am not "hoarding" I have the 1 house. I cant live in it because it is in a rural area and I need to be in the city ATM. So I am renting in the city for more than I am getting in rent from the house and all I have is 1 room. the house is 3brs! Dont tell me negative gearing is the cause of all this. BS. Negative gearing may provide some relief but not a lot. Prolly no relief this year in fact since the tax threshold changed. SOB

before you start crying what concessions do owner occupiers get ?

They don't get rent nor to do they get tax concessions on interest payments and maintenance etc !!

How inequitable is that ? What you are doing is denying someone else from owning and living in their own home whilst getting special privileges that owner occupiers don't get. And all of the while pumping up the property bubble making it more expensive  to own your own house which also benefits speculators :( Somehow all of this is socially acceptable in this country :(

Sir lastnail wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 2:25pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 8:39am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 8:10am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:26am: Sir lastnail wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 11:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:54pm: Quote: You are pretty poor at accounting. The rent does not cover the interest repayments, let alone the capital repayments. They have to work to get the money together then work to pay the rest off. They only get tax deductions on the amount of repayments above the rental income they get - ie, they get tax deductions because they are making a loss. hence the "negative" in negative gearing. SOB So if it's so bad then you won't mind getting rid of it or are you trying to tell us that property speculators hoard properties because they like to lose whilst doing renters a big big favour :D LOL I am not sure what you are talking about but if you mean I should get rid of any rental property I might have then how exactly would I do that when nobody is buying? SOB This is the exact thing that happened in those other countries that we mentioned. No one is buying and the more properties that hit the market, the less chance you have of selling. The desperate sellers, and there will be plenty of them, will sell at rock bottom, hence cheaper housing. Do you want to buy a $100 house in America? or go for a better place for around $20,000. I actually do have a house for sale. I have mentioned it before on here. It has been for sale for almost 2 years now. I have the price down as far as I can go to what I paid for it. So far only 1 person EVER has looked @ it and they couldn't get finance. If it had anything whatsoever to do with price there would be ppl looking then rejecting or offering less wouldn't there? Meanwhile I have to pay rates and water and all that crap as well as a mortgage. If theres nobody renting its worse - luckily ATM there is someone in there.  It doesnt cover the mortgage but @ least its something. I am not "hoarding" I have the 1 house. I cant live in it because it is in a rural area and I need to be in the city ATM. So I am renting in the city for more than I am getting in rent from the house and all I have is 1 room. the house is 3brs! Dont tell me negative gearing is the cause of all this. BS. Negative gearing may provide some relief but not a lot. Prolly no relief this year in fact since the tax threshold changed. SOB before you start crying what concessions do owner occupiers get ? They don't get rent nor to do they get tax concessions on interest payments and maintenance etc !! How inequitable is that ? What you are doing is denying someone else from owning and living in their own home whilst getting special privileges that owner occupiers don't get. And all of the while pumping up the property bubble making it more expensive  to own your own house which also benefits speculators :( Somehow all of this is socially acceptable in this country :(

BS. I used to live in it. Still cost a fortune even to live in it. Have to move and cant sell it. What am I supposed to do? NOT rent it out? Not pumping up any bubble.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 2:41pm:

BS. I used to live in it. Still cost a fortune even to live in it. Have to move and cant sell it. What am I supposed to do? NOT rent it out? Not pumping up any bubble. SOB

Sell at a loss :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 2:41pm: BS. I used to live in it. Still cost a fortune even to live in it. Have to move and cant sell it. What am I supposed to do? NOT rent it out? Not pumping up any bubble. SOB Sell at a loss :D LOL

you really are illiterate arent you. Read what I said. Doesnt matter what price is on it. There is no market. Banks arent lending and ppl arent buying. Its how it is in oz.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 3:45pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 2:41pm: BS. I used to live in it. Still cost a fortune even to live in it. Have to move and cant sell it. What am I supposed to do? NOT rent it out? Not pumping up any bubble. SOB Sell at a loss :D LOL you really are illiterate arent you. Read what I said. Doesnt matter what price is on it. There is no market. Banks arent lending and ppl arent buying. Its how it is in oz. SOB

then give it away :D LOL

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

you really are illiterate arent you. Read what I said. Doesnt matter what price is on it. There is no market. Banks arent lending .

The banks are not lending to those losers who cannot repay a loan so you are stretching the truth here.

Drop the price and you might get some people interested in buying it.

Baronvonrort wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 4:29pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 4:03pm: you really are illiterate arent you. Read what I said. Doesnt matter what price is on it. There is no market. Banks arent lending . The banks are not lending to those losers who cannot repay a loan so you are stretching the truth here. Drop the price and you might get some people interested in buying it.

I dropped it AS I SAID ALREADY. Nobody is looking. Real estate says its not the price there just isnt anybody looking.

SOB

Baronvonrort wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 4:29pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 4:03pm: you really are illiterate arent you. Read what I said. Doesnt matter what price is on it. There is no market. Banks arent lending . The banks are not lending to those losers who cannot repay a loan so you are stretching the truth here. Drop the price and you might get some people interested in buying it.

I am not stretching the truth. They arent lending. And they arent lending to many businesses either. They have made the criteria a bit much prolly and ppl in certain areas etc.

