Author Topic: Property in Australia  (Read 101794 times)

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #450 on: May 05, 2020, 03:34:08 PM »
Yeah I saw it, but 'dozens' of apartments in a city of 5 million? So what.

I think I'm reading the quoted bits differently too. To me, it says there's no demand in the private sector so the government will build public housing to keep the construction companies going. That's a good thing.

Anyway it was only an advisory paper, it's not like it's impending policy. And there will be lots of NIMBY neighbours protesting the apartment next door being sold into social housing, even in Granville.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7150
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #451 on: May 11, 2020, 04:22:18 AM »
Wouldn't surprise me if those dog box apartments start showing problems in the coming years like Opal and Mascot Towers.

It would be an insane idea for a government to take up the risk of that, but the way politics is, it just might happen so the taxpayer gets taken for a ride.

@Wrenchturner - developers have so corrupted the political system here that a buyer of a toaster or a blender at the local $2 shop has more consumer rights than the buyer of new $700,000 apartment. The certification process for large buildings is not done by government certifiers or engineers. It's done privately by contractors engaged by the developer. The government doesn't care because it gets its 4% pound of flesh in stamp duty.

If it turns out your building has defects you basically have no rights, and even if you could sue the developer, they would have already liquidated their Company and become untraceable.

People are being financially destroyed with these apartments. The whole system is rigged for everyone to make money except the buyer.

Seadog

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 266
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Halifax, NS
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #452 on: May 11, 2020, 04:40:53 AM »
Wouldn't surprise me if those dog box apartments start showing problems in the coming years like Opal and Mascot Towers.

It would be an insane idea for a government to take up the risk of that, but the way politics is, it just might happen so the taxpayer gets taken for a ride.

@Wrenchturner - developers have so corrupted the political system here that a buyer of a toaster or a blender at the local $2 shop has more consumer rights than the buyer of new $700,000 apartment. The certification process for large buildings is not done by government certifiers or engineers. It's done privately by contractors engaged by the developer. The government doesn't care because it gets its 4% pound of flesh in stamp duty.

If it turns out your building has defects you basically have no rights, and even if you could sue the developer, they would have already liquidated their Company and become untraceable.

People are being financially destroyed with these apartments. The whole system is rigged for everyone to make money except the buyer.

Canada is very similar. While it's abated some in the last few months, the overwhelming FOMO and pervasive idea that RE only goes up, has people lined up around the block to get in on these deals where they literally sign away all their rights. I would not touch these contracts with a 10 foot pole.

While it's true what they say about a fool and their money, I fear these fools will be the first ones crying to the government to help them.

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Canada
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #453 on: May 11, 2020, 02:50:21 PM »
Wouldn't surprise me if those dog box apartments start showing problems in the coming years like Opal and Mascot Towers.

It would be an insane idea for a government to take up the risk of that, but the way politics is, it just might happen so the taxpayer gets taken for a ride.

@Wrenchturner - developers have so corrupted the political system here that a buyer of a toaster or a blender at the local $2 shop has more consumer rights than the buyer of new $700,000 apartment. The certification process for large buildings is not done by government certifiers or engineers. It's done privately by contractors engaged by the developer. The government doesn't care because it gets its 4% pound of flesh in stamp duty.

If it turns out your building has defects you basically have no rights, and even if you could sue the developer, they would have already liquidated their Company and become untraceable.

People are being financially destroyed with these apartments. The whole system is rigged for everyone to make money except the buyer.

Canada is very similar. While it's abated some in the last few months, the overwhelming FOMO and pervasive idea that RE only goes up, has people lined up around the block to get in on these deals where they literally sign away all their rights. I would not touch these contracts with a 10 foot pole.

While it's true what they say about a fool and their money, I fear these fools will be the first ones crying to the government to help them.

I think Canada is going to have a hard time managing a national real estate market.  The situation on the prairies is much different than the west coast or Toronto area.  It is funny how quickly the CMHC blinked though.  Apparently they might need a bailout already.  That's Canada's mortgage insurance organization.

One difference from Australia though is that our inspectors are still government certified, if I'm not mistaken.

The tide is going out and we get to see who's wearing pants.  Probably nobody on a federal level.

