Introduction of a Nationwide Vacancy Tax/Ghost Homes - Yay or Nay?

Goliegosh on 13/05/2025 - 13:36
Last edited 13/05/2025 - 13:37

As someone who is looking to purchase their first-home (currently renting), I’m baffled that so many homes across Australia are empty and not on the market for rent/purchase.

According to the ABS, over 1 million dwellings were unoccupied on Census night 2021. To me, a massive waste of housing, especially as affordability plummets and renting continues to be a brutal application fight for most people.

Would there be better solutions?

As I am someone who believes Yes it should be applied nationwide, I’ll be writing to my local MP to ask what their thoughts are on vacancy taxes and housing supply in general.

Poll Options

497
Yes – it should apply nationwide to all vacant homes.
179
No – property owners should have full discretion.
41
Maybe – more information is needed.
4
Not sure/I don’t care.

Financial

Comments

ThithLord on 13/05/2025 - 13:38

+29

Good luck writing to your local MP asking them if they wish to employ electoral-suicide.

I mean, I am not saying I am against it, but it is just electoral-suicide to do this on a national level.
- webmonkey on 13/05/2025 - 18:56 Comment score below threshold.
  - brad1-8tsi on 13/05/2025 - 19:35
    
    +20
    
    Lots of empty places in my area. Definitely not overseas owners.
    - dowhatuwant2 on 14/05/2025 - 11:28
      
      -1
      
      They can lower the rent they are charging if they have a problem with leaving it empty costing them.
      - michaelTito on 14/05/2025 - 13:09
        
        +4
        
        @dowhatuwant2: Most of them are left empty by owners choice.
      - brad1-8tsi on 14/05/2025 - 14:03
        
        +2
        
        @dowhatuwant2:
        
        They can lower the rent they are charging if they have a problem with leaving it empty costing them.
        
        No intention of renting. They mostly appear to be unlivable POS. They don't even appear to be land-banking.
      - Muppet Detector on 16/05/2025 - 04:03
        
        @dowhatuwant2: Providing a property for rent invitation to increased govt control and compliance requirements,increased expense and increase to property damage outside usual wear and tear,
        
        I add potion to this, you lose control of how you want to use your product, what you must do to make sure you share your property with others, be forced to accrue debt and work/stree in order to forcible share toys you just don't want to
        
        And limit the way you might want to lose in the future.
        
        All because the govt refuses to meet their obligation and provide reasonable numbers of social housing a
        Nd commit to their long term management and m
        Sentence.
        
        dowhatuwant2 on 16/05/2025 - 08:53
        
        @Muppet Detector: you add potion to this?
        
        Muppet Detector on 16/05/2025 - 09:25
        
        @dowhatuwant2: What did you use your poly juice potion for?
        
        dowhatuwant2 on 16/05/2025 - 10:51
        
        @Muppet Detector: polyamory of course
    - tenpercent on 14/05/2025 - 11:43
      
      +1
      
      How do you know?
      - brad1-8tsi on 14/05/2025 - 14:04
        
        @tenpercent: Observation, knowledge of area, knowledge of demographics and who buys in the area and who has lived here in the past.
    - RTX9090Ti on 15/05/2025 - 08:58
      
      +1
      
      All boomer's fault, they got the land and houses in pennies back in the day, and now just sitting on them like lords of the lands.
      - brad1-8tsi on 15/05/2025 - 17:22
        
        +1
        
        @RTX9090Ti:
        
        All boomer's fault,
        
        I'm a boomer never owned an investment property.
        
        These houses are owned by people older than boomers. It wouldn't surprise me if quite a few of them are deceased estates where the owner died intestate and the public trustee is maximising their "management" fees.
      - Protractor on 15/05/2025 - 17:56
        
        @RTX9090Ti: You must be the product of immaculate conception.
        There's lucky, greedy and lazy ppl in every generation. Pick a lane
        
        RTX9090Ti on 15/05/2025 - 19:31
        
        @Protractor: Don't breed, you!
        
        Protractor on 15/05/2025 - 19:45
        
        @RTX9090Ti: Too late.
      - Muppet Detector on 16/05/2025 - 10:08
        
        @RTX9090Ti: I came after the Boomers.
        
        I bought an absolutely crappy piece of land with an even worse house where nobody else wanted to live.
        
        It was with my first full time job I got in 1987, after working casual jobs from when I was eight on a Saturday afternoon, to 18 hour days on Saturdays, public holidays, some school holidays and 160hr contracts over 10 days of Royal
        L Easter show from where I saved my initial house deposit.
        
        I was not living at home but employed by an employer who covered most of my living costs whilst living/working on site 3 months on, two weeks off. Thus, I spent very little money, because we were working 120 hour weeks, and there really wasn't anything to spend your money on. For first two months of deployment, not even allowed to leave premises or drink alcohol. Could explore local town when not on call during third month, but still no alcohol as you were still on call.
        
        I subdivided that crappy land into two blocks (720,760 respectively),evened it out, moved the derelict house over and restumped etc, made it somewhat liveable until I could afford to build another house on my now vacant block of land that was theoretically free.
        
        We then renovated the initial house. Both highest Qlders, one completely modern, the other retained heritage nods.
        
        5 years later, there was STILL nobody who wanted to live there when the neighbour died intestate and after failing to give it away (seriously, nobody wanted this property, not even for a community centre), I bought the block, sub divided it again, installed the requisite piping, easements and other infrastructure and this time I demolished the existing house on it because there was no saving that.
        
