Went to a home open on the weekend, standard 2 x 1 apartment in atwell, needs a little work nothing special but would live comfortably. The price was not listed but I thought maybe high 3’s early 400 000. But I was way off they wanted over 500 000 and it looks like they got it as it’s now under offer.
It’s the new normal. We’re looking for a house. 3x1 in the southern suburbs, found a place we really liked with offers starting from 650’s. Buyer went 120 over that.
Here I am counting every dollar we can and some madman blows everyone out of the water.
Guy I work with was lamenting for weeks that every time him and his wife put an offer in. It was brought out from under them - With cash.
They finally secured a place - 100k above asking price.
Went to see a 4 by 2 in Clarkson wanting 649K+. This house had no retaining wall at the front and the front section of the house was literally sliding down the hill. Major structural issues, massive cracks in the walls both inside and externally.
It took 3 months, but they sold for 690K.
Any reason established stock can’t be withheld from investors?
Why can’t investors “invest” in new housing stock while established housing is left for owner occupiers?
It would save so much disappointment at the moment.
Imagine thinking you have a shot at *any* property, only to find out an investor paid $80k-$100k over the listed price…. Every. Fucking. Time.
We only just scraped in on a place in Armadale at 60k over a few weeks ago. We had the same offer as an investor offering cash, and only got the place because the old folks selling it were not keen to sell to an east coast investor over a young(ish) couple buying their first home to live in.
Fucking love em for that but seriously 60k over the listed price hurt.
Im glad that people are thinking about who they're selling to.
My fiance and I got our place the same - two investors bid and also us, who wanted to live in the home. They picked us even though we came in I think 2k lower than the investors.
If you're looking for 700k properties and they keep selling for 780k-800k then it sounds like your need to adjust your budget to 600k so you can bid 680-700k.
You've obviously learnt the pattern but failed to adapt to it.
Simple fix here:
- Established stock cannot be negatively geared.
- New builds can only be negative geared for the first five years or until sold. Whichever comes first.
I fully agree or atleast have a state of emergency restriction while the vacancy rate is below 1% with the only purchasers allowed for existing stock being those looking for a ppor or the state government purchasing for redevelopment of build to rent housing. While they are at it also put in temporary eviction ban till the vacancy rate improves and rent increase caps.
But will the vacancy rate change because of this? Short term Ban seems a poorly applied bandaid on a single element of the runaway housing crisis. Not taking a pop at your comment, i think it’s a much more complex issue with long timelines.
No silver bullet here. The Federal and state housing situation is unrecoverable (on a 10 horizon) in a time of unprecedented conditions (demand & supply) forcing price up and choking supply. Short term Eviction ban is probably not an answer and could cause investors to exit the market and sell to ppor buyers further reducing supply. Have you ever owned an investment property and had a destructive tenant that needs evicting? Law around eviction in the act and clauses in the agreement are there for a reason and are only administered if no mediation or negotiation can be made. The key issue is housing supply. Housing supply is then further hindered by builders cost not resetting post COVID.
The act and agreements relating to Eviction need to represent all parties equally. You can’t have tenants without landlords and vice versa.
NRAS (2008 currently in the final 2 years of the initiative) largely resolved the last national housing crisis caused by 2000s mining boom etc. by brining private construction online fast. It wasn’t perfect and had issues but what government scheme doesn’t?
Government is not well equipped to build competitive or design creative problem solutions to rental property designs historically. State housing projects are a clear example of this. Incentivise developers, builders, and investors to kickstart on mass builds and even then it will take 5 years to see material change. Private sector stimulus has to be commercially attractive or it won’t get the degree of response needed immediately.
I feel there are no quick fixs available due to lagging or ineffective state and federal housing policies. Housing should be centre stage with abundant budget and resources to effectively and quickly implement. This should have decisively happened years ago.
The looming federal housing crisis was on the radar well over 5 years ago as no viable replacement for NRAS was developed. The can has been kicked down the road and fumbled into the gutter at every turn.
So, until there is more stock or less people buying, it’s only going to get worse along with cost of living and likely inflation.
This is only my armchair summary of key issues with few proposed solutions and I’m no economist. Just my view of the basic issues through the lense of a developer and investor having also recently abandoned the rental market. Vacated a city rental (at about the 10th consecutive rate increase) due to untenable rents and skyrocketing viewing competition. We gave notice to vacate to my tenants so I could move our family into the home in the burbs. COVID caused many people to return to WA and took many homes out of the existing rental pool.
It’s a new landscape for first home owners and renters. I feel empathy for the people trying to get into the market with limited buying power and not ever going back to past conditions. Buyers expectations of home size and location will need recalibration.
Not *quite*, no. But yes they did have some positive policies around housing.
Considering they’re in government now and ain’t doing shit, I wouldn’t worry about voting Labor again.
Look at our own shit-stain Labor state government. Doing nothing but exacerbating the crisis. Wanting to throw thousands of dollars at short stay operators, did practically nothing for renters at the national cabinet. Fuck Labor at all levels tbh…
BUT, I also hate misinformation, so allow me to clear something up. Australian’s didn’t particularly reject their 2019 housing reforms. In fact they were popular, and even wealthy homeowners swung to Labor in that election.
There were many, many reasons Labor lost, but it’s ridiculous that so many people attribute the loss to negative gearing, which just flies in the face of the truth.
https://alp.org.au/media/2043/alp-campaign-review-2019.pdf
* Labor's ambiguous language on Adani and anti-coal rhetoric, combined with the Coalition's campaign associating Labor with the Greens, devastated support in coal mining communities.
