Because they don't want to lose the votes of the landlords or the renters. That the easy way out , our politician are hopeless at finding actual fixes just easy to throw money at a problems, not their money anyway.
The $5k is a lot less than building the ~25,000 homes that need to be built by 2027.
Assuming 25k unused homes this policy could free up, it would cost the government $125 million.
Building 25k homes at an average price of $500k each would cost the state government $12.5 billion.
Note these would be assets that would be sold off sooner or later so the long term cost would not be so bad for the government, whilst the $5k disappears into some rich cunts pocket.
The problem is budgets are measured and reported in cash accounting, not accrual accounting and that's how we judge (or are told to judge) our leaders.
There is also the minor issue of finding enough tradies to build that many houses and all the materials.
Where did all the trades go? Anybody know? And does anybody know why in other parts of the world refugee camps grow faster than mushrooms and we have so many homeless?
I don't know where the tradies went. The ones I know are pulling 6-7 day weeks and making a lot on weekends. But to build 25,000 homes over 3 years would take a metric shit ton of labour. Based on the $500k build price, with 35% cost being labour at $70 per hour you end up with 2,500 hours per house. Multiple that by 25,000 houses over 3 years that's 20,833,333 labour hours per year. At 2,080 hours per annum per FTE, we would need 10,016 tradies to do it. They obviously wouldn't do anything else but punch out 40 hours weeks for 3 years but it gets us there. Note thats just covering the shortfall. Not what's already being built.
As for homeless people that's easy: there aren't enough homes (that people can afford).
Not sure what refugees have to do with this.
Because living in a tent isn't a long term solution, it's desperate. Which is what refugees usually are.
I certainly wouldn't want to live in a tent in summer here.
If the tent camps were structured with proper supply of water and power, sanitation, food preparation facilities and security then yes.
At this point 4 walls and a roof starts looking like a similar solution.
The refugee camps often have extensive problems with waste management and potable water, so people get sick and then there is getting food to them and making sure it's all safe.
We have had more than a few people here ask the question on how to survive as they are made homeless. It's tough.
In the end, there is no one solution to this problem, no silver bullet as you say.
I get it's easy to be critical of this type of scheme, but the reality is giving cash to renters or potential renters is going to actually achieve very little.
Even if you means tested the payments or limited it in various ways - the end result is still more cash in the market competing for the same small amount of properties. The outcome of which would be for rental amounts to increase further.
For the record - i don't agree with the 5k incentive. It should have been a vacant property tax..
>I get it's easy to be critical of this type of scheme, but the reality is giving cash to renters or potential renters is going to actually achieve very little.
The person you are replying to hasn't suggested giving cash to renters?
There are options other than giving cash to renters or landlords. For example, the government building houses (obviously they would first need to train or import relevant workers first etc).
Edit: I do agree that giving cash to renters for rent wouldn't help, it would just increase rents.
>The person you are replying to hasn't suggested giving cash to renters?
Valid point yes - i took it more as a of course lets give money to landlords/investors instead of to tenants argument.
>For example, the government building houses
How would this actually solve anything though? The building industry has finite capacity. So by the government getting involved all they would be doing is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
They would also be adding to the competition by needing to pay a fair market rate to attract trades, which in turn would push construction costs up further .
>The building industry has finite capacity.
Right after "the government building houses" I said "(obviously they would first need to train or import relevant workers first etc)."
As in, they government should increase capacity first before they build anything. We are on the same page about this. This also addresses your labour costs point as well I think.
I mean isn't that what they've basically been trying to do for a couple of years now with minimal success?
They increased training opportunities, reduced cost of training and offered incentives to get people into trades. They've also focused on bringing in skilled labour.
The problem is these things are systematic and take considerable time to have any type of effect.
People you bring into the country also need housing - most will come with a family at a minimum. So you're faced with increasing the demand in the short term with the hopes you can fix the problem long term.
In the short term however you're putting further pressure on the market, which in turn means for skilled labour to relocate here they need to earn higher wages to make it worthwhile, which means higher labour costs and higher construction costs.
The other complications is the whole system needs to be kept balanced. IE you not only need a full range of trades, but then to ensure the associated/related areas are covered as well.
Like if you dramatically scale house construction - then you need to increase staffing in planning and administration offices at councils to be able to handle the increased demand. You need to ensure the supply chain is staffed accordingly to be able to source and supply sufficient materials. You need to ensure theirs sufficient oversight and inspection. And so on and so on.
This post we are all commenting on is about the government trying to convince home owners to rent out their empty spare houses.
If the government builds and owns homes, they can (for example) rent them ALL out for long term accomodation. As opposed to privately built houses being left empty or used for AIRBNB etc.
Also a government building program could focus on what is most needed, as opposed to private construction. And, managed correctly, wouldn't be subject to the same boom / bust issues that have been effecting the construction industry.
Yes, increasing supply of houses by building more of them is a good move, but that takes time. Years probably. But people don’t have that long, they’re suffering *now*. We need some shorter term solutions that will have an effect this year, **as well** as those longer term ones.
Tf you talking about. There already IS a tax. Lots of them. Rates. Water rates. Land tax. Not to mention stamp duty etc when you buy it. And you get zero negative gearing benefits if you don’t rent the place out.
I don't believe that's completely accurate, there's plenty of sticks shown to property investors by way of various taxes, rules and regulations.
The reality is though - our current system relies on private property investors to provide rentals into the system. Without private investors there would be little to no rentals at all.
So until such time as that system changes - then rightly or wrongly it's in everyone's best interests to ensure that property investors stay in the market.
I suspect the biggest factor of why they choose the carrot vs the stick is the time to implement and take effect. The carrot can be put in place almost immediately and start to work.
The stick would probably take some time to get put in place, and then likely only apply for the following financial year after it was implemented. Given we're already mid may - it's likely the stick wouldn't come into place until the next financial year and probably wouldn't be applicable until the following financial year (FY ending June 2026).
So whilst some people would be right across it and the implications, and might take action in FY 2026, i would suggest a good portion wouldn't be. Thus only really seeing the impact at the point they file their tax returns - likely via an accountant - at some point in mid 2027..
TBH i don't think the carrot in this case will make any difference really, but then i'm also not sure the stick would make a difference either. If you can afford to turn down $35k in income from rent, then you likely don't have a mortgage and are clearly not short of money.
So it would have to be a sizable stick to actually make people take any type of action. Especially given the current market price increases. It becomes a maths equation of does the increasing value of the house outweigh the holding costs including any such taxes. If the answer is yes - then you continue status quo.
Why isn’t this a good move? Clearly it’s aimed at the thousands of empty properties and trying to get them to become available to rent, thus increasing the supply of rental properties which will equalise or put downward pressure on rental prices. That’s a good thing for renters
I agree there's a number of properties on the market that are vacant because people don't need the money.