        Then over the next 5 - 10 years, I saved and built houses on those two blocks. Still not worth much more than they cost if I found a really keen buyer. Still deemed to be amidst slum communities such as Logan City. There had not been much move in land prices. I did slightly improve land value by providing water, sewerage, electricity plumbing/access etc to the 6 blocks.
        
        Then bugger me dead, dem yuppies who could no longer afford to live in Paddington and surrounds, turned their eye towards my (6 by now) previously unwanted derelict properties because they were only 7klm from CBD and now suddenly, everybody, including developers, wanted a piece of them.
        
        When I first got these toys, I picked them out from the dregs that everyone else cast away and didn't want to play with.
        
        Now that other people finally want to play with my toys, they're damn salty and weighed down by jealousy and resentment chip on their shoulder because they average over $1.6 million each and I don't want to share my toys with them.
      - Muppet Detector on 16/05/2025 - 10:25
        
        +1
        
        @RTX9090Ti: LOL, let's see what Boomer's did get eh?
        
        No subsidised childcare
        No FHB grant
        When did Medicare kick in?
        No maternity leave
        No unpaid maternity leave
        No paternity leave
        No baby bonus for giving birth
        No ongoing payments towards upkeep of that baby
        In about 1993, we were locking house loan rates in at 9% for 5 years as they were expected to climb higher?
        At one stage, 13% wasn't uncommon and the peak was something like 17%!
        
        To top it off, when we went to school, we usually only had access to jobs in our communit competing with the kid we sat next to in class.
        
        These days you have international education and qualifications to launch you into just about any industry you want.
        
        Want housing? Do what most Boomers did and buy it in areas they can afford to buy it as opposed to get all salty cos someone got there first and now you can't buy where you want.
        
        Next time front seats sell out at your Teletubbies concert, gonna get your whine on, stomp your feet and blame the others who got their tickets first?
        
        RTX9090Ti on 16/05/2025 - 10:28
        
        @Muppet Detector: Hey muppet, go to your own concert, you need it.
  - suntap on 14/05/2025 - 16:17
    
    +4
    
    We are in the process of trying to convince my elderly mother to move in with us. She does not want to leave her home of many years or lose her independence, so would not sell her home for the time being and it would sit empty. She and my father had generous superannuation, but she has now "outlived" her super and is on the pension. Her only asset is the family home where she lived with my father for many years. He now has unfortunately passed away, her daughter (my sister) died suddenly by an accident in December and she is now in poor health.
    
    To convince her to move, she will keep her home, sort of like a security blanket, so that she can go back home to live if she isn't happy once moved out. In reality we know that is not an option, but if keeping the house (empty) makes the move easier for her, we will go along with it to make her comfortable.
    
    So she and my father paid taxes all their working lives, paid off their own home, this is her only asset and she is now on the age pension - should she be expected to pay tax on her home of many years because it may sit vacant for up to a year? If she sells it she will not only lose her peace of mind, but be up for capital gains, lose the pension, and fret that she won't be leaving her children any inheritance after a lifetime working.
    
    At 94 I sadly can't see her living that many more years, so the house will go on the market when the time is right for her, one way or another.
    - Crow K on 15/05/2025 - 17:28
      
      +1
      
      If she sells it she will not only lose her peace of mind, but be up for capital gains
      
      You might want to do a little bit of research on this one but if she moves in with you she can likely deem the property to be her PPOR for a period of up to six years, even if it gets rented out, and not have a CGT issue on disposal (assuming it's always been her house and main residence exempt)
      
      The "oh no my peace of mind I don't get a pension because of the cash I got from selling my house and what of my inheritance" stuff is personal choice stuff and irrelevant to the discussion.
- Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 07:25
  
  +8
  
  The offset of 'look we're doin stuff' I would think would have more of an effect. Those million empty dwellings are held by less than a million relatively wealthy people - remember that the small time property investors almost always rent them out, the empty ones are for people who can afford an empty holiday home or investment for the sole purpose of sale price increases.
  
  So you get a couple of people who were already voting Liberal or Teal continuing to do so. Cry moar. I don't really think it would be a net negative for a Labor government to do that today.
- ozbjunkie on 14/05/2025 - 07:53
  
  Either there are huge numbers of empty homes, or there aren't.
  
  If there are, then there's still more renters than people with an empty property that are voting citizens, surely
  - ThithLord on 14/05/2025 - 08:26
    
    Yeah, mate, you've figured out why this issue is so paralyzing.
- Maxxjet on 14/05/2025 - 10:05
  
  +1
  
  wouldn't it depend on whether the number of voters who own vacant properties is higher or lower than that of the people who wish to benefit from the scheme?
  - ThithLord on 14/05/2025 - 10:10
    
    wouldn't it depend on whether the number of voters who own vacant properties is higher or lower than that of the people who wish to benefit from the scheme?
    
    It would incorporate any voter whom has had an IP in the past, in the present, or thinks they may in the future. That's a huge %% of Australians. Also, many, many people who never had any aspirations of owning a vacant property would still be completely outraged at the thought of possibly being taxed on a future property they haven't even set in motion to own.
- supersabroso on 14/05/2025 - 15:21
  
  +5
  
  Agreed, if Australia voted no twice in a row when labour tried to remove negative gearing and halve the half price capital gains discount tax on houses then there's no way people will accept this. It would be nice if houses were a human right instead of an investment vehicle for the rich to lord over their rent slaves. Life is just too good here, only the youngest 1/3 of us don't own a home yet.
  - idonotknowwhy on 15/05/2025 - 08:55
    
    Life is just too good here, only the youngest 1/3 of us don't own a home yet.
    
