So you've gone from "millions of things" to "dozens of things."...All of those dozens of things depend on DEMAND.  The suppliers and the construction companies can set whatever prices they want- if there's no demand, they go broke.    Increasing population, under-pinned by the highest immigration rates in the world drives demand. 

Good for your family business, shit for everyone else.

Negative gearing is what provides renters a roof over their head.  People who won't or can't ever buy their own house depend on others to provide the capital.  Negative gearing is a subsidy to renters, not landlords.  Take it away, and the tenant pays the difference.

 Look at Victoria with their rent controls-landlords leaving in droves, rental vacancies at record lows, rents skyrocketing.  You'd be mental to drop $1 mill for $550 per week rent when you can get double that in a term deposit.  And that's what's happening.

Oh and why can't your family business get the skilled trades-because they're working for $150k  to hold up a traffic sign on government infrastructure projects

Cause I literally meant a million things. Well done, you've got me there

Don't deflect.  I got you  with everything else I wrote after that.

No, you didn't it was complete BS that is not even worth responding to. It's so far wide of the mark it's almost childlike. How can anyone argue or come back against such a misinformed surface deep argument that could be dismantled before one has even finished reading the sentence?

Amazing how you also try to shift it towards 'people holding stop signs' - which makes me think you're also trying to blame the unions

Just because you shake your fist at the clouds and seem to think you are a world authority on every single topic, doesn't mean you are correct.

So negative gearing is a feel-good story for renting? lol

ummmmm people are forced to rent because they cannot buy a house because investors have sent prices up and legislation/economics  has made it impossible for the majority of society now

Do you just parrot vested-interest politician talking points?

I dont think this is a effective counter of what Enzo is trying to say mate... Housing un-affordability is the result of MANY factors not just the tired old "boomers drove the pricing up by investing"   Its as un-necessay as blaming the "avo on toast" millennials that havent been able to scrounge up a deposit because lifestyle and work life balance are more important to them then to our generation.. I saved every single cent when I first  started out (as Im sure many of us on here did) Negative gearing was godsend to help in the acquisition of investment properties.. and yes I agree with Enzo, without it I would have been forced to put up rent to help pay the fricken things off.. It was available to all though thats the beauty of it...  People are NOT forced to rent, they only chose to because they dont want to live in a flat or a smnaller house and land estate out in the sticks....  There is always a choice, yes it is harder but the desire has to be there to do it.

You need to limit your engagement to things you actually know something about.

Renters are not one uniform group.  There are young adults who move out for the first time who barely have a bond let alone a deposit.  There other people who simply choose to rent forever.  There are people who never will be able to buy no matter what the price.   Then there are people who saving for a deposit whilst they rent. 

Its only the last group that house prices matter to.

You take away negative gearing (only 2 in 3 private rentals, with the average loss being $10k and the average tax advantage being $3k ie $60 per week), do you think the owner will just wear it? 

No.  They'll jack the rent by $60 per week.  For all renters.

Australia's population grew by 625,000 people this year, driven by the largest increase in immigrants in history.  You tell me that isn't driving housing unaffordability?  

And yet you wrote 7 sentences to make  personal insults and not a single fucking word or reference to "dismantle" the argument.  NOTHING. Why do you even bother replying at all?

On cue:

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/record-migrant-intake-to-keep-rents-high-for-years-to-come-20231214-p5erem.html

The biggest one-year jump in Australia’s population, fuelled by a record 518,100 new migrants calling the country home, has prompted warnings that the nation’s rental market will remain under pressure for years amid signs inflation is driving more people to regional areas.

“The implication is a lot of people are arriving on short-term visas and extending their stay, and that fundamentally is a bad reflection on the visa system,” Rizvi said. “It means you’ve got your original decisions wrong.”

The government was off to a “bad start” in figures and was “going to have to go much harder” to fulfil its policy,

That;s exaclty what I am saying. I am not saying it's just boomers 

Lol

A - You said building houses is more expensive because of migrants, this is about renting availability 
B - This actually shows that migrants DID NOT cause rents to increase, the rents were already increased and this is saying prices will not come down while there is such a big demand on rental properties

If anything it proves exactly what I said. 

I laid it out before 

I cannot agree with this. Houses are so much harder to aquire for young people than it was for us or definitely the generation above us.

