Housing rental is now utterly insane. It's not however, due to greedy landlords alone as in Qld for example, the State Govt has introduced rules which allow a tenant to make alterations to the building without the owner's consent.
Even the non-greedy landlords have to charge like wounded bulls because of our authorities idiotic mentality.
Let's face it, we must have some of the dumbest laws anywhere when someone can do an unauthorised entry & when they hurt themselves they can sue the owner.
Dumb Laws don't come from intelligent authority, they come from dumb authority !
Desperate people should really try to get into Judges' or Police officers' homes & politicians' homes & do alterations to the homes !
By the time the authorities get their act together the publicity of it will sort out this crisis !

Indy,

As usual you have a bee in your bonnet over the State Labor Government, which in my opinion is approaching its used by date, and should be replaced. But I don't simply blame some thing which I am not aware of; " the (Qld) State Govt has introduced rules which allow a tenant to make alterations to the building without the owner's consent." This could be anything from putting up a picture on the wall to adding a second story. Where is this new rule in the news, can you post a link. We have rental property in NSW, and I am not aware of any changers in the law there.

What is pushing up rents is the old supply and demand rule, high demand, little supply. Increasing mortgage rates is not helping. Government, state and federal can do a number of things to reduce rents. Increase the amount of public housing will reduce rents, make more building blocks available, reduce or defer stamp duty, assist with owner/occupier finance and make it less attractive for investors by reducing tax incentives associated with negative gearing, all will reduce rents. One thing that could be a winner, is many Aged Pensioners are occupying underutilised dwellings, one pensioner in a three bedroom home for example. Means test the pension in relation to the home ownership, then there would be an immediate increase in supply of family homes, for those truly in need. Put simply, a single pensioner, and couples as well, living alone in a million dollar house will be afforded the opportunity of swapping said house for a one room government dwelling in the newly created outer suburb of 'Sunny Gulag'. There are thousands of under-utilised tents and caravans around Brisbane, which could be immediately towed or erected at Sunny Gulag, ready for old folk occupation.

Indy, what would you prefer, a tent or a caravan?

indy: "Govt has introduced rules which allow a tenant to make alterations to the building without the owner's consent."

I'm having trouble believing this claim, can you provide a link?

But besides that, the general flavour of the post I agree with. I personally own about half a dozen lots of vacant residential land outright and could effortlessly build houses on (ie: no loan required) to rent out. However, for me it is simply to risky for the small rewards on offer to be worthwhile to invest in housing stock. I won't build new houses and rent them because:

- after paying a real estate firm to manage the properties* there would not be much actual return.

- since they would be brand new buildings, there is a very good chance that the cost of depreciation due to the allowable wear-and-tear (and worse still deliberate outright damage) by the tenants would cancel out a significant portion of the rental returns.

- the laws about maintaining the properties are ridiculously strict and can result in serious penalties if you breech them- it's stress that I can do without. (eg: having a faulty smoke alarm when the tenants move in- something that you can easily overlook but might have significant legal consequences).

- these days tenants are to hard to evict if they turn out to be duds.

- I'm in the top tax bracket, so investing in appreciating assets to hold long term is, for me, preferable to earning personal income (even when considering negative gearing possibilities if I was to take out a loan to build) .

So for a safe investment as a safety net to back up my riskier ones, I own vacant land (vacant land only- no buildings) and let it appreciate in value.

*I could theoretically manage the properties myself but that is potentially a legal nightmare. The laws involving renting are so complicated these days that you need an experienced and knowledgeable person to manage your tenants plus it distances you from them.

Hey thinkabit,
I think you can get an exemption for land tax if you put a few cows or bees on your vacant land.
Find a cattle owner who will put a few cows on and manage them for you, split the profits, fill your freezer, and some a chunk in taxes.

Tenants able to alter a building without the landlord's consent? With the landlord paying, probably! 'Unbelievable' would have been the reaction once, but who knows what is likely to happen in the lunatic asylum Australia has become.

But, as far as rents and affordable housing goes, the crunch has arrived. We have been living in a fool's paradise for the last 75 years, and those who ignore history are in for a very big shock.

In the years of owning a couple of rental units, we have been lucky to never have suffered wilful damage, some accidental damage, but nothing that couldn't be fixed. Been lucky with rent, never had absconders nicking off. The best thing about property is capital gain, our units are worth up to 3 times what I paid for them, but they don't generate a lot of cash flow. At retirement owning property and cash assets effects the Aged Pension, there are many old farts getting the Aged Pension simply because rather than planning for retirement they chose to piss it up against the wall. So be it, so the wife tells me.