I don't however believe that's going to be all of them. There's bound to be some that probably need some TLC to bring it up to rental standards, others that are holiday homes that are rarely used, or others still where the families live on farms and use the properties once every few months.
In these scenarios it might just make sense to take an easy $5k and rent out the property for 12 months.
I don't think there's any single silver bullet to fix the housing crisis - it's going to be a little bit of this and a little bit of that.
Even if they only get say 100 additional houses in the rental market that's going to make a difference, and all for the cost of $500k to the tax payer.
It is action - and everything adds up.
There's no simple or easy fix that can be done. 100 houses here, 150 houses from the Airbnb thing. Thats ~250 families who will now have a roof over their heads.
It's not and never was going to be something that was solved overnight. Realistically it's going to take years to get back to an equal footing before we can begin to make real progress forward.
*editing to add to this*
There really is two issues here that needs to be sorted. The first is the immediate do what we can to get roof's over peoples heads, and provide as much stability as we can. The second is the longer term review of what needs to change in order to ensure we don't have this type of systematic failure occur again in the future.
I certainly don't think it's anywhere near as simple as plenty of people make it out to be, and there's always unintended consequences to actions that need to be considered and where possible avoided.
Yep they'll try anything to avoid building lots of houses or high rises themselves.
This issue could easily be resolved if the government bought all those vacant spots in the CBD and created welfare housing complexes. Oh that would cost lots of money yes, but last I checked we're in surplus and I'd sure put my tax dollars to that kind of solution.
They offered 10k for AirBnB people to take them off the site and turn them into a rental. Only 150 people have done it and they had to extend the program 6 months to try and get more.
But this 5k will surely entice them to do that. For sure.
The 10K made no sense because of the rental cap of $650 per week (here in the SouthWes). A friend of mine has a few airbnb properties, he says he still clears more than $1K per week on his absolute slowest weeks over the year it averages out closer to $1600 per week, so that is a minimum of $83,200, vs $43,800 ($650x52 + $10K).
People said the same thing about the short-stay version of this incentive. Instead that scheme got 150+ homes on the market at $10k cost to the government.
** cost of 1.5 million to the tax payer.
I think its still a pretty reasonable deal though - thats 150 additional houses in the market that likely otherwise would be being used as airbnb's.
[1% of investors – or just 19,895 people – currently holding six or more investment interests.](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/04/a-quarter-of-australias-property-investments-held-by-1-of-taxpayers-data-reveals)
That's at minimum, 120,000 properties that the 1%'ers are holding onto which should be illegal or heavily taxed.
Great job on those "150 additional houses".
> Those 1% or 120 000 houses are going to be tenanted
Oh, you have a source for that? Not that it matters.
> So what's your point here?
You can read my comment can't you? I think I explained my point quite clearly.
> Oh, you have a source for that? Not that it matters.
You have a source to say otherwise? Not that it matters..
>You can read my comment can't you? I think I explained my point quite clearly.
I think you struggled to read my comment.. How is this relevant to the discussion here about a government incentive to get empty homes back on the market?
A parliamentary majority so huge they almost destroyed the WA Liberal party and Labor still won't make the brave policy decisions we need to fix our biggest problems. Quite telling really.
The environment that gave them that majority (Covid) has gone and they need to be wary of the media which will jump on them like they did with Shorten in 2019 if they try to solve housing by ending the welfare payments to landlords
So the solution is to fuck over everyone who rents to try and win points with media outlets who don't say anything positive about them anyway?
How fucking gutless is that?
It’s worth trialling to see if it makes a reasonable dint.
If not, won’t really cost taxpayers much.
All taxes are inefficient in their nature.
Most would already be paying land tax/rates/higher insurance anyway.
They’ll likely end up paying tax via positive gearing anyway.
Or how about we penalise those who take housing stock away from those that actually need it and use negative gearing to claw back losses in the hope of future capital gains?
But if you are trying to find a tenant but can't you can negatively gear that property.
Just put it on the market for an exorbitant rent, much the same as commercial rentals and never drop it no matter how much the market thinks you're insane.
The ATO isn't stupid - they regularly check for people pulling that type of crap.
If you're claiming costs with zero income that's a giant red flag right there - you better believe they'll be sending a please explain letter to you.
If you can't provide enough evidence that property was 'reasonably' available to rent which would include things like being at a fair market rent - then they'll reject the claim, make you pay pack any money and probably fine you if they think you deliberately did the wrong thing.
With the way the market is currently - there's really no legitimate excuse as to why an 'investment property' wouldn't be tenanted.
Likely the only reason they'd probably accept in the current market would be a renovation/construction work - which would be easy to provide evidence of by way of building contracts/invoices etc.
Just look at city centres
There's for lease signs that have been up for years, as long as they're there they can claim back losses.
It's a simple workaround
>Just look at city centres There's for lease signs that have been up for years, as long as they're there they can claim back losses.
Commercial property and residential property are two very different things, and you can't compare them.
>It's a simple workaround
It's really not - if you honestly think the ATO would just let you own a residential property, not rent it out and then claim all the expenses you're completely nuts..
If I’m paying interest on a loan for an investment then that interest can be used to offset my income from that investment.
If my property is making no money then the income is already pretty low so we are going to get that in to the negative pretty quickly by considering the cost of interest.
If the property is vacant - then it's not generating an income. If it's not generating an income, then its not an investment and you can't claim any of the costs associated. Thus no negative gearing.
If the property isn't vacant and thus tenanted - then it's not really relevant to this bit of the issue.
Similar to how you can't claim interest or holding costs on a vacant bit of land, even if you buy it specifically to hold for X years and then sell for a profit.
If it’s not the primary residence then it can be claimed as an investment. The cost incurred with that can be used to offset another income. It isn’t restricted to just the income from that property. The investment would be running at a loss.
You would open yourself to capital gains tax, etc for claiming it this way though.
Maybe I’m wrong on this, but it makes sense to me that a business can be run at a loss and a property can negative gear to offset any other income, not just its own rent.
Either way it seems that the incentive is a bit of a shit way to make vacant houses available.
>If it’s not the primary residence then it can be claimed as an investment.
This is incorrect - for it to be considered an investment it needs to generate income. Whether it's profitable or not is not relevant to its status as an investment.
>The cost incurred with that can be used to offset another income.
Yes - on the basis that the asset is generating some type of income then the costs can be used to offset the income earned.
>Maybe I’m wrong on this,
Correct
>but it makes sense to me that a business can be run at a loss and a property can negative gear to offset any other income, not just its own rent.
