Vilification will earn you a lifetime ban

[Vortex]

TRY NOT TO BE A KENT!

...JUST TRY.

[Sainter_Dad]

You (and others) are so brainwashed and caught up on things that happened so long ago that you are beyond saving. People like you are only going to be happy when my wage is $80k and the govt wage is $100k, plus royalties, plus an extra tax on properties, a breathing tax, hell, why not throw in a special levy for attending AFL on aboriginal grounds.

People like you will never move forward because as another poster already mentioned, your type don’t want equal opportunity, you want equal result regardless of effort.
Guess what, it’ll never happen.

You are one sad individual that clearly wants to tear everything down and see everyone miserable, possibly to compensate for your own failures in life.

Government Salary implies working

[skeptic]

You (and others) are so brainwashed and caught up on things that happened so long ago that you are beyond saving. People like you are only going to be happy when my wage is $80k and the govt wage is $100k, plus royalties, plus an extra tax on properties, a breathing tax, hell, why not throw in a special levy for attending AFL on aboriginal grounds.

People like you will never move forward because as another poster already mentioned, your type don’t want equal opportunity, you want equal result regardless of effort.
Guess what, it’ll never happen.

You are one sad individual that clearly wants to tear everything down and see everyone miserable, possibly to compensate for your own failures in life.

This is a weird post.

It might apply if you argue that there aren’t any systemic biases, which if you truly believe… I doubt I’d be able convince you otherwise.

But the aim of such course correction isn’t bring you down but close the gap and allow opportunity for those that haven’t had the same degree of privilege.

The legal system is one example of an overwhelming amount of instances where the bias is soooo marked and clearly demonstrated in all literature on negative outcomes e.g. indigenous ppl are more likely to get a custodial sentence for the same a crime that non-indigenous person with the same history commits. That’s not an opinion, it’s a well established, well known fact

[CQ SAINT]

You (and others) are so brainwashed and caught up on things that happened so long ago that you are beyond saving. People like you are only going to be happy when my wage is $80k and the govt wage is $100k, plus royalties, plus an extra tax on properties, a breathing tax, hell, why not throw in a special levy for attending AFL on aboriginal grounds.

People like you will never move forward because as another poster already mentioned, your type don’t want equal opportunity, you want equal result regardless of effort.
Guess what, it’ll never happen.

You are one sad individual that clearly wants to tear everything down and see everyone miserable, possibly to compensate for your own failures in life.

This is a weird post.

It might apply if you argue that there aren’t any systemic biases, which if you truly believe… I doubt I’d be able convince you otherwise.

But the aim of such course correction isn’t bring you down but close the gap and allow opportunity for those that haven’t had the same degree of privilege.

The legal system is one example of an overwhelming amount of instances where the bias is soooo marked and clearly demonstrated in all literature on negative outcomes e.g. indigenous ppl are more likely to get a custodial sentence for the same a crime that non-indigenous person with the same history commits. That’s not an opinion, it’s a well established, well known fact

Because they have always been held inferior to white man in consideration of the law.

[Annoyedsaint]

You (and others) are so brainwashed and caught up on things that happened so long ago that you are beyond saving. People like you are only going to be happy when my wage is $80k and the govt wage is $100k, plus royalties, plus an extra tax on properties, a breathing tax, hell, why not throw in a special levy for attending AFL on aboriginal grounds.

People like you will never move forward because as another poster already mentioned, your type don’t want equal opportunity, you want equal result regardless of effort.
Guess what, it’ll never happen.

You are one sad individual that clearly wants to tear everything down and see everyone miserable, possibly to compensate for your own failures in life.

Government Salary implies working

I was implying govt pension for doing nothing, but being a public servant is next best for certain jobs. It’s why only certain people need apply…

But it’s all about equality, right?

[Sainter_Dad]

Also a question about equality (and an example of over correction)

Tell me how a landlord can evict a tenant and still comply with today's legal landscape??

[Annoyedsaint]

You (and others) are so brainwashed and caught up on things that happened so long ago that you are beyond saving. People like you are only going to be happy when my wage is $80k and the govt wage is $100k, plus royalties, plus an extra tax on properties, a breathing tax, hell, why not throw in a special levy for attending AFL on aboriginal grounds.

People like you will never move forward because as another poster already mentioned, your type don’t want equal opportunity, you want equal result regardless of effort.
Guess what, it’ll never happen.

