墨尔本房东纷纷离场，租客越来越绝望

che999

上班ing 发表于 2024-4-8 22:15
房东离场，是把房子也带走了吗？
原来墨尔本的房子是动产？

看你怎么理解

一般减少一个投资房的房东

会有50%的几率增加一个投资房的房东

或者50%的几率增加一个自住房的房东

yummychocolate

Pippa 发表于 2024-4-10 18:56
足迹高人辈出，你我的发言都不要删，大家一看就知道有没有瞎说。税法规定就在税局官网。我把链接放在下面 ...

我一直以为你是非常理性的足迹名人之一， 特别这个这个帖子的发言， 我很认真地读了。感谢分享的链接，随后仔细研究

Perth好

Perth好

frog1791

honester 发表于 2024-4-10 15:49
这儿有人骂房东呢？

房东已经够惨的了，银行利息这么高，贴钱提供住房，不然，这帮租客自己买房，那每月的 ...

在他们眼里，有房子的都是有钱人，天生就该被批斗

joyalty

Pippa 发表于 2024-4-12 12:59
利息是房东真金白银的支出，跟当年租金收入抵扣，当然不需要在卖房的时候再交一次税，同一个税基只交一次 ...

你这说法和我对负扣税的理解一致，你把平常运营的负扣税和新房的折旧混在一起说，统一说成负扣税将来在卖房时需要回吐回去，这明显属于误导，不知道是表达能力的局限还是故意？

vcsg

存量房的角度来讲，总量是不变的，投资房变自住房，减少房源的同时也减少了租客。但是在目前人口在增加的情况下，房价的低迷是不利于房产开发，即增量房。而这确实是在几年后会推高房租。

大头爸爸

其实说什么也没有用，现在都在抱怨负扣税，等取消了之后，那些人仍然租不到或者买不起房。他们就会呼吁应该取消50%的CGT优惠，等CGT优惠也取消了，他们仍然租不到或者买不起。然后他们会再呼吁应该给有投资房的人增加房产税，土地税，反正永远都觉得你们有投资房是不应该的。但是这部分所谓的“弱势群体”从来不会在自己身上找问题，总之出了问题永远都是别人的问题

joyalty

大头爸爸 发表于 2024-4-12 15:03
其实说什么也没有用，现在都在抱怨负扣税，等取消了之后，那些人仍然租不到或者买不起房。他们就会呼吁应该 ...

这些人不是弱势群体，是有正义和良心的澳洲民众，甚至包括50%的房东。

你说的那些改革，确实都值得探讨，所以你也清楚这些事应该往这方面去做，只是因为自身利益很不情愿？

大头爸爸

joyalty 发表于 2024-4-12 15:22
这些人不是弱势群体，是有正义和良心的澳洲民众，甚至包括50%的房东。

你说的那些改革，确实都值得探讨 ...

改不改我都无所谓，对我的区别无非就是多点钱少点钱而已，已经根本不影响我的生活了。我想表达的是我20年前来的时候也是个身无分文，连英语都说不清楚的人，20年之后我已经拥有我想要的一切了，因为我知道一个人该干什么，该干什么才有用，才能让自己变好。报怨社会一点用都没有，你今天在这个帖子里就算跟100个，1000个人打嘴炮打赢了，也不会让你多一毛钱，多半套房。

joyalty

足迹网友也该看看外面的世界，看看大家在说什么，提高下认知，比如这篇文章的评论区。

https://www.smh.com.au/property/ ... 0240409-p5fies.html

joyalty

上文评论1:

The rental crisis is a symptom of intergenerational theft writ large. Home ownership has plummeted for under 40s while those over 65 enjoy the lion's share of private wealth. A combination of mercenary, selfish, one-generational policies from CGT concessions to negative gearing to de-regulation of the banking sector have culminated in this socio-economic crisis. The notion that losses on an investment could be used to reduce tax on taxable employment income when there is no relationship between the two is a disgraceful policy choice - yes, a choice. And just who do we all think made that choice? Not today's youngsters unable to afford to live in the city of their birth. While this masthead will pick and choose examples of youngsters buying, with or without the "bank of mum and dad", the naked reality is that home ownership is out of reach of a certain age group unless they are loaded. What a society when in one generation all you needed was a heartbeat and any job to buy a property, to a society where not even the most highly paid can afford a dog box. Even if they can, they will never pay it off, it's mathematically impossible. But let's keep asking that generation to pay for aged care, etc because another of our tax policies was to reduce income tax over the last 40 years. And which generation benefitted most from that do you think?

joyalty

评论2

Friends who were priced out of their rental home of over two decades were pleased to find a small and modest apartment at just under $500 a week. Two years, and two price hikes later the same apartment is now being priced at $700, as will all the others in that fading and not particularly well maintained block. The block’s owner, with her extensive housing portfolio, is upping rents “because she can”. When will government act to bring in tenancy protections such as security of tenure and anti-price gouging measures? Extra housing will take a long time to eventuate given the years of Coalition neglect on this matter, but turning the tide to assist renters has to be a first and necessary step.

joyalty

评论3

I have been in the same rental property for fourteen years. In that time I have paid over $500,000 in rent. I have just been informed (with no discussion) that my rent will be increased by 21%. This is on a property that was bought and paid for on the owner's admission over forty years ago. When I asked the agent why the rent was increasing, they claimed it was to align it with the market.