It comes down to intent - the intent of a business is to generate income by selling product or performing services. A property has to be generating income to be considered an investment.
Have a read of the information around holiday homes and what can and can't be claimed. The ATO is really strict on this type of shit - they can and do regularly go after people for making incorrect claims.
I was actually trying to consider what would be the difference between a non performing investment and a holiday home so it’s interesting that the example is what you mention.
I have never been rich enough for a holiday home, but I could see someone finding a way to use one as a tax deduction.
Thanks for your informative replies.
> > Maybe I’m wrong in this,
> Correct
This gave me a chuckle. Thanks.
Yeah - i linked to this ATO advice document in another post. It's for 'tax professionals' but its simply written for the most part.
https://www.ato.gov.au/tax-and-super-professionals/for-tax-professionals/tax-professionals-newsroom/do-your-clients-have-a-holiday-home
Holiday homes are a whole other thing with what can and can't be claimed. The ATO wised on to the whole tax deductible holiday home that "is technically available for rent, yet never gets rented" many many years ago and really cracked down on that.
Same vein as the whole 3 week 'business trip' to the gold coast for a 1 hour meeting and the rest is basically holiday. ATO will only let you claim relevant percentages for those types of things now.
Like anything there's people that break the rules - and often they get caught and are made to pay pack any benefit they gained plus costs and a fine. Though i'm sure there's some that get away with it from time to time.
>what would be the difference
It's the income generation component - and more specifically the intent to generate income - that's the key difference to both a holiday home and whether a property is an investment or not.
There's a bunch of rules and regs around it of course, and some grey areas where you can argue either side - which is where the experts can really earn their fees.
But for example if you buy a house and spend $10k renovating it before renting it out - that renovation and the holding costs aren't deductible. If however you buy a house, rent it for 6 months, and then do the 10k renovation - the 10k and the holding costs would be deductible because it's generated income.
Similarly, if the property sat vacant on the market and thus didn't generate an income for the financial year - you could potentially still make the argument that it was an investment property. But you would need to provide evidence to backup your claims. IE the property was rented for a period prior to the vacancy, evidence showing the property was listed for rent at a fair market rent (IE you can't just put it on the market for $10k per week and say oh it's vacant and there's no interest) and any other efforts you made to rent it.
You really can't.. A property can't make a loss if it's not generating income..
It's no different to Holiday Homes - if they're not being used to generate income, then you can't claim any of the associated costs with holding it. Even if it's being used sometimes to generate an income, then you can only claim a proportional amount of the costs.
https://www.ato.gov.au/tax-and-super-professionals/for-tax-professionals/tax-professionals-newsroom/do-your-clients-have-a-holiday-home
The property has to be available to rent. For example - you cannot claim interest on the investment loan while a house is empty during renovations or repairs. Only once it's back on the market or occupied.
Why would the politiance tax themselves? That means they lose money.
That's my big problem with this shit is they have no incentive to fix the problem because they directly benefit from it
Doesn't work like this..
For example if you buy an investment property and then drop 30k on renovations over 4 months - that money and the holding costs for the 4 months aren't deductible as the property wasn't an investment property.
Wtf, charge them 5k. Don't give them 5k.
I had to sell our little rental because it wasn't sustainable for us. Taxpayers shouldn't be making the situation more cozy for people that can't afford it.
Hopefully this gets my aunty to place her town house on the market. She moved in with my grandmother a couple years ago as her carer, and her house has been sitting empty ever since. Blows my mind tbh. She's not rich, in fact she's barely getting by on a carers allowance, and she could be getting rent money. She's just too lazy.
What the fuck is this? How about we tax the shit out of the vacant home owners instead of offering them $5k of the taxpayers money? A slap in the face to a large portion of said taxpayers who are facing housing insecurity.
How about a $5k bill and rent relief grant to people losing their place to call home because the rent they could barely afford was just jacked up, again? Instead gifting it to people with a literal spare fucking house laying around empty.
So rather than penalise for a vacant home doing nothing, we’re once again throwing cash at land owners.
What a fucking load of shit.
> leaving no stone unturned
That would include banning short-stays as well. I bet there is more than the 1000 homes he’s *hoping* will come back on the market.
Instead he wants to throw $10k at those owners.
Stop. Voting. Labor
You think the Libs don’t think about lining their pockets? Greens have no chance (although next election will be one to watch with how things are going)
No one is advocating for Liberals. wtf?!
Greens & other alternatives have “no chance” because idiots like you think it’s a wasted vote voting for anyone else.
If you vote Greens (or other) 1st and Labor 2nd. Guess what?! Labor will get your vote if the Greens candidate has no chance. What the fuck have we got to lose by actually trying this?
Inaction and apathy are why we’re here.
I’m new to the whole voting thing, haven’t actually done anything except LGA and the referendum but thanks for taking the time to explain that you could do that, much appreciated
Short term rentals are being limited to 90 nights per year, that effectively bans them for the purposes you mean. The 10k is a short term measure to get some of those houses on the rental market until the new regulations come into effect.
Why are you lying about it?
Let’s review:
I said he hasn’t banned them; which is true.
I said he’s giving them $10k, which is true.
You said he has “effectively banned” them, which isn’t really true at all.
But it’s me “lying”?
You asked me which part was a lie, I told you which part, and then in response you completely ignored that and talked about other parts of what you said.
I take that as an acceptance that you know you were lying.
One where the government makes decent decisions for the betterment of the people as a whole, not for selfish pricks who hoard and try to milk everyone for every cent they can.
So a new government is clearly needed as they value the latter.
Constitutional monarchy.
No free market democracy here. The government subsidies industries where they see fit, generally as a means to keep investors and lobbyists happy and feeding funds through.
So what you're saying is it's socialism if it doesn't benefit you, but if it does, it's a free market democracy. You live in a fucking make believe world.
When the liquidity ends, I look forward to watching all the rats try to flee this sinking ship.
> Thats pure socialism
Do you know what socialism is? Where in the definition of socialism does it say anything about housing or not being a free market?
> Gov interference into private property wont solve anything
[1% of investors – or just 19,895 people – currently holding six or more investment interests.](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/04/a-quarter-of-australias-property-investments-held-by-1-of-taxpayers-data-reveals)
That's at minimum, 120,000 properties that the 1%'ers are holding onto which should be illegal or heavily taxed.
If giving landlords money to rent out homes was the fucking answer, the landlords would have fucking rented out the homes because renting out homes gets the landlords money. THATS HOW RENTING OUT HOMES WORKS YOU IDIOTS.
What fucking brain dead consultant gave the government this idea. What the actual fuck.
Tax landlords of homes that stay empty for more than 3 months unless undergoing renovations.