A. Yeah because migrants ALL rent and NONE buy.  Not.  Come out to Melbourne's West where 90% of people walking through display homes are Indians.
B.  Fucking LOL-The article does nothing of the sort.  Who do you think causes big demand if not population growth 80% of which is due to immigration? 

They are now because rates are have gone up recently but not when when they were half that.

And from today's SA paper:

Opposition Leader David Speirs has rented out nearly a quarter of his expansive property portfolio on short-term rental website Airbnb at up to $500 a night – and achieved a near-perfect host rating.
Records show the Liberal leader listed three of his 13 properties on the controversial platform, which allows guests to rent short-term accommodation from homeowners or landlords.

lol, but blame a sudden influx of necessary workers 

preferred PM recent stats from 2days ago are Albo 43% Dutton 39%.....

is anyone surprised by this usual pack of lies amongst most involved, one thing I'm hoping to see is that smug Wilkinson hung up and chopped down more than anything else.

her husband is even worse

Bruce Lehrmann....

Conservatives gone rather quiet on their boy....

Talk about an own goal. Up there with Roberts-Smith's.

tbf its hard to keep up with all the coke and hookers.... what a machine this kid :P

What is it with stokes funding putrid blokes - porter as well. 

I didn't get involved in the negative gearing argument because nothing you can say will change Enzo's mind.

Him and rusty are cut from the same cloth. If you can't pull yourself up by the bootstraps and make a go of it then FUCK YOU, you deserve everything that's coming to you. Up to and including a life of living just above the poverty line eking out an existence and living from paycheck to paycheck hoping your car doesn't break down or one of your kids needs a school excursion that'll wipe your savings out.

But I have 10 spare minutes so here we go.

Negative gearing started out as an OK idea but has morphed into a disaster for people trying to get into a home and has effectively locked out a generation of young people and entrenched intergenerational wealth transfer. Nett result, rich get richer, poor people are locked out and inequality rises across society. 

Only a halfwit moron cannot see that is the case.

Personally I believe housing is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, like universal healthcare and public education, clean drinking water and the ability to access energy. (Which should never have been sold off by the way.)

Given my above beliefs (a left wing, pinko, do-gooder, socialist) I find it immoral that housing can be used as an investment vehicle. Negative gearing should be grandfathered and phased out over time starting yesterday.

All the money the government was paying back in rebates and deductions can then go into building homes and social housing. LIKE THEY USED TO DO. IE increase supply. If supply goes up, rents come down and those that used to invest in housing will now get out because their 'investment' is now worth less which, guess what, frees up more supply. You cannot get rid of negative gearing UNLESS you increase supply. If that means building 10s of thousands of basic 2 bedroom apartments with 1 bathroom, a small combined kitchen/lounge as a stepping stone to a bigger place in the future what's wrong with that?

It is unconscionable for a young couple to go to a auction or a sale and be competing against someone with 20 or 30 houses in their portfolio or someone from overseas. It's flat out immoral, rank and demeans us as a society.

And before someone says it's nurses, paramedics , firemen and policemen investing in houses so poor them, they can fuck right off and invest in the ASX or commercial or industrial real estate if they want to put their money somewhere.

As for renters renting while they save for a deposit that's immeasurably harder now then when I was 20. Decades ago, when I was renting, it was cheaper to rent then have a mortgage which meant you could rent AND save a deposit. But guess what Enzo, rents are almost, if not, the same as a mortgage which means young people are locked renting and unable to save for a deposit. (Which are multiples more of the average salaries to buy a house 10 years ago, let alone 20 or 30.)

Of course getting rid of negative gearing and increasing supply will drive down house prices across the board and politically it is a suicidal argument to try and prosecute. Ergo - there is not a politician from either side, barring the Greens, who are willing to do anything about it. (Unsurprisingly many of them, from both sides, have a portfolio of multiple properties.)

A half decent, sort of compromise was when Bill Shorten proposed negative gearing would only be available on new builds to encourage new supply going forward. A halfway decent idea that would have been worth trying. Of course he lost so we'll never know.

Negative gearing IS NOT the only problem, there's a myriad of reasons, but it's definitely a very big part of it.

Will also just say isn't it interesting that 'immigration' is the biggest new story in the UK, the US and Australia all at the same time. What an amazing coincidence. Murdoch of course would have nothing to do with it. Farking LMFAO. 

