making fun of property investor losers

Added: 2026-05-27

[00:00:00]If you've been anywhere on social media recently, you would have seen the absolute meltdown from all these property investor influences over the recent changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. We're here today to look at the damage, react to some videos, see them cry. Um, and I'm here with uh Chels from Houseu.

[00:00:19]>> Hi, thanks for having me. Let's um get out the little violins this afternoon.

[00:00:23]>> Yeah, the little uh what was the property investor? Uh before we get started, um just like to uh make everyone aware that there is going to be a demonstration against the demolition of public housing in Melbourne on the 30th of May, uh 11:00 a.m. at State Library. Um basically, we are protesting the state government's plan to get rid of 44 of Melbourne's high-rise public housing flats and replace them. We've been pretty busy organizing residents, organizing people to get down, to get organized, and tell the Labor government that we don't think we should be privatizing public housing in a housing crisis. Um, but speaking of housing crisis, and speaking of privatization, we're here today to um see the absolute um the absolute mess property investor Tik Tok and Instagram has been over the past week um with the changes. Um so, without further ado, maybe we'll start off with the the Jack Donnie, >> my bestie.

[00:01:21]There's a lot of people worried about the capital gains tax changes, negative gearing changes, and really just the overall tax landscape in Australia. But if I was a betting man, I'd like to bet that there is a very, very good chance that those changes either won't get in in their current form or if they do get in, >> I mean, the first thing he said, if I was a betting man, I'd bet. It's like you're actually inside of a casino where you've purchased houses that no matter what you do, whether you actually rent them out or they sit vacant, it'll pay out. It'll go cha-ching after you put in your slot money. So, this guy isn't even like in terms of like investing and taking risk. Obviously, we know that housing is the most unproductive investment you can make, but essentially it's just become a casino for the rich.

[00:02:15]And that's why house prices are so expensive is because guys like him who have bigger and bigger loans are just pushing up the prices as he hoards more and more houses. So yeah, continue. He's a betting man.

[00:02:26]>> He's a betting man.

[00:02:27]>> Both Angus Taylor, the leader of the coalition, and Pauline Hansen, leader of One Nation.

[00:02:32]>> Yeah, the Liberal Party. Oh no.

[00:02:35]>> Angus Taylor Liberal Party. I I'm I'm shaking in my boots. But the amount of stuff I have seen on social media from the Australian public objecting to these changes, there's a very very good chance >> what Australian people are objecting these changes. It's literally a small minority of rich people who are very wellresourced and funded and have >> the mom and pop landlords with 1 2 3 7 8 15 investment properties are objecting to these changes.

[00:03:04]>> Think of the little guy. But also it's like this is actually a minority of Australia. I'm pretty sure I mean they did polling it was like 70% of Australians were very happy with these changes going into effect. So the fact that he's now saying it's it's a majority that don't support them is just one obviously false, but two, I mean it's just freaking Murdoch press, dude.

[00:03:26]Like you're not saying anything original.

[00:03:29]>> You just poor the status quo remaining as corrupted and unfair as it is. Like great. the the times that like it has kind of flipped back and forth a bit uh where like a government would propose or implement a change to negative gearing or the capital gains tax. Um the pressure that they've received to flip it back hasn't been from the public.

[00:03:51]It's been from these dedicated lobby organizations like the property council or the hu UDIA or hi whatever, right?

[00:03:59]All these these nebulous shadowy lobby groups. um it's been the third of them uh launching a a big campaign, not like any kind of grassroots or or organic um opposition.

[00:04:13]>> And the big one that Labour's dug themselves a hole with on top of the capital gains tax changes are the potential taxes on trust distributions at a minimum of 30%. That's going to affect millions and millions of people majority of these.

[00:04:27]>> Oh, the trust. Think of the trust. We went on channel 7 news and he's like, "Oh, it doesn't even affect me because I own all my homes in corporations." It's like, "Buses shouldn't own residential property, mate. Like, you've just outed yourself as a corporate landlord." I don't think too many Aussies are going to be like, "Yeah, mate. You You got it.

[00:04:45]You got it right." Like, this is actually the way that we should be organizing society. Just one guy owns a bunch of houses and squeeze the workers tighter and tighter. I love that guy.

