- May 5, 2024
- Posted by: legaleseblogger
- Category: Related News
Try Free Now: Legalese tool without registration
## Increasing Housing Inventory to Address Affordability Concerns
I am genuinely curious about the potential outcomes in this situation. There is a common sentiment suggesting that investment property owners are often blamed for the housing availability crisis. Could increasing the number of available houses on the market lead to heightened competition among buyers, ultimately driving prices down? Would renters, who might now have the opportunity to save on rent, be able to accumulate enough funds to consider purchasing their first home?
**How AI Legalese Decoder Can Help:**
AI Legalese Decoder can assist in decoding complex legal documents related to property ownership and rental agreements, providing clear and concise information to both property owners and renters. By simplifying legal jargon and highlighting key terms and clauses, AI Legalese Decoder can empower individuals to make informed decisions about their housing options. This tool can also help streamline communication and negotiations between landlords and tenants, fostering a more transparent and equitable rental market.
Try Free Now: Legalese tool without registration
Legal jargon can be overwhelming and confusing, especially for those who are not familiar with the legal field. AI Legalese Decoder is a tool that can help simplify and breakdown complex legal documents, making it easier for individuals to understand their rights and obligations.
With the AI Legalese Decoder, users can quickly translate legal terms and language into plain English, allowing them to grasp the content of contracts, agreements, and other legal documents more easily. This can be incredibly helpful for individuals who are involved in legal cases or need to review legal documents for any reason.
For example, if someone is reviewing a lease agreement for a rental property and is unsure of certain provisions or terms used in the contract, they can simply input the document into the AI Legalese Decoder to receive a simplified explanation of the legal language used. This can help them better understand their rights as a tenant and ensure they are not agreeing to anything they are not comfortable with.
In addition, the AI Legalese Decoder can also help individuals save time and money by avoiding the need to hire a lawyer to interpret legal documents for them. This tool provides a quick and efficient way to break down complicated legal language, making it accessible to everyone.
Overall, the AI Legalese Decoder is a valuable resource for anyone who needs help understanding legal jargon. By simplifying complex legal language, this tool empowers individuals to navigate the legal system with confidence.
****** just grabbed a
Not all renters are in a position to buy now, and some don’t even want to buy.. there is a myriad of reasons someone might choose to rent for a period of time beyond just cant afford to buy, and some renters have no desire to ever own property.
We need a portion of houses available as rentals, and we need a portion available to buy as PPOR, we could all argue over what those proportions are, but I would think most will agree there needs to be both available in some proportion.
Right now, we do not have enough to satisfy the demand for either market.. and saying things like moving houses away from rentals to become PPOR is going to make things better, is analogous to saying you have 2 wounds and only one bandage.. and moving the bandage from one wound to the other is going to fix things.
We need more houses on the market for BOTH rentals and purchase to reduce competition for them, that will help slow down the crazy increases we are seeing for both prices and rents. That means looking beyond if its a rental or ppor and looking at how things are built, how land is freed up and the density of housing in desirable areas.
Doesn’t achieve much as you aren’t adding new supply, you are just trading existing stock.
You get 1 less renter and 1 more owner occupier.
Maybe prices would go down for a time if you flooded the market at once, but you’d probably have enough families with money channeling money to kids to sop up the houses at a discount which would mean there wouldn’t really be huge bargains.
If you had a restriction from investors owning more than 1 property after this one off sale event happened then you get less new supply and rents go up more.
Supply and demand. If there was a lot of demand and not a lot of supply then rents go up. Lots of supply and not enough demand then rent goes down.
The problem with your question is you assume everyone who is renting is a prospective first home buyer who can’t afford their own home.
The market just doesn’t work like that. There are downsizers, upsizers, seachangers, people moving for a different job, people who live in another city/town but need a small place where they work so they can stay overnight.
It will have a negligible effect because as long as mass migration keeps demand beyond sustainable levels rents will continue to rise
If you moved houses out of the rental market to FHBers only.. it would remove one renter (and family) and one house that was being rented.. so since there are currently more people wanting to rent than there are houses available.. it would increase renter stress by a very very tiny amount (ie instead of 100 people competing for 90 houses, there would be 99 people competing for 89 houses, which is actually slightly more competitive.)