It appears the new rules have been watered down again since they were first mentioned on the radio.

https://www.tenants.org.au/resource/property-modifications-older-tenants?gclid=CjwKCAjwo_KXBhAaEiwA2RZ8hPYWSS1BO6VrX7zWkEqeXe4GeQRtbith6GQWxrPF6t5UpkxXHXI_cRoCUM8QAvD_BwE

Mentioned on the radio! What SHOCK JOCK said that?

No worries Indy I've put you down for a very spacious 6'x 4' tent at your new abode down there at Sunny Gulag, cold in winter, and hot in summer, you'll love it. Just got the weather report for Sunny Gulag, today top temp of -27C and 120 km/hr winds, good to see the weather is improving! Its going to be a nice day.

Paul1405,
You are simply incapable of good, responsible sense. Just because I didn't bring up racism you have nothing but idiotic quibble to contribute.
Doesn't it occur to you that mentioning that particular rule proposal on the sly could have been just testing the waters ?

Indy,

You said; "in Qld for example, the State Govt has introduced rules which allow a tenant to make alterations to the building without the owner's consent." Show where those rules have been introduced in Queensland by the State Government. YOU MADE THAT UP. I'm not defending the Palaszczuk Government, they make enough cock-up's as it is, but its not okay to tag em' with something they haven't done. Now you are saying; "mentioning that particular rule proposal on the sly could have been just testing the waters"

Well isn't that a different position liar. So you have retreated from "introduced rules" to "mentioning...proposal...testing the waters" Why didn't you tell the truth in the first place, do you just want to lie, when it concerns those you despise?

As for racism, since you mentioned it, you are one of the forums leading racists, that's obvious. No need to mention it.

Paul1405,
Just give me time till the information is available again !

https://www.rta.qld.gov.au/Oct2022-changes
Paul1405,
The new changes are that the tenant can authorise "repairs" to the value of 4 weeks rent. Several months back when we heard about this on a radio programme figures of up to $10,000 were brought up. It may just be that the feedback since last year when all this started has made them rethink the final introduction for October this year.
I will follow this through with our local real estate agent & see what their take is on this.

So its gone from, "allow a tenant to make alterations to the building without the owner's consent", to, "the tenant can authorise "repairs" to the value of 4 weeks rent". Indy you have more twists and turns on this than a roller-coaster.

The fact is, the law change is to give; "introducing repair orders as an additional pathway for tenants to have repairs addressed in a timely manner." Often landlords and agents will ignore requests for minor repairs to their rental property for an excessive amount of time. For example a leaking toilet cistern, annoys the heck out of the tenant, but despite numerous calls to the landlord or agent nothing is being done about it. Our niece in Western Sydney had a ceiling leak a couple of months back, despite several calls to the agent and a call to the owner himself with a assurance of; "leave it with me", nothing has been done. Now the niece is concerned about 'black mould' and her children's health. BTW most landlords and agents do the right thing, but there are those that don't.

Just recently our agent rang about the 'rang hood' in one unit making a noise from the fan. He asked if I wanted him to go and check it out? I said; "Nah, just get it replaced, its 10 years old, and I said "put in a stainless one, instead of white powder coat."

Paul1405,
You're as quick of the mark as a prime olympian when you sense an opportunity to prove someone wrong but you're deathly quiet when you are proven wrong !
This rental thingy has been going on for over a year so, if there are conflicting reports in the media (radio) the onus is not on the listener if changes are made without further publicity !

Indy, if you had taken the time and gone to the government website, you would have got the truth in black and white in a few seconds. End of story.

BTW; I have no love for the Palaszczuk government, in my opinion if they were turfed out at the next election it would not be unjustified. Unfortunately the alternative LNP is a risk, that was the case last time they were in office with Newman running the show. If the day after the election the LNP bloke (I've forgotten his name) is the new Premier, then so be it.

The issues in Queensland, are the 'bread and butter' stuff, health, education, crime, corruption in politics etc. These should play well for the Opposition.

gone to the government website, you would have got the truth in black and white in a few seconds. End of story.
Paul1404,
As if Govt websites would publish the loopholes in any of their policies ! I suppose you believe in Santa Claus also ?
I couldn't be bothered to look up their sites but I imagine if you were to look for breaking & entering the sites would tell you that it is illegal yet some home owners aren't allowed to kick intruders out why they even face prosecution if they do try !