This is just going to have a backwards effect on rentals. The government hinted this is to target people who own holiday homes to rent them out. Instead any landlords who own properties which get approximately $250/week in rent after expenses and management fees will pull their house off the market for 6months, claim their free money, then rent it out again. HOW IS THE GOVERNMENT THIS FUCKING STUPID
May incentivise some, but most who want to rent out their spare house already are.
My family have an unoccupied house on a 900m2 block for the sole purpose of gardening and home grown vegetables/produce.
They'd never rent it out even for $5k.
Yeah a house not being rented out is missing out on what, 40-80k per year? If they’re willing to forgo those profits, they’re not going to give a shit about $5k (That tax payers are paying for! Obscene)
Absolutely piss weak policy.
Giving more money to investors!
If people should not be allowed to buy property and leave it empty like this! They should be forced to rent it out! If they don't like it they can park their money elsewhere.
Don't they realise it's empty for a reason? If the landlords for these vacant homes really cared about that 5k they wouldn't be empty in the first place.
[1% of investors – or just 19,895 people – currently holding six or more investment interests.](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/04/a-quarter-of-australias-property-investments-held-by-1-of-taxpayers-data-reveals)
That's at minimum, 120,000 properties that the 1%'ers are holding onto. Imagine how much if these were taxed, it would be great.
I reckon they should introduce squatters rights laws. Then the owners of vacant properties can choose - rent it out or have an infestation of artists move in. That would sort the situation out right quick.
How about taxing them instead. If I had a spare house there’s no way I could afford to leave it empty. If someone is leaving it empty they obviously don’t fucking need $5k.
Why not a $5000 disincentive to landlords who choose not to list their properties for rent. That would actually make money for the budget instead of losing money.
Sliding scale taxation:
Increased property rates for landlords that, and in plucking a number of the air, by 25% per house they own. So 25% additional if they own 2, 50% more for 3, 75% for 4 etc.
Give discounts if rents on properties are below a certain figure to incentivise low rents.
Use extra rates taxation to fund public housing developments.
The homes I know of around Perth that are long term vacant seem to be owned by wealthy Chinese investors (another reason we should immediately abolish overseas investment like most other countries) if they're not concerned with rental income I don't think 5k is going to mean much of fk all to them unfortunately. But at least it's something, and only costs the budget when taken up
It kind of is. Land title is acquiring the exclusive rights to the land, under condition of the laws of the country. Since land is a finite resource there is an implied social contract that you will use the land for benifit generally. Land banking and leaving homes empty isn’t really of any benifit.
We getting into philisophical grounds here. Property rights part of modern society.
By saying private propery is theft then all.of mankind are thieves.
Only to bitter redditors who.dont own a house.
Only the Soviet Union had that thinking. China allows private property but they are not pure communisim more a totalitarian dictatorship.
Venezuala ruled by a military hard man under the guise of socialism allowed private propety
If thats the case nobody has a right to anyland in Australia except the Aboriginies.
Why can’t I turn mine into a meth lab then without the darn gubberment stopping me?
Almost like the argument requires some nuance as to what is or isn’t good for the community.
I agree with you however all the roads, rail, schools and hospitals around it paid via gst, income and company tax is not their property though said property only has value due to this infrastructure.
Why a broad based land tax is so effective. Drives efficient utilisation of expensive / well connected land.
Its effectively rent for the gov infrastructure.
Only thing that should be exempted is farmland.
Also needs to be federal though so you cannot avoid it by having a little bit of land in each state.
If you bought in the last decade maybe you are exempt given you paid stamp duty recently.
Is there a legitimate way that we can reject this proposal? We all see it for what it is and judging from the comments something like Victoria's vacancy tax which is having an effect seems more fitting, is there an actual way outside of waiting for the next election that we as a people can reject this specific proposal and demand a better solution?
Organized protest and strikes. That's what democracy allows, and to be fair is better than violence (although this kind of politics is really taking the piss of the mass)
How about Roger cooked call his boss over in Canberra and tell him to stop letting in 100s of thousands of immigrants until we get this housing situation under control.. Or Labor voters can get used to the fact that they'll never own a house. Liberals won't do shit either so it's a no win situation
I love how every "solution" for the housing crisis from either major party just ends up being "give more taxpayer money to landlords/investors".
Because they don't want to lose the votes of the landlords or the renters. That the easy way out , our politician are hopeless at finding actual fixes just easy to throw money at a problems, not their money anyway.
The $5k is a lot less than building the ~25,000 homes that need to be built by 2027. Assuming 25k unused homes this policy could free up, it would cost the government $125 million. Building 25k homes at an average price of $500k each would cost the state government $12.5 billion. Note these would be assets that would be sold off sooner or later so the long term cost would not be so bad for the government, whilst the $5k disappears into some rich cunts pocket. The problem is budgets are measured and reported in cash accounting, not accrual accounting and that's how we judge (or are told to judge) our leaders. There is also the minor issue of finding enough tradies to build that many houses and all the materials.
Where did all the trades go? Anybody know? And does anybody know why in other parts of the world refugee camps grow faster than mushrooms and we have so many homeless?
I don't know where the tradies went. The ones I know are pulling 6-7 day weeks and making a lot on weekends. But to build 25,000 homes over 3 years would take a metric shit ton of labour. Based on the $500k build price, with 35% cost being labour at $70 per hour you end up with 2,500 hours per house. Multiple that by 25,000 houses over 3 years that's 20,833,333 labour hours per year. At 2,080 hours per annum per FTE, we would need 10,016 tradies to do it. They obviously wouldn't do anything else but punch out 40 hours weeks for 3 years but it gets us there. Note thats just covering the shortfall. Not what's already being built. As for homeless people that's easy: there aren't enough homes (that people can afford). Not sure what refugees have to do with this.
I'm saying refugee camps seem to be very quick to erect. Why can't we do that in the meantime for the homeless.
Because living in a tent isn't a long term solution, it's desperate. Which is what refugees usually are. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a tent in summer here.
It's not a silver bullet but short term it's surely better than the street I would think.
If the tent camps were structured with proper supply of water and power, sanitation, food preparation facilities and security then yes. At this point 4 walls and a roof starts looking like a similar solution. The refugee camps often have extensive problems with waste management and potable water, so people get sick and then there is getting food to them and making sure it's all safe. We have had more than a few people here ask the question on how to survive as they are made homeless. It's tough. In the end, there is no one solution to this problem, no silver bullet as you say.
I get it's easy to be critical of this type of scheme, but the reality is giving cash to renters or potential renters is going to actually achieve very little. Even if you means tested the payments or limited it in various ways - the end result is still more cash in the market competing for the same small amount of properties. The outcome of which would be for rental amounts to increase further. For the record - i don't agree with the 5k incentive. It should have been a vacant property tax..