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6820
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #454 on: May 11, 2020, 06:06:43 PM »
Wouldn't surprise me if those dog box apartments start showing problems in the coming years like Opal and Mascot Towers.

It would be an insane idea for a government to take up the risk of that, but the way politics is, it just might happen so the taxpayer gets taken for a ride.

@Wrenchturner - developers have so corrupted the political system here that a buyer of a toaster or a blender at the local $2 shop has more consumer rights than the buyer of new $700,000 apartment. The certification process for large buildings is not done by government certifiers or engineers. It's done privately by contractors engaged by the developer. The government doesn't care because it gets its 4% pound of flesh in stamp duty.

If it turns out your building has defects you basically have no rights, and even if you could sue the developer, they would have already liquidated their Company and become untraceable.

People are being financially destroyed with these apartments. The whole system is rigged for everyone to make money except the buyer.

On that note, we have a development with lots of units and serviced apartments, that has been marketed to the hilt as luxury, resort-like etc etc etc. Its only recently finished maybe 2-3yrs ago,  but a builder friend tells me has already been engaged to fix numerous problems with bathrooms, concrete cancer etc etc: some of these things are normally associated with units that have been up for decades. Cheaper for the developer to just whack up the building to a price point, then argue/dodge fixing the resultant issues later.

Yet as a "mom and pop" level developer, you are subject to much more intense scrutiny and regulation.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7150
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #455 on: May 13, 2020, 05:51:41 AM »
My new property purchase settled today. Say a prayer for me that CBA's worst case price predictions don't come true ;)

3 apartments, combined value $2.03m, loans of $1.27m less cash in offset of $250k.

Combined rents coming in of $1,240 per week from the 2 investments. Should be slightly cash flow positive now with the interest rate reductions.

Going to fix the new IP loan at 2.69% soon. Just need to make a decision on how much of it to pay off first with some of the excess cash I have at the moment. Undecided whether I should just bite the bullet and start buying shares again, rather than just trying to smash these loans at such low rates.

Could pay off all the debt and own the lot outright within 10 years.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #456 on: May 13, 2020, 07:48:19 AM »
Nice, good luck Marty.

Hopefully the government supports property investors as much as it's been supporting other parts of the community.

LonerMatt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1075
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #457 on: May 13, 2020, 03:16:31 PM »
Why? Investors deserve the least support (ok, multinationals that pay little tax deserve the least, you got me there), especially property investors.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7150
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #458 on: May 13, 2020, 03:43:12 PM »
Yeah I have to agree LonerMatt.

I really don't want to be taking any government support at this time. I want my tenants to pay their rent, so if their employers and businesses are forced to close by the government then I want the government to support them.

@Bloop Bloop if governments start supporting investors too all that will do is further stop you from getting your tax cuts ;)

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #459 on: May 13, 2020, 08:22:48 PM »
Why? Investors deserve the least support (ok, multinationals that pay little tax deserve the least, you got me there), especially property investors.

Everyone deserves to have one basic safety net subject to an income and assets test, and beyond that, equal standing under the law. No more or less support for one group than the other.

Letting tenants default without consequence is a ridiculous and stupid strategy.

The government needs to let that end so that the rental market can go back to being a "market".

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Location: Country Western Australia
  • Learning.
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #460 on: May 13, 2020, 09:16:20 PM »
Why? Investors deserve the least support (ok, multinationals that pay little tax deserve the least, you got me there), especially property investors.

Everyone deserves to have one basic safety net subject to an income and assets test, and beyond that, equal standing under the law. No more or less support for one group than the other.

Letting tenants default without consequence is a ridiculous and stupid strategy.

The government needs to let that end so that the rental market can go back to being a "market".

However, allowing tenants to be evicted at a time of a pandemic is likely to make the pandemic worse.  I am also a property investor, but I agree with @LonerMatt that we don't need this type of investment propped up.  If the people paying the rent are supported, then the wheels can all go around.

Markets are never truly free anyway.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #461 on: May 13, 2020, 09:37:29 PM »
How is allowing an eviction for a rental breach (in the usual way) "propping up" a market? It's just allowing the rule of law to continue. I don't see employers being forced to keep employees on that they don't want.