    The age thing is mostly accurate but there are many middle-aged renters and homeless people, particularly after relationship breakdowns.
    
    Anyway here's the data to back up your 1/3 figure. Just adding this here because most of the time when I've casually dropped the 1/3 figure, people haven't believed me lol
    
    Source:
    https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/home-owne…
    
    In 2021, there were nearly 9.8 million households in Australia (ABS 2022a). Where household tenure was known:
    
    67% (6.2 million households) were home owners 32% (2.9 million households) without a mortgage 35% (3.3 million households) with a mortgage
- Drakesy on 15/05/2025 - 20:15
  
  +1
  
  I don't actually think it's the electoral suicide everyone makes it out to be.
  
  I mean polling even indicates the majority of Australians would like the removal of negative gearing. Labor lost an election and blamed it on that, not the pensioner's franking credits that they were going after.
  - tenpercent on 15/05/2025 - 20:16
    
    the pensioner's franking credits that they were going after
    
    No double taxation without double representation!
  - ThithLord on 16/05/2025 - 08:44
    
    I don't actually think it's the electoral suicide everyone makes it out to be.
    
    As a platform, maybe. But with basically the entire media landscape hell-bent on sinking any progressive policy out of Labor? I respectfully disagree
87percent on 13/05/2025 - 13:40

+8

there could be a valid reason though why a house is left unoccupied for extended period.. what will happen then? each person is sent a "please explain"?
- dogboy on 13/05/2025 - 13:42
  
  +1
  
  To reply to your questions… Why does the reason matter? They are taxed under this scheme. Why would they send them a letter and not just apply the tax?
  - mskeggs on 13/05/2025 - 15:57
    
    +13
    
    The OP quotes figures from census night.
    I was at my sister's. I don't want to be taxed because I was visiting somebody.
    
    Similarly, you could have moved house that week, be renovating, or just on holiday.
    
    Surely these aren't reasons to tax a property as unoccupied?
    - Protractor on 13/05/2025 - 16:36
      
      -1
      
      There's enough data across the board to easily ID empty homes.
      - mskeggs on 13/05/2025 - 17:29
        
        +31
        
        @Protractor: Sure. I have heard of using power and water meters too, as evidence.
        But my point is, what is an empty home?
        Is an apartment owned by a Hong Kong investor sitting unfurnished for over a year empty? Probably yes. But what if it was furnished and they visited it once a year?
        What about a holiday house of an older couple who had some health issues and didn't use it this year?
        What if my work sends me on a 12 month contract and I don't want to sell my house, and I will be coming back?
        
        Surely some of these would need to be taxed or the "empty homes" would only be the one in a thousand abandoned building?
        
        And if you would tax all of them, where would it stop? Would I pay tax if I was on holiday for a month?
        
        I actually favour such a tax, but I think it is complex and ultimately not going to be as effective as "census night found 1 million empty homes" makes it sound.
        
        Protractor on 13/05/2025 - 17:37
        
        +14
        
        @mskeggs: Yes to taxing the shit out of the HK opportunist example and beyond.If they can afford that lifestyle & deprive residents of a home, let them pay for the privilege. Ditto for that circumstance of others with 3 or more properties that are not full time occupied. So many previous rentals have been swapped out for the gig accommodation economy. Time to get back some of the greed by way of tax to reinvest in community housing. Pretty sure authorities could come up with a formula for empty (suitable to be taxed) homes. In fact that could include a register and hotline for ppl to nominate empty homes near them.
        
        try2bhelpful on 13/05/2025 - 17:48
        
        +4
        
        @mskeggs: Just rent the place out if you aren’t using it. Land banking is a real problem whilst people are looking for housing.
        
        We need to get investment out of bricks and mortar and back into industries that provide jobs.
        
        Muppet Detector on 13/05/2025 - 21:19
        
        +2
        
        @try2bhelpful: is land banking really the problem? It's not like Australia is even close to running out of land.
        
        Perhaps a solution may be to cease servicing remote populations where the cost to service that population is exorbitant and redirect the money allocated to those communities to the supply and maintenance of housing in more cost effective areas?
        
        An example in Qld is a town called Befourie.
        
        It sort of has a population of about 150 people. I say "sort of" because 25% of the population is only there because they have to service the other 75% and of that 75%, a majority don't even live there full time because they're wandering around on walkabout.
        
        This town is in the middle of nowhere - hundreds of kilometers from the next closest town, yet the govt still provides the infrastructure such as water, electricity, sewerage, roads, street lights, garbage disposal etc
        
        There is a state primary school with two full time state teachers and four part time state employees.
        
        There is a police station staffed by three police officers.
        
        A council, with their own council buildings and relevant employees.
        
        A post office.
        
        An indoor sports facility, community centre and a 50 metre chlorine swimming pool.
        
        Maintained public park including public bathrooms, toilets and bbqs.
        
        Naturally, all of the housing is provided by the govt (who would otherwise want to buy out there?) as is the cost of maintaining those properties.
        
        The majority of people capable of being employed in the town are those that are forced out there to provide the govt services with the rest either too young to work (school enrolment is 27 including kids of govt employees) or adults receiving government support.
        
        Oh, and when Julia Gillard rolled out that $3m dollar shed for every school? They got one of those too, but can't use it most of the time because there wasn't enough money to provide insulation or air conditioning so it's too hot to use.very often.
        
        jackspratt on 14/05/2025 - 14:10
        
        +1
        
        @Muppet Detector: The two aren't mutually exclusive.
        