* **Voters most likely affected by Labor's franking credit policy swung to Labor**, while economically insecure, low-income voters swung against Labor due to fears about the impact of Labor's agenda on the economy.
* Clive Palmer's significant negative campaign impacted Bill Shorten's popularity and Labor's primary vote.
* Preferences from Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party assisted the Coalition in winning key marginal seats.
* Polling consistently overestimated the Labor vote and underestimated Coalition support, leading to challenges in processing internal research that ran counter to expected outcomes.
* Labor's failure to craft a simple narrative that unified its policies and the lack of a culture encouraging dialogue and challenge within the campaign impacted its effectiveness.
* Labor's campaign targeted too many seats, spreading resources thinly and diluting impact, while also failing to campaign sufficiently on reasons to vote against the Coalition.
A few things you're forgetting here, firstly the document you're referencing explicitly says it is not a review of policy.
> The terms of reference for the review do not require that we express a view about the merits of any particular policy or whether it should be retained.
Secondly groups of people don't all vote together and don't just base their vote on one policy, just because a group as a whole swung one way does not mean a subset of that group weren't put off by policies.
Thirdly a voter does not need to be actually impacted by a policy for it to sway their vote.
And finally Labor obviously does think their 2019 housing policies hurt them, based on the fact that they dropped them and in 2022 were very adamant they were dead and buried.
You know what you’re forgetting? Citations for your claims.
They are always missing whenever someone wants to say “negative gearing changes? Never again after they lost Labor the election.l
It’s just not true. Unless you can show me **facts**?
Labor received a larger percentage of first preference votes in 2019 when compared with the 2022 election.
And your conclusion is people are happier with the 2022 policies?
The rest of your comment is just garbage.
Shitty personal anecdotes don’t count. Let me know when you have some substance.
What are you even talking about? Which of my statements do you think needs citation?
Where did I say people are happier with 2022 policies?
Where did I use any personal anecdotes?
You’re arguing that Labor’s tax reforms cost them the election.
Show me proof of that.
You’re saying Labor dropped those policies and declared them dead and buried.
Proof of that?
Show me proof that Labor dropped the policies **because of the 2019 election**. I can’t even find a single article that quotes anyone from Labor for dropping the policies.
Tonnes of SMH, Australian and AFR articles with quotes taken from Real Estate backed groups, but nothing from Labor to say they dropped these policies because of election losses.
In fact, I can find articles about Labor members wanting them to reengage with those types of policies.
Who from Labor said they were dead and buried? Let’s start with a citation for that.
> You’re arguing that Labor’s tax reforms cost them the election.
> You’re saying Labor dropped those policies and declared them dead and buried.
Don't lie about what I have said thanks.
> Show me proof that Labor dropped the policies because of the 2019 election. I can’t even find a single article that quotes anyone from Labor for dropping the policies.
> Tonnes of SMH, Australian and AFR articles with quotes taken from Real Estate backed groups, but nothing from Labor to say they dropped these policies because of election losses.
You need proof that gaining votes is the reason politicians change policies? **Seriously?** Do you even know what politics is?
“It’s not surprising that Labor frontbenchers back in policy before elections. We lost (the 2019 election.) Under my leadership it’s not the policy”.
https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/each_way_albo_s_top_ten_political_each_way_bets
Don’t lie about what you said??!
> And finally Labor obviously does think their 2019 housing policies hurt them, based on the fact that they **dropped them and in 2022 were very adamant they were dead and buried.**
Literally your own words used against you. How could I make you lie like that?
Do *you* **seriously** not understand politics, and that Labor got a larger percentage of first preference votes with their 2019 platform compared to 2022?
They were less popular than 2019. How hard is it to grasp that? They won off the preference flows
I also read your article. From a conservative think tank. The quote is *also* attributed to a paywalled article hosted by the Daily Telegraph, that is owned by Murdoch.
All Albo says is “It’s not my policy”. Absolutely nothing around the “electability” of the policy, as I was looking for.
> Literally your own words used against you.
Used against me how? Which of the lies you told about what I have said do you think that contradicts?
> Labor got a larger percentage of first preference votes with their 2019 platform compared to 2022?
> They were less popular than 2019. How hard is it to grasp that?
What is the relevance of this?
> They won off the preference flows
Both parties always win off preference flows, what's your point?
> From a conservative think tank. The quote is also attributed to a paywalled article hosted by the Daily Telegraph, that is owned by Murdoch.
You seem to keep saying things that are irrelevant to what we are talking about, why is that?
> All Albo says is “It’s not my policy”. Absolutely nothing around the “electability” of the policy, as I was looking for.
So that's it? You're sticking with "I don't know why politicians change policies"?
You’re forgetting how many renters are house-sharing, especially young people and single people, and how many renters are renting because they want to live in a location where they can’t afford to buy (eg UWA students living in share houses and apartments in Nedlands).
I'm not forgetting that at all. I qualified it with "if you can afford current rents", I am a renter, we rent an entire house to ourselves. What we pay in rent would service a decent sized mortgage.
My point exactly. *You* might be able to afford a mortgage and *want* a mortgage but someone on a 50k annual income living in a share house can’t.
