OPINION: What's the name of a name? What we call a "rental fee" with another name would smell so incorrectly.
We have for a long time had to pay an extra week's rent to rapacious property managers, to ensure the privilege of being able to repay the home loan on a regular basis.
Of course, we can be excavated at our ear at any time: in that case, it goes on to the next and another $ 500 odd dollar plus GST, thank you very much.
Our savior arrived in the unlikely form of Phil Twyford; the taxed hero who is notorious for his previously disadvantaged crusade against "Chinese Sound" names.
* Learn more while spending less
* Why everyone uses wrong credit cards
Intoxicated by his new ministerial powers, and bristling with an army of rules and regulations, Twyford paid to fight with housing affordable beast.
His first kind – ban on charging – landed true and clean and drew a lot of relief from all over the country. Yet! When a head was struck off, another sprinted in its place.
Quinovic immediately came up with a new rental fee, which is expected to be widely copied by other property managers. It falls on landlords, not tenants, but they will no doubt send it in the form of higher rent.
Who could possibly have seen this coming? Well, almost all 15-year-olds who take Econ 101. Like many white knights, brave Sir Phil had the best intentions, but was hampered by a weakness for style over substance.
His claim that the ban would repatriate as much as $ 47 million to the tenant's pockets looks increasingly hollow, and it can actually stop costing us more money.
Let's say that your landlord spreads the rental cost over a year and increases the weekly rent by $ 10. If you stay longer than the first year, do you really think they will let it go again?
On the other hand, at least nobody will put into the rage-inducing situation to pay a rental fee, and then start out three months later. Lowering the obstacles is a good thing – it just makes it a little easier to vote with your feet.
The second ray of hope is that landlords can take the opportunity to deal with a new property manager. If they stop paying the fee, it will be deductible, so maybe they forward the savings as well.
In balance it is difficult to say if this is a good or bad thing. It will certainly not move the needle in either direction. The animal always runs back. Unfortunately, Twyford's second attack is likely to be as ineffective. The reform list includes maintaining minimum standards, allowing pets as a standard, limiting rental increases, ending no cause cuts and a ban on rental bidding.
All of these are amazing things. But they are not "free". It is believed that most landlords are fat cats that illuminate their cigars by $ 100. In fact, they are like any other small business, who are at risk of providing a service. Additional costs must inevitably be collected in higher rent. If it comes to the point where they can not make money, they come out of the game. Residential-owned homes tend to hire fewer people, which further boosts rents.
The real effect of rental reforms is to force us to pay more for a higher quality of accommodation. It may be good, depending on your policy, and how much money you have. But it makes affordable problems even worse.
Taking on the hated rentier class is good for the audience. You will throw your head everywhere, even if they calmly regrow and reform. To actually kill the beast involves less sexy actions: freeing land supplies, managing the infrastructure financing gap and reforming restrictive planning laws.
Instead of using his shining sword to give the landlords a thousand deaths, Twyford should take on some of this bureaucracy – but of course it does not do much like a show.
Did you get a burning money issue? Email Budget Buster at [email protected], or beat him on Facebook. You can also find links to previous Budget Busters here.