You are one sad individual that clearly wants to tear everything down and see everyone miserable, possibly to compensate for your own failures in life.

This is a weird post.

It might apply if you argue that there aren’t any systemic biases, which if you truly believe… I doubt I’d be able convince you otherwise.

But the aim of such course correction isn’t bring you down but close the gap and allow opportunity for those that haven’t had the same degree of privilege.

The legal system is one example of an overwhelming amount of instances where the bias is soooo marked and clearly demonstrated in all literature on negative outcomes e.g. indigenous ppl are more likely to get a custodial sentence for the same a crime that non-indigenous person with the same history commits. That’s not an opinion, it’s a well established, well known fact

In the past, 100%.

But now, I wouldn’t have thought so.
I don’t see any jobs advertised specifically for any race of people except aboriginal. It defeats the purpose of “equal opportunity”. If everyone can apply that is truely equal, but of course from that stage it isn’t equal because some have more experience, some have a uni degree, etc.
So technically it’s never fair for 99% of people because only one person is picked in each role, even though you might be the perfect candidate.

Now of it comes down to education, then my argument is what has the $40b spent on each year to help with this? As a taxpayer it’s a fair question.

It’s either a junket for a select few in the chain of command, city elites if you will, with scraps left at the end, or the people in remote communities don’t really want to live like ‘the white man’. That’s perfectly fine, but you can’t keep expecting the money to keep rolling in and have someone challenge it.

For anyone that has a low paying job or genuinely trying to get a job, I’d rather govt support aimed at them given they are out there having a go. That goes for all the white bums as well. Welfare shouldn’t be that high that it is a deterrent to want to work.
But I digress.

[happy feet]

You (and others) are so brainwashed and caught up on things that happened so long ago that you are beyond saving. People like you are only going to be happy when my wage is $80k and the govt wage is $100k, plus royalties, plus an extra tax on properties, a breathing tax, hell, why not throw in a special levy for attending AFL on aboriginal grounds.

People like you will never move forward because as another poster already mentioned, your type don’t want equal opportunity, you want equal result regardless of effort.
Guess what, it’ll never happen.

You are one sad individual that clearly wants to tear everything down and see everyone miserable, possibly to compensate for your own failures in life.

Government Salary implies working

I was implying govt pension for doing nothing, but being a public servant is next best for certain jobs. It’s why only certain people need apply…

But it’s all about equality, right?

You a$$Ehole. I have worked in a three levels of Government and I work my backside off and have done for the last 43 years. At time I’m talking 60 hour weeks, no overtime mate, weeks away from family staying in s*** motels. Most people I have worked with in the public sector work extremely hard. There are no perks, no corporate lunches, no gifts - you can’t accept any of it. Pay rises for the last 8 or 9 years capped at 2% and forgone during the pandemic. So shove your moronic comments about public servants right up your self entitled @r$e.

[Annoyedsaint]

Also a question about equality (and an example of over correction)

Tell me how a landlord can evict a tenant and still comply with today's legal landscape??

You can’t. Takes month now in Victoria.
Designed that way as the new public housing.
Govts everywhere have directly and purposely caused a rental property crises given many good landlords have sold up. Sucks for the good tenants too.

[Annoyedsaint]

You (and others) are so brainwashed and caught up on things that happened so long ago that you are beyond saving. People like you are only going to be happy when my wage is $80k and the govt wage is $100k, plus royalties, plus an extra tax on properties, a breathing tax, hell, why not throw in a special levy for attending AFL on aboriginal grounds.

People like you will never move forward because as another poster already mentioned, your type don’t want equal opportunity, you want equal result regardless of effort.
Guess what, it’ll never happen.

You are one sad individual that clearly wants to tear everything down and see everyone miserable, possibly to compensate for your own failures in life.

Government Salary implies working

I was implying govt pension for doing nothing, but being a public servant is next best for certain jobs. It’s why only certain people need apply…

But it’s all about equality, right?

You a$$Ehole. I have worked in a three levels of Government and I work my backside off and have done for the last 43 years. At time I’m talking 60 hour weeks, no overtime mate, weeks away from family staying in s*** motels. Most people I have worked with in the public sector work extremely hard. There are no perks, no corporate lunches, no gifts - you can’t accept any of it. Pay rises for the last 8 or 9 years capped at 2% and forgone during the pandemic. So shove your moronic comments about public servants right up your self entitled @r$e.