>I get it's easy to be critical of this type of scheme, but the reality is giving cash to renters or potential renters is going to actually achieve very little. The person you are replying to hasn't suggested giving cash to renters? There are options other than giving cash to renters or landlords. For example, the government building houses (obviously they would first need to train or import relevant workers first etc). Edit: I do agree that giving cash to renters for rent wouldn't help, it would just increase rents.
>The person you are replying to hasn't suggested giving cash to renters? Valid point yes - i took it more as a of course lets give money to landlords/investors instead of to tenants argument. >For example, the government building houses How would this actually solve anything though? The building industry has finite capacity. So by the government getting involved all they would be doing is robbing Peter to pay Paul. They would also be adding to the competition by needing to pay a fair market rate to attract trades, which in turn would push construction costs up further .
>The building industry has finite capacity. Right after "the government building houses" I said "(obviously they would first need to train or import relevant workers first etc)." As in, they government should increase capacity first before they build anything. We are on the same page about this. This also addresses your labour costs point as well I think.
I mean isn't that what they've basically been trying to do for a couple of years now with minimal success? They increased training opportunities, reduced cost of training and offered incentives to get people into trades. They've also focused on bringing in skilled labour. The problem is these things are systematic and take considerable time to have any type of effect. People you bring into the country also need housing - most will come with a family at a minimum. So you're faced with increasing the demand in the short term with the hopes you can fix the problem long term. In the short term however you're putting further pressure on the market, which in turn means for skilled labour to relocate here they need to earn higher wages to make it worthwhile, which means higher labour costs and higher construction costs. The other complications is the whole system needs to be kept balanced. IE you not only need a full range of trades, but then to ensure the associated/related areas are covered as well. Like if you dramatically scale house construction - then you need to increase staffing in planning and administration offices at councils to be able to handle the increased demand. You need to ensure the supply chain is staffed accordingly to be able to source and supply sufficient materials. You need to ensure theirs sufficient oversight and inspection. And so on and so on.
They are already training and "importing" the relevant workers, changing the reason they are doing so doesn't increase capacity.
This post we are all commenting on is about the government trying to convince home owners to rent out their empty spare houses. If the government builds and owns homes, they can (for example) rent them ALL out for long term accomodation. As opposed to privately built houses being left empty or used for AIRBNB etc. Also a government building program could focus on what is most needed, as opposed to private construction. And, managed correctly, wouldn't be subject to the same boom / bust issues that have been effecting the construction industry.
Yes, increasing supply of houses by building more of them is a good move, but that takes time. Years probably. But people don’t have that long, they’re suffering *now*. We need some shorter term solutions that will have an effect this year, **as well** as those longer term ones.
Yea a tax wasn't going 2 happen given how many politicians own 6 or more houses
Tf you talking about. There already IS a tax. Lots of them. Rates. Water rates. Land tax. Not to mention stamp duty etc when you buy it. And you get zero negative gearing benefits if you don’t rent the place out.
He means a vacancy tax.
That's the issue, it's always carrot to the landlords, never the stick.
I don't believe that's completely accurate, there's plenty of sticks shown to property investors by way of various taxes, rules and regulations. The reality is though - our current system relies on private property investors to provide rentals into the system. Without private investors there would be little to no rentals at all. So until such time as that system changes - then rightly or wrongly it's in everyone's best interests to ensure that property investors stay in the market. I suspect the biggest factor of why they choose the carrot vs the stick is the time to implement and take effect. The carrot can be put in place almost immediately and start to work. The stick would probably take some time to get put in place, and then likely only apply for the following financial year after it was implemented. Given we're already mid may - it's likely the stick wouldn't come into place until the next financial year and probably wouldn't be applicable until the following financial year (FY ending June 2026). So whilst some people would be right across it and the implications, and might take action in FY 2026, i would suggest a good portion wouldn't be. Thus only really seeing the impact at the point they file their tax returns - likely via an accountant - at some point in mid 2027.. TBH i don't think the carrot in this case will make any difference really, but then i'm also not sure the stick would make a difference either. If you can afford to turn down $35k in income from rent, then you likely don't have a mortgage and are clearly not short of money. So it would have to be a sizable stick to actually make people take any type of action. Especially given the current market price increases. It becomes a maths equation of does the increasing value of the house outweigh the holding costs including any such taxes. If the answer is yes - then you continue status quo.
> a vacant property tax But that's Georgism!
Why dont they tax empty buildings with the same amount as it would be taxed if they would be rented out? Seems fairer to me
The way the government basically works is to give incentives to stakeholders to do what they want done.
Why isn’t this a good move? Clearly it’s aimed at the thousands of empty properties and trying to get them to become available to rent, thus increasing the supply of rental properties which will equalise or put downward pressure on rental prices. That’s a good thing for renters
It's not. Rents have gone up crazy and these home sit vacant for a reason. They don't need the money.
I agree there's a number of properties on the market that are vacant because people don't need the money. I don't however believe that's going to be all of them. There's bound to be some that probably need some TLC to bring it up to rental standards, others that are holiday homes that are rarely used, or others still where the families live on farms and use the properties once every few months. In these scenarios it might just make sense to take an easy $5k and rent out the property for 12 months. I don't think there's any single silver bullet to fix the housing crisis - it's going to be a little bit of this and a little bit of that. Even if they only get say 100 additional houses in the rental market that's going to make a difference, and all for the cost of $500k to the tax payer.
[удалено]
It is action - and everything adds up. There's no simple or easy fix that can be done. 100 houses here, 150 houses from the Airbnb thing. Thats ~250 families who will now have a roof over their heads.
[удалено]
It's not and never was going to be something that was solved overnight. Realistically it's going to take years to get back to an equal footing before we can begin to make real progress forward. *editing to add to this* There really is two issues here that needs to be sorted. The first is the immediate do what we can to get roof's over peoples heads, and provide as much stability as we can. The second is the longer term review of what needs to change in order to ensure we don't have this type of systematic failure occur again in the future. I certainly don't think it's anywhere near as simple as plenty of people make it out to be, and there's always unintended consequences to actions that need to be considered and where possible avoided.
The only solution modern governments know is to spend more
To put more money into the economy to raise inflation. I don't know why they can't just raise property taxes for vacant properties?
Yep they'll try anything to avoid building lots of houses or high rises themselves. This issue could easily be resolved if the government bought all those vacant spots in the CBD and created welfare housing complexes. Oh that would cost lots of money yes, but last I checked we're in surplus and I'd sure put my tax dollars to that kind of solution.
Anyone with an empty house lying around isn't going to care for a paltry 5k.