There Is a small number of renters in a position to purchase, but most renters cannot afford a deposit or the repayments, it is ridiculous that people think the only thing preventing people from buying is land lords. Unemployment might be low at the moment but underemployment is a massive problem, these people can’t afford to buy. Students who have moved out of home can’t afford to buy. People with minimum wage jobs can’t afford to buy. In fact if land lords disappeared it would be a disaster for many people even if house prices dropped 50%. To service a 600k mortgage you have to pay over 4K a month add on all the other expenses of owning a home and plenty of people can’t afford it.
The buyer is a couple or family. They evict maybe 5-6 renters sharing the house, who now need to find new homes. Overall probably more rental pressure.
1 less rental because it is a home.
1 less renter because they own their own home.
….
There will be less total stock in the rental market and less renters.
Life is like a game of sims. You can do what you want if the rules allow it. If you’re higher than others on a scoreboard that’s okay, it’s also okay if you don’t want to keep score. But you’ll lose out to those who do, and that’s also okay.
And while the ideal world is where everyone has an equal outcome.
The best world is not an ideal world.
The best world is is where everyone has an equal opportunity instead of an equal outcome.
I think your mind is trying to question if the outcome will be equal outcome and everyone would own a home and the rental market would cease to exist, or if the outcome will be equal opportunity and other people will swoop in to buy the houses?,
do you want what’s ideal for us as people? Or what’s best for us as people?
I’ve always maintained small investors are the ideal landlord class. 1 or 2 and they’re probably personally invested and want to protect that investment. They’re more likely to do private rentals. Know the tenants.
It’s PTY LTDs, foreign ownership, big money. Which own a chunk, only financially driven and pushing the crisis further through GREED rather than necessity, like a landlord who is paying higher mortgage interest and probably working a job/supporting a family. That same big money can purchase outright, essentially with a huge discount as NO interest is paid.
Big money is who wins in these scenarios, anyway. Like others have stated renters aren’t in positions to buy rn. Single mortgage holders are in worse stress than ever and as they sell out, the haves can come in and clean house, so to speak.
The only thing that will fix this lop sided market is a financial markets collapse. Because this problem is caused by debt speculation.
I think landlords who are undertaking huge amounts of fiscal risk and gambling on housing is the problem, and not the mom & pop who own a couple of houses that is driving all of this up.
Like that couple that are over-leveraged on their banking loans and are using SMSF to buy even more, literally putting all of the eggs in a single basket. They are the problems, if you want to own 1-2 properties within your budget. Or investors who are keeping their assets empty to ‘drive up demand’.
If we can reduce artifical demand from ‘investors’ and pump in a few extra incentives for building more with business-owner based incentives and government ownership (i.e. if you build a building and defects appear in the first 10 years, you lose x% of sales + your name becomes ineligible for incentives for the 10 years unless you rectify).
Many of them would be proud owners of their newly bought home…
Nothing.
And as someone who is grateful to be renting a small but comfortable semi while we do a big renovation, I think the concept that we need less landlords to achieve a nirvana where everyone lives in a house they own all the time, is absurd.
Rental properties are a valuable and needed service
But certainly the people who buy them to rent out are clearly just creating customers.
To answer your question, the market is screwed when the very people who need a home can not afford it and the issue is the same lack of supply.
Surprisingly I reckon a lot of people would get evicted. Because when you use the first home buyer government benefits you have to live in it for 6 months by the end of a year. That meant I just had to give notice of eviction to the tenant in the house I just bought unfortunately. He wanted another year there but couldn’t be done. First home buyers have to evict someone if they buy a landlords rental property
Nothing. The issue usually isn’t the ability to afford repayments it’s that ability to save for the deposit. Not a lot of people want to make the multi year sacrifice it takes to get into a home of their own and that is becoming more and more out of reach.
Stop the syndicates and large entities from buying up all the homes, limit the amount owned to some single digit value, that will redistribute the wealth and create a more competitive market
In my eyes I’d say half of the first home buyers would be existing renters so that wouldn’t change a thing because they would remain in a property as they are now.