You’ve read that wrong.
I said certain jobs.

Again, there are great workers, but it is saturated and a reduction desperately required, look at the wage bill in Vic. It’s ridiculous.

It wasn’t meant for someone like yourself on the face value of what you have said above.

If you are working 60h weeks, then you are either relatively high up or you’ve been taken for a ride.

[Sainter_Dad]

Also a question about equality (and an example of over correction)

Tell me how a landlord can evict a tenant and still comply with today's legal landscape??

You can’t. Takes month now in Victoria.
Designed that way as the new public housing.
Govts everywhere have directly and purposely caused a rental property crises given many good landlords have sold up. Sucks for the good tenants too.

Tell me how - even if it takes months?

[amusingname]

I am glad this thread has identified the real vilification in Australia today: white men who want to apply for indigenous identified public service positions and landlords who want to evict their tenants.

It’s a tough life.

[Annoyedsaint]

Also a question about equality (and an example of over correction)

Tell me how a landlord can evict a tenant and still comply with today's legal landscape??

You can’t. Takes month now in Victoria.
Designed that way as the new public housing.
Govts everywhere have directly and purposely caused a rental property crises given many good landlords have sold up. Sucks for the good tenants too.

Tell me how - even if it takes months?

Just based on rules and amount of articles of it going on (which is more and more), you need to keep going to VCAT, but end up going round in circles. Tenants get months and months, then eventually booted they don’t have to pay the amount they owe.

No wonder there has been a mass exodus of investors.

[CQ SAINT]

You (and others) are so brainwashed and caught up on things that happened so long ago that you are beyond saving. People like you are only going to be happy when my wage is $80k and the govt wage is $100k, plus royalties, plus an extra tax on properties, a breathing tax, hell, why not throw in a special levy for attending AFL on aboriginal grounds.

People like you will never move forward because as another poster already mentioned, your type don’t want equal opportunity, you want equal result regardless of effort.
Guess what, it’ll never happen.

You are one sad individual that clearly wants to tear everything down and see everyone miserable, possibly to compensate for your own failures in life.

This is a weird post.

It might apply if you argue that there aren’t any systemic biases, which if you truly believe… I doubt I’d be able convince you otherwise.

But the aim of such course correction isn’t bring you down but close the gap and allow opportunity for those that haven’t had the same degree of privilege.

The legal system is one example of an overwhelming amount of instances where the bias is soooo marked and clearly demonstrated in all literature on negative outcomes e.g. indigenous ppl are more likely to get a custodial sentence for the same a crime that non-indigenous person with the same history commits. That’s not an opinion, it’s a well established, well known fact

In the past, 100%.

But now, I wouldn’t have thought so.
I don’t see any jobs advertised specifically for any race of people except aboriginal. It defeats the purpose of “equal opportunity”. If everyone can apply that is truely equal, but of course from that stage it isn’t equal because some have more experience, some have a uni degree, etc.
So technically it’s never fair for 99% of people because only one person is picked in each role, even though you might be the perfect candidate.

Now of it comes down to education, then my argument is what has the $40b spent on each year to help with this? As a taxpayer it’s a fair question.

It’s either a junket for a select few in the chain of command, city elites if you will, with scraps left at the end, or the people in remote communities don’t really want to live like ‘the white man’. That’s perfectly fine, but you can’t keep expecting the money to keep rolling in and have someone challenge it.

For anyone that has a low paying job or genuinely trying to get a job, I’d rather govt support aimed at them given they are out there having a go. That goes for all the white bums as well. Welfare shouldn’t be that high that it is a deterrent to want to work.
But I digress.

So your against aged care and disability care too?

[Annoyedsaint]

I am glad this thread has identified the real vilification in Australia today: white men who want to apply for indigenous identified public service positions and landlords who want to evict their tenants.

It’s a tough life.

So you think it’s fair a tenant doesn’t pay an agreed price? And continues to live there for free?
Similar to a business transaction for a good or service, that wouldn’t wash.
*of course there are s*** landlords too, they also should be held accountable for basic things like repairs

And unnecessary govt jobs created for select few.
Seems certain things are preached, but then contradicted based on who it relates to…

Again, as a taxpayer I want bang for my buck. The govt works for me using my tax paid, I don’t work for the govt.