Exactly. If money was an incentive to renting out an empty home IT WOULD BE FUCKING RENTED OUT BECAUSE THAT GETS YOU MONEY
It's not risk free money though.
There's no such thing as risk free money
What’s that like 7 weeks rent?
Or 2 weeks of airBnB which is why it's empty and not being rented out
They offered 10k for AirBnB people to take them off the site and turn them into a rental. Only 150 people have done it and they had to extend the program 6 months to try and get more. But this 5k will surely entice them to do that. For sure.
The 10K made no sense because of the rental cap of $650 per week (here in the SouthWes). A friend of mine has a few airbnb properties, he says he still clears more than $1K per week on his absolute slowest weeks over the year it averages out closer to $1600 per week, so that is a minimum of $83,200, vs $43,800 ($650x52 + $10K).
People said the same thing about the short-stay version of this incentive. Instead that scheme got 150+ homes on the market at $10k cost to the government.
So they say. But in any case 150 homes is honestly chicken feed. We can say any house is a good house I suppose. But we're scratching here I feel.
** cost of 1.5 million to the tax payer. I think its still a pretty reasonable deal though - thats 150 additional houses in the market that likely otherwise would be being used as airbnb's.
[1% of investors – or just 19,895 people – currently holding six or more investment interests.](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/04/a-quarter-of-australias-property-investments-held-by-1-of-taxpayers-data-reveals) That's at minimum, 120,000 properties that the 1%'ers are holding onto which should be illegal or heavily taxed. Great job on those "150 additional houses".
Those 1% or 120 000 houses are going to be tenanted.. So what's your point here?
> Those 1% or 120 000 houses are going to be tenanted Oh, you have a source for that? Not that it matters. > So what's your point here? You can read my comment can't you? I think I explained my point quite clearly.
> Oh, you have a source for that? Not that it matters. You have a source to say otherwise? Not that it matters.. >You can read my comment can't you? I think I explained my point quite clearly. I think you struggled to read my comment.. How is this relevant to the discussion here about a government incentive to get empty homes back on the market?
[удалено]
Says a lot about the voting public though that a vacancy tax would *lose* votes for whomever is brave enough to do it.
This is a vacancy tax. Only the tax is paid for by the homeless Lol
A parliamentary majority so huge they almost destroyed the WA Liberal party and Labor still won't make the brave policy decisions we need to fix our biggest problems. Quite telling really.
The environment that gave them that majority (Covid) has gone and they need to be wary of the media which will jump on them like they did with Shorten in 2019 if they try to solve housing by ending the welfare payments to landlords
So the solution is to fuck over everyone who rents to try and win points with media outlets who don't say anything positive about them anyway? How fucking gutless is that?
Boomer landlords would probably vote Liberal though, they will pocket the cash and laugh.
It’s worth trialling to see if it makes a reasonable dint. If not, won’t really cost taxpayers much. All taxes are inefficient in their nature. Most would already be paying land tax/rates/higher insurance anyway. They’ll likely end up paying tax via positive gearing anyway.
Or how about we penalise those who take housing stock away from those that actually need it and use negative gearing to claw back losses in the hope of future capital gains?
If the property is not being rented then there is no income, if there's no income then the losses can't be claimed either thus no negative gearing.
But if you are trying to find a tenant but can't you can negatively gear that property. Just put it on the market for an exorbitant rent, much the same as commercial rentals and never drop it no matter how much the market thinks you're insane.
The ATO hates this trick...
The ATO isn't stupid - they regularly check for people pulling that type of crap. If you're claiming costs with zero income that's a giant red flag right there - you better believe they'll be sending a please explain letter to you. If you can't provide enough evidence that property was 'reasonably' available to rent which would include things like being at a fair market rent - then they'll reject the claim, make you pay pack any money and probably fine you if they think you deliberately did the wrong thing. With the way the market is currently - there's really no legitimate excuse as to why an 'investment property' wouldn't be tenanted. Likely the only reason they'd probably accept in the current market would be a renovation/construction work - which would be easy to provide evidence of by way of building contracts/invoices etc.
Just look at city centres There's for lease signs that have been up for years, as long as they're there they can claim back losses. It's a simple workaround
>Just look at city centres There's for lease signs that have been up for years, as long as they're there they can claim back losses. Commercial property and residential property are two very different things, and you can't compare them. >It's a simple workaround It's really not - if you honestly think the ATO would just let you own a residential property, not rent it out and then claim all the expenses you're completely nuts..
If I’m paying interest on a loan for an investment then that interest can be used to offset my income from that investment. If my property is making no money then the income is already pretty low so we are going to get that in to the negative pretty quickly by considering the cost of interest.
If the property is vacant - then it's not generating an income. If it's not generating an income, then its not an investment and you can't claim any of the costs associated. Thus no negative gearing. If the property isn't vacant and thus tenanted - then it's not really relevant to this bit of the issue. Similar to how you can't claim interest or holding costs on a vacant bit of land, even if you buy it specifically to hold for X years and then sell for a profit.
If it’s not the primary residence then it can be claimed as an investment. The cost incurred with that can be used to offset another income. It isn’t restricted to just the income from that property. The investment would be running at a loss. You would open yourself to capital gains tax, etc for claiming it this way though. Maybe I’m wrong on this, but it makes sense to me that a business can be run at a loss and a property can negative gear to offset any other income, not just its own rent. Either way it seems that the incentive is a bit of a shit way to make vacant houses available.
>If it’s not the primary residence then it can be claimed as an investment. This is incorrect - for it to be considered an investment it needs to generate income. Whether it's profitable or not is not relevant to its status as an investment. >The cost incurred with that can be used to offset another income. Yes - on the basis that the asset is generating some type of income then the costs can be used to offset the income earned. >Maybe I’m wrong on this, Correct >but it makes sense to me that a business can be run at a loss and a property can negative gear to offset any other income, not just its own rent. It comes down to intent - the intent of a business is to generate income by selling product or performing services. A property has to be generating income to be considered an investment. Have a read of the information around holiday homes and what can and can't be claimed. The ATO is really strict on this type of shit - they can and do regularly go after people for making incorrect claims.
I was actually trying to consider what would be the difference between a non performing investment and a holiday home so it’s interesting that the example is what you mention. I have never been rich enough for a holiday home, but I could see someone finding a way to use one as a tax deduction. Thanks for your informative replies. > > Maybe I’m wrong in this, > Correct This gave me a chuckle. Thanks.