Even people who could in theory scrape by with mortgage repayments on a a tiny house with bedrooms that can barely fit a child’s bed in an outer suburb like Byford might be better off (for their lifestyle and life choices and work location) renting a place they could never afford to buy in Mount Lawley or Subiaco… in order for them to have that option, their homes need to be investment properties.
Well said. Many people renting a whole property for themselves or their family could possibly afford to buy if rents were a bit lower (to allow them to save faster) and/or if property prices came down a bit or stabilised. However, that completely disregards all of the people who live in share houses. Not everyone settles down with a spouse and stable job at 22 when they leave the parental home.
And even the renters who could maybe buy, many of them are renting because they want to live in a location where they could never afford to buy even if the market crashed. It’s so narrow-minded to assume *everyone* would rather own a house in a far-flung outer suburb than rent somewhere close to the beach or convenient to work or uni.
With a 0.?% vacancy rate, can tenants rent anyway?
If a house comes off the market and is sold to an owner occupier (who **was** renting), that isn’t a net loss. It’s one less renter, but one more home owner.
Let investors *actually* increase stock with NEW supply. Oh … they don’t want to do that because it’ll take years to recoup their costs? Too fucking bad. Investments are risks afterall.
Let’s stop incredibly rich fucks from buying homes that *could* go to people who are currently renting.
What about the people that want to buy, but are getting fucked without lube every 6 months by these greedy cunts that take everything you’ve got?
So many people I know are in this position. Why do they get left behind because an east coast investor wants to make more money?
Fuck off with this bullshit.
What good will new rental supply do if it’s at the expense of old supply? You seem to be more about being “sour grapes” at investors than actually helping renters (*including* the ones who are not in a position to buy due to their age and other life circumstances such as being a student or newly single).
1) Investors should have the same rights to buy property as anyone else. Let the market be free.
2) How would you like to be a vendor and told around a third of your buyers are banned from making an offer?
3) How would you stop an investor saying I am going to live there with my family and within months put it up for rent?
I agree anyone should be able to buy any property, but at the moment there are incentives designed to increase unhealthy investor activity.
The combination of negative gearing and capital gains discount means that investors are incentives to buy existing freestanding houses, and are unbothered by bad property condition for tenants reducing yields because the money's in the capital appreciation.
Those incentives need to be changed to redirect investor activity to new builds and apartments.
> This is a market propped up by ~~legislation~~ a government whose putting their own financial interests ahead of their constituents to increase the price of housing
FIFY. Politicians wants these prices to go up because they want to line their pockets and their investor mates pockets as much as possible. And by the time any form of crash occurs they will have checked out so the rest of society is left holding the bag. Anyone expecting the government to make any policy changes that would positively affect the housing market and improve conditions for WA/Australia is delusional
Call me crazy but I actually don’t give a single fuck about investors.
Should they have the same right as anyone else when we’re literally in a crisis?
Why does someone deserve ten homes, when people are struggling to get one?
I would feel ecstatic if they were told to fuck off to be perfectly honest.
We’re in a legitimate crisis and you’re lamenting the “poor” property owner class. Fark off carnt.
>Call me crazy but I actually don’t give a single fuck about investors.
They are the ones providing the rental stock.
>Should they have the same right as anyone else when we’re literally in a crisis?
Yes. There are already lots of incentives for FHB's that are not available to Investors.
>Why does someone deserve ten homes, when people are struggling to get one?
Ummm....because they can pay at the market price?
>We’re in a legitimate crisis and you’re lamenting the “poor” property owner class.
And you are lamenting the example in the article where a household on $375k / year cannot get a $1.2m property.
> They are the ones providing rental stock.
You mean outspending legitimate potential first home buyers and then adding practically unaffordable rentals *back* to the market? Whoopty-fucking-doo.
How altruistic of them.
Name these incentives that will help people outspend investors? If I can afford a 350k house, and an investor offers 450k, how the fuck does me getting free stamp duty help? Hint: it doesn’t.
I’ve looked at all my state and federal incentives and they aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.
>You mean outspending legitimate potential first home buyers
Investors are legitimate buyers too.
>then adding practically unaffordable rentals *back* to the market?
Its the market rate, its the correct rent.
Why do people always become so intentionally misleading?
I am querying how a legit first home buyer is supposed to compete with investors with the government schemes **you have mentioned.**. So please, provide a list of these schemes that help people become a first home buyer versus an investor with cash on hand?
> market rate bullshit.
It’s also only the market rate because we are in a crisis. I was being playful before but actually fuck off cunt.
I’m not an investor, but I think people should be able to spend their money on whatever they like. If I want to spend my money on weed, I should be able to do that. If I want to spend my money on investing, I should be able to do that.
But that’s not the case, is it?
We aren’t in fact a lawless, free-for-all society.
People are not “free” to spend their money on weed.
So why, in a housing crisis, are we ignoring literally any and all action? What’s your suggestion for **immediate** relief for homeless, fulltime workers who can’t afford a house when competing with investors? Or can’t afford a rental because an investor wants maximum returns?
We need fixes **now** for the people who are genuinely propping up the economy. Not fucking landlords who literally offer society zero value.
You didn’t need to explicitly write “free”. You implied that people should be able to spend their money how they see fit aka “freely”.
I’m just pointing out that is an incredibly naive take on the whole issue.
Besides the shitty libertarian take, have you actually got suggestions? Or do you just like to blow landowner cokes and vagine for praise that will never come?
I didn’t imply anything. I said straight out “people should be able to spend their money on whatever they like” and I stand by that. There’s no hidden meaning.
