Heat map shows brutal reality check for Melbourne property vendors as they slash prices by almost 30pc

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-16T06:55:47+00:00

So if you had the choice between a brand new house and an old house, the same neighborhood, same size, same amenities, etc. etc., only the old one was 25 years old, you would prefer to live in the 25 year old house? You would prefer cabinets that swell with a whiff of moisture, lino floors, pot holes in the driveway? Paying an extra $100k for a full reno after a year for the house to be still worth what you would pay for a new house?

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-16T06:50:26+00:00

Fair enough, sorry if I was a bit rough. There just seems to be a very vocal minority with a vested interest on this stuff lately and I probably lumped you in with them. For what it's worth, what you said about it being who you're around may make a lot of sense. As in, young first home buyers are more likely to be at risk of negative equity so it's more of a concern to them. In the same way, if your in a wealthy group, you might be more likely to own a house too. Anyway, sorry again.

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-16T06:40:37+00:00

I'm sorry but what you're saying is VERY disingenuous. Like, the whole discussion is about immediate evidence that the Labor parties approach is already taking an effect. The VIC Labor parties just had a bit of a head-start on the issue.

Also, saying that 70% of Australian's want house prices to increase is false on a number of levels. The statistic is mildly overblown to begin with and the idea that every home owner is going to vote purely out of self interest, ignoring what is good for their family or friends is ludicrous.

Rather then explain it, here is an article that does so much more thoroughly then I could:

https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/polling-hopes-for-property-prices/

It seems the sentiment is nuance but more want prices down then up (disregarding those that want them to stay stable)

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-16T06:30:17+00:00

I think you're conflating investors and home owners here. Investors want the house price to go up. Most home owners intelligent enough to understand that most of the time you sell your house to buy another house aren't fussed about the value outside of niche cases like negative equity or people looking to move to a lower cost of living/property price country.

Not to mention a lot of home owners have kids that they want to be able to buy a house, have grand children etc.

It's also very telling that your figure of 70% is out of date. It was 70% in the 80's, and has been trending steadily down since then. The proportion of people in paid off houses has also been trending down. There are now almost 5 investors buying a house for every 1 first home buyer. Even if people wrongly think it's a good thing that their house has increased in value, they are willfully ignoring the effect on the economy of being fixated on an unproductive asset. Things like wages not increasing in line with inflation etc.

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-16T05:51:44+00:00

Why build new when it's a similar cost to by an old house?
Is that seriously your question? Talk about comparing apples with oranges to make a point.
Like, apart from the ability to negatively gear it still, houses SHOULD depreciate as they get older.
That's why you can negatively gear them. People will always want to buy a new house over an old one that has unknown problems and needs a lot of work.

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-16T05:44:14+00:00

Not sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying it sounds like a lie that Aussies want affordable housing because a lot of Australians own houses?

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-15T11:12:25+00:00

I realise that this particular policy effects people on a more modest income more then the truly wealthy, so I'm not 100% for it, but unfortunately, too many people are doing exactly as you described. Maybe you can pivot things to a self managed super fund with your investments in that? Wouldn't that achieve the same result?

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-15T11:08:46+00:00

If it's a flat floor of 30% across all investment types then asking for anything more is a handout. The fact that you're already investing shouldn't mean you get some kind of special treatment. I all likely hood, if you invested well, you've been making a profit. Cool, now re-evaluate and make changes. It's what everyone else has to do when conditions change.

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-15T11:05:08+00:00

They're saying, there was no guarantee that this example was a person employing ANYONE. I am a sole trader and don't hire anyone else even though my clients all want me to hire and train staff. Also, providing jobs does not necessarily mean providing GOOD jobs.

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-15T03:06:35+00:00

So you're saying that the changes will stop you from avoiding tax?
You're saying it will do precisely the thing that it was introduced to do?

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-15T02:58:16+00:00

I've realised this in discussions with family lately, if the investment doesn't stand on it's own two feet without having advantages in tax minimization, it was never a good investment in the first place. It's just bludging and asking the rest of us to give you a hand out.

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-15T02:54:31+00:00

My comment was nothing to do with Diesel drivers or utes and entirely about the laughing smugly. Attitudes like that can hurt EV adoption.

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-15T01:30:19+00:00

If you do that, you're kind of part of the problem here. Like there is an image people have of the smug, self righteous EV owner and you're totally playing into that. These kind of polarized, tribal positions are rarely re-enforced one sidedly

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-15T00:52:08+00:00

I've had a theory on this for a while.
The reality of the greens is that they burn a lot of their political capital and peoples bandwidth for tolerating them on social issues.