[Annoyedsaint]

You (and others) are so brainwashed and caught up on things that happened so long ago that you are beyond saving. People like you are only going to be happy when my wage is $80k and the govt wage is $100k, plus royalties, plus an extra tax on properties, a breathing tax, hell, why not throw in a special levy for attending AFL on aboriginal grounds.

People like you will never move forward because as another poster already mentioned, your type don’t want equal opportunity, you want equal result regardless of effort.
Guess what, it’ll never happen.

You are one sad individual that clearly wants to tear everything down and see everyone miserable, possibly to compensate for your own failures in life.

This is a weird post.

It might apply if you argue that there aren’t any systemic biases, which if you truly believe… I doubt I’d be able convince you otherwise.

But the aim of such course correction isn’t bring you down but close the gap and allow opportunity for those that haven’t had the same degree of privilege.

The legal system is one example of an overwhelming amount of instances where the bias is soooo marked and clearly demonstrated in all literature on negative outcomes e.g. indigenous ppl are more likely to get a custodial sentence for the same a crime that non-indigenous person with the same history commits. That’s not an opinion, it’s a well established, well known fact

In the past, 100%.

But now, I wouldn’t have thought so.
I don’t see any jobs advertised specifically for any race of people except aboriginal. It defeats the purpose of “equal opportunity”. If everyone can apply that is truely equal, but of course from that stage it isn’t equal because some have more experience, some have a uni degree, etc.
So technically it’s never fair for 99% of people because only one person is picked in each role, even though you might be the perfect candidate.

Now of it comes down to education, then my argument is what has the $40b spent on each year to help with this? As a taxpayer it’s a fair question.

It’s either a junket for a select few in the chain of command, city elites if you will, with scraps left at the end, or the people in remote communities don’t really want to live like ‘the white man’. That’s perfectly fine, but you can’t keep expecting the money to keep rolling in and have someone challenge it.

For anyone that has a low paying job or genuinely trying to get a job, I’d rather govt support aimed at them given they are out there having a go. That goes for all the white bums as well. Welfare shouldn’t be that high that it is a deterrent to want to work.
But I digress.

So your against aged care and disability care too?

No. That’s fine in most instances if run correctly.
Happy for healthcare in general, but shouldn’t be an endless money pit with no accountability when govt controlled. NDIS a perfect example. So many rorts, but there is always people cheating ANY system to make a dollar unfortunately

[Sainter_Dad]

... landlords who want to evict their tenants.

I used the tenant / landlord scenario as an example of an overcorrection - it used to be that the landlord had all the power.

You mean like a landlord whose mother is sleeping in a car between other family members, while a tenant breaks all the tap handles in the house, then uses pliers to turn the taps on and off and eventually crack the seats of the taps so it costs same landlord $245.00 per visit by a plumber, because even though the landlord CAN repair it - they are not allowed. Also the tenant notices a minor infestation of termite larvae, does not inform the agent, and so not only are there termite rectification costs, but now repairs.

Application made to evict because of family situation, even the agreement that it will not be rented for 6 months, but because the tenant cannot find a house in the SE suburbs for $350 per week they are granted to stay.

Tenant is on a month to month lease - will not sign another lease because - if you do - you have a finite ending on the lease and therefore can be given notice.

But yeah - pile on the Evil Landlord. The landlord that chooses to rent a property at less than it is costing them to service it - who gets a $12 a week Land Tax increase - but cannot get a $10 per week rent increase because there are NO COPARATIVES WITHIN $50 OF THE PROPERTY

[Sainter_Dad]

NDIS a perfect example. So many rorts, but there is always people cheating ANY system to make a dollar unfortunately

Surely you don't mean a situation that someone claims a $25,000 camera to take photos of the residents enjoying themselves for the family?

[amusingname]

... landlords who want to evict their tenants.

I used the tenant / landlord scenario as an example of an overcorrection - it used to be that the landlord had all the power.

You mean like a landlord whose mother is sleeping in a car between other family members, while a tenant breaks all the tap handles in the house, then uses pliers to turn the taps on and off and eventually crack the seats of the taps so it costs same landlord $245.00 per visit by a plumber, because even though the landlord CAN repair it - they are not allowed. Also the tenant notices a minor infestation of termite larvae, does not inform the agent, and so not only are there termite rectification costs, but now repairs.

