Paul 1405 you are so far out of touch with reality you can't even tell who is calling out your BS (it wasn't me who mentioned Bob Hawke) and if you can't find any of the numerous real estate and investment specialists calling out the budget changes and how they will increase rents and demand for new builds substantially, making it more difficult for new buyers, you need to change your search engine! Here's just one from Ray White who I think might know more than a Labor troll or Jim Chalmers or the Liar in the Lodge https://www.raywhite.com/news-and-market-insights/economic-updates/housing-tax-reform-shifts-the-pressure-it-doesnt-solve-it

Hi Mikko2,

You said; "Property investment firms and industry advocates have warned that renters could face weekly increases of \(\$25\) to \(\$100\) following the federal budget's sweeping tax reforms,"

As far as I could read your RAY WHITE REAL ESTATE link made no mention of $25 to $100 a week increase in rents. It was very long and maybe it did make such a claim, i didn't see it. Where did YOU get those figures from, did YOU make them up?

You make the claim, I don't have to go searching to disprove it, rather the onus is on you to prove it correct.

I could say the smart people in the industry say the Labor tax changers will reduce rents by #25 to $100 week, now prove me wrong. Which of course you shouldn't have to do.

No, you did mention Hawke it was mhaze (Trumpster), he lives in the past, where he belongs.

Paul 1405 As I said in that post it was taken directly rom Google AI - you have heard of that? And it's gained from views expressed by numerous investment and real estate sources. It's also been widely covered in the media and it's already happening as seen here on Ch 7's Sunrise with renters reporting immediate steep increases despite attempted excuses from Clare O'Neil who is way out of her depth as usual https://www.youtube.com/watch?

Hi Mikko2,

You got this from Google AI, "views expressed by numerous investment and real estate sources". but still you can't name an actual source that made the statement that "have warned that renters could face weekly increases of \(\$25\) to \(\$100\) following the federal budget's sweeping tax reforms." So its a could be, from unnamed sources generated by Google AI. "seen here on Ch 7's Sunrise (indeed) with renters reporting immediate steep increases" how many renters reported these steep increases, there are about 7 million people renting in Australia. As of today there have been NO TAX CHANGERS, I repeat NO TAX CHANGERS, so what was the justification for "steep increases" from landlords? Anticipation maybe! Money grabbing maybe!

And a snippet from an industry expert https://propertyupdate.com.au/if-the-federal-budget-was-supposed-to-help-renters-i-think-it-will-do-the-opposite/

..."As for the impact on rents, the government's own modelling was remarkably optimistic.

Budget papers argued these reforms will have only a minor impact on rents, estimating an average increase of less than $2 a week for a household paying the current median rent.

Two dollars a week. I genuinely don't know how anyone can take that seriously.

Why I think the real impact on rents will be far worse

With respect to Treasury's modellers, I think they've significantly underestimated what's coming for renters over the next couple of years.

My view is that rents are more likely to rise by 10% or more, and there are several concrete reasons for that.

The first is that we were already in a severely undersupplied rental market before this budget was announced..."

If I recall correctly, when the Hawke government, under the advise of Treasurer Keating, abolished negative gearing, they assured the populace that it would be good for renters because house prices would fall due to less competition from investors and therefore rents would also fall.

Instead what happened is that both house prices rose and then rents rose to the point where the ALP were scared that voter backlash would affect their electoral prospects. So after a mere two years, the policy was reversed although, as is his normal practice, Keating refused to admit error.

"Bob Hawke, he's bloody dead!"

Well so is Marx but you still ferociously follow him.
There is an old saying that those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. But Paul has solved that problem by simply refusing to learn ANY history.

We'll see what happens over the next coupla years but the lessons of history suggest the rental market is on a hiding to nothing. But I don't see Chalmers/Albo reversing course. Not their style. Instead they'll blame some nebulous overseas event and then throw deficit money at the problem to pretend they've solved it.

In the end there's only one solution to the housing crisis -if that's what you want to call it. The problem isn't caused by investors. It isn't caused by overseas events. It isn't caused by supply problems. It IS caused by too many people chasing too few properties. The solution is to reduce the number of people looking for housing ie REDUCE the immigrant intake. But neither of the major parties want to go there.