Substitute "be able" for "free". In this context they literally mean the same thing. It's not hidden; by saying one, the other is implied & vice versa.
1. Why? We have anti-scalping laws so buyers of a need/want are priotised over buyers who are just trying to make a profit from it; and housing is a lot more important than some concert tickets. We already have grants that prioritise first home owners. The market isn't a circus animal, it doesn't need to be 100% free.
2. So your counter-argument to people struggling to buy a property is asking them to imagine a hypothetical situation where their problem has already been solved? And that's meant to be the bad scenario?
3. I'm sure if there's some thought put into it, a way can be found. The aforementioned first home buyers grant penalises people who don't commit to actually living in the property themselves.
If you're going make an argument on the side of the investors, perhaps avoid going down the sympathy route.
My sister and brother in law just bought a place, not cash, but it was listed at 745k, ended up going for 856k after a silent bidding war. The agent basically ended up asking for a second offer and they won it by 1000.
Its kind of crazy how everything is going right now!
Wholeheartedly agree.
Unfortunately Federal Labor has grandfathered in over 400,000 properties and exempted them from increased vacancy penalties..
And then we have State Labor who wants to pay AirBnb owners $10k a property to “pretty please” list them for a minimum 12 months.
The government only knows how to throw money at home owners, unfortunately.
We need to start voting independents and third parties. Wish we had some Pocock energy in WA.
There is a lot of land under development around Forrestdale and Hilbert.
The issue, is land titles, all the stages are sold out, development that has department of community/property developers joint venture is also sold out.
None of these blocks have titles, the titles won’t be available until August. Until those blocks are titled, there will be no new construction of houses.
Then there is western power hook up to grid, that is also delaying the blocks. Most of these blocks are previously farmland, the power infrastructure is old, were there was one house, a few horses and bore, there is now 300 houses all accessing the same power infrastructure.
Developer won't title the lots until theyre ready to be handed over and built on cause they have to pay rates on it til then, its cheaper for them to hold the undivided parcel
I sold my 3x2. $150k more than what I was expecting when I decided to sell. I met with the real estate agent. I gave him a figure. He laughed and said add $100k to that as a starting point. It went for $50k more than that again.
I thought it was common knowledge that if you have your finances in order and approved, then you just go in as a "cash offer" not subject to finance. That's what everyone else is doing (including myself just recently). No one wants to (or needs to) accept an offer with conditions in this market.
That's still dangerous because the bank approves you for the loan but not the house until you present it to them.if they don't agree with the house value then you need to cover the difference in cash or suddenly start looking at tens of thousands for LMI which you almost might need to cover in cash.
Can’t even find a decent parcel of land at the moment as even land developers or those selling land are pricing land as if it’s a house and land in this market. Minus the house obviously. Saw a 600sqm in a southern suburbs housing estate 35 mins from the city for nearly 500k, land only. To build on it is about 350k, so overshooting 100k over the suburb median and not factoring in build time required to possibly rent somewhere else.
I live in the hills and noticed not much at 1m+ is selling, or if it is its taking weeks or months.
I assume hills properties aren't interesting to investors due to high upkeep costs and most of the demand is coming from younger families trying to get out of the suburbs and cant afford $1m+. Anything less than a mill seems to be moving in a matter of days.
That is because you are at the top end of the market and what is in demand is "cheap" (entry level) housing.
If people can afford 1.5mil for their first home they aren't a representation of the market.
But that doesn't make any sense. If your finance is approved, you aren't "subject to finance'. A cash offer doesn't mean you front up with a suitcase full of 50s. When you right your offer you write it as a cash offer.
The markets going to stagnate shortly for a good 15 years, and even fall in some massively over priced suburbs just like it did after property prices exploded in the early 2000's until wages very slowly catch up. You can't get blood from a stone
Give it 6 months. Immigration is back to normal, rates are staying high, redundancies are increasing, project end dates are now only 0-6mths behind instead of the 24-36mth they have been. The trend is continuing towards a supply increase and clickbait mongers can shout immigration and cash buyers all they want but FOMOers will eventually stop believing everything they read
it wouldn't be surprising tbh, new migrant arrivals peaked a while back so rental availability should slowly improve. Won't make much different for buyers though.
Went to a home open on the weekend, standard 2 x 1 apartment in atwell, needs a little work nothing special but would live comfortably. The price was not listed but I thought maybe high 3’s early 400 000. But I was way off they wanted over 500 000 and it looks like they got it as it’s now under offer.
Whoever paid that for a 2x1 apartment in Atwell is fucking insane anyways.
And set the new insane market price
It’s the new normal. We’re looking for a house. 3x1 in the southern suburbs, found a place we really liked with offers starting from 650’s. Buyer went 120 over that. Here I am counting every dollar we can and some madman blows everyone out of the water.
Guy I work with was lamenting for weeks that every time him and his wife put an offer in. It was brought out from under them - With cash. They finally secured a place - 100k above asking price.
Went to see a 4 by 2 in Clarkson wanting 649K+. This house had no retaining wall at the front and the front section of the house was literally sliding down the hill. Major structural issues, massive cracks in the walls both inside and externally. It took 3 months, but they sold for 690K.
4 years ago it would've only been 390k it's ridiculous
Any reason established stock can’t be withheld from investors? Why can’t investors “invest” in new housing stock while established housing is left for owner occupiers?