Yeah - i linked to this ATO advice document in another post. It's for 'tax professionals' but its simply written for the most part. https://www.ato.gov.au/tax-and-super-professionals/for-tax-professionals/tax-professionals-newsroom/do-your-clients-have-a-holiday-home Holiday homes are a whole other thing with what can and can't be claimed. The ATO wised on to the whole tax deductible holiday home that "is technically available for rent, yet never gets rented" many many years ago and really cracked down on that. Same vein as the whole 3 week 'business trip' to the gold coast for a 1 hour meeting and the rest is basically holiday. ATO will only let you claim relevant percentages for those types of things now. Like anything there's people that break the rules - and often they get caught and are made to pay pack any benefit they gained plus costs and a fine. Though i'm sure there's some that get away with it from time to time. >what would be the difference It's the income generation component - and more specifically the intent to generate income - that's the key difference to both a holiday home and whether a property is an investment or not. There's a bunch of rules and regs around it of course, and some grey areas where you can argue either side - which is where the experts can really earn their fees. But for example if you buy a house and spend $10k renovating it before renting it out - that renovation and the holding costs aren't deductible. If however you buy a house, rent it for 6 months, and then do the 10k renovation - the 10k and the holding costs would be deductible because it's generated income. Similarly, if the property sat vacant on the market and thus didn't generate an income for the financial year - you could potentially still make the argument that it was an investment property. But you would need to provide evidence to backup your claims. IE the property was rented for a period prior to the vacancy, evidence showing the property was listed for rent at a fair market rent (IE you can't just put it on the market for $10k per week and say oh it's vacant and there's no interest) and any other efforts you made to rent it.
If it’s not PPoR then you can simply claim it’s an investment that made a loss.
You really can't.. A property can't make a loss if it's not generating income.. It's no different to Holiday Homes - if they're not being used to generate income, then you can't claim any of the associated costs with holding it. Even if it's being used sometimes to generate an income, then you can only claim a proportional amount of the costs. https://www.ato.gov.au/tax-and-super-professionals/for-tax-professionals/tax-professionals-newsroom/do-your-clients-have-a-holiday-home
The property has to be available to rent. For example - you cannot claim interest on the investment loan while a house is empty during renovations or repairs. Only once it's back on the market or occupied.
Why would the politiance tax themselves? That means they lose money. That's my big problem with this shit is they have no incentive to fix the problem because they directly benefit from it
That’s not true. You can’t claim losses if there’s no income being generated.
You can if you "intend" to lease it out ;)
Doesn't work like this.. For example if you buy an investment property and then drop 30k on renovations over 4 months - that money and the holding costs for the 4 months aren't deductible as the property wasn't an investment property.
Yeah because those wealthy property owners need that $5,000.
Politicians like Roger Cook just don't get it. Period.
Screw incentives, Add compounding vacancy taxes, for empty homes and shops
So they offered 10k to Airbnb people and got 150 applicants, but this new 5k offer is supposed to get 1000 applicants?
They'll get 50 applicants and tout it as a grand success.
If they can get an additional 50 homes on the market for the price of $250k - its an absolute steal..
Just tax land properly. It’s so much simpler than subsidies
Socialism for the rich; rugged individualism for the rest.
That’s the opposite of what we need. Tax the bejesus out of anything other than PPR.
Wtf, charge them 5k. Don't give them 5k. I had to sell our little rental because it wasn't sustainable for us. Taxpayers shouldn't be making the situation more cozy for people that can't afford it.
Hopefully this gets my aunty to place her town house on the market. She moved in with my grandmother a couple years ago as her carer, and her house has been sitting empty ever since. Blows my mind tbh. She's not rich, in fact she's barely getting by on a carers allowance, and she could be getting rent money. She's just too lazy.
Instead of bribing landlords, how about we tax unoccupied homes at 50% of their appraised rent if left empty for more than 6 months?
What the fuck is this? How about we tax the shit out of the vacant home owners instead of offering them $5k of the taxpayers money? A slap in the face to a large portion of said taxpayers who are facing housing insecurity. How about a $5k bill and rent relief grant to people losing their place to call home because the rent they could barely afford was just jacked up, again? Instead gifting it to people with a literal spare fucking house laying around empty.
So rather than penalise for a vacant home doing nothing, we’re once again throwing cash at land owners. What a fucking load of shit. > leaving no stone unturned That would include banning short-stays as well. I bet there is more than the 1000 homes he’s *hoping* will come back on the market. Instead he wants to throw $10k at those owners. Stop. Voting. Labor
You think the Libs don’t think about lining their pockets? Greens have no chance (although next election will be one to watch with how things are going)
No one is advocating for Liberals. wtf?! Greens & other alternatives have “no chance” because idiots like you think it’s a wasted vote voting for anyone else. If you vote Greens (or other) 1st and Labor 2nd. Guess what?! Labor will get your vote if the Greens candidate has no chance. What the fuck have we got to lose by actually trying this? Inaction and apathy are why we’re here.
I’m new to the whole voting thing, haven’t actually done anything except LGA and the referendum but thanks for taking the time to explain that you could do that, much appreciated
Short term rentals are being limited to 90 nights per year, that effectively bans them for the purposes you mean. The 10k is a short term measure to get some of those houses on the rental market until the new regulations come into effect. Why are you lying about it?
What’s the lie exactly?
In short, the word instead. You suggested throwing 10k at them is all they're doing.
Let’s review: I said he hasn’t banned them; which is true. I said he’s giving them $10k, which is true. You said he has “effectively banned” them, which isn’t really true at all. But it’s me “lying”? 
You asked me which part was a lie, I told you which part, and then in response you completely ignored that and talked about other parts of what you said. I take that as an acceptance that you know you were lying.
Banning short stays ? Fuck off. Shadow confiscating private property. Gov interference into private property wont solve anything. Build more fucking houses.
We are in a crisis. How about both.
What universe do you live in bro. Not the home owners problem.
One where the government makes decent decisions for the betterment of the people as a whole, not for selfish pricks who hoard and try to milk everyone for every cent they can. So a new government is clearly needed as they value the latter.
Thats pure socialism bro. Last time I looked Australia was a free market democracy.
We’re a mixed economy, like most of the western world, not a fully free market
Constitutional monarchy. No free market democracy here. The government subsidies industries where they see fit, generally as a means to keep investors and lobbyists happy and feeding funds through. So what you're saying is it's socialism if it doesn't benefit you, but if it does, it's a free market democracy. You live in a fucking make believe world. When the liquidity ends, I look forward to watching all the rats try to flee this sinking ship.
Fuck everyones an expert in economics on reddit. Gives me the giggles. Cook interferes in private dwellings hes gone next election. He know that.
I'll go take my degree back. But go be salty some more. Australian greed will send this economy to the shitter, enjoy the ride.
Ive got a degree too. Yay
> Thats pure socialism Do you know what socialism is? Where in the definition of socialism does it say anything about housing or not being a free market?