If you want to pay rental subsidies to tenants who've lost their income (similar to the Job Keeper for employees), you can do that, though I would advocate for an income and assets test to make sure only struggling people get that.

The current measures are overly generous / non-targeted when it comes to workers who've lost their jobs and they are irrationally restrictive when it comes to landlords.

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Canada
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #462 on: May 13, 2020, 10:33:49 PM »
How is allowing an eviction for a rental breach (in the usual way) "propping up" a market? It's just allowing the rule of law to continue. I don't see employers being forced to keep employees on that they don't want.

If you want to pay rental subsidies to tenants who've lost their income (similar to the Job Keeper for employees), you can do that, though I would advocate for an income and assets test to make sure only struggling people get that.

The current measures are overly generous / non-targeted when it comes to workers who've lost their jobs and they are irrationally restrictive when it comes to landlords.

Regulators probably don't want the courts exposed to COVID breakouts, or widespread homelessness, or civil unrest from evicted renters.  I see your point but it's worth noting that there will be consequences for renters that act this way.  some of them might see rulings against them and they will definitely not receive a reference.  It sucks for landlords that are getting screwed but it seems that regulators have made their choice.

There is a similar situation unfolding with hotel owners on the west coast of Canada, where they are being forced through emergency decree to start housing homeless people:

https://www.vicnews.com/news/b-c-enacts-provincial-order-to-move-homeless-at-victoria-encampments-into-hotels/
Edit: because emergency legislation is being used, a lawsuit for damages against the city will not be available.


These homeless people will also be supplied with drugs:
https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/doctors-say-homeless-at-victoria-hotels-arena-will-have-access-to-safe-drug-supply-1.4926465


Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #464 on: May 14, 2020, 01:53:44 AM »
How is allowing an eviction for a rental breach (in the usual way) "propping up" a market? It's just allowing the rule of law to continue. I don't see employers being forced to keep employees on that they don't want.

If you want to pay rental subsidies to tenants who've lost their income (similar to the Job Keeper for employees), you can do that, though I would advocate for an income and assets test to make sure only struggling people get that.

The current measures are overly generous / non-targeted when it comes to workers who've lost their jobs and they are irrationally restrictive when it comes to landlords.

Regulators probably don't want the courts exposed to COVID breakouts, or widespread homelessness, or civil unrest from evicted renters.  I see your point but it's worth noting that there will be consequences for renters that act this way.  some of them might see rulings against them and they will definitely not receive a reference.  It sucks for landlords that are getting screwed but it seems that regulators have made their choice.

There is a similar situation unfolding with hotel owners on the west coast of Canada, where they are being forced through emergency decree to start housing homeless people:

https://www.vicnews.com/news/b-c-enacts-provincial-order-to-move-homeless-at-victoria-encampments-into-hotels/
Edit: because emergency legislation is being used, a lawsuit for damages against the city will not be available.


These homeless people will also be supplied with drugs:
https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/doctors-say-homeless-at-victoria-hotels-arena-will-have-access-to-safe-drug-supply-1.4926465

Our Victorian tenancy tribunal won't list cases either. That's fine. A lot of cases are not proceeding. Point is, that's different from disallowing evictions altogether. There might be the same practical effect, but there's at least a deterrence measure in allowing evictions in theory; it keeps the integrity of the landlord-tenant contractual relationship.

When people lose their jobs because of Covid-19 the government falls head over heels to compensate them - but when landlords lose tenants, the government says landlords are legally barred from mitigating their loss. It makes no sense.

LonerMatt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1075
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #465 on: May 14, 2020, 03:30:12 AM »
Jobs aren't investments, stop being stubborn.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #466 on: May 14, 2020, 03:41:14 AM »
You lose your job, you lose your rental income, you lose your dividends, it's the same thing in the end - loss of income. So let's concentrate on who really needs an income supplement, rather than making arbitrary classifications. Treat everyone the same: everyone should be entitled to access Centrelink subject to an income and assets cap.

In practice, this means landlords will probably be less able to access it, since they'll be over the assets threshold. But that's fine. Point is, we shouldn't class people as "worker" or "tenant or "landlord" and have different rules for different categories because doing so potentially over-benefits workers (or tenants) on high incomes who don't need extra protection. We should just have a universal safety net that you can access once you run down your savings.

