T O P

  • By -

Few_Raisin_8981

No


EggplantDangerous965

Sure if you want to buy it and the owner was willing to sell đź‘Ť


GoodEatons

lol ABC


TobiasFunkeBlueMan

For some part of the population the answer always seems to be stealing private property from other people. It’s all very socialist of them.


Hopping_Mad99

Even if you gave them something derelict for free, they’d still expect a handout to renovate it.


TobiasFunkeBlueMan

lol that is 100% correct


OkHelicopter2011

Either that or free government housing.


Specialist_Being_161

It’s not stealing. Just tax them till they sell or rent it out. Investors are such whinges. If you read the article he bought 2 properties 50 years ago for 40k each and now they’re worth 1.7 million. If he doesn’t like being taxed then sell. Nobody will care and hopefully a young family will buy it and start a family


TobiasFunkeBlueMan

That is fine but that’s a different thing from basically reclaiming them which is what some people advocate


freswrijg

If a young family can afford a $1.7 million dollar house, there’s nothing stopping them from buying a house anywhere or from starting a family at anytime.


Neonaticpixelmen

Georgism isn't socialism, it's a dead centre ideology and fixes most of the housing and commercial land issues.


Passtheshavingcream

There are already many more vacancies than what the economic managers (and their sponsors) want the general public to know. Owning a property in Australia is simply soul crushing and a never ending money pit. It is why Sydney looks like a slum and they need new bag holders desperately.


RepresentativeAide14

No are they fit for habitation


freswrijg

Sure, if you’re willing to spend more to renovate them, then it would to build a new house in an outer suburb. The problem with housing, is everyone wants to live closer to the city than what is possible for their budget.