[00:04:55]Thank you, Jack. You're doing the service to the community.

[00:04:58]>> That's the thing about Jack, right? He I I almost appreciate him because he unabashedly without any kind of sanitizing or um you know trying to appeal to the general goodwill uh or like what's generally good for people.

[00:05:13]He just kind of presents the interests of property investors as they are. He doesn't sugar coat it. He doesn't try and make it sound like I mean he's trying a little bit here but when you hear him speak particularly like when he was on Seven with you he was like not at all trying or when he was on um like Punters right debating Richard he was not at all trying to appeal to what may be good for the public but merely what was good for like individual investors and if you weren't an individual investor well bad luck you should make better decisions like >> doesn't sound broken for you but do you think it could be broken for people other than you that that can't get into the market.

[00:05:51]>> Not really.

[00:05:52]>> So, I almost appreciate him just being like a, you know, the the representation of the brute the brutal cold interests of um of these of these capitalists.

[00:06:03]>> Totally. I mean, we can give it to him that at least honest, but >> he's honest.

[00:06:08]>> At least he's honest.

[00:06:10]>> But I mean, if you then like Yeah. go into his arguments a little bit further.

[00:06:14]Obviously, you heard it on Pun's politics like the supply argument was completely debunked and he was called out several times where he's like, "Oh, I don't drip feed supply." Uh, but maybe others do. It's like, we know they do.

[00:06:28]It's very >> That's the thing with Jack. He's He's like He's like Trump. You can tell when he's lying. Trump can't lie for [ __ ] And Jack is the same. He's not smart enough to lie. You can tell when he's like just saying something because I don't know, he thinks that in the in the moment it will sue him. You can tell when he's being earnest and like earnestly representing his his interests and whatnot when he's trying to cover for them like yeah with the supply stuff like he doesn't believe that [ __ ] like he he doesn't believe that like you can tell >> yeah when you got to look at what happened in New Zealand New Zealand changed negative gearing and only a few years later it changed back they've tried to change things in the past in Australia and only a few years after they've changed they've changed back >> I mean he's talking about the changes being reversed in 1985 and Adu you spoke to that before. It's like, yeah, because there was a concerted scare campaign and like it's our duty right now to not >> enable that scare campaign to win. Like, I mean, these changes don't even go far enough, but the like we're not going to be winding them back even further. Like, they need to go actually completely be abolished. We we don't need them.

[00:07:32]They're not good for society.

[00:07:35]>> Absolutely. there there is a there's an inkling of I guess truth to what he's saying in that um the reason why these campaigns which do which do originate from these you know very wealthy circles of lobby groups and whatnot they do resonate with people and the reason is because a majority of Australians are homeowners and so while a majority of Australians aren't investment property owners they do have an asset that is similar to an investment property that needs needs to appreciate in value um so they can pay off their mortgage or whatever, right? Or not be in in underwater or your asset value might grow and grow and grow and you'll have intergenerational wealth or whatever, right? But it is unsustainable for the vast majority of people even if they are homeowners. And so, um I guess that's our job to convince them of such. All right, maybe we'll leave Jack alone.

[00:08:25]>> Thank you, Jack.

[00:08:26]>> Oh, podcast. I love podcasts. They're so funny.

[00:08:28]>> They're great.

[00:08:29]>> I kind of want to do Big B podcast.

[00:08:31]>> Let's do it.

[00:08:33]No one is going to buy an investment property today. And what does it do to rentals? It means this. There's 2.3 million rental properties. They're going to keep getting negative gearing until they're sold. No one is selling those cuz the capital gains tax, that means the tax you pay on the profits you make for selling, that's now much less attractive. So, not only will I lose the negative gearing and not be able to get it back on the property I buy because it's now finished.

[00:08:57]>> Oh, no. People aren't going to sell and buy houses anymore because of a tax change. Oh yeah.

[00:09:04]>> What are we going to do?

[00:09:06]>> It's ridiculous. It's just vibes. It's vibes. It's not like, you know, I don't there's not really much to say. It's just it's just vibes. There's no there's no actual analysis.