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Location: Country Western Australia
  • Learning.
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #467 on: May 14, 2020, 04:36:44 AM »
You lose your job, you lose your rental income, you lose your dividends, it's the same thing in the end - loss of income. So let's concentrate on who really needs an income supplement, rather than making arbitrary classifications. Treat everyone the same: everyone should be entitled to access Centrelink subject to an income and assets cap.

In practice, this means landlords will probably be less able to access it, since they'll be over the assets threshold. But that's fine. Point is, we shouldn't class people as "worker" or "tenant or "landlord" and have different rules for different categories because doing so potentially over-benefits workers (or tenants) on high incomes who don't need extra protection. We should just have a universal safety net that you can access once you run down your savings.

Sounds like you are arguing for a universal basic income.  Good on you!  Such a simple solution to so many problems.  Now we just need a Buffet tax and a Tobin tax.  Next we will be calling you a radical leftie!

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #468 on: May 14, 2020, 04:53:46 AM »
I know you're being facetious, but I'm obviously not, since no UBI requires you to meet an assets or income test.

I really just want our tax dollars to go supporting people who genuinely need it for basic necessities, not people temporarily down on their luck but who have savings or property to fall back on. Everyone in that basket should get nil assistance.

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Location: Country Western Australia
  • Learning.
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #469 on: May 14, 2020, 04:58:55 AM »
I know you're being facetious, but I'm obviously not, since no UBI requires you to meet an assets or income test.

I really just want our tax dollars to go supporting people who genuinely need it for basic necessities, not people temporarily down on their luck but who have savings or property to fall back on. Everyone in that basket should get nil assistance.

Actually I wasn't being facetious.  Anyway...

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7150
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #470 on: May 14, 2020, 05:53:35 AM »

I really just want our tax dollars to go supporting people who genuinely need it for basic necessities, not people temporarily down on their luck but who have savings or property to fall back on. Everyone in that basket should get nil assistance.

Not that easy to simply liquidate a property in this environment. But people can borrow against them. I still maintain that if the Government has forcibly shut down your business or employment for a purpose such as Covid, then the government is obligated to compensate.

You lose your job, you lose your rental income, you lose your dividends, it's the same thing in the end - loss of income. So let's concentrate on who really needs an income supplement, rather than making arbitrary classifications. Treat everyone the same: everyone should be entitled to access Centrelink subject to an income and assets cap.

In practice, this means landlords will probably be less able to access it, since they'll be over the assets threshold. But that's fine. Point is, we shouldn't class people as "worker" or "tenant or "landlord" and have different rules for different categories because doing so potentially over-benefits workers (or tenants) on high incomes who don't need extra protection. We should just have a universal safety net that you can access once you run down your savings.

Firstly, the government has made quite a point that Jobkeeper is primarily a business support mechanism. Politics prevented the Government from simply handing the cash to business, for the sake of getting re-elected in two years time they had to tie it to workers.

Secondly, absolutely we should be treating workers differently to property speculators like me. People who are taxed at PAYG rates and don’t have the benefit of fucked up shit like trusts and companies and the like to pay no tax on earnings like some of us “investors” have. We lie and say trusts are for bullshit reasons like “asset protection” but it’s really just a way to funnel income to zero rate taxpayers.

The government had one week to design the scheme and about one week more to implement it to cover 50% of the workforce.

There is going to be some waste, there are some losers as we know. Fine, what did we expect for a scheme this large. All things considered it’s a fucking miracle the whole shebang didn’t collapse.

Financial markets are still standing. The property market is still standing. No bank has collapsed. There are no reports of mass death or starvation or homelessness. You do benefit greatly from all of these things, and it is the confidence and money that the assistance packages give that deliver this.

A budget deficit and having to pay a little more tax never killed anyone. Make your peace with it and be grateful you are not in need of assistance.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2020, 06:06:00 AM by marty998 »

LonerMatt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1075
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #471 on: May 14, 2020, 02:12:15 PM »
You lose your job, you lose your rental income, you lose your dividends, it's the same thing in the end - loss of income.

It's not.