        But thanks for the thinly disguised racist rant.
        
        Muppet Detector on 16/05/2025 - 04:10
        
        @jackspratt: How was that racist?
        
        That is one town I know of that costs far more per head to service than a similar town closer to society would cost.
        
        6 staff in a school for 27 children?
        
        How does your math math up?
        
        moar bargains on 14/05/2025 - 14:24
        
        +2
        
        @Muppet Detector: Sentence 1 seems to completely contradict the rest of your argument. You're suggesting that we have tons of land, and so the price of land shouldn't be an issue, but also that we should force people into the same land where the majority of the population want to live (within 50km of the coast), by reducing/removing public services to remote communities. The major problem we have today is that too many people want to live in the same areas. Yes, what you've described seems excessive and wasteful, but where do we draw the line?
        
        Perhaps we should actually be reversing your suggestion? Let's give tax breaks to people and businesses who move, say >=100km from the CBD of nominated areas (large metros), or equivalently, tax people more who don't. Let's build some major regional infrastructure, and encourage people to get out of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.
        
        TheFreaK on 15/05/2025 - 11:51
        
        @try2bhelpful: So, if I go on an extended trip for work and am away from home, your solution is to… sell or store all my belongings and rent it out for a few months?
        
        Because that isn't convenient to all parties involved
      - Muppet Detector on 13/05/2025 - 19:36
        
        -1
        
        @Protractor: Move in and claim adverse possession when relevant?
      - larndis on 14/05/2025 - 07:52
        
        +1
        
        @Protractor:
        
        There's enough data across the board to easily ID empty homes.
        
        Care to share some details?
        
        Lol at the idea that something like this can be done easily. Try answering these for a start:
        
        What's the definition of an empty house? How empty does it have to be to be taxed?
        
        What's the tax rate?
        
        Who collects/owns the required data?
        
        Who runs the scheme? How does this entity get access to the required data?
    - Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 07:28
      
      Nobody is using census data to do this. We currently collect this data for first home buyer's grants and similar, which do have the ability to challenge occupancy decisions.
      - mskeggs on 14/05/2025 - 07:34
        
        @Parentheses: I agree, the points I am making are that “empty” houses must be defined if you’re going to tax them, and any definition that won’t have people up in arms because they are going on holidays or similar trivial absences is going to result in dramatically fewer empty houses than the “1 million empty homes” on census night.
        
        It is one measure worth exploring but not a silver bullet that is going to solve the housing issues.
        
        Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 07:40
        
        @mskeggs: Not so dramatic - remember that in 2021 a LOT of overseas living people had come home and weren't leaving. Around 850k were secondary homes. That number might even exceed 1m now that people usually living overseas have left again.
  - SlickMick on 14/05/2025 - 08:52
    
    Well if that's the level of thought put into it, where's the no bloody way vote.
  - ytthr on 14/05/2025 - 13:21
    
    +1
    
    A house around the corner from me was empty for 18 month waiting for council approval for alterations, should the council pay the tax?
- ColtNoir on 14/05/2025 - 13:25
  
  -1
  
  If you have a decrepit house that is uninhabitable, for example and you can’t afford to fix it/rebuild, you should have to sell it within x period of time.
  
  Land banking either through empty plots or empty home needs to stop.
  
  Either make it inhabitable or go speculate in another investment type.
  - gromit on 14/05/2025 - 14:44
    
    +2
    
    What about waiting for the F…ing tradies to turn up. My property I sold last year I had originally planned 2 months of minor renos ended up over 12 months before I could sell, 1 week tiling job took nearly 5 months which in turn impacted painters and added another month or so for them. some ceiling repairs that required some modifications to the roof took 3 months for a 2 day job (again tradies not turning up, always another excuse every week), electrician turned up, did a half arsed job so had to get another one and wait weeks for them and several other minor items.
    
    Amusingly I am building a house at the moment and the market has completely changed, now a crap ton of tradies have very little work in the pipeline and my site manager has constant calls asking if he has work for them.
    
    Being empty and nothing happening doesn't necessarily mean the owner isn't trying to get something done so they can sell or rent.
- frewer on 15/05/2025 - 10:19
  
  Tax it all, what do people know about finance management. Let's the government manage it, they do it soooo well. Our national budget is in surplus, amirite?
Trying2SaveABuck on 13/05/2025 - 13:52

+3

depends on the context of the 'vacant' home - some people i know hae 'beach' or 'country' holiday houses what would be 'deemed' vacant

i dont have an issue with it for people with more then 5 properties

im not 'anti' property investor but some of the rules need hit up some of the individuals and trusts with a crazy number of properties

It is the same way i feel with the Victoria land tax laws i dont think they should apply on all investment properties but people with more then 4 properties outside of their PPOR

property investing shouldnt be 'killed' but should be slowed to stop wealth accumulating within a very 'small' pool of people
- CodeXD on 13/05/2025 - 13:56
  
  +12
  
  i dont have an issue with it for people with more then 5 properties
  
  Even for an individual with 5 properties is quite a lot, more than 5 you definitely should have an issue with.
  - Trying2SaveABuck on 13/05/2025 - 13:59
    
    +1
    
    look there are individuals what have like >100 that we need to 'stop'
    - CodeXD on 13/05/2025 - 14:00
      