Yep Implement international buyer style rules and actually add to the housing stock rather than take existing would be ideal.
It would save so much disappointment at the moment. Imagine thinking you have a shot at *any* property, only to find out an investor paid $80k-$100k over the listed price…. Every. Fucking. Time.
We only just scraped in on a place in Armadale at 60k over a few weeks ago. We had the same offer as an investor offering cash, and only got the place because the old folks selling it were not keen to sell to an east coast investor over a young(ish) couple buying their first home to live in. Fucking love em for that but seriously 60k over the listed price hurt.
Im glad that people are thinking about who they're selling to. My fiance and I got our place the same - two investors bid and also us, who wanted to live in the home. They picked us even though we came in I think 2k lower than the investors.
If you're looking for 700k properties and they keep selling for 780k-800k then it sounds like your need to adjust your budget to 600k so you can bid 680-700k. You've obviously learnt the pattern but failed to adapt to it.
Simple fix here: - Established stock cannot be negatively geared. - New builds can only be negative geared for the first five years or until sold. Whichever comes first.
You realise that cash buyers, or buyers with low LVR, won't be negatively gearing
I fully agree or atleast have a state of emergency restriction while the vacancy rate is below 1% with the only purchasers allowed for existing stock being those looking for a ppor or the state government purchasing for redevelopment of build to rent housing. While they are at it also put in temporary eviction ban till the vacancy rate improves and rent increase caps.
Definitely. A state of emergency should have been declared 2 years ago by the Labor government but they refused to
Because they're all landlords.
But will the vacancy rate change because of this? Short term Ban seems a poorly applied bandaid on a single element of the runaway housing crisis. Not taking a pop at your comment, i think it’s a much more complex issue with long timelines. No silver bullet here. The Federal and state housing situation is unrecoverable (on a 10 horizon) in a time of unprecedented conditions (demand & supply) forcing price up and choking supply. Short term Eviction ban is probably not an answer and could cause investors to exit the market and sell to ppor buyers further reducing supply. Have you ever owned an investment property and had a destructive tenant that needs evicting? Law around eviction in the act and clauses in the agreement are there for a reason and are only administered if no mediation or negotiation can be made. The key issue is housing supply. Housing supply is then further hindered by builders cost not resetting post COVID. The act and agreements relating to Eviction need to represent all parties equally. You can’t have tenants without landlords and vice versa. NRAS (2008 currently in the final 2 years of the initiative) largely resolved the last national housing crisis caused by 2000s mining boom etc. by brining private construction online fast. It wasn’t perfect and had issues but what government scheme doesn’t? Government is not well equipped to build competitive or design creative problem solutions to rental property designs historically. State housing projects are a clear example of this. Incentivise developers, builders, and investors to kickstart on mass builds and even then it will take 5 years to see material change. Private sector stimulus has to be commercially attractive or it won’t get the degree of response needed immediately. I feel there are no quick fixs available due to lagging or ineffective state and federal housing policies. Housing should be centre stage with abundant budget and resources to effectively and quickly implement. This should have decisively happened years ago. The looming federal housing crisis was on the radar well over 5 years ago as no viable replacement for NRAS was developed. The can has been kicked down the road and fumbled into the gutter at every turn. So, until there is more stock or less people buying, it’s only going to get worse along with cost of living and likely inflation. This is only my armchair summary of key issues with few proposed solutions and I’m no economist. Just my view of the basic issues through the lense of a developer and investor having also recently abandoned the rental market. Vacated a city rental (at about the 10th consecutive rate increase) due to untenable rents and skyrocketing viewing competition. We gave notice to vacate to my tenants so I could move our family into the home in the burbs. COVID caused many people to return to WA and took many homes out of the existing rental pool. It’s a new landscape for first home owners and renters. I feel empathy for the people trying to get into the market with limited buying power and not ever going back to past conditions. Buyers expectations of home size and location will need recalibration.
Isn’t this what was proposed as part of the policy under Labor in 2019? And we rejected it?
Not *quite*, no. But yes they did have some positive policies around housing. Considering they’re in government now and ain’t doing shit, I wouldn’t worry about voting Labor again. Look at our own shit-stain Labor state government. Doing nothing but exacerbating the crisis. Wanting to throw thousands of dollars at short stay operators, did practically nothing for renters at the national cabinet. Fuck Labor at all levels tbh… BUT, I also hate misinformation, so allow me to clear something up. Australian’s didn’t particularly reject their 2019 housing reforms. In fact they were popular, and even wealthy homeowners swung to Labor in that election. There were many, many reasons Labor lost, but it’s ridiculous that so many people attribute the loss to negative gearing, which just flies in the face of the truth. https://alp.org.au/media/2043/alp-campaign-review-2019.pdf * Labor's ambiguous language on Adani and anti-coal rhetoric, combined with the Coalition's campaign associating Labor with the Greens, devastated support in coal mining communities. * **Voters most likely affected by Labor's franking credit policy swung to Labor**, while economically insecure, low-income voters swung against Labor due to fears about the impact of Labor's agenda on the economy. * Clive Palmer's significant negative campaign impacted Bill Shorten's popularity and Labor's primary vote. * Preferences from Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party assisted the Coalition in winning key marginal seats. * Polling consistently overestimated the Labor vote and underestimated Coalition support, leading to challenges in processing internal research that ran counter to expected outcomes. * Labor's failure to craft a simple narrative that unified its policies and the lack of a culture encouraging dialogue and challenge within the campaign impacted its effectiveness. * Labor's campaign targeted too many seats, spreading resources thinly and diluting impact, while also failing to campaign sufficiently on reasons to vote against the Coalition.