I'm sure there are a number of landlords on OLO & I think it'd be interesting to hear how they arrive at the rental cost for their tenants. Over what period did they plan to recover the costs of the property i.e. have their investment paid off ?
How much have they put up the rent over the past ten years & what damages to their properties have they experienced by bad tenants ?
Could they actually procure the their property without negative gearing ? What is their profit margin ?
I don't expect any answers from them but perhaps some tenants can offer some insights on the rental housing situation !

Indy,

You wont even say what country you were born in, so why all the questions. FYI, rely on the agent, the rest is up to you.

Paul1405,
Thank you for confirming what I suspected all along, the greed factor is being played. Because the agent wants more money & the landlord wants more also he/she goes along with the agent.
The fact that many tenants don't earn enough to keep up is irrelevant for both agent & landlord !

Indy,

Not all landlords are greedy, and not all tenants are responsible. Some of the greedy are those who pissed it up against the wall, and then put their handout for an Aged Pension, thanks to the taxpayer.

Landlords like anyone else want a fair return on their investment. The government and the councils think that they are cash cows and tax them through stamp duty, rates and capital gains tax, all of which add to the rent the landlord has to take into account when charging rent.

Then of course there is rental property damage, maintenance, the risk of non-payment etc.

Rents could be a lot cheaper if everyone wasn't trying to clip the ticket along the way.

Rents could be a lot cheaper if everyone wasn't trying to clip the ticket along the way.
shadowminister,
That's about the gist of it ! Like a former work mate who complains
"I can't get the pension just because I have five (5) houses" !
Or, the bureaucrats who never actually contributed anything of substance to society racking in their Govt (taxpayer funded) Superannuation & own several rental properties !

Basically every person who voted for the Coalition at the previous election voted against sensible changes to negative gearing which has seen house prices and rents continue to spiral. You really don't get to whinge now about them.

Further this isn't a simple case of supply and demand. Around 10% of homes were unoccupied on Census night. There is plenty of housing around to provide homes for all. We have a class of people with dozens of rental properties who have outbid those looking to own their own home. We have often the same class of people who run multiple Air B&B properties as businesses renting to a monied class for sometimes thousands of dollars per night.

We have allowed government policy to commodify what should be one of the basic human rights, access to food, water and shelter.

We are about to give that particular class extensive tax cuts, money which could have made a real difference to social housing stocks across the country.

This really should be a case of you made your bed now lie in it, instead we have people trying to blame the victims, those forced into a lifetime of paying obscenely high rents to line the pockets of rampant profiteers.

SteeleRedux,
In our electorate rental went through the roof when the State Labor Govts over the past 25 years have sold off Govt housing & when they realised they actually needed it for their excess Public Servants they rented it all back without questioning the prices suddenly charged by the opportunist landlords. The landlords found it easy to exploit the situation with the co-operation of incompetent Labor supporting bureaudroids !
Anyhow, that's in our area, I don't have any info on the mad south !

SteelRedux: Without negative gearing rents would sky rocket!!
For most small personal investors who build flats/houses for renting, negative gearing is the main draw card. Without it the rental returns, at the current rates, wouldn't be worth the risk. So if it was abolished the current housing stock available for renting would diminish causing rents to go up- the rental supply would diminish to a new level where the new rents received are again worth it for the risk involved.

Also, "We have often the same class of people who run multiple Air B&B properties as businesses renting to a monied class for sometimes thousands of dollars per night.".
What the hell is wrong with this?? These properties are PRIVATE PERSONAL assets-- it's the owner's RIGHT to do whatever they want with THEIR OWN ASSETS.

If you really want to increase the housing stock- then make investing in renting more attractive for people (like me) who have the money to build new buildings.
The best way to do this is to 1) create an environment that increases returns but doesn't put pressure on the rents, such as tax advantages and 2) reduce the risk- such as changing legislation so that the landlords have more control over who they can rent to (ie:slacken the discrimination laws), and change the laws to make it easier to evict people if they aren't reliable tenants or if they don't look after the property properly or they cause nuisance to others (ie. others = neighbours and landlords)
3) reduce the costs involved- eg: discounts on rates for rented properties, reduce the minimum standards for the properties, simplify the laws (there is so much law surrounding renting that the many investors use professional managing services instead of running the risk of falling afoul of the law- this is a red tape cost that shouldn't be there)

Steelreflux the amateur economist rides again.