I’d say the other half would be either house share or living with parents so that would put more pressure on the existing rental market because there will likely be a lot less rentals on the market then there is now.
And third it would mean investors would likely be more cashed up and under leveraged on their investments so they will likely have more disposable income and start spending more money on cars, holidays, retail or looking to pay down existing debts and mortgages and then in return start spending more and increasing the likelihood of higher inflation for that period.
Everything is like a ripple affect in a pool with a stone hitting it.
In one way you fix some issues and make things better… then in other areas it could cause other issues.
At the end of the day the system is designed fine it has some flaws as long as the economy grows by. 10% each year on avg everything is fine.
Unfortunately politics and voting can cause issues when it comes to timing and trying to make faster decisions on slowing and speeding up the economy which has its own problems.
But all in all with computers software, better internet, cashless society and single touch payroll systems being introduced the government and rba can make decisions a lot faster with the data they have today.
It wouldn’t help in the long term without addressing other underlying issues.
If IPs were sold to FHB by force the house prices would go down considerably vs rest of the market and rents would shoot through the roof as no available rentals.
Unless the taxation system is fixed all that would happen is that that already have money and investments would just pickup more properties. There may be a few first home buyers in the crowd but given the statistics of home ownership being largely skewed towards people with more than 1 house I don’t think the ratio would change.
House prices would go up.
Rents would go down.
1. The reduced demand from first home buyers would balance the reduced supply from the landlords who sold.
2. Some of those landlords would buy other existing houses. This would push house prices up.
3. Some of those landlords would buy new houses, increasing total housing supply. The new supply would reduce rents.
The government and mainstream media have really succeeded with their anti-landlord propaganda shifting the blame from all levels of government and various policies (immigration, zoning etc) to individual investors
Lol rent will go up.. Even Less supply
Best is to get rid of airbnb and negative gearing, instant drop in property prices.
Uh.. nothing?
When a renter buys a property to live in, the market loses one rental property and one renter.
So the ratio of renter/rentals are still the same?
Negative gearing allowed on newly built houses that add to supply, would be helpful.
It puts pressure on developers to get cracking and release land, increasing supply.
I’d probably only allow the GCT excemption on newly build houses too.
Government, if they’re serious need to use the market to create alleviate the housing crisis.
They won’t though. This policy would flat line house prices over the medium to long term.
Some people forget we need rentals, before I bought I rented to confirm I liked the area before commiting the deposit I worked 3 jobs, saved for 10 years to build and then pay off for the next 30 years.
Not many people out there are calling for removal of allinvestment properties. They have their place but the balance is right off at the moment. Investment should ideally drive new builds but year on year that investment is shifting towards existing homes. It’s more lucrative for an investor to buy existing properties at a higher price when they know it’ll be 20% higher in one or two years compared to a cheaper new build with flatter growth.
Rents would go up.
First home buyers have lower people per house compared to renting.
The market for rental would remain largely unchanged. Each home buyer who lives in their place is one less renter.
Property owners who lease their properties have this weird idea that they are helping the market. Unless you’ve invested to build the place to add to the market, you’re a rent Seeker.
There’d be less renters, less competition, lower rents and lower house prices
If first home buyers bought all the homes renters were I’m everyone would own their own home and renters wouldn’t exist except for rare cases
Mental health rates would improve, rapidly.
Demand in the property market drops and given no change in supply, with all things equal. Property will become more affordable.
The rental market doesn’t change. It’s basically a zero sum game with equal rental properties and renter being removed from the rental market.
Rental availability, which drives the rental market price will remain essentially the same.
The current renters of the landlord’s investment property would get kicked out and need to find a rental. Good thing the new owners just made a vacancy in the rental market! The net change to the market is zero. The solution to the housing problem is to build more houses
The renters who bought would be the renters most able to afford high rents so it would likely lead to a fall in rents.
Owner occupiers can’t negatively gear so there would also be less money available to push house prices up.
Look at migration numbers. That’s the root of the issue