Model96

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 99
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #472 on: May 14, 2020, 03:26:43 PM »
with absolute opinions, you may find yourself alone Matt :)

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Canada
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #473 on: May 14, 2020, 03:58:24 PM »
You lose your job, you lose your rental income, you lose your dividends, it's the same thing in the end - loss of income.

It's not.

I'm mostly agreeing with Matt here.  The COVID bailouts are intended to produce an income floor, so people don't start starving.  Renters tend to be closer to the floor than landlords, so they are getting preferential treatment.

To your point Bloop, maybe evictions should be able to occur if a court order was established prior to COVID.  But after the shutdown of courts, tenants cannot receive court dates and therefore they are remaining innocent until proven otherwise.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #474 on: May 14, 2020, 07:35:36 PM »
If the COVID bailouts were solely designed to produce an income floor I'd be okay with it. But the lack of evictions assists ALL tenants even those who have kept their jobs (and income) just fine. That's why I don't like that policy. It's not targeted.

Likewise I'm okay with JobKeeper in principle but it's not well targeted. Someone could have heaps of savings and a high income and still be entitled to it, whereas normally you wouldn't be and shouldn't be entitled to income supplement till you run down part of your savings.

Little Aussie Battler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 229
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #475 on: May 14, 2020, 08:08:05 PM »
Do you think the government would have been capable of delivering a targeted support package in the time available?

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #476 on: May 14, 2020, 08:19:18 PM »
Yes. Considering Job Keeper requires proof of 30% reduction of income for self-employed, and proof of employee status for employees, some sort of vetting mechanism was baked into the process. All they had to do was to add a requirement that the person declare their total assets. It would have been impossible to investigate on an individual level but it would have at least required an honesty test with the potential for repayment later on if found rorting the scheme.

They could have also said "no evictions subject to proof of financial hardship" for tenants.

It's not brain surgery.

Little Aussie Battler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 229
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #477 on: May 14, 2020, 09:26:40 PM »
How are you defining financial hardship? What evidence is acceptable? Who is qualified to review and test that evidence? Does it differ between metro and regional areas? Single v families? How do you define and value ‘total assets’?

What you are suggesting would have been significantly harder to design and implement in the time available, for limited practical upside.

LonerMatt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1075
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #478 on: May 14, 2020, 10:21:24 PM »
with absolute opinions, you may find yourself alone Matt :)

I don't know, it seems a few people agree with me! Lucky duck!

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #479 on: May 14, 2020, 10:34:21 PM »
How are you defining financial hardship? What evidence is acceptable? Who is qualified to review and test that evidence? Does it differ between metro and regional areas? Single v families? How do you define and value ‘total assets’?

What you are suggesting would have been significantly harder to design and implement in the time available, for limited practical upside.

Financial hardship can be defined by the current Centrelink asset and income tests. You know, the same tests that have applied to those seeking assistance for years and years.

What evidence is acceptable? See above.

You could even relax the evidentiary requirements in times of crisis - as long as it was made clear that there are such requirements, so that citizens have to abide by the honesty principle. Noting again that there are already requirements and evidentiary requirements in place for JobKeeper anyway, so it's not like there's any fundamental shift.

Who is qualified to review and test that evidence? Centrelink. Like always.

Does it differ between single & Families? Of course it does. Just like the existing tests.

How do you define and value total assets? See the existing assets thresholds.

"Limited practical upside" - when your deficit is $140 billion (or whatever it is), saving money on non-targeted assistance has major practical upside.




middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Location: Country Western Australia
  • Learning.
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #480 on: May 14, 2020, 10:39:44 PM »
Yes. Considering Job Keeper requires proof of 30% reduction of income for self-employed, and proof of employee status for employees, some sort of vetting mechanism was baked into the process. All they had to do was to add a requirement that the person declare their total assets. It would have been impossible to investigate on an individual level but it would have at least required an honesty test with the potential for repayment later on if found rorting the scheme.

They could have also said "no evictions subject to proof of financial hardship" for tenants.

It's not brain surgery.

That sounds like another opportunity for Stuart Robert to start a Robodebt scheme with more disastrous consequences.  I see flaws in the system as it was implemented, but I am happy we haven't taken a US style "free market" approach and left up to 25% of the population unemployed and with little to no welfare to keep the cogs ticking over.