According to SR, having the taxman clip the ticket even more will reduce rents. Genius.

Rents like everything else is based on supply and demand. When in Sydney there was a massive building boom about 5 years ago the rental supply increased and rentals dropped. Now that rental properties are less available, rental prices are shooting up.

Negative gearing encourages people to invest in property which supplies most of the rental properties. It is clear to anyone with a brain that preventing negative gearing discourages property investment and boosts rental costs.

The brain dead Labour party in NZ has pretty much implemented Labor's policy with the result that rental vacancies are drying up and rent prices are climbing which hurts the least wealthy the most.

It looks as though the only way to curb this insanity is to reintroduce provisional tax just for landlords unless people push for either a Flat tax or transaction tax !
Exploitation is not business & it needs to be stopped !

Indy,

The wife and I have two investment units in Sydney, we own them outright. Them along with other investments prevent us from getting the Aged Pension, and other lurks and perks enjoyed by old folk such as yourself. We both paid taxes all our life, just like some others, but now you want us to pay even more tax.

BTW; I'm no Good Samaritan, but during Covid the wife gave the students in one unit who couldn't work, 3 months free rent. Plus she charged them $20/week less that what the agent recommended.

p/s Eventually most of what we own will end up with the kids to do as they like with.

We both paid taxes all our life, just like some others, but now you want us to pay even more tax.
Paul1405,
Negative gearing is merely commercial welfare & those people in the investment game made the fullest of full uses of it=pay as little tax as possible !
Do the figures correctly & it'll transpire that investors & landlords etc enjoyed many more lucrative & generous perks than any wage earner pensioner could ever dream of.
I have yet to learn of wage earners being able to claim dinners, fuel write-offs, car lease write-offs, the list is very, very long indeed !
Why do you think it's people in the business sector who are vehemently opposing the Flat tax or transaction Tax that most wage earners support ?
Btw. how much were you able to claim back for giving the student a rent break ?

Indyvidual: While watching people around you get wealthy during all the decades of your working life, why didn't you ever decide to be like them and become wealthy yourself? Why did you decide that your retirement plan was the simply the aged pension and to turn into someone who seemingly envies and despises those who retired financially independent? Why didn't you take advantage of the some of the methods they used, which you obviously were aware of since you're constantly telling us about what you've witnessed over your life, to create wealth for yourself?

Interesting, as Paul the socialist gains investments his attitude toward taxes shifts to the conservative.

As with all socialists, taxes are important as long as they only apply to others.

someone who seemingly envies and despises those who retired financially independent?
thinkabit,
I don't envy them but I despise their methods & hypocritically claiming achieving financial independence which is a lie ! Had they paid the same rate of Tax I wouldn't criticise but the because they didn't I have a go at them.
Many were of no benefit to anyone during their working years & this financial independence you speak of is all Taxpayer-funded.

Dear thinkabit,

You wrote:

"SteelRedux: Without negative gearing rents would sky rocket!!
For most small personal investors who build flats/houses for renting, negative gearing is the main draw card. Without it the rental returns, at the current rates, wouldn't be worth the risk. So if it was abolished the current housing stock available for renting would diminish causing rents to go up- the rental supply would diminish to a new level where the new rents received are again worth it for the risk involved."

Little bit of a classist response I'm afraid. You are acting like the renter class just want to stay renters and wouldn't chose to build their own home if that option was more open to them. But while they are struggling to scrape together for a deposit those who already own their own home and on well paying jobs can leverage that to easily come in over the top of them and pocket a $15,000 tax saving each year through negative gearing.

This in turn drives the prices up to take the dream of home ownership further out of reach.

Negative gearing is the driver of this inequity and to be championing the negative gearers because they are doing the supposed good deed of supplying housing stock for those renters who can't afford their own home because of that very policy is pretty short sighted.

Changes in the early 80s allowing rental property expenses to be offset against personal income saw a huge decline in the 25-34 year olds home ownership rates falling from near 60% to around 30% by 2016.
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook46p/HomeOwnership

SM,

I'm not opposed to tax, at 69 I'm still paying tax to support your dole payment, and Indyvidual's piss and pokie money each fortnight. If it wasn't for the wife's $900/month non means tested NZ super we would have to sell assets. That's no big deal.