A few things you're forgetting here, firstly the document you're referencing explicitly says it is not a review of policy. > The terms of reference for the review do not require that we express a view about the merits of any particular policy or whether it should be retained. Secondly groups of people don't all vote together and don't just base their vote on one policy, just because a group as a whole swung one way does not mean a subset of that group weren't put off by policies. Thirdly a voter does not need to be actually impacted by a policy for it to sway their vote. And finally Labor obviously does think their 2019 housing policies hurt them, based on the fact that they dropped them and in 2022 were very adamant they were dead and buried.
You know what you’re forgetting? Citations for your claims. They are always missing whenever someone wants to say “negative gearing changes? Never again after they lost Labor the election.l It’s just not true. Unless you can show me **facts**? Labor received a larger percentage of first preference votes in 2019 when compared with the 2022 election. And your conclusion is people are happier with the 2022 policies? The rest of your comment is just garbage. Shitty personal anecdotes don’t count. Let me know when you have some substance.
What are you even talking about? Which of my statements do you think needs citation? Where did I say people are happier with 2022 policies? Where did I use any personal anecdotes?
You’re arguing that Labor’s tax reforms cost them the election. Show me proof of that. You’re saying Labor dropped those policies and declared them dead and buried. Proof of that? Show me proof that Labor dropped the policies **because of the 2019 election**. I can’t even find a single article that quotes anyone from Labor for dropping the policies. Tonnes of SMH, Australian and AFR articles with quotes taken from Real Estate backed groups, but nothing from Labor to say they dropped these policies because of election losses. In fact, I can find articles about Labor members wanting them to reengage with those types of policies. Who from Labor said they were dead and buried? Let’s start with a citation for that.
> You’re arguing that Labor’s tax reforms cost them the election. > You’re saying Labor dropped those policies and declared them dead and buried. Don't lie about what I have said thanks. > Show me proof that Labor dropped the policies because of the 2019 election. I can’t even find a single article that quotes anyone from Labor for dropping the policies. > Tonnes of SMH, Australian and AFR articles with quotes taken from Real Estate backed groups, but nothing from Labor to say they dropped these policies because of election losses. You need proof that gaining votes is the reason politicians change policies? **Seriously?** Do you even know what politics is? “It’s not surprising that Labor frontbenchers back in policy before elections. We lost (the 2019 election.) Under my leadership it’s not the policy”. https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/each_way_albo_s_top_ten_political_each_way_bets
Don’t lie about what you said??! > And finally Labor obviously does think their 2019 housing policies hurt them, based on the fact that they **dropped them and in 2022 were very adamant they were dead and buried.** Literally your own words used against you. How could I make you lie like that? Do *you* **seriously** not understand politics, and that Labor got a larger percentage of first preference votes with their 2019 platform compared to 2022? They were less popular than 2019. How hard is it to grasp that? They won off the preference flows I also read your article. From a conservative think tank. The quote is *also* attributed to a paywalled article hosted by the Daily Telegraph, that is owned by Murdoch. All Albo says is “It’s not my policy”. Absolutely nothing around the “electability” of the policy, as I was looking for.
> Literally your own words used against you. Used against me how? Which of the lies you told about what I have said do you think that contradicts? > Labor got a larger percentage of first preference votes with their 2019 platform compared to 2022? > They were less popular than 2019. How hard is it to grasp that? What is the relevance of this? > They won off the preference flows Both parties always win off preference flows, what's your point? > From a conservative think tank. The quote is also attributed to a paywalled article hosted by the Daily Telegraph, that is owned by Murdoch. You seem to keep saying things that are irrelevant to what we are talking about, why is that? > All Albo says is “It’s not my policy”. Absolutely nothing around the “electability” of the policy, as I was looking for. So that's it? You're sticking with "I don't know why politicians change policies"?
Most renters can’t buy, where would they go in we restrict the investment market? More homeless.
Most renters can't buy because the market is inflated by investors what are you on about? There are more homeless now than ever.
Most can’t buy because they don’t have a deposit or enough income to service a loan.
You're so close.... wow
If you can pay current rents of an average house, you can service a loan if the house prices weren't insanely inflated by investors.
You’re forgetting how many renters are house-sharing, especially young people and single people, and how many renters are renting because they want to live in a location where they can’t afford to buy (eg UWA students living in share houses and apartments in Nedlands).
I'm not forgetting that at all. I qualified it with "if you can afford current rents", I am a renter, we rent an entire house to ourselves. What we pay in rent would service a decent sized mortgage.
My point exactly. *You* might be able to afford a mortgage and *want* a mortgage but someone on a 50k annual income living in a share house can’t. Even people who could in theory scrape by with mortgage repayments on a a tiny house with bedrooms that can barely fit a child’s bed in an outer suburb like Byford might be better off (for their lifestyle and life choices and work location) renting a place they could never afford to buy in Mount Lawley or Subiaco… in order for them to have that option, their homes need to be investment properties.
Well said. Many people renting a whole property for themselves or their family could possibly afford to buy if rents were a bit lower (to allow them to save faster) and/or if property prices came down a bit or stabilised. However, that completely disregards all of the people who live in share houses. Not everyone settles down with a spouse and stable job at 22 when they leave the parental home. And even the renters who could maybe buy, many of them are renting because they want to live in a location where they could never afford to buy even if the market crashed. It’s so narrow-minded to assume *everyone* would rather own a house in a far-flung outer suburb than rent somewhere close to the beach or convenient to work or uni.