It may have been possible to bake in a "no evictions subject to proof of financial hardship" for tenants as you suggested, but it may also have taken longer to implement.  The states were pushed fairly hard on this issue, and they came to it after other things were in place.  I suspect the "no evictions" rule will be one of the first to go.

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #481 on: May 14, 2020, 10:46:21 PM »
Yes. Considering Job Keeper requires proof of 30% reduction of income for self-employed, and proof of employee status for employees, some sort of vetting mechanism was baked into the process. All they had to do was to add a requirement that the person declare their total assets. It would have been impossible to investigate on an individual level but it would have at least required an honesty test with the potential for repayment later on if found rorting the scheme.

They could have also said "no evictions subject to proof of financial hardship" for tenants.

It's not brain surgery.

JobKeeper doesn't actually require proof of reduced turnover as such. You answer yes to the question in a drop down form thingo.

What if someone has lots of assets but is cash poor and relies on their job income? Who even knows what their assets are worth day to day if they are in the markets? Also, the employees have to fill in a form and give it to the employer to say they want to sign up to JobKeeper via them - would you want the employer to know their employees assets? This form doesn't get sent anywhere btw, it's just for employers' records. As other people have said, this system was put together in a week or so, there's no time to process anything or check anything.

There is a requirement to state monthly turnover so the government can track how businesses are going. I assume that will factor into the timing of its withdrawal.

Although I kind of wish there was a hardship requirement for tenants, it's also none of my business what they are worth and next to impossible to verify changes in income to two self employed people that collect money irregularly. Just pausing the evictions gave everyone a chance to catch their breath. And more importantly, not rock up to work when we were trying to get people to stay home in those early days.

Little Aussie Battler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 229
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #482 on: May 14, 2020, 10:53:12 PM »
How are you defining financial hardship? What evidence is acceptable? Who is qualified to review and test that evidence? Does it differ between metro and regional areas? Single v families? How do you define and value ‘total assets’?

What you are suggesting would have been significantly harder to design and implement in the time available, for limited practical upside.

Financial hardship can be defined by the current Centrelink asset and income tests. You know, the same tests that have applied to those seeking assistance for years and years.

What evidence is acceptable? See above.

You could even relax the evidentiary requirements in times of crisis - as long as it was made clear that there are such requirements, so that citizens have to abide by the honesty principle. Noting again that there are already requirements and evidentiary requirements in place for JobKeeper anyway, so it's not like there's any fundamental shift.

Who is qualified to review and test that evidence? Centrelink. Like always.

Does it differ between single & Families? Of course it does. Just like the existing tests.

How do you define and value total assets? See the existing assets thresholds.

"Limited practical upside" - when your deficit is $140 billion (or whatever it is), saving money on non-targeted assistance has major practical upside.
Of course - and that system works so well today (middo has pointed out just one of the many issues), and clearly has enough spare capacity to carefully assess the extra claims and provide guidance and support to the wave of people who have never dealt with Centrelink before and are now unemployed.  You seem to be the only person in here who can't see the trade-off between speed of execution and design nuance.

You might also be right that a more targeted approach would be preferable, but haven't provided any evidence to demonstrate that the additional cost of designing and administering such a program would be more than offset by lower payments.  If there's a large cohort of rich/wealthy people out there receiving money under this scheme that they are not morally entitled to I would be greatly surprised.

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #483 on: May 14, 2020, 10:54:37 PM »
That sounds like another opportunity for Stuart Robert to start a Robodebt scheme with more disastrous consequences.

Some people have not signed up as they are so fearful of robodebt. The fact that it's via ATO is scary as !!

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #484 on: May 14, 2020, 11:15:48 PM »
If there's a large cohort of rich/wealthy people out there receiving money under this scheme that they are not morally entitled to I would be greatly surprised.

I just had 10k drop into my business account and will get another 10k in a few months. Because they set a minimum amount for the "cash flow boost" and it's $20k. I'd forgotten all about it tbh & don't need it. I'm going to use it to stimulate the economy I guess.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #485 on: May 14, 2020, 11:19:07 PM »
JobKeeper doesn't actually require proof of reduced turnover as such. You answer yes to the question in a drop down form thingo.
I don't know what form of "proof" it requires but for self-employed it requires 30% loss of income plus monthly updates after that.