SteelRedux: It's not a zero sum game!! We had effectively an unlimited* number of residences that could be built. People who build an investment house for renting ARE NOT taking away a potential house that could be built for owner-occupiers. But what they do do when they build an investment house, is increase the supply of rentals, which subsequently causes rents to drop, which means that those who are renting can now save more (since they pay cheaper rents) for a deposit on their own home**.

*well, obviously there is some upper theoretical limit, but Australia had about seven and a half million square kilometers of land- even if only 2% of this was available for buildings that's heaps of land. Also, building can be made very tall these days. Just to put it in comparison, 2% would be about 150,000 km^2 which is about the size of Nepal which is basically a rural country with a population of about 30 million. And Nepal has no really big dense cities like Sydney- in fact it doesn't even have a single city with more than a million.
In Australia there's acres and acres of land surrounding the minor cities and major towns but still close to the CBD/town centre that could be developed.

Dear thinkabit,

You opine: "People who build an investment house for renting ARE NOT taking away a potential house that could be built for owner-occupiers."

THEY ARE.

The price of land in our small town has jumped dramatically as people who can't afford an established house in our nearby city. People are being forced to spend double what building the house will cost.

In the same city a lot of the old commission houses on big lots in 2 poorer suburbs were demolished as part of a revitalisation initiative from the State Government which cost nearly 60 million dollars. The the land then subdivided. Three builders only were selected to provide a range of house options to potential buyers. This was to encourage people into the market at a lower cost level. Nearly 3/4s went to investors who snapped up the lots as soon as they hit the market.

This is being played out across the country and it certainly doesn't reflect the position you are taking.

Oh for gods sake.

Any business is entitled to claim the interest on loans to support the business as a tax deduction.

Rental housing is simply operating the same way as any business.

The only difference is that small investors in rental housing are employed earning money elsewhere. They do not have to make a profit today, & are prepared to add to their investment every year for up to decades to increase their equity in their business assert.

Would some of the knockers please explain how this is any different to mandatory superannuation, where special tax concessions are applied to make it an advantageous investment. Investment in domestic rental housing is merely a misguided attempt to do your own superannuation, using laws used by every business.

Thanks to government & reserve bank mismanagement, many of these investors are likely to see a reduction in the sale value in their asset, & become somewhat poorer. I feel sorry for them in advance.

Get over it. Incidentally there is no way I would invest in domestic rental,...ever.

Dear Hasbeen,

Nick off mate. You might not give a rat's arse for young Australian families desperately trying to source even a rental property but luckily some do.

"The Mayor of South West tourist town Busselton, Grant Henley, is set to write to the owners of hundreds of private holiday homes to ask them to rent the properties to desperate locals.

There are 35 long-term rental properties listed online for Busselton and Dunsborough compared to 167 short-stay properties, such as Airbnb.

Mr Henley said he was acting out of desperation."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-25/holiday-home-owners-reject-calls-to-rent-vacant-properties/101371130?utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web

Any business is entitled to claim the interest on loans to support the business as a tax deduction.

Rental housing is simply operating the same way as any business.
Hasbeen,
That's how things are & that's why we have all the problems. That system needs to change if we are ever to get on top of the economic problems it has created !
It worked for a few whilst many contributed but the situation has changed, the contributors have nothing left to give !

Do try to grow up a bit SR, & get off the emotive garbage. I am talking simple facts. You had better get ready for rents to go up a bit more with owners facing higher interest payments.

The problem is with state governments & local councils.

My youngest daughter is a renter, after a marriage break up. I am well aware of the cost. I am also well aware of the reason.

I live on my 20 acre property. My daughter would like to build a house, or even a granny flat for her self & daughter here. However the council will not approve either. Nor will they agree to us subdividing off an acre or so, despite the fact that we are only half a kilometer from 60 of 4000 Sq Meter blocks recently divided by a land company, all now built on.

The offer a bate of the possibility of a 2.5 acre block subdivision, but will not guarantee it. I have to apply with $25,000 in fees, to find out if it will be approved.

The housing shortage would be quickly cured if we could just get state government & local councils the hell out of the way.

Dear Hasbeen,

Well you might support characters like this who rang up a radio station claiming he couldn't afford to freeze rents then admitted when pressed to owning nearly 300 rental properties, but I certainly don't.