[00:09:16]>> I mean, it's all just vibes, but also the vibes are actually very much in our favor because the houses will remain where they are with or without an investor or landlord. So, this is where organizing is going to really need to take off is like we need to just start moving into those houses. Like, yeah, you need a house, >> I know where some are and they are empty.

[00:09:40]>> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. No, that's the thing like like they're the interesting thing about the changes is that they've obviously kept negative gearing in the CGT discount for new builds and so they're obviously trying to funnel in investment to new builds.

[00:09:54]And while I think it should be just eliminated at like across the board, I think there is a conversation there to be had about why these investor guys, they they always talk about increasing supply, increasing supply. That's what we need to do. But but if you actually look at the market and what it's been doing for the past 30 odd years, it's just been recycling credit flowing into the same properties. Like if I'll flash up the graph now, but if you look at a graph of um purchases of existing stock versus purchasing of new stock after the 1990s, it flips. And now the vast majority of investment is an existing stock. It's just bidding up the price and exchanging and and re-exchanging and and bidding up the price over and over and over again of existing stock, not actually expanding the supply of housing. Whereas investment in new stock of housing is gone down. And why? Well, it's because we've given these these investors we've we've given them the game. We've given the game away. Like, look, we the the government back then was like, we think that if we let these investors make rational economic decisions, if we allow them to have access to a bunch of credit, if we allow them to have all these amazing tax concessions and whatnot, they will make rational decisions in the best interest of the economy. And what happened? We've just got the recycling of credit and debt and all this stuff and and bidding up the price of of existing stock and not investing in new stock. So when these guys are like saying, "Oh, no one's going to buy property. No one's going to do this." Great. Buy a new like if you want to actually increase the supply of housing, get a new build. Like that is what you are saying is important. The government is now in a very small way incentivizing that. Put your money where your mouth is. I don't know like like these guys winge about that about oh well if these properties are not going to be negatively geared anymore no one's going to buy them great buy a new build like that's that's the that's the dream I guess >> absolutely I mean 82% of investors are purchasing existing housing stock so it's like the numbers are clear but also I mean these guys go on and bang on about bloody supply like you haven't even been delivering it mate we've had 25 years of these tax breaks and we're in a housing crisis. So, where's your damn supply? We've been incentivizing you and you haven't been delivering. So, sorry, you don't get any money more of your kickbacks.

[00:12:16]>> I think the the broader lesson here is that we, you know, it's not trying to figure out a way to bargain with these investors to try and get them to funnel into a particular market because they're not going to they're going to throw fits and tantrums. The the answer is public investment in public housing. The the that's the answer, right? like housing is something that people need and so the the state at least in the very very short term this is a minimum demand the state should provide a significant portion of the housing market uh publicly >> so uh because you know why would an investor you know provide a a discounted affordable home when they can when they can not do that you know >> I mean the goals are completely in contradiction you can't have accessible housing for everybody while the private market is the keeper of housing accessibility because they don't actually want you to have a house. They want to make money on having a house that they've hoarded and you must pay a freaking out the wazoo price for access to this moldy apartment. So yeah, definitely public housing is where it's at and we are so far behind as a country.

[00:13:21]>> We're removing the capital gains discount so that housing becomes less attractive for investors. Great. So if that's the target then it's only going to be applied to housing, right? Uh no no. So, we're also removing the discount on shares, ETFs, cryptos, and any other investment assets pretty much.

[00:13:37]>> Wait, so you're making this change to try and decrease housing investment by also making it less attractive to invest in anything else?

[00:13:45]>> Get out of here.

[00:13:45]>> That literally makes no sense. And it's >> that's the thing like because because investment is so tied up in housing in Australia by if you change it for everything, it'll still disproportionately affect housing.

[00:13:57]Like that's that's the reality because so much investment is already in housing and so much investment will continue to be in housing because it is the bedrock of our economy. It it will disproportionately affect housing no matter what.

[00:14:09]>> Making it less attractive to invest in anything else.

[00:14:12]>> Yep. That literally makes no sense.