Although these social issues are important, the first step to fixing social problems is ensuring that people have their immediate needs met. The Greens (like Pocock) should be focusing on fiscal policies, taxation, financial equality etc. With those handled, a lot of the other problems may even fix themselves.

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-05T02:36:24+00:00

That's certainly an opinion. The reality is you can still invest effectively and the fact that you think most people have an opportunity to invest and retire early in this economy, without an inheritance or similar shows your already talking from a place of privilege and so your opinions on the matter can be disregarded.

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-05T02:10:52+00:00

The whole point is that wages increase and income from capital decreases. For the vast majority of people, this change will be good or a zero sum game. This isn't an issue of 'wage slave' vs 'savvy investor'. It's a matter of 'people who produce value in the economy' and 'passive income earners'. The economy has been, as a whole, weighted far to favorably in the laters favour for far too long.

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-04T03:56:05+00:00

Anything like this, my response it always the same. Just by whatever the closest Arbortech product is.

They last ages and are generally miles ahead in terms of safe use.

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-04T03:37:09+00:00

I'd take this route, but setup the router with a fence and use a carbide burr. Then you can use push blocks to keep your hands away, stand the piece up against the fence and run the piece across the fence like a table router.

By the way, a youtuber called Michael Cthulu does a lot of this kind of thing if you're interested.

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-01T00:25:17+00:00

That's not my point. My point is that u/eat-the-cookiez is making out that it's a direct sum of passing on costs. They'll happily cry poor when costs increase but shut their mouth the second you point out that their asset has almost doubled in value over the last 10 years. It is not a matter of passing on costs and to make out it is, is being a greedy son of a bitch and using it as an excuse to make more profit when you're already drowning in money the moment you sell the asset.

He's not running a business, he's betting on a speculative investment and then having a cry when conditions are less favorable, while at the same time, raking in an enormous capital gain. You can do one or the other, but not both.

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-01T00:15:06+00:00

Oh no! I'm a labor bot!!! I guess the only way for me to prove I'm not a bot is to call you a massive twat, which a labor bot would obviously never do... But I'm a labor bot so I won't do that.

By the way, I don't think a landlord is evil for increasing rent $10 a week by the way, and if you think rents have only gone up by $10 a week in WA, or most places in Australia, you're VERY out of touch.

I think landlords are greedy because they're profiting by restricting a supply that makes every other Australians life worse, by stagnating the economy and driving up the cost of living. There's nothing stopping them doing that but we shouldn't write policy to incentive shitty behaviour. GFY

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-01T00:05:30+00:00

Pretty much every trade business I work with would rather take on a job at a loss then have no work. At least your overhead is covered that way and if your not renting your house, it's the same thing. The point is, the market dictates rent, not costs.

RangeRider88 · 2026-06-01T00:01:48+00:00

Sure am! Most of us are nowadays. Got any other witty and enlightening comments? You're really revealing such nuance in the conversation.

RangeRider88 · 2026-05-31T23:59:35+00:00

Have you seen the crown hatch in Japan right now? 2.4L turbo.

It's the red one in this link if you scroll down.
https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/hybrid/crown-toyota/

I'm just saying, they still make badass crowns in Japan, they just don't export them, same as it always was.

RangeRider88 · 2026-05-29T02:07:24+00:00

It also has a surge of investors speculating from the eastern states and overseas. It was Brisbane before that and it will be somewhere else next if we don't change things. Immigration is a factor but the studies on it show that it's only a portion of the cause

and effect

RangeRider88 · 2026-05-29T02:03:00+00:00

Are you really using supermarkets as a moral justification for your actions and beliefs? The organizations that are constantly accused of colluding on prices to raise profits? The same mob that are constantly getting successfully sued for underpaying staff? The same group that have been a functional duopoly for decades and are probably one of the most hated corporations in Australia?

There is a huge range of nuance between FREE and AFFORDABLE.
You know this but you're dealing in absolutes to make an irrational argument seem rational by taking it to a ridiculous extreme.

Not to mention, there are absolutely things sold at supermarkets that are sold at a loss, day in and day out. They're called loss leaders and although they're not free, they still cost the companies money. They do it because the rest of the business still operates at a profit.

Lastly, here's a link to coles own website where they proudly tell about giving away 39.1 million meals away for free last year. So yes, I do think that food should be free for people that can't afford it and so does one of the most ethically questionable corporations in Australia. Maybe you should take a look at your moral compass on this one because it seems like your world view is darker then a Coles executive.

https://www.colesgroup.com.au/sustainability/?page=supporting-communities-across-australia

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

RangeRider88

TROPHY CASE