      I think you mean less than then in your original comment
      
      i dont have an issue with it for people with less than 5 properties
      - brendanm on 13/05/2025 - 16:59
        
        +1
        
        @CodeXD: No, he has answered the question that OP asked.
    - Gdsamp on 13/05/2025 - 14:01
      
      -3
      
      Tall poppy syndrome ….
      - Trying2SaveABuck on 13/05/2025 - 14:33
        
        -2
        
        @Gdsamp: Not at all i got no issue with people build wealth or wealthy people but we have a 'progressive' tax system in this country that should extend to assests it currently doesnt the issue is the government is going to 'hard' on investors property should be a good vechical to build wealth - it just shouldnt be better the invest in stocks and other investments all the time
      - Protractor on 13/05/2025 - 16:37
        
        +2
        
        @Gdsamp: Big difference between tall poppy and rank opportunist
- Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 07:30
  
  -7
  
  In what possible world is it ok for people to own 2 properties but others to own 0? Or even not be able to rent? We already dealt with that issue when it comes to seconds at the dinner table - wait your goddamned turn until everybody has a plate.
  
  It is utterly reasonable to tax the people with empty beach or holiday homes while we have even a single person who wants to buy but has been priced out of the market. It would be unreasonable not to.
  - arkie0 on 14/05/2025 - 10:30
    
    +3
    
    I think the same when I see family with 2 cars… how is it even fair some people can own 2 cars but I have to take the bus because I don't have a job.
    
    Families with 2 cars should pay double the rego on the second car so we can subsidise public transport.
    - Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 18:03
      
      +3
      
      If we lived in a world where you could afford a house by just going out and getting a job then your point wouldn't be completely stupid.
      
      But we don't.
      - arkie0 on 14/05/2025 - 20:23
        
        @Parentheses: Let me get this right, your point is, we live in a world where no one, not 1 person can afford a house by working?
        
        Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 22:11
        
        +1
        
        @arkie0: You did not get this right, no. We live in a world where at least one person cannot afford a house by working.
        
        arkie0 on 14/05/2025 - 22:48
        
        @Parentheses: Does this one person have personal responsibility, budget well, build up their skills up to progress in pay and make sacrifices in life?
        
        Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 22:50
        
        +1
        
        @arkie0: I know at least one person who ticks all those boxes, yes.
        
        arkie0 on 14/05/2025 - 23:18
        
        -1
        
        @Parentheses: And this person, even though after 2-3 years they would move above minimum wage we'll assume they are on minimum wage which is currently $915 a week. They could even get a weekend gig for extra $.
        
        You said they can sacrifice so they can live in a small studio apartment (https://www.realestate.com.au/property-studio-nsw-chippendal…) for rent $70 a week.
        70 for utilities + internet
        150 for groceries.
        50 for public transport costs
        10 for phone
        100 for misc
        
        That would mean they could save up about 24k in year, in about a year and a half they could afford the 30k deposit to buy that studio apartment for 150k (and in Sydney too! imagine if they sacrificed more and moved to a cheaper location).
        
        Once they bought the studio, repayments would be about $180 a week… but you said they budget well so they'll continue to pay down the loan as fast as possible. After 5 years loan would be paid out, they could upgrade.
        
        Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 23:31
        
        +5
        
        @arkie0: Um.
        
        Look, I had a whole back and forth of snappy one liners here cause I thought people might need a laugh, but you've completely eclipsed me here, and I just can't compete with this level of funny.
        
        Bear witness to the almighty 'how much could a carton of eggs cost' gloriousness that is "they can rent a studio apartment IN CHIPPENDALE for $70 a week".
        
        My friend, my hilarious chum, the link you have provided is to rent the carpark in the basement, but only if you already rent a unit in the building. Studio apartments in that building are over $800 a week.
        
        Your scrappy up and comer is now crippled with debt after a year (if any of their rental applications were accepted at all, which they wouldn't be), and bankrupt soon after.
        
        arkie0 on 14/05/2025 - 23:40
        
        -2
        
        @Parentheses: Fair enough my bad didn't look deep enough, though my budget still stands if rent is 200$ a week for a studio
        
        Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 23:53
        
        +2
        
        @arkie0:
        
        if rent is 200$ a week for a studio
        
        It isn't.
        
        Renting your own place is a luxury you can't afford in Sydney on min wage. Most who are successful at getting any housing at all will sharehouse to the point of Seinfeld's Japanese family in the drawers (even sleeping multiple people in a studio), which is what your $200 will get you. Getting a mortgage is also out of the question - it isn't the pre-2008 world anymore, casual minwage is essentially $0 income as far as the banks are concerned, and the number of people getting continuing work is still slim even with the recent IR changes. Even if you did have that income secured, banks will not touch you for any significant loans, because they know full well you're a couple of weeks with the flu or a broken ankle away from unemployment and default, and your overall income is not high enough for any buying power (the studio apartments in that building were just shy of $1m to buy, so you're multiple lifetimes away from saving up enough to buy one outright even if if you're sharing at $200 a week).
        
        The simple fact that you saw that $70 and thought "yeah, that sounds plausible" is all anybody needs to see to know with 1000% certainty you have no clue what you're talking about.
        
        arkie0 on 15/05/2025 - 00:08
        
        -3
        
        @Parentheses: I'm not current with Sydney prices since I'm from Melbourne, I know you can definitely get a 3-bedroom share house for $150 week pp and you can definitely buy studios for 200k in Melbourne. So my budget still stands, though you'd need 2 years for the deposit.
        