How very opportune to blame 'dirty' immigrants of course. Would expect nothing less from the usual suspects. Conveniently discounting massive waves of post-war immigrants that somehow the government managed to build houses for.

agree with all you said but this is so true.

and the politicians (including the greens) who legislate on this have multiple properties. it's not in their interest to fix it. 

My mum for example has 5 houses, she came from poverty overseas but still, I find it ludicrous that this is allowed. 

the best bit is all the rich    - oops, I just ate my own poop...s complaining that their favorite restaurants down the coast are closing or can't find staff etc...while their beach house or air bnb investment sits vacant for 75% of the year, the very problem for why they cannot find workers

the funny thing is all these free market capitalists suddenly want government intervention when their businesses are threatened, whether it's grants, tax exemptions, cheaper workers from overseas or tariffs on foreign imports (like Mr free market himself Elon musk is demanding from the US cause his EV business is under threat), but no help for anyone else

capitalism for the profits, socialism for the losses 

Mate I really dont get this point of view... Did your mum steal those properties from anyone? Did she cheat a more deserving person out of them? No, she worked her fingers to the bone (sorry not a personal comment just presuming here) to buy them like every other person had the opportunity to, through savy investment and sacrifice. Increasing her land tax every 15 mins and forcing her to jack up rent or even worse list properties on AirBnB to make a decent income from them is NOT going to make a lifestyle seeker be more frugal with their spending and help them buy themselves a property... its ONLy punsihning people who, through hard graft, managed to scrape together a nest egg.

The generational disparity in housing affordability is a separate thing all together, far to simplistic to blame the "boomers" 

Nah.

If there are no homes to buy because first home buyers are competing with people that own dozens of properties they have to keep renting. That increases demand for rentals because renters need homes to rent. Which perversely makes investing even more attractive.

Higher demand for rentals = the ability to charge higher rents. Result - rents go up.

Seeing rents are high renters can't save for a deposit. More renters enter the market (immigration, young people leaving home, divorced women and men, people that can't afford a mortgage anymore) driving rents up (as we've seen in every city in Australia where 100 people at a unit inspection) which further incentivises investors to buy more properties. Because the government is subsidising their investment.

It's a sick joke.   

If she didn't own those properties and negative gearing wasn't a thing AND foreign ownership of residential housing stock was banned then people who were renting them would be living in that house and own it. (Or someone very much like them.) That's 5 houses that have now been freed up for the market. Now multiply that by the thousands of people that have multiple properties that are, not figuratively but LITERALLY, subsidised by the government to own them and you've halfway solved the housing problem.

It is simplistic to blame the boomers and the Gen X's (my mob who seem to get off Scott free in these discussions) because it's accurate. Their houses cost them 2 or 3 times the average salary with just the one of them working. (Gen X'ers had usually 2 people working. My first house cost 3.25 times my wage without my wife working.) They took full advantage of the system. AND I'M NOT SAYING THEY WERE WRONG TO DO SO. I'm saying it needs to be phased out and phased out yesterday IF YOU BELIEVE housing is a human right. Which I do.

If people want to rent their whole lives like they do in Europe then that's fine too. (Let's get some proper protections around those people like they do over there.) So rents don't skyrocket when there aren't investors you need to increase supply. I've already explained how they can increase supply to stop that from happening.

Bring back the Department of Public Works and build units, flats, social housing, small medium density homes and sell them at cost and/or subsidised.

Why does everything have to be done 'for profit'?

While we're at it. Bring in a land tax so massive mobs like Delfin and Lend Lease can't hold vast swathes of land and trickle it out to keep the prices high. (Google 'land banking'.)

AND fix up stamp duty which disincentives people downsizing. Something Perrotet tried to do but then Minns came in and hit it on the head. 

Garbage take mate.... Sorry but those 5 properties (again I presume) were rented out to people who could have also chosen to purchase a property and pay it off as property prices were only 3 times the average salary back then as you state....  For whatever reason they chose to rent instead of investing in their housing future.  - I am taking a massive assumption here and presuming the accumulation of properties didnt ALL happen in the last decade, but rather was a "life's work" for tsf's mum (and every other migrant success story)

Housing is indeed a human right as is the right to accumulate or spend as much as you wish or dont as the case may be... Those 5 properties contribute financially to the country we all live in, via taxes and rates. They provide housing to people, they create work for people to build and maintain them.. Attack overseas investors and land banking arseholes all you want... Mum and Dad investors, buying houses to leave to their children are NOT the devil mate.