Application made to evict because of family situation, even the agreement that it will not be rented for 6 months, but because the tenant cannot find a house in the SE suburbs for $350 per week they are granted to stay.

Tenant is on a month to month lease - will not sign another lease because - if you do - you have a finite ending on the lease and therefore can be given notice.

But yeah - pile on the Evil Landlord. The landlord that chooses to rent a property at less than it is costing them to service it - who gets a $12 a week Land Tax increase - but cannot get a $10 per week rent increase because there are NO COPARATIVES WITHIN $50 OF THE PROPERTY

You are taking a very crappy situation and then extrapolating that this is the norm when it isn’t. There are bad tenants who do bad things like you describe, then there are bad landlords who are slumlords and won’t touch a property, raise rent and endanger tenants lives with untreated mould and other hazards, knowing that the tenant can’t leave because there is a rental squeeze. If you think the pendulum of power is in a tenants favor overall then I don’t know what to tell you.

Just because you have experienced something doesn’t make it the status quo, sometimes life is just a bit crap and people have bad experiences, usually you can call it bad luck.

This discussion reminds me of a show a few years back. A bunch of people who were anti immigration/asylum seekers were taken overseas to go through the journey that asylum seekers had gone through to come to Australia. The most full on woman, who was saying at the start of the show that no one should be allowed to come to Australia as a refugee, went to a refugee camp in Africa where people wait 3-6 years to be assessed and moved to Australia. At the end of the show it seemed she had changed her mind and was open to asylum seekers, until they had a open q and a type forum, where she basically said the same stuff as at the start, but just now decided that those in the camps she visited should be allowed in because they are ‘real’ refugees, but boat people aren’t because she hadn’t experienced that. Basically if you take your own experience as the only possible narrative, your view is always going to be narrow.

[The G Train Legacy]

You (and others) are so brainwashed and caught up on things that happened so long ago that you are beyond saving. People like you are only going to be happy when my wage is $80k and the govt wage is $100k, plus royalties, plus an extra tax on properties, a breathing tax, hell, why not throw in a special levy for attending AFL on aboriginal grounds.

People like you will never move forward because as another poster already mentioned, your type don’t want equal opportunity, you want equal result regardless of effort.
Guess what, it’ll never happen.

You are one sad individual that clearly wants to tear everything down and see everyone miserable, possibly to compensate for your own failures in life.

This is a weird post.

It might apply if you argue that there aren’t any systemic biases, which if you truly believe… I doubt I’d be able convince you otherwise.

But the aim of such course correction isn’t bring you down but close the gap and allow opportunity for those that haven’t had the same degree of privilege.

The legal system is one example of an overwhelming amount of instances where the bias is soooo marked and clearly demonstrated in all literature on negative outcomes e.g. indigenous ppl are more likely to get a custodial sentence for the same a crime that non-indigenous person with the same history commits. That’s not an opinion, it’s a well established, well known fact

Poor people are more likely to get a custodial sentence. The Law whether criminal or civil favors the rich. There's a big difference between a Silk assisted by 2 or 3 Solicitors and the average suburban lawyer or Legal Aid.

[Sainter_Dad]

... landlords who want to evict their tenants.

I used the tenant / landlord scenario as an example of an overcorrection - it used to be that the landlord had all the power.

You mean like a landlord whose mother is sleeping in a car between other family members, while a tenant breaks all the tap handles in the house, then uses pliers to turn the taps on and off and eventually crack the seats of the taps so it costs same landlord $245.00 per visit by a plumber, because even though the landlord CAN repair it - they are not allowed. Also the tenant notices a minor infestation of termite larvae, does not inform the agent, and so not only are there termite rectification costs, but now repairs.

Application made to evict because of family situation, even the agreement that it will not be rented for 6 months, but because the tenant cannot find a house in the SE suburbs for $350 per week they are granted to stay.

Tenant is on a month to month lease - will not sign another lease because - if you do - you have a finite ending on the lease and therefore can be given notice.

But yeah - pile on the Evil Landlord. The landlord that chooses to rent a property at less than it is costing them to service it - who gets a $12 a week Land Tax increase - but cannot get a $10 per week rent increase because there are NO COPARATIVES WITHIN $50 OF THE PROPERTY

You are taking a very crappy situation and then extrapolating that this is the norm when it isn’t. There are bad tenants who do bad things like you describe, then there are bad landlords who are slumlords and won’t touch a property, raise rent and endanger tenants lives with untreated mould and other hazards, knowing that the tenant can’t leave because there is a rental squeeze. If you think the pendulum of power is in a tenants favor overall then I don’t know what to tell you.