The way our system is set up your daughter pays through the nose for rent, struggles to get a loan for her own place which is hard to find anyway because character like this are syphoning them all up. Meanwhile given all the properties this bloke owns he can swan on in to any bank for for a loan for a new property at the drop of a hat.

And you are cock a hoop about the arrangement.

Mate, you really need to take the blinkers off and smell the dung heap this country is becoming for our young.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/renting/aussie-admits-to-ben-fordham-he-owns-283-houses/news-story/3dbc5b0877cc9fb6ed46ae00f5c75fe0

Hey SR, you must have me mixed up with Jackie Trad Labor EX deputy premier. You are typically describing lefty style activity, & trying to ascribe it to the honest side.

Dear Hasbeen,

Did you really just compare a woman with a couple of jointly owned low end investment properties to a bloke with nearly 300 of them?

How astoundingly idiotic attempt at some kind of whataboutism.

As a bloke who voted against Labor's attempt at the last election to try and right the balance a little you really have absolutely no standing here.

Time to give it a miss.

Jackie Trad Labor EX deputy premier.
Hasbeen,
Now there's a Dictator worthy to be kicked out !

Indy,

We need to turf out these old aged pensioners living one or two, in 4 or 5 bedrooms, and collecting beer and pokie money each fortnight from the taxpayer. You'll be right old salt like the other 95% of pensioners who vote Liberal, once the Seniors National Service is up and running, living down in the new burb of Sunny Gulag, you'll love your tent. I just checked the weather forecast for tomorrow down there, -25C and 90 km/hr winds, snowing for half the day. Gee, summer has come early down at Sunny Gulag, amazing, weather like that, don't forget to pack your sun tan lotion!

SR,

You are either a landlord or you are not. Properties are an investment for retirement and landlords generally don't draw on welfare and also provide a needed service to the community. Attack on Landlords is pure envy.

Pauliar,
Your desire to strip pensioners of their houses is typical of the dictatorial intentions of the gangreens. How about addressing the reasons why often pensioners don't downsize. Primarily the cost of selling and the stamp duty they need to pay on the new premises which often leaves them with no extra cash after the transaction.

Properties are an investment for retirement
shadowminister,
Yes, so why are so many landlords not looking at the future ? Most of them are after profit now, not for when the retire !

Indy,

Are you still living in that free house the taxpayer paid for when you migrated to Aussie? I can recall in the 1960's the catch cry from dinky-di's; "The wogs have got all the houses!". 95% of 1960 migrants got free houses, and 95% of them were Liberal voters. Now 95% are on the aged welfare, and 95% of them are still voting Liberal!

I'm still waiting for Paul1405 telling us how much he claimed back from the ATO for his "generosity" of letting a student stay for some time without charging rent !

I have a better idea Paul.

First lets sack a million of the 2.1 million who are employed by government. Then lets transfer all retired government employees, it is a misnomer to call them public servants, to the standard pension. The same should go for politicians pensions.

Now we have solved our financial problems lets pay off the debt, & start arming ourselves.

SR do you really think you, a lefty mouth piece, have some standing?

Hasbeen,
I think you just traumatised Paul out of a reply !

I've heard people saying that lately, renters have been given notice by some landlords so that they can up the rent to double just because they can at this time.
Well, if that's the case then those landlords should then be denied tax write-offs when they can't find tenants once things settle down again !

Hi Hassy,

I think we should do away with the 'Aged Pension' and replace it with a 'Seniors National Service'. Unlike Indy and his 'National Service' scheme for youngsters, I have been crystal clear with details of my proposal, even nominating a name for the seniors village for older people I would like to see established, "Sunny Gulag", where peace, harmony and HARD WORK will be the order of the day for our oldies living off welfare. Do not worry me old mate, there will be a tent reserved for you at Sunny Gulag, maybe you and Indy can bunk in together!

Indy, me thinks its time you started to pay a peppercorn rent on that free house we the taxpayer provided you with all those years ago when you arrived off the boat in Aussie. How does $500 a week sound.

CrybabyPaul,

Very Soviet socialist of you.

Thank you comrade Ministerski,

There is a tent at Sunny Gulag reserved for you as well. BTW another terrific day, weather wise, down at Sunny Gulag, its a hot one, top temp -27C with a gentle 130 Km/hr breeze blowing from the southern polar regions. Fabulous day, just fabulous as always.

p/s SM, one question, are you experienced at breaking rocks?