        Remember this person has personal responsibility and improves their skills to move past min wage. I made a mistake and take full responsibility for not researching more thoroughly.
        
        For the time being, this person still has a path to property ownership.
        
        Parentheses on 15/05/2025 - 00:29
        
        +2
        
        @arkie0: Forget 'deposit' - you aren't getting a loan, period. No bank will touch you with a 100-foot pole.
        
        Your idea that you can just 'improve skills' and get above minwage is also completely out of touch. Some can, yes, though for most it involves delaying by more years to gamble on added education paying back more than lost income against rapidly rising housing prices. But the whole 'firm handshake and personal responsibility' and up the chain you go is dead and buried, if it was ever real at all. Some get lucky, many don't.
        
        If you really aren't satisfied with that $70 roadblock and want to get into the details, here are a few for you. 1) tax exists, at about $5.5k at minwage, so your 'misc' is gone 2) even at $100 your 'misc' includes so much you've basically left a zero off. Clothes, shoes, medical, replacing/fixing things that break (you're buying cheap, so that's happening a lot, and most apartments aren't coming fully furnished). Money for rental bond doesn't come out nowhere, that rent WILL go up by the legislative max every 12 months if you don't get evicted and have to move. Best hope you're a dude, or working somewhere you can get away with a self buzz cut as a girl, else that's more on top. 3) Your grocery bill estimate is hilariously low. Maybe you go with rice and beans all day every day, but then you need to remember to include a bunch more in the budget for time off work during the hospital trip you're headed to. Add in laundry powder (or laundromat if you're renting somewhere with no laundry), soap, deodorant, etc etc etc etc etc. Your budget is plucked from thin air and utterly out of touch with reality. Please stop forming political opinions based on this nonsense.
        
        arkie0 on 15/05/2025 - 09:35
        
        -2
        
        @Parentheses:
        
        Your idea that you can just 'improve skills' and get above minwage is also completely out of touch.
        
        I'd like to think agency still matters and anyone who puts their mind to it can get off min wage. There's so much free information out there these days upskilling in your time off is easier than it's ever been.
        
        If you really aren't satisfied with that $70 roadblock and want to get into the details
        
        Credit for discontinuing the Ad Hominem based on a hasty generalisation
        
        Your grocery bill estimate is hilariously low. Maybe you go with rice and beans all day every day
        
        We're sacrificing for a few years right? It's my current budget, if I can live of 150 a week on food so can others, yeah it means eating shin ramen once a day, plain rice and pork floss and soy sauce for another meal but we're just aiming for a deposit.
        
        Your budget is plucked from thin air and utterly out of touch with reality
        
        I'm basing it on my own budget as someone who is doing well for themselves but never grew out of the scarcity mindset.
        
        Parentheses on 15/05/2025 - 12:58
        
        +2
        
        @arkie0: If that's what you're eating, you're essentially making worse investment choices than someone who is taking rolling payday loans each week. That lack of nutrition will lead to an inability to work and hospital, as I said. Probably worse than a drug addiction.
        
        arkie0 on 15/05/2025 - 14:18
        
        @Parentheses: You're 100% right it will. You can't control the cards you're dealt, just how you choose to play the hand. I'd make the same choices to get onto the property market if I was 18 now.
        
        Parentheses on 15/05/2025 - 14:25
        
        +1
        
        @arkie0: So what you're saying is that because people can choose to destroy their bodies, costing them millions in potential income over lost years in the workforce and costing the country millions in medical support, and buy a house that way (which is still nonsense because they can't walk into a loan like it's 2005 and getting more than minimum wage involves a good bit of luck), that this equals 'housing is affordable' in your mind?
        
        Your logic is completely cooked.
        
        arkie0 on 15/05/2025 - 15:45
        
        @Parentheses: lol… all I'm saying live frugally (to me it's normal, I grew up with that because that's all we could afford 40 years ago) you interpret as you wish
        
        Parentheses on 15/05/2025 - 16:06
        
        @arkie0: Except the context of this discussion is 'is it justified to provide more support to people buying their first home by increasing tax on those with multiple properties'. It's not about how you choose to interpret it, this is the context and that was the argument you made. You're inviting a particular interpretation, and I'm telling that that interpretation is completely bonkers.
        
        arkie0 on 15/05/2025 - 18:04
        
        @Parentheses: This already occurs via increased stamp duty and land tax - what % of rent charged should go towards land tax is a justified amount?
        
        Parentheses on 15/05/2025 - 18:28
        
        @arkie0: More, until the problem is resolved.
        
        arkie0 on 15/05/2025 - 22:15
        
        @Parentheses: How much more than 2240% in 10 years?
        
        Parentheses on 15/05/2025 - 22:49
        
        @arkie0: Depends on your starting value I suppose. That's the problem with working with percentage and percentage points interchangeably. If you were paying 1 cent, then paying $25 sounds OHMYGODWTFBBQ. But only if you're an idiot.
        
        Of course, if you were sitting on 4 acres of prime city real estate and want to whine about getting slugged money you aren't likely to be all that transparent in your complaints either. What on earth does commercial land tax have to do with the issue in the first place?
        
        arkie0 on 15/05/2025 - 23:09
        
        @Parentheses: The absolute values are in the story as well. Commerical or Residential it doesn't matter - It's all a single land tax, if land is used to produce income it gets taxed.
        
        Even though it's been increasing for the last 10 years, housing affordability is still getting worse, so if you think increasing it will fix the problem, I'll agree with you - though I would like to know how much it needs to be increased by.
        