This stops self-employed people like me from claiming it willy-nilly.

As I said, even if there was no true proof required, but just a stat dec along those lines, it would deter people from claiming welfare they don't need. This is why I'm not claiming Centrelink. Surely it would not be onerous to do the same to all the other forms of welfare. The compliance costs are nearly zero given that there's already a process required to claim it, verify income (for self-employed) and update income monthly (for self-employed).

Quote
What if someone has lots of assets but is cash poor and relies on their job income?
Then liquidate the assets. Otherwise I would be able to claim Centrelink, since I'm cash poor and all my business income goes into shares/property. Do you want me to get Centrelink? It would be a waste of resources for all involved.

Quote
Who even knows what their assets are worth day to day if they are in the markets?
That's like saying "Who knows what your bank accounts are worth day by day." You can check and self-declare. The market has a day to day value.

« Last Edit: May 14, 2020, 11:21:27 PM by Bloop Bloop »

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #486 on: May 14, 2020, 11:24:20 PM »
Are you out of work, Bloop Bloop?

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #487 on: May 15, 2020, 12:41:14 AM »
Nope.

LonerMatt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1075
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #488 on: May 15, 2020, 01:42:44 AM »
Centrelink is Services Australia now, perhaps with the not insubstantial shifts in their processes in the 2-3 months leading up to new welfare measures one could be a bit more understanding of why there weren't more controls, as is the system was inundated for weeks! Is this, gasp, another indication Bloop doesn't know anything about poverty or working class Australia? Shocked yet again!

Many self-employed people (eg, artists) don't qualify. Seems it's easier to keep the money rolling in if you're at the top, as it always is.


Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #489 on: May 15, 2020, 02:27:17 AM »
Many self-employed people (eg, artists) don't qualify. Seems it's easier to keep the money rolling in if you're at the top, as it always is.

I think it's sorted out now for sole traders, so those issuing invoices with an ABN for ad-hoc work are ok, but those on casual contracts eg for a show, then another show are screwed. At least there's double Jobseeker. I have a friend who's self employed in the arts but luckily set up as a company so like me he's getting the cash boost.

I had an employee leave & start up her own thing in Feb so she's a sole trader that doesn't qualify, that sucks too. We talked about me claiming JobKeeper for her bc I gave her some of my clients as I'm winding down and now I feel bad.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11442
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #490 on: May 15, 2020, 02:39:42 AM »
Yes, artists often don't have an ABN because they need to be making a lot before they need to get one.

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #491 on: May 15, 2020, 03:48:01 AM »
Yes, artists often don't have an ABN because they need to be making a lot before they need to get one.

Anyone earning enough to keep themselves would have an ABN though. You have to have one if you are operating a business not a hobby, there's no $ amount. It's $75k before you need to register for GST.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11442
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #492 on: May 15, 2020, 03:59:47 AM »
Yes, I got it wrong. Sorry.

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #493 on: May 16, 2020, 02:14:00 AM »
I drove to Tamworth & back today. Some of the towns along the way are pretty average but there were some nice ones too. Murrurundi really caught my eye. It's scenic, there's some nice cafes & shops and it looks well kept, there's a heap of money there. I assumed it would be well exxy but checked domain... You can get a 3-bed place for $215k!
https://www.domain.com.au/66-o-connell-street-murrurundi-nsw-2338-2014180264
Google says they ran out of water last year, but hey.

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Canada
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #494 on: May 16, 2020, 04:45:24 AM »
I drove to Tamworth & back today. Some of the towns along the way are pretty average but there were some nice ones too. Murrurundi really caught my eye. It's scenic, there's some nice cafes & shops and it looks well kept, there's a heap of money there. I assumed it would be well exxy but checked domain... You can get a 3-bed place for $215k!
https://www.domain.com.au/66-o-connell-street-murrurundi-nsw-2338-2014180264
Google says they ran out of water last year, but hey.

That's a pretty good deal by Canadian standards.  It's my understanding that incomes are higher in Australia due to purchasing power parity or inflation or something, is that a pretty good price?