They wouldn't give me a loan for 30k when I had 70k coming in 1 month from a sale and could prove it. Melbourne 1.2 years ago.

SOB

You're right SOB, the banks are not lending. There are thousands of people in your situation. They can't sell for the amount needed to pay the loan off. There will be thousands more paying back huge loans for houses that sell for much, much less than they borrowed.

The bubble has burst but no where near bottomed out yet, it has a long way to go.

I feel sorry for people in your situation, but not for the property speculators and the baby-boomers who caused this in the first place.

As house prices drop, rents will follow which is good news for the battlers and young families on minimum wages.

Banks are probably freer with lending now than they were 10-15 years ago.  Say, isn't reckless lending practices one of the prime reasons fo the GFC?

... wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 4:55pm:

Banks are probably freer with lending now than they were 10-15 years ago.  Say, isn't reckless lending practices one of the prime reasons fo the GFC?

I saw a thing on TV a couple weeks ago about how banks decided to update their policy not to lend to property developers that build retirement villages and those lil villages you see around nowadays. I asked a property developer i know about it and he said yeah they stopped loaning any money to a lot of developers. Thats why not much is being built. Apparently a lot of ppl have bought land and started building then suddenly the money has dried up and they cant continue their project and they cant sell. I dont remember what the reasons were for the banks doing this.

SOB

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 4:52pm:

You're right SOB, the banks are not lending. There are thousands of people in your situation. They can't sell for the amount needed to pay the loan off. There will be thousands more paying back huge loans for houses that sell for much, much less than they borrowed. The bubble has burst but no where near bottomed out yet, it has a long way to go. I feel sorry for people in your situation, but not for the property speculators and the baby-boomers who caused this in the first place. As house prices drop, rents will follow which is good news for the battlers and young families on minimum wages.

it just shows that the banks were indirectly fueling the bubble by lending money to deadbeats willing to pay a lot more than what the joint was actually worth. You cut off the credit supply and guess what happens ? The ponzi scheme collapses and the so called high house prices were nothing more than an illusion !!

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 4:31pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 4:29pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 4:03pm: you really are illiterate arent you. Read what I said. Doesnt matter what price is on it. There is no market. Banks arent lending . The banks are not lending to those losers who cannot repay a loan so you are stretching the truth here. Drop the price and you might get some people interested in buying it. I dropped it AS I SAID ALREADY. Nobody is looking. Real estate says its not the price there just isnt anybody looking. SOB

drop it some more until the price to income ratio approaches a realistic figure then you will probably get a sale ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 5:53pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 4:31pm: Baronvonrort wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 4:29pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 4:03pm: you really are illiterate arent you. Read what I said. Doesnt matter what price is on it. There is no market. Banks arent lending . The banks are not lending to those losers who cannot repay a loan so you are stretching the truth here. Drop the price and you might get some people interested in buying it. I dropped it AS I SAID ALREADY. Nobody is looking. Real estate says its not the price there just isnt anybody looking. SOB drop it some more until the price to income ratio approaches a realistic figure then you will probably get a sale ;)

you are just trying to piss me off now. What a dimwit.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 5:02pm:

... wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 4:55pm: Banks are probably freer with lending now than they were 10-15 years ago.  Say, isn't reckless lending practices one of the prime reasons fo the GFC? I saw a thing on TV a couple weeks ago about how banks decided to update their policy not to lend to property developers that build retirement villages and those lil villages you see around nowadays. I asked a property developer i know about it and he said yeah they stopped loaning any money to a lot of developers. Thats why not much is being built. Apparently a lot of ppl have bought land and started building then suddenly the money has dried up and they cant continue their project and they cant sell. I dont remember what the reasons were for the banks doing this. SOB

There's two different areas near me where a developer sub divided and the speccies come in and build, they ended up going into receivership. They sold a few, but there's still plenty sitting idle, the whole estate is looking a little derelict. It only takes a couple of years.

In the last year or two building has come to a standstill here.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 10:57pm:

freediver wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 6:45pm: Quote: yes but you can't live in a share !! Property is a necessity not a luxury. You can rent, and for many renting and putting their money into shares is the sensible option. [quote]Speculating in property and blowing up bubbles has wrecked major economies around the world causing instability as we are now seeing Actually no, property has always been the least volatile market. [quote]They buy an investment property hopping to off load the risk  by renting it out and getting the tenant to pay it off for them. They just sit on their arse collecting rent and getting tax deductions for the interest they pay or any maintenance they need.

You are pretty poor at accounting. The rent does not cover the interest repayments, let alone the capital repayments. They have to work to get the money together then work to pay the rest off. They only get tax deductions on the amount of repayments above the rental income they get - ie, they get tax deductions because they are making a loss. [/quote]

Are you kidding !! Tell us what caused the GFC ?? Does Freddie Mac and Fanny May ring any bells ?? Have a look at the burst property bubbles in Spain, Ireland which are now ruined economies :(

And too bad if you are an owner occupier because you get no rent and no deductions on interest payments which means you have to work much harder than the hoarder who is not satisfied with owning the one joint he lives in :(
[/quote]

What is your point with the Freddie and Fannie reference? Are you familiar with the difference between a trigger and a cause.

You are also wrong about the tax benefits for an owner occupier. They are actually better than an owner-renter. You just have to get your accounting right.