        Parentheses on 15/05/2025 - 23:56
        
        @arkie0:
        
        if land is used to produce income
        
        Please think deeper about things before launching into your existing position, because it's clear you haven't. There's 3 type of residential land use being talked about (commercially zoned land is not part of this and has different tax settings). Primary residence, partial residence or unoccupied, and rental/investment properties. The thing people are talking about taxing more here is the middle one. Which by definition isn't producing income.
        
        arkie0 on 16/05/2025 - 00:31
        
        @Parentheses: Land tax applies to an investment property, commercial property (and no its not any different) and holiday home. Yes, the OP was talking the holiday home. In Vic there's already a [vacancy tax] (https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/vacant-residential-land-tax) on top of land tax.
        
        My point is they've been taxing the hell out of all 3 in relation to land tax, in the last 10 years and it's made no difference to affordability. Will have to wait and see what the outcome of the vacancy tax is.
  - Trying2SaveABuck on 14/05/2025 - 12:15
    
    +2
    
    what possible world is it ok for people to own 2 properties but others to own 0? Or even not be able to rent? We already dealt with that issue when it comes to seconds at the dinner table - wait your goddamned turn until everybody has a plate.
    
    a bit of a short sighted statement and filled with emotion rather then logic
    
    Property ownership is 'not a right' most of the worlds population do not own property this idea that everyone should own a house in Australia is a bit false - given our wages Australian properties is 'affordable' but their are pockets ie Sydney that are just crazy expensives this is how a free market works it ultimately will result in people moving away from Sydney creating new cities.
    
    homelessness in Australia is a real issue but it is multi-factorial one id argue the bulk of homeless Australia are in that position due to a lack of mental support as we have a 'decent' social housing system but a very poor mental health support system with a medical model focusing on old bio-medical approches instead of a bio-psycho-social approch. The LNP for all its issues wanted to increase mental health funding last election they got destoryed so i doubt anything will change…. i did read somewhere the ALP wanted to increase access to mental health support but i dont know exactly what that looks like
    
    Both major parties have modelled changing investor laws i negative gearing etc and both came to the conclusion removing all investment insentives actually makes the problem worse as it reduces supply - the issue is complex but essentially builders need 70-80% of developments sold prior to building take away investors less supply comes online
    
    Australians should be able to build wealth within a free market but im not against putting some speed humps from those who are crazy rich that they wouldnt notice the difference but for mum and dad investors they should be able to help themselves and their families get ahead - it should and always will be a nation where if you work hard and put you you can build wealth (that doesnt have to be 'via property' but it should always be a reasonable option for middle income earners) - we shouldnt be punishing people for 'doing the right thing' but instead proiding a platform for people who are inproverty to get out of it
    
    like i said above we have an issue with someone snowballing themselves with equity finance to 100 properties but that doesnt mean everyone investing in property should be punished.
    - Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 18:15
      
      +3
      
      Property ownership is 'not a right'
      
      It should be - or at least having safe shelter should be, the same as food, water, clothing, and medical. People can disagree on this, but I am more than comfortable calling anyone who disagrees wrong, and completely writing them off as human beings who are worth listening to.
      
      it ultimately will result in people moving away from Sydney creating new cities
      
      Not sure why you think this would be a bad thing? Your ideas that a) we have a free market, we don't, and b) that a free market would be capable of taking the loss leader that creating new infrastructure requires both indicate you don't really know what you're talking about.
      
      id argue the bulk of homeless Australia are in that position due to a lack of mental support
      
      You'd be wrong. The homeless mentally ill person you see on the street is like 0.0000001% of the total homeless in Australia - they are part of the mental health crisis, but we have a separate homelessness crisis. Most of them are couch-surfing, living in cars, etc. Because social housing is also full of crime including drugs and violence, and is very difficult to work from, and has queues for years to get in anyway.
      
      both came to the conclusion removing all investment insentives actually makes the problem worse as it reduces supply
      
      No, both came to the conclusion that it reduces votes. Some floated ideas reduces supply, but guess what - if we assume people would vote for it, the government has the capacity to generate its own supply. Want 30% of GDP spent on housing? Take 30% tax and spend it on housing. Done and done. There are very good economic reasons not to do that, but that doesn't at all mean that the government somehow can't do anything because oh no what about supply.
      
      Australians should be able to build wealth within a free market
      
      Again, we don't have a free market, and you should be very happy we don't. Adding extra tax is not banning anybody from having 2 houses. It just means paying extra to do so.
      - Trying2SaveABuck on 14/05/2025 - 18:45
        
        @Parentheses: 'Mental health is a leading cause of homelessness in Australia' direct quote - source
        
        https://www.missionaustralia.com.au/stories/safe-homes/under…
        
        I CBF reponding to the rest of your comment, you will just ignore anything because you clearly cant understand the complexity of the housings crisis - im not saying i think all your opinions are wrong they are just short sighted lacking basic economic fundamentals
        
        Same sort of short term nonsense people that think rent freezing is a good idea
        
        Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 19:25
        
        +3
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: I mean, you can try and handwave things with links you didn't read or understand properly, but that doesn't make you any less wrong. That link indicates that for a particular type of homelessness there is a strong correlation with mental health issues. Nobody was arguing against that. Trying to use your link to claim "mental health is the reason we have homelessness" is just plain dumb.
        