Just because you have experienced something doesn’t make it the status quo, sometimes life is just a bit crap and people have bad experiences, usually you can call it bad luck.

This discussion reminds me of a show a few years back. A bunch of people who were anti immigration/asylum seekers were taken overseas to go through the journey that asylum seekers had gone through to come to Australia. The most full on woman, who was saying at the start of the show that no one should be allowed to come to Australia as a refugee, went to a refugee camp in Africa where people what 3-6 years to be assessed and moved to Australia. At the end of the show it seemed she had changed her mind and was open to asylum seekers, until they had a open q and a type forum, where she basically said the same stuff as at the start, but just now decided that those in the camps she visited should be allowed in because they are ‘real’ refugees, but boat people aren’t because she hadn’t experienced that. Basically if you take your own experience as the only possible narrative, your view is always going to be narrow.

LOL - so can a landlord evict a tenant legally was my question - as in has the legislation swung too far in favour of the tenant? The answer is that it is nearly impossible to evict a tenant - even in a 'crappy situation'. I do note that a correction was needed - but the tenant / landlord has become over legislated and too far in favour of the tenant.

And it was you that reduced the conversation - in which I believe I have openly and honestly answered a certain poster - to Evil Landlords and people wanting to steal indigenous Australians jobs.

[Sainter_Dad]

You (and others) are so brainwashed and caught up on things that happened so long ago that you are beyond saving. People like you are only going to be happy when my wage is $80k and the govt wage is $100k, plus royalties, plus an extra tax on properties, a breathing tax, hell, why not throw in a special levy for attending AFL on aboriginal grounds.

People like you will never move forward because as another poster already mentioned, your type don’t want equal opportunity, you want equal result regardless of effort.
Guess what, it’ll never happen.

You are one sad individual that clearly wants to tear everything down and see everyone miserable, possibly to compensate for your own failures in life.

This is a weird post.

It might apply if you argue that there aren’t any systemic biases, which if you truly believe… I doubt I’d be able convince you otherwise.

But the aim of such course correction isn’t bring you down but close the gap and allow opportunity for those that haven’t had the same degree of privilege.

The legal system is one example of an overwhelming amount of instances where the bias is soooo marked and clearly demonstrated in all literature on negative outcomes e.g. indigenous ppl are more likely to get a custodial sentence for the same a crime that non-indigenous person with the same history commits. That’s not an opinion, it’s a well established, well known fact

Poor people are more likely to get a custodial sentence. The Law whether criminal or civil favors the rich. There's a big difference between a Silk assisted by 2 or 3 Solicitors and the average suburban lawyer or Legal Aid.

Poorer teams are more likely to be suspended.
And the point is taken is taken about POOR PEOPLE - indigenous and The Pines (Frankston) included

[amusingname]

... landlords who want to evict their tenants.

I used the tenant / landlord scenario as an example of an overcorrection - it used to be that the landlord had all the power.

You mean like a landlord whose mother is sleeping in a car between other family members, while a tenant breaks all the tap handles in the house, then uses pliers to turn the taps on and off and eventually crack the seats of the taps so it costs same landlord $245.00 per visit by a plumber, because even though the landlord CAN repair it - they are not allowed. Also the tenant notices a minor infestation of termite larvae, does not inform the agent, and so not only are there termite rectification costs, but now repairs.

Application made to evict because of family situation, even the agreement that it will not be rented for 6 months, but because the tenant cannot find a house in the SE suburbs for $350 per week they are granted to stay.

Tenant is on a month to month lease - will not sign another lease because - if you do - you have a finite ending on the lease and therefore can be given notice.

But yeah - pile on the Evil Landlord. The landlord that chooses to rent a property at less than it is costing them to service it - who gets a $12 a week Land Tax increase - but cannot get a $10 per week rent increase because there are NO COPARATIVES WITHIN $50 OF THE PROPERTY

You are taking a very crappy situation and then extrapolating that this is the norm when it isn’t. There are bad tenants who do bad things like you describe, then there are bad landlords who are slumlords and won’t touch a property, raise rent and endanger tenants lives with untreated mould and other hazards, knowing that the tenant can’t leave because there is a rental squeeze. If you think the pendulum of power is in a tenants favor overall then I don’t know what to tell you.