What other market sector makes no concessions for such large transaction sums and the buyer's consistency and reliability?

joyalty

评论4

It all comes down to the greed of the landlords and real estate agents. I once had an investment property that I’d inherited and kept the rent down so I could keep my tenant. I could have easily increased it but decided not to. I’m sure most landlords now can keep the rents down. I’d bet most of them own their properties outright and are just fleecing the market.

joyalty

评论5

Interest rates remain stable yet rents are climbing steadily.
This is pure price gouging by landlords and real estate agents who are happy to make as much money as possible from desperate people.
When is something going to be done about this crisis?

joyalty

评论6

This is simple economics 101 called supply and demand. When the demand for a product exceeds the supply, the cost of the product increases. There are two solutions, increase the supply or reduce the demand.

Governments all around Australia are not building affordable housing quickly enough to meet the demand and the federal government refuses to remove the negative gearing tax incentives that encourage people to purchase multiple houses and flats and receive generous tax breaks on investment properties.

joyalty

评论7

As society we chose that multiple extra houses are to be "an investment, and asset class'. For capital gain and also for "the rental income stream" it will generate for people as their "superannuation plan". So now, when the oldies retire, they may not have interest expenses.... but rely on their "investment houses" to deliver their retirement income stream.

Housing should never have become "a tax subsidised investment" for people to reduce their taxes during their working life, and become part time "land lords". And once the tax incentives were given, can't take away .... its one of main reasons we had to endure ScoMo ... as the man who would not touch negative gearing of homes.

Lets remove homes/houses as an "asset class" altogether. People with spare cash and wanting to reduce their tax contribution can still use negative gearing for the other asset classes....shares, commercial property, infrastructure...

maxinfang

首先 当地康嫂一般很多房主在里面 当地政府倾向于房价涨 密度低 房价越贵 这个区的康嫂有水越多 有钱人多的地方也好管理 好收费 所以康嫂一直在抵制 州政府 很多康嫂就一直在加hertigae 就是要控制密度 对抗开发 很不得稍微旧一点老点建筑 先来个area 然后 这几个加一点 哪一个house 加一个 特别是近city的康嫂 真的是社会发展的阻碍

joyalty

我都没挑，按照评论热度直接复制粘贴下来的。

都说的比我好，足迹这些反对房产税收改革的中介和房东们看看，别活在了自己的（中文）世界和（中国）故事里。

maxinfang

mel 可以试运行一下 也算是一个试点 看看效果 mel 人民感觉比syd 觉悟高很多

joyalty

大头爸爸 发表于 2024-4-12 15:28
改不改我都无所谓，对我的区别无非就是多点钱少点钱而已，已经根本不影响我的生活了。我想表达的是我20年 ...

你这认识层次不行，还处于习惯在丛林社会各自安好，埋头爬梯子的阶段。

大头爸爸

joyalty 发表于 2024-4-12 15:44
你这认识层次不行，还处于习惯在丛林社会各自安好，埋头爬梯子的阶段。 ...

希望你成功，能让所有房东全部吃瘪，靠你这张嘴

joyalty

大头爸爸 发表于 2024-4-12 15:54
希望你成功，能让所有房东全部吃瘪，靠你这张嘴

哈哈，谁说我要让房东吃瘪了？总得有个理吧，年轻一代不容易

flyinfree

joyalty 发表于 2024-4-12 15:38
我都没挑，按照评论热度直接复制粘贴下来的。

都说的比我好，足迹这些反对房产税收改革的中介和房东们看看 ...

现在是改革负扣税规定的最好时间。。。因为。。再差也不会比现在更差了。。。。都快到底了，你还怕他往下再挖三米吗？

Pippa

joyalty 发表于 2024-4-12 13:59
你这说法和我对负扣税的理解一致，你把平常运营的负扣税和新房的折旧混在一起说，统一说成负扣税将来在卖 ...

本来不想理你，但你再一次混淆税法概念，我只好再一次科普：

在税法里面，投资一个房子跟投资一个餐馆、一只股票是一样的。利息、维修这些作为收入的抵扣项目，根本不是“负扣税”，而是正常的经营所得扣除。唯一能叫负扣税的就是折扣部分，因为折扣是房屋资本性支出（买房子的成本）的一部分，账务上应该要等到卖房的时候才能实现，而税法特意给予了提前分期摊销的规定。这部分就是投资者讲的负扣税。负扣税在卖房的时候要在利润所得上重新加回去，也就是说，之前抵扣过的折扣，卖房的时候不会双重受益。从整个税法处理上，房东的抵扣并没有增加，只是时间点有了这个选择。

如果你的意思是所有跟房屋相关的费用，包括利息、维修费都不应该抵税。那你的意思就是所有企业、投资（包括股票）都不能抵扣费用。天下没有这样的税法，哪个国家都没有。北朝鲜的企业和投资也是可以抵税的。

joyalty

Pippa 发表于 2024-4-12 16:50
本来不想理你，但你再一次混淆税法概念，我只好再一次科普：

在税法里面，投资一个房子跟投资一个餐馆 ...

你现在又在混淆扣税和“负”扣税的概念，原来你不懂啊……难怪表达起来一片混乱

joyalty

当了这么多年房东，连负扣税都没搞明白，还敢上论坛科普，真是令人无语

jodyj

joyalty 发表于 2024-4-12 17:21
当了这么多年房东，连负扣税都没搞明白，还敢上论坛科普，真是令人无语

买房都要贷款吗？

pan123au

如果嘴炮能改变现实，大家都不用工作了，跟印度人一样，天天吹牛。作为移民自己不努力工作赚钱，天天打嘴炮，悲哀啊。

pan123au

琵琶这么多年当房东，年年报税，难道连负扣税是什么都不知道吗 ？ 你就别开玩笑了。