        First, there is an entire and much larger category of homelessness that doesn't fit the very visual model of 'dude wearing rags with a cardboard sign in the gutter' homelessness. Second, pretty much all the things that make people homeless that aren't mental health issues also cause depression. The depression didn't cause the homelessness for those people, the other thing did. Lost job, violent partner, priced out of market, whatever. It's like people saying you can budget your way out of poverty - you can't 'mental health treatment' your way out of depression caused by not having enough money to live. If you look reeeeeaaaally closely you can see your link uses the word 'interrelated', rather than 'causative'.
        
        I do find it funny when people spouting nonsense tell me my university education in economics left me 'lacking basic economic fundamentals'…
        
        Trying2SaveABuck on 14/05/2025 - 19:47
        
        +1
        
        @Parentheses: Lmao university education but has zero clue on what providing a source means
        
        Not saying I disagree with everything you say but most of it is emotional nonsense…
        
        Good night mate spit your nonsense elsewhere
        
        P.S saying you have a degree doesnt make you sound smart…it does the exact opposite…esp based on your previous comments
        
        Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 19:51
        
        +2
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: I did provide a source… your source. Which didn't say what you thought it said. Do you think that providing a source means randomly slapping a link down and making wild claims about what it means? I can get ChatGPT to do that, I don't need you.
        
        If you'd like to read about hidden homeless, here is the same provider as your link - https://www.missionaustralia.com.au/stories/safe-homes/a-fri…
        
        94% of Australian homeless are not 'living in the gutter' homeless. And that STILL doesn't include people who are living in their car. But by all means, point at the crazy guy wearing a garbage bag and wash your hands of the actual problem.
        
        Trying2SaveABuck on 14/05/2025 - 20:02
        
        @Parentheses: Just because your living in your car doesnt mean you dont have a mental illness
        
        Unemployment has been sub 5% for almost 35 years it isnt hard to get out of the "gutter" if you want to…the issue is most people cant because depression, anxiety, domestic violence, PTSD, addiction etc most of these come down to mental illnesses.
        
        What you fail to understand 'economics degree' is home ownership and having a home are not the same thing - financial issue might prevent home ownership esp in NSW but it isnt the main cause of homeless in Australia not by a long way as i said before we have a decent social housing system
        
        You're not bright enough or just too closed minded to understand the issue - so i dont see the point in discussing it further like most 'younger' people you just dont have the life experience to have an objective educated opinion on this matter
        
        have a good night
        
        tenpercent on 14/05/2025 - 20:14
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck:
        
        we have a decent social housing system
        
        There simply aren't enough social housing dwellings (or even total dwellings public and private) to cater for all the homeless in the country.
        
        250k homeless and climbing
        +38k net migrants per month
        +10k homeless per month
        declining new dwelling completions for years
        
        It doesn't take a maths or economics or any degree to figure out the problem and the solution.
        
        Trying2SaveABuck on 14/05/2025 - 20:17
        
        +1
        
        @tenpercent: migration is certainly an issue but the same people it is 'affecting' have just voted for a government that is opening the flood gates they also voted against the opposition that wanted to reduce migration
        
        migration is more of an issue for the demand on housing but not 'social house' as more migrants wont not be elgiable for social housing unless they are here on some form of humanitarian visa
        
        the irony of the same issues young people have they are supporting left wing politics which have policys that making there issues worse makes me laugh
        
        tenpercent on 14/05/2025 - 20:23
        
        +3
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck:
        
        migration is certainly an issue but the same people it is 'affecting' have just voted for a government that is opening the flood gates they also voted against the opposition that wanted to reduce migration
        
        Kinda… 34% first preferences for ALP, 31% for LNP, 35% for anyone else but ALP/LNP.
        
        migration is more of an issue for the demand on housing but not 'social house'
        
        It's an issue for both. Sure, migrants aren't directly applying for social housing (not much, I'm sure there are some edge cases with refugees and what not) but there are X family units in Australia (growing with net migration) and fewer than X dwellings in the country (growing but much slower). So when new migrants arrive with those dynamics at play they are both bidding up rents and house prices and indirectly pushing people out of the private market into the social market and indirectly pushing people out of the social market into the homeless market.
        
        Trying2SaveABuck on 14/05/2025 - 20:24
        
        +1
        
        @tenpercent: you forget the 13 percent voting for the Greens who support open borders mostly young mis-informed people like the OP above with the 'econmics' degree lol
        
        for the record tenpercent i agree with you
        
        but the left wing propaganda machines wont ever say the truth bcuz it doesnt suit the narrative that 'rich people and capitalism is to blame'
        
        Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 22:41
        
        +2
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: Go on - tell me how young I am. Dollars to doughnuts you're out by at least a full generation. You want to talk closeminded, the fact you've leapt to assume I could only hold this position if it was something I'm experiencing first-hand is telling of someone who lacks the ability to empathise. And the idea that your age magically gives you education is laughable - nobody is stupider than the old fart whose facebook page says 'School of Hard Knocks'. You're also screaming your ignorance of how social housing works in this country.
        
        I own my own home, and have done for years. But I mentor incredibly skilled young people who if they have mental health issues it hasn't prevented them from being employed - but they are often stuck in between housing, some for extended lengths of time. Share houses like sardines, getting knocked back constantly from rental applications, couch surfing, living out of cars. It's a reality.
        
        I don't really expect you to read it or to understand it if you do, but if anyone passing by is interested this is not something that is unclear or poorly understood. We had an entire inquiry on it very recently - https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Hou…

Introduction of a Nationwide Vacancy Tax/Ghost Homes - Yay or Nay?

Poll Options

Comments

New Forum Topics