Just because you have experienced something doesn’t make it the status quo, sometimes life is just a bit crap and people have bad experiences, usually you can call it bad luck.

This discussion reminds me of a show a few years back. A bunch of people who were anti immigration/asylum seekers were taken overseas to go through the journey that asylum seekers had gone through to come to Australia. The most full on woman, who was saying at the start of the show that no one should be allowed to come to Australia as a refugee, went to a refugee camp in Africa where people what 3-6 years to be assessed and moved to Australia. At the end of the show it seemed she had changed her mind and was open to asylum seekers, until they had a open q and a type forum, where she basically said the same stuff as at the start, but just now decided that those in the camps she visited should be allowed in because they are ‘real’ refugees, but boat people aren’t because she hadn’t experienced that. Basically if you take your own experience as the only possible narrative, your view is always going to be narrow.

LOL - so can a landlord evict a tenant legally was my question - as in has the legislation swung too far in favour of the tenant? The answer is that it is nearly impossible to evict a tenant - even in a 'crappy situation'. I do note that a correction was needed - but the tenant / landlord has become over legislated and too far in favour of the tenant.

And it was you that reduced the conversation - in which I believe I have openly and honestly answered a certain poster - to Evil Landlords and people wanting to steal indigenous Australians jobs.

The laws are there to protect the most vulnerable, which means it can be exploited by some. You obviously knew the answer to your question, you just feel like the landlord in the situation described (I presume it is you) has been screwed over, which they have. It’s not the norm though. The laws are not made for individual circumstances.

Anyway, clearly we have differing opinions so not going to keep arguing. This thread was about vilification, I didn’t raise landlords and indigenous positions, they were raised well before I joined so I am not sure how I reduced the conversation, but I won’t bother in the future.

[Annoyedsaint]

... landlords who want to evict their tenants.

I used the tenant / landlord scenario as an example of an overcorrection - it used to be that the landlord had all the power.

You mean like a landlord whose mother is sleeping in a car between other family members, while a tenant breaks all the tap handles in the house, then uses pliers to turn the taps on and off and eventually crack the seats of the taps so it costs same landlord $245.00 per visit by a plumber, because even though the landlord CAN repair it - they are not allowed. Also the tenant notices a minor infestation of termite larvae, does not inform the agent, and so not only are there termite rectification costs, but now repairs.

Application made to evict because of family situation, even the agreement that it will not be rented for 6 months, but because the tenant cannot find a house in the SE suburbs for $350 per week they are granted to stay.

Tenant is on a month to month lease - will not sign another lease because - if you do - you have a finite ending on the lease and therefore can be given notice.

But yeah - pile on the Evil Landlord. The landlord that chooses to rent a property at less than it is costing them to service it - who gets a $12 a week Land Tax increase - but cannot get a $10 per week rent increase because there are NO COPARATIVES WITHIN $50 OF THE PROPERTY

You are taking a very crappy situation and then extrapolating that this is the norm when it isn’t. There are bad tenants who do bad things like you describe, then there are bad landlords who are slumlords and won’t touch a property, raise rent and endanger tenants lives with untreated mould and other hazards, knowing that the tenant can’t leave because there is a rental squeeze. If you think the pendulum of power is in a tenants favor overall then I don’t know what to tell you.

Just because you have experienced something doesn’t make it the status quo, sometimes life is just a bit crap and people have bad experiences, usually you can call it bad luck.

This discussion reminds me of a show a few years back. A bunch of people who were anti immigration/asylum seekers were taken overseas to go through the journey that asylum seekers had gone through to come to Australia. The most full on woman, who was saying at the start of the show that no one should be allowed to come to Australia as a refugee, went to a refugee camp in Africa where people wait 3-6 years to be assessed and moved to Australia. At the end of the show it seemed she had changed her mind and was open to asylum seekers, until they had a open q and a type forum, where she basically said the same stuff as at the start, but just now decided that those in the camps she visited should be allowed in because they are ‘real’ refugees, but boat people aren’t because she hadn’t experienced that. Basically if you take your own experience as the only possible narrative, your view is always going to be narrow.

Agree to a point on everything here.
There are duds in almost every scenario. But the system is very much in favour of the tenant since lockdowns started (and ended). It can’t be denied that there are no rentals because landlords have had enough and have sold up.
Take the above example, there’s no reasonable process and outcome, so why would you risk going through that again.
Stuff like that doesn’t even go on the tenant database now so they can move on to the next property with no ramifications at all.