What is that strange room with the utility sink?

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11442
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #495 on: May 16, 2020, 05:00:03 AM »
I drove to Tamworth & back today. Some of the towns along the way are pretty average but there were some nice ones too. Murrurundi really caught my eye. It's scenic, there's some nice cafes & shops and it looks well kept, there's a heap of money there. I assumed it would be well exxy but checked domain... You can get a 3-bed place for $215k!
https://www.domain.com.au/66-o-connell-street-murrurundi-nsw-2338-2014180264
Google says they ran out of water last year, but hey.

That's a pretty good deal by Canadian standards.  It's my understanding that incomes are higher in Australia due to purchasing power parity or inflation or something, is that a pretty good price?

What is that strange room with the utility sink?
Laundry. The area next to the trough (what you’ve called a utility sink) is for your washing machine. This is fairly standard here.

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Canada
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #496 on: May 16, 2020, 01:32:38 PM »
I drove to Tamworth & back today. Some of the towns along the way are pretty average but there were some nice ones too. Murrurundi really caught my eye. It's scenic, there's some nice cafes & shops and it looks well kept, there's a heap of money there. I assumed it would be well exxy but checked domain... You can get a 3-bed place for $215k!
https://www.domain.com.au/66-o-connell-street-murrurundi-nsw-2338-2014180264
Google says they ran out of water last year, but hey.

That's a pretty good deal by Canadian standards.  It's my understanding that incomes are higher in Australia due to purchasing power parity or inflation or something, is that a pretty good price?

What is that strange room with the utility sink?
Laundry. The area next to the trough (what you’ve called a utility sink) is for your washing machine. This is fairly standard here.
Ah.  Not so strange then.

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #497 on: May 16, 2020, 10:31:16 PM »
I drove to Tamworth & back today. Some of the towns along the way are pretty average but there were some nice ones too. Murrurundi really caught my eye. It's scenic, there's some nice cafes & shops and it looks well kept, there's a heap of money there. I assumed it would be well exxy but checked domain... You can get a 3-bed place for $215k!
https://www.domain.com.au/66-o-connell-street-murrurundi-nsw-2338-2014180264
Google says they ran out of water last year, but hey.

That's a pretty good deal by Canadian standards.  It's my understanding that incomes are higher in Australia due to purchasing power parity or inflation or something, is that a pretty good price?

What is that strange room with the utility sink?

Yeah, that place in my suburb would cost $3m or more because of the land size alone. If it was on a typical plot (510sqm) it would go for $1.8m on my street. I'm in a wealthy suburb in Sydney. So it's an amazing price. Compared to other country areas, Murrunrindi looks like a smaller version of a fancy country town like Berry where a small home would cost four times that.

I just had no idea it existed, I've never been to the very very Upper Hunter. However, a lot of places in Australia look nice in autumn and spring but seem unliveable to me in winter or summer. I wasn't born in Australia so the brown landscape isn't appealing. I'd have to go there in a drought at the height of summer and see what it felt like!

I looked further into why it felt like such a fancy place. From the road I could see VERY well maintained fencing and a nice looking stable complex, and there is a big thoroughbred breeding place there. Lots of money passing through. Plus there's all the coal mines. Air quality would be a big issue to look into before settling there. And then when all the mines are gone and drought hits again, the whole area could just collapse.

I think I'll be back for a holiday, check out the nice cafe/delis in a neighbouring town called Willow Tree. ETA: Also I want to visit Burning Mountain because WTAF! Had never heard of this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Mountain
« Last Edit: May 16, 2020, 10:35:14 PM by Fresh Bread »

Model96

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 99
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #498 on: May 17, 2020, 06:06:20 AM »
There's a lot to see in NSW, if you like a good drive.......

MrThatsDifferent

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
Re: Property in Australia
« Reply #499 on: May 17, 2020, 02:58:18 PM »
Arghhhh, I hate the Sydney property market so much! Any other city in Australia you can find a decent place for what you’d pay in Sydney for a shoebox. And with Covid, I don’t want to be dependent on public transport, or worry about riding my bike to work and all the hassle with that. So you either pay a high rent or buy an expensive place that isn’t worth the money if you want to be within walking distance to the CBD. So frustrating!