[00:14:15]>> And it's not supposed to make any sense because what they're not saying is that they just wanted to use this as a cash grab to fund all of their reckless spending. Well, even like it I think there's there's there's again there's an inkling of truth here where if we're expecting this to actually have a substantial like impact on affordability, it won't. And the treasurer's model modeling says that says as much, right? Like the RBA says as much, the treasurer says as much. It won't have a substantial impact on affordability.

[00:14:42]>> 2%.

[00:14:42]>> Everyone's saying that.

[00:14:43]>> Yeah.

[00:14:44]>> Yeah. Right. Like it's a 3% decrease in price growth. It'll still grow just by less, >> right?

[00:14:51]But I think the the point about uh inequity in terms of how people's incomes are made is much stronger than the argument that it will have a sign significant impact on house price growth. Because there's there's a problem in this country where income generated through capital, through investment, through asset holding is taxed differently and unfairly compared to income generated through labor, through wages, through a a typical salary.

[00:15:21]>> I agree. And also the point of taxes is to take back some of that money that's been literally stolen through wages because obviously there are big bosses who make a lot of money from the workers labor. We get a little scrap, a little penny and the point of taxing wealth such as this and these changes need to go further is to redistribute that money that we lost out because we didn't get paid a fair income. I'm so fine to not make heaps of money, but as long as my taxes are distributed in a meaningful way where I see public services, public housing, free education, free healthcare, like those are the things that I'm betting on. I want to live in a society where I can access that rather than literally exploit people by hoarding houses. Like, this is the cultural shift that has to happen. We don't want to be a society that is rewarding the hoarding of wealth at the expense of the majority of workers who are literally making this society go around. You know, like >> who's doing >> wage theft? Wage theft is the biggest form of theft uh in this country in the world. Um and that's not even that's that's illegal wage theft, right? We're not even talking about what you were speaking about how you know the work the work people do makes the world run and we are uh exploited for that work um and then now we're expected to pay exorbitant amount in rent or an exorbitant amount in an exorbitant mortgage that goes for well 60 years or whatever right um >> where else can't they squeeze us I mean >> yeah right yeah oh that was the other thing as well with the intergenerational inequality right just quickly um the there is a point that like it is unfair for young people that the old the old tax settings are grandfathered in. So that you know the older generations who are wealthier get to still use the the benefits where whereas you know after July 2027 or whatever it is now it's not the case. But then the the implication there isn't to then allow everyone to use the the uh the tax the favorable tax settings. The implication is to not grandfather it. It's the the implication is to like do it for everyone.

[00:17:34]>> Scrap it. Totally. Grandfathering isn't the solution.

[00:17:38]>> All I see this budget really doing is taxing people who have spent decades of their life, whether they're workers, investors, whatever, built wealth for themselves. They are now being penalized for that. I do not see how this budget is going to help young Australians enter the property market. And just to be clear, none of these changes have been leg. We don't want people to I don't think people should be This is a whole like the whole aspirational [ __ ] right? Like it's so pervasive still that and it's it's it it lays it's at the the base of the problem we have this idea that if you just give people a little leg up and you get them in the property market everything will be fine. They'll be able to build wealth and whatnot. But that that is the fundamental problem. So it's so investorrained. It doesn't actually have broader considerations about and and a broader longer term picture of what's actually happening here. It's also just Australia's cultural obsession with housing as an investment, which is the fundamental problem with this entire >> structure. If we want to be aspirational, shouldn't our aspiration that everybody has access to a house?

[00:18:42]Like that's where we should be going. If we're the country of the fair go, the fair go is that people have access to public homes and we don't have to fight over crumbs and climb up a ladder that no one can get up. It's it's this is a >> you I want a fair go at a 60-year mortgage. I believe picture of what's actually happening here.

[00:19:03]>> I know you love paying the banks. Also, just some commentary on like the winners and the losers. It's just like the winners and the losers of capitalism.

[00:19:11]The winners are the banks, the property investors, the people who make a lot of money from everything being expensive.

[00:19:18]And the losers still are us. Like, you can't tax your way out of capitalism. Like we don't like just even these changes are not even going far enough like the whole Anyway, we could do a whole video on the freaking communist thing that was >> I've done I've done many videos on such here's a 50-minute video on the CGT discount and uh why getting rid of it won't fix our housing problems if you want to subject yourself to such. Um >> is this >> this is great. This is the full clip.