On refugees, I’m open to them, but through the correct channels, you can’t be letting anyone in willy nilly and if in a lot of circumstances they can’t prove identity then it’s a long drawn out process. I’d rather that than make a big mistake. Also can’t reward queue dodgers.
Harsh in some circumstances, but there needs to be set rules adhered to otherwise word gets out and it’s a free for all.

[Annoyedsaint]

... landlords who want to evict their tenants.

I used the tenant / landlord scenario as an example of an overcorrection - it used to be that the landlord had all the power.

You mean like a landlord whose mother is sleeping in a car between other family members, while a tenant breaks all the tap handles in the house, then uses pliers to turn the taps on and off and eventually crack the seats of the taps so it costs same landlord $245.00 per visit by a plumber, because even though the landlord CAN repair it - they are not allowed. Also the tenant notices a minor infestation of termite larvae, does not inform the agent, and so not only are there termite rectification costs, but now repairs.

Application made to evict because of family situation, even the agreement that it will not be rented for 6 months, but because the tenant cannot find a house in the SE suburbs for $350 per week they are granted to stay.

Tenant is on a month to month lease - will not sign another lease because - if you do - you have a finite ending on the lease and therefore can be given notice.

But yeah - pile on the Evil Landlord. The landlord that chooses to rent a property at less than it is costing them to service it - who gets a $12 a week Land Tax increase - but cannot get a $10 per week rent increase because there are NO COPARATIVES WITHIN $50 OF THE PROPERTY

You are taking a very crappy situation and then extrapolating that this is the norm when it isn’t. There are bad tenants who do bad things like you describe, then there are bad landlords who are slumlords and won’t touch a property, raise rent and endanger tenants lives with untreated mould and other hazards, knowing that the tenant can’t leave because there is a rental squeeze. If you think the pendulum of power is in a tenants favor overall then I don’t know what to tell you.

Just because you have experienced something doesn’t make it the status quo, sometimes life is just a bit crap and people have bad experiences, usually you can call it bad luck.

This discussion reminds me of a show a few years back. A bunch of people who were anti immigration/asylum seekers were taken overseas to go through the journey that asylum seekers had gone through to come to Australia. The most full on woman, who was saying at the start of the show that no one should be allowed to come to Australia as a refugee, went to a refugee camp in Africa where people what 3-6 years to be assessed and moved to Australia. At the end of the show it seemed she had changed her mind and was open to asylum seekers, until they had a open q and a type forum, where she basically said the same stuff as at the start, but just now decided that those in the camps she visited should be allowed in because they are ‘real’ refugees, but boat people aren’t because she hadn’t experienced that. Basically if you take your own experience as the only possible narrative, your view is always going to be narrow.

LOL - so can a landlord evict a tenant legally was my question - as in has the legislation swung too far in favour of the tenant? The answer is that it is nearly impossible to evict a tenant - even in a 'crappy situation'. I do note that a correction was needed - but the tenant / landlord has become over legislated and too far in favour of the tenant.

And it was you that reduced the conversation - in which I believe I have openly and honestly answered a certain poster - to Evil Landlords and people wanting to steal indigenous Australians jobs.

The laws are there to protect the most vulnerable, which means it can be exploited by some. You obviously knew the answer to your question, you just feel like the landlord in the situation described (I presume it is you) has been screwed over, which they have. It’s not the norm though. The laws are not made for individual circumstances.

Anyway, clearly we have differing opinions so not going to keep arguing. This thread was about vilification, I didn’t raise landlords and indigenous positions, they were raised well before I joined so I am not sure how I reduced the conversation, but I won’t bother in the future.

I think the point being it’s become more prevalent and not one off’s or an outlier anymore.
At the end of the day I think the landlord should have slightly more rights as it’s their property.
It’s not hard to prove someone isn’t paying or doing damage. Conversely it shouldn’t be hard to prove a standard repair needs doing on the other side of the ledger.

I’m not sure you can use a land tax increase or increased costs (loan repayments) as a reason to raise rent under normal circumstances though. That’s a risk of being a landlord. Market forces determine market rent and I think it’s just coincidental rents have been able to be increased due to lack of supply, which in theory helps offset those expense increases.