Well, Paul did tell us he is a land lord !

Rents will really get going when increased immigration occurs - 190,000 in the next year with the 35,000 increase announced by the government in the 'summit'. They didn't dare tell us that’s what they were going to do prior to the election. According to polls, the public is jacked off with mass immigration.

What will be available to rent? What builders will survive this Marxist government? Announcements of companies going through the hoop are now weekly events.

I wonder if they're deliberately trying to keep housing supply limited?
In any case, they only care about labour and taxes and earning our votes once every 4 years
- After which they get a blank cheque to do whatever the hell they want in our names.

To have a well-functioning nation it is vital to have well-functioning & far less greedy well-functioning constituents !
People always point the finger at politicians yet it's the bureaucrats who are the cause of so much mismanagement & injustice. Why ? The constituents keep demanding more than they contribute ! This in turn provides more power to bureaucracy to manipulate everything from Law to policy development !

A neighbor on about 10 acres, about 8 months ago, moved a "granny flat on wheels" onto their block. Apparently a couple of axles welded under the frame gets around council regulations & bloody mindedness. It must work or it would not have lasted this long.

Evidently it is not much cheaper than buying & relocating a full home from a development site, but local council makes that close to impossible, as my daughter found, so perhaps we will have to do something similar.

I am getting to really dislike bureaucrats.

Hey Hasbeen,
You know you could build quite a decent small-sized dwelling just off a basic double garage shed.
First, don't go 6m x 6m it's a little bit too small.
Go 7m x 7m then add on another 3 metres of concrete out the front.
So your overall slab is 7m x 10m and the roof is 7m x 10m
Don't worry about the roller doors, just put a single glass sliding door on one side.
Also on the front patio section, continue the colourbond sheet up to handrail height which will enclose it somewhat, and leave a little 2m gap for your entry into the patio.
Inside, as you enter the sliding door
- leave one full side clear - that's enough space for small dining area and loungeroom behind it and maybe a wood heater in between.
On the other side, from the front is your fridge and kitchenette, pantry on the other side with an entry into the toilet and shower, behind which in the back corner will be left room for a bedroom.
You can leave it open plan, as its only good for 1 person, but you'll be able to watch TV from your bed.
7m x 10m gives plenty of roof space for solar panels.
Put a side door off the kitchenette to a carport, where you can keep the car undercover.
Add a BBQ and outdoor setting out on the patio.
Simple and easy home for 1.

The situation with the rent prices is similar in other parts of the world, too. The housing crisis is getting worse. There is a severe shortage of rental housing at every price.

Thanks for the suggestion Armchair Critic, we have had that thought. I had a 12M x 10M tunnel greenhouse converted to a shed by covering it with Hypalon, & used it for many years. It was destroyed in a major gale that went through here 3 years ago, when a tree, part of a windbreak to protect it, fell on it. My 1979 Triumph TR8 is still showing some of the scars from that.

The insurance company simply paid me out, giving me almost enough money to build a new 12m x 6M shed. With 3 roller doors looking out to the distant mountains. My daughter thought it would convert to a great granny flat. However I am not interested in having anything that some bureaucrat could order demolished because it contravened regulations. Any accommodation we build or transport will have to be foolproof where council are concerned.

Paul you will be pleased to know one of my pensioner mates has just down sized as you require. His wife died a couple of years ago, & he no longer wanted to live in the large house on a couple of acres, built about 10 years ago to allow his wife to entertain the grand kids.

After 10 years his investment had grown, allowing him to buy a small home, [with 2 car garage], in a retirement complex, plus a new Mazda MX5 convertible. He says he is now living his boyhood dream of owning a sports car, just 55 years late.

Hi Hassy,

What prevents Aged Pensioners in many cases from downsizing is the excess money generated is then means tested towards the aged pension. If the government was willing to make a dispensation, and allow people to keep their pension for those willing to downsize and sell their larger home to an eligible family, that would help with the housing crises to a degree. One problem for many pensioners is the upkeep of a large house, its often falling down around their ears

Paul he is not a dill, so not caught by the means test unexpectedly. His permanent assets [toys] will not exceed the limit, but he will be some what above it in the short medium term.

He has no interest in trying to find the highest return, & will supplement his reduced pension by drawing from capital in the short medium term.

It is a pity that we are not allowed to give some assets to our kids to help them get established in the real estate market, but I can see there would be huge rorting if allowed.