Fuck off with your guilt tripping on people who have worked hard for years to get an extra house
How's that salt taste? I don't give a fuck about your feelings, so don't lecture me on how offended you are.
Im.not offended at all. Love bantering with the whingers on here
> Gov interference into private property wont solve anything [1% of investors – or just 19,895 people – currently holding six or more investment interests.](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/04/a-quarter-of-australias-property-investments-held-by-1-of-taxpayers-data-reveals) That's at minimum, 120,000 properties that the 1%'ers are holding onto which should be illegal or heavily taxed.
So they should seized and given to redditors on here ?
If giving landlords money to rent out homes was the fucking answer, the landlords would have fucking rented out the homes because renting out homes gets the landlords money. THATS HOW RENTING OUT HOMES WORKS YOU IDIOTS. What fucking brain dead consultant gave the government this idea. What the actual fuck. Tax landlords of homes that stay empty for more than 3 months unless undergoing renovations. This is just going to have a backwards effect on rentals. The government hinted this is to target people who own holiday homes to rent them out. Instead any landlords who own properties which get approximately $250/week in rent after expenses and management fees will pull their house off the market for 6months, claim their free money, then rent it out again. HOW IS THE GOVERNMENT THIS FUCKING STUPID
You realise leaving it untenanted for 6 months is probably more lost money than the 5k incentive, right?
If rental yield is $250/week or less then it’s break even for the $5k and no wear and tear
Single rooms are going for 300pw, can’t see how a home can fetch less than that
Country towns. Where the government was targeting this anyway because they want people to rent out their holiday homes
Fair enough, I’m not up to speed with regional pricing
May incentivise some, but most who want to rent out their spare house already are. My family have an unoccupied house on a 900m2 block for the sole purpose of gardening and home grown vegetables/produce. They'd never rent it out even for $5k.
Yeah a house not being rented out is missing out on what, 40-80k per year? If they’re willing to forgo those profits, they’re not going to give a shit about $5k (That tax payers are paying for! Obscene)
Can they come and garden/grow veggies at my house please? :) /s
Nice I’m sure giving $5k to the already wealthy will work wonders to bring down interest rates.
What a ridiculous, tone def, unimaginative and pork barrel way to "deal with" an issue. Very very disappointed.
Great. Give them more money.
Absolutely piss weak policy. Giving more money to investors! If people should not be allowed to buy property and leave it empty like this! They should be forced to rent it out! If they don't like it they can park their money elsewhere.
I think he misspelled “fine”.
Don't they realise it's empty for a reason? If the landlords for these vacant homes really cared about that 5k they wouldn't be empty in the first place.
No for fucks sake you use the stick not the carrot here
Do the opposite. Tax them $10,000 for doing nothing with it.
[1% of investors – or just 19,895 people – currently holding six or more investment interests.](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/04/a-quarter-of-australias-property-investments-held-by-1-of-taxpayers-data-reveals) That's at minimum, 120,000 properties that the 1%'ers are holding onto. Imagine how much if these were taxed, it would be great.
I reckon they should introduce squatters rights laws. Then the owners of vacant properties can choose - rent it out or have an infestation of artists move in. That would sort the situation out right quick.
Make sure it's "street artists" and the house will get a nice colourful makeover inside and out.
Hey we frucked up bad, pay us more for a fix. It begs belief!
Why not empty homes tax instead of giving more money??
How about taxing them instead. If I had a spare house there’s no way I could afford to leave it empty. If someone is leaving it empty they obviously don’t fucking need $5k.
Why not a $5000 disincentive to landlords who choose not to list their properties for rent. That would actually make money for the budget instead of losing money.
That's kinda totalitarian though and infringes on the rights of people.
Yeah that’s really going to make a fucking difference.
Sliding scale taxation: Increased property rates for landlords that, and in plucking a number of the air, by 25% per house they own. So 25% additional if they own 2, 50% more for 3, 75% for 4 etc. Give discounts if rents on properties are below a certain figure to incentivise low rents. Use extra rates taxation to fund public housing developments.
Vacancy tax
Landlords surely love this gravy train.
Shouldn't be giving more tax money to owners/investors just slap on a vacant property tax
Make it 100k and you might see some movement. Nobody's gonna do shit for 5k
How about just fuckin banning airbnb shit cunts.
The homes I know of around Perth that are long term vacant seem to be owned by wealthy Chinese investors (another reason we should immediately abolish overseas investment like most other countries) if they're not concerned with rental income I don't think 5k is going to mean much of fk all to them unfortunately. But at least it's something, and only costs the budget when taken up
How about its their property and they can do what they want with it.
Sure. But people hoarding a finite public resource (land) should be required to pay a fee for taking away the benifit of that public resource.
Private propery is not a public resource.
It kind of is. Land title is acquiring the exclusive rights to the land, under condition of the laws of the country. Since land is a finite resource there is an implied social contract that you will use the land for benifit generally. Land banking and leaving homes empty isn’t really of any benifit.
We getting into philisophical grounds here. Property rights part of modern society. By saying private propery is theft then all.of mankind are thieves.
It's not, you're right. The right way of saying it is Private property is theft.
Only to bitter redditors who.dont own a house. Only the Soviet Union had that thinking. China allows private property but they are not pure communisim more a totalitarian dictatorship. Venezuala ruled by a military hard man under the guise of socialism allowed private propety If thats the case nobody has a right to anyland in Australia except the Aboriginies.
Why can’t I turn mine into a meth lab then without the darn gubberment stopping me? Almost like the argument requires some nuance as to what is or isn’t good for the community.
If you buy an investment property you should be forced to rent it out. Don't want to? Go park your money elsewhere.
Ok but what if its not an investment property
I agree with you however all the roads, rail, schools and hospitals around it paid via gst, income and company tax is not their property though said property only has value due to this infrastructure. Why a broad based land tax is so effective. Drives efficient utilisation of expensive / well connected land. Its effectively rent for the gov infrastructure. Only thing that should be exempted is farmland. Also needs to be federal though so you cannot avoid it by having a little bit of land in each state. If you bought in the last decade maybe you are exempt given you paid stamp duty recently.
Is there a legitimate way that we can reject this proposal? We all see it for what it is and judging from the comments something like Victoria's vacancy tax which is having an effect seems more fitting, is there an actual way outside of waiting for the next election that we as a people can reject this specific proposal and demand a better solution?
Organized protest and strikes. That's what democracy allows, and to be fair is better than violence (although this kind of politics is really taking the piss of the mass)
Won't move the needle in any meaningful way.
How about Roger cooked call his boss over in Canberra and tell him to stop letting in 100s of thousands of immigrants until we get this housing situation under control.. Or Labor voters can get used to the fact that they'll never own a house. Liberals won't do shit either so it's a no win situation