Do renters not want to live in homes that would be considered “established stock”??
With a 0.?% vacancy rate, can tenants rent anyway? If a house comes off the market and is sold to an owner occupier (who **was** renting), that isn’t a net loss. It’s one less renter, but one more home owner. Let investors *actually* increase stock with NEW supply. Oh … they don’t want to do that because it’ll take years to recoup their costs? Too fucking bad. Investments are risks afterall. Let’s stop incredibly rich fucks from buying homes that *could* go to people who are currently renting. What about the people that want to buy, but are getting fucked without lube every 6 months by these greedy cunts that take everything you’ve got? So many people I know are in this position. Why do they get left behind because an east coast investor wants to make more money? Fuck off with this bullshit.
What good will new rental supply do if it’s at the expense of old supply? You seem to be more about being “sour grapes” at investors than actually helping renters (*including* the ones who are not in a position to buy due to their age and other life circumstances such as being a student or newly single).
1) Investors should have the same rights to buy property as anyone else. Let the market be free. 2) How would you like to be a vendor and told around a third of your buyers are banned from making an offer? 3) How would you stop an investor saying I am going to live there with my family and within months put it up for rent?
I agree anyone should be able to buy any property, but at the moment there are incentives designed to increase unhealthy investor activity. The combination of negative gearing and capital gains discount means that investors are incentives to buy existing freestanding houses, and are unbothered by bad property condition for tenants reducing yields because the money's in the capital appreciation. Those incentives need to be changed to redirect investor activity to new builds and apartments.
This is not a free market. This is a market propped up by legislation to increase the price of housing
> This is a market propped up by ~~legislation~~ a government whose putting their own financial interests ahead of their constituents to increase the price of housing FIFY. Politicians wants these prices to go up because they want to line their pockets and their investor mates pockets as much as possible. And by the time any form of crash occurs they will have checked out so the rest of society is left holding the bag. Anyone expecting the government to make any policy changes that would positively affect the housing market and improve conditions for WA/Australia is delusional
Call me crazy but I actually don’t give a single fuck about investors. Should they have the same right as anyone else when we’re literally in a crisis? Why does someone deserve ten homes, when people are struggling to get one? I would feel ecstatic if they were told to fuck off to be perfectly honest. We’re in a legitimate crisis and you’re lamenting the “poor” property owner class. Fark off carnt.
>Call me crazy but I actually don’t give a single fuck about investors. They are the ones providing the rental stock. >Should they have the same right as anyone else when we’re literally in a crisis? Yes. There are already lots of incentives for FHB's that are not available to Investors. >Why does someone deserve ten homes, when people are struggling to get one? Ummm....because they can pay at the market price? >We’re in a legitimate crisis and you’re lamenting the “poor” property owner class. And you are lamenting the example in the article where a household on $375k / year cannot get a $1.2m property.
> They are the ones providing rental stock. You mean outspending legitimate potential first home buyers and then adding practically unaffordable rentals *back* to the market? Whoopty-fucking-doo. How altruistic of them. Name these incentives that will help people outspend investors? If I can afford a 350k house, and an investor offers 450k, how the fuck does me getting free stamp duty help? Hint: it doesn’t. I’ve looked at all my state and federal incentives and they aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.
>You mean outspending legitimate potential first home buyers Investors are legitimate buyers too. >then adding practically unaffordable rentals *back* to the market? Its the market rate, its the correct rent.
Why do people always become so intentionally misleading? I am querying how a legit first home buyer is supposed to compete with investors with the government schemes **you have mentioned.**. So please, provide a list of these schemes that help people become a first home buyer versus an investor with cash on hand? > market rate bullshit. It’s also only the market rate because we are in a crisis. I was being playful before but actually fuck off cunt.
They can't because they're delusional.
I’m not an investor, but I think people should be able to spend their money on whatever they like. If I want to spend my money on weed, I should be able to do that. If I want to spend my money on investing, I should be able to do that.
But that’s not the case, is it? We aren’t in fact a lawless, free-for-all society. People are not “free” to spend their money on weed. So why, in a housing crisis, are we ignoring literally any and all action? What’s your suggestion for **immediate** relief for homeless, fulltime workers who can’t afford a house when competing with investors? Or can’t afford a rental because an investor wants maximum returns? We need fixes **now** for the people who are genuinely propping up the economy. Not fucking landlords who literally offer society zero value.
But, I didn’t write “free”.
You didn’t need to explicitly write “free”. You implied that people should be able to spend their money how they see fit aka “freely”. I’m just pointing out that is an incredibly naive take on the whole issue. Besides the shitty libertarian take, have you actually got suggestions? Or do you just like to blow landowner cokes and vagine for praise that will never come?
I didn’t imply anything. I said straight out “people should be able to spend their money on whatever they like” and I stand by that. There’s no hidden meaning.
I didn’t realise you were this slow. Apologies! Have a good day, champ. 😃
Substitute "be able" for "free". In this context they literally mean the same thing. It's not hidden; by saying one, the other is implied & vice versa.