[00:19:49]Sunrise did not put the full clip on their socials. They cut it up >> to continue the fearongering, but this is the actual interview and Cla O'Neal is interrupted by the reporter. Um, she's just trying to tell her point, which is it's grandfathered. It's still going to give you your tax break if you want to build a house for Australia. And I don't know what that reporter's name is, but she's just like, well, well, we've got a me messaging problem.

[00:20:17]>> Existing arrangements grandfathered, future arrangements, new homes only. And then if you if you've already negative geared and then you get to July next year, you can't continue to negative gear, can you? Now, you can continue to negative gear. Existing arrangements are grandfathered. That means if you are already negatively gearing your property, if you already owned your property before budget night, you can continue to negatively gear your property. So changes are being made in pro in a prospective manner. So that means that after budget night, if you want to negatively gear in the future, you can. But you've got to do it on a new property. Existing arrangements are grandfathered. Okay. We don't have a messaging problem here cuz Australia.

[00:20:59]>> You've got a messaging problem. I haven't got a literacy problem. It's your fault that I'm I'm [ __ ] stupid.

[00:21:04]>> I don't understand it.

[00:21:06]>> Yeah. Oh, maybe we don't have enough time for a get rich with ra unfortunately. Maybe probably you want to do the property of Harley one. Let's do that one.

[00:21:13]>> Oh, my fave.

[00:21:14]>> All right. Unless you've been living under a rock. The budget dropped last night and I'm going to give my two cents like every other job blow on the internet. Let's start off with negative gearing which is out the window for any new property investor looking to purchase an established property going forward. Essentially, if you buy an established property from to today's date onwards, you won't get any negative gearing benefits starting on the 1st of July 2027. That's when it kicks in. You will still get negative gearing if you go build a new property. But as you know, if you follow my page, they're not always my favorite investment. Now, there's no surprises that the changes to negative gearing was grandfathered. And that means if you already own an existing property, you can negative gear that property going forward, which isn't a shocker because the politicians that brought this budget in, I can promise you there's plenty of them that have investment properties and they currently negative them.

[00:21:58]>> It makes a good point.

[00:21:59]>> True.

[00:22:00]>> That is exactly why. Yeah, >> the politicians.

[00:22:05]>> Yeah, >> we we should be not grandfathering it because it should be applying to all investors, including the ones that have done it for the past, you know, 10, 20 years, like a lot of politicians like Albo.

[00:22:15]>> Like Albo, he grew up in public housing and now he's a householder himself.

[00:22:19]>> Yeah, I know, right?

[00:22:20]>> Also, again, just like we he started like it's the same with this Jack fellow, I think. Oh, no. The guy who has 180 houses.

[00:22:29]>> 80.

[00:22:30]>> Yeah, 80. He he celebrates that he grew up in public housing and it's like yeah dude >> that should be very normal and don't perpetuate now inequality through hoing houses.

[00:22:45]>> He could be a champion for public housing >> that there there could be so many actually maybe like you make a good point about public housing and whatnot and being a being a vital social safety net and blah blah blah, right? But think about it. Imagine how many more Eddie Delines we have to put up with if we actually had substantial public housing.

[00:23:03]So maybe like maybe like the greater good is that we have le less Eddie Delans and less public housing. Like maybe I don't know like it's a hard one to it's a hard one to like think about.

[00:23:14]>> I guess I guess we'll have to Yeah. How many more hours can I really put up with if for sure affordable housing and abundant public housing is fantastic.

[00:23:24]Awesome. But like if I have to publish more [ __ ] Eddie Deans on my for you page maybe not. I don't know.

[00:23:31]Maybe maybe I'll settle for life in debt.

[00:23:33]>> But again, if if there was enough public housing, people wouldn't be investing their money in housing. It actually wouldn't be very lucrative because there would be actually a competitive option that's accessible to everybody that people want to live in.

[00:23:45]>> Competition.

[00:23:46]>> Yeah, you need we need competition in this market. We need some actual public housing.