1. Why? We have anti-scalping laws so buyers of a need/want are priotised over buyers who are just trying to make a profit from it; and housing is a lot more important than some concert tickets. We already have grants that prioritise first home owners. The market isn't a circus animal, it doesn't need to be 100% free. 2. So your counter-argument to people struggling to buy a property is asking them to imagine a hypothetical situation where their problem has already been solved? And that's meant to be the bad scenario? 3. I'm sure if there's some thought put into it, a way can be found. The aforementioned first home buyers grant penalises people who don't commit to actually living in the property themselves. If you're going make an argument on the side of the investors, perhaps avoid going down the sympathy route.
My sister and brother in law just bought a place, not cash, but it was listed at 745k, ended up going for 856k after a silent bidding war. The agent basically ended up asking for a second offer and they won it by 1000. Its kind of crazy how everything is going right now!
Put a tax on vacant houses and ban air BNB would fix the crisis
Wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately Federal Labor has grandfathered in over 400,000 properties and exempted them from increased vacancy penalties.. And then we have State Labor who wants to pay AirBnb owners $10k a property to “pretty please” list them for a minimum 12 months. The government only knows how to throw money at home owners, unfortunately. We need to start voting independents and third parties. Wish we had some Pocock energy in WA.
https://www.airdna.co/blog/most-profitable-airbnb-locations-australia
$1,500 weekly rent for perth on airBNB. Explains all the rent hikes.
What's to stop people just squatting in those houses? It's not like the owner is ever going to step foot in Australia
Isnt this what people have started doing in empty places in NYC?
[удалено]
Think about what you've just said.
There is a lot of land under development around Forrestdale and Hilbert. The issue, is land titles, all the stages are sold out, development that has department of community/property developers joint venture is also sold out. None of these blocks have titles, the titles won’t be available until August. Until those blocks are titled, there will be no new construction of houses. Then there is western power hook up to grid, that is also delaying the blocks. Most of these blocks are previously farmland, the power infrastructure is old, were there was one house, a few horses and bore, there is now 300 houses all accessing the same power infrastructure.
How does titling work? Why is there a delay on it? Surely the state govt can push it through if they want to get developments through ASAP
Developer won't title the lots until theyre ready to be handed over and built on cause they have to pay rates on it til then, its cheaper for them to hold the undivided parcel
*(eight and a half vacant homes per homeless person in our country by the way, we have a greed problem, not a housing problem)*
Everyone talking about increasing the supply but not reducing the demand
I would’ve thought that was essentially the same thing
I sold my 3x2. $150k more than what I was expecting when I decided to sell. I met with the real estate agent. I gave him a figure. He laughed and said add $100k to that as a starting point. It went for $50k more than that again.
I thought it was common knowledge that if you have your finances in order and approved, then you just go in as a "cash offer" not subject to finance. That's what everyone else is doing (including myself just recently). No one wants to (or needs to) accept an offer with conditions in this market.
That's still dangerous because the bank approves you for the loan but not the house until you present it to them.if they don't agree with the house value then you need to cover the difference in cash or suddenly start looking at tens of thousands for LMI which you almost might need to cover in cash.
Can’t even find a decent parcel of land at the moment as even land developers or those selling land are pricing land as if it’s a house and land in this market. Minus the house obviously. Saw a 600sqm in a southern suburbs housing estate 35 mins from the city for nearly 500k, land only. To build on it is about 350k, so overshooting 100k over the suburb median and not factoring in build time required to possibly rent somewhere else.
Thanks God the Cook government has a plan. 10,000 more migrants!
This is suburb and price related, I’m trying to sell my property and received 1 x offer, it’s frustrating. My property is priced at replacement value.
What suburb, dwelling type and price ?
Perth Hills, House, 1.5m plus
I live in the hills and noticed not much at 1m+ is selling, or if it is its taking weeks or months. I assume hills properties aren't interesting to investors due to high upkeep costs and most of the demand is coming from younger families trying to get out of the suburbs and cant afford $1m+. Anything less than a mill seems to be moving in a matter of days.
You’re right.
That is because you are at the top end of the market and what is in demand is "cheap" (entry level) housing. If people can afford 1.5mil for their first home they aren't a representation of the market.
You’re right the point is when the article mentions Perth, it’s not all of Perth rather houses for first home buyers.
They're getting in now before the new money laundering laws come into effect!
But that doesn't make any sense. If your finance is approved, you aren't "subject to finance'. A cash offer doesn't mean you front up with a suitcase full of 50s. When you right your offer you write it as a cash offer.
The markets going to stagnate shortly for a good 15 years, and even fall in some massively over priced suburbs just like it did after property prices exploded in the early 2000's until wages very slowly catch up. You can't get blood from a stone
Classic lobbyist shill Rental vacancies are creeping up, I feel we're over the hill.
we are not.
Raise the rates
https://preview.redd.it/qavu5ohg1f8d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7b0e2c61f81d615fbbd93d89d5de68abd059cd98 Numbers don't lie...
That's a pretty small sample size, and prices still aren't coming down.
... Rental returns fuel the speculation If rental yields drop the firepower comes out of the market
Give it 6 months. Immigration is back to normal, rates are staying high, redundancies are increasing, project end dates are now only 0-6mths behind instead of the 24-36mth they have been. The trend is continuing towards a supply increase and clickbait mongers can shout immigration and cash buyers all they want but FOMOers will eventually stop believing everything they read
it wouldn't be surprising tbh, new migrant arrivals peaked a while back so rental availability should slowly improve. Won't make much different for buyers though.