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

  • 584
    Yes – it should apply nationwide to all vacant homes.
  • 194
    No – property owners should have full discretion.
  • 43
    Maybe – more information is needed.
  • 6
    Not sure/I don’t care.
Financial

Comments

                            • Protractor on 20/05/2025 - 13:53
                              -1

                              @Checkmate3023: That's a laugh saying any political party supports open borders and you then use the term, **mis-informed*.

                              Can I have a source for the policy please ?

                              • Checkmate3023 on 20/05/2025 - 13:57
                                -1

                                @Protractor: I have said to you in the past i dont want to 'reply to you' please stop posting to me

                                this will be the last time

                                https://greens.org.au/policies/immigration-and-refugees

                                'Australia has humanitarian and legal obligations to accept refugees and reunite families. Australian society benefits from immigration.'

                                'An increase in the humanitarian quota, and offshore quotas fulfilled without reference or linkage to any onshore arrivals or other programs.' (increase to what? Australia has per capita the 2nd largest resettlement program in the world, it has not provided much benefit but loads of social issues)

                                there is NOT A SINGLE mention on number limits or the amount of migration Australia should take just the 'benefits' and need to allow intake - without a given number you can only assume the Greens support unlimited migration

                                there is also a lot of part in which whill cost Australian taxpayers

                                'People seeking asylum to be fully informed of their rights on arrival and given immediate access to legal support and health care, assisted by interpreters, as required.'

                                We also do not have an obiligation to anyone bar our own people ie

                                please stop commenting on my comments just like a good shill downvote me and move on i will not reply to you again you have shon your hand to be what you are and i have no interest in conversing with a shill

                                Anyone who supports the Greens are extremist and are mis-informed on the lunatics they are, the 'far' left is killing this country - im somewhat happy the ALP have become a more centered party realising the far left politics were kill them - the irony that the ALP is more liberal and the Liberals are more ALP these days makes me laugh

                                now for the last time please just be a good shill downvote and move on like the others - i have no interest in what you have to say

                                • jackspratt on 20/05/2025 - 15:29

                                  @Checkmate3023:

                                  without a given number you can only assume the Greens support unlimited migration

                                  That's a pretty wild assumption, and certainly not a conclusion I arrived at after reading your linked Greens policy.

                                  Neither did I draw a conclusion that the Policy advocated, or even tolerated, "open borders".

                                  • Checkmate3023 on 20/05/2025 - 15:32
                                    -1

                                    @jackspratt: Please quote to give evidance? in migration restraint is to be had in the Greens political statement? otherwise you just making things up

                                    'Your feelings' dont matter and no assuption is made they have not given a any evidance of restraint nor quote what acceptable migration would be? they have openly said they want higher quoters on their policy when we are currently at record high migration one can only conclude this record wants to be be further broken under their rule ? (how else can it be interpreted)

                                    please provide evidance to back up your claim - as i have in the above comment otherwise please reflect on what has been posted

                                    ill also note the Greens want most of this migration/re-settlement to be paid for by tax payers who will also have standard of living drop due to higher congestion and use of public services

                                    • jackspratt on 20/05/2025 - 15:46

                                      @Checkmate3023: I have no need to reflect.

                                      There is nothing in the Greens policy which calls for "open borders" or "unlimited migration".

                                      Quite the contrary.

                                      • Checkmate3023 on 20/05/2025 - 16:16
                                        -1

                                        @jackspratt: Lmao there is evidance to support it and nothing to refuse to acknowledge the extremist evil that is the modern day Greens

                                        Have a good afternoon enjoy the sand your head is in

                      • Muppet Detector on 20/05/2025 - 13:46
                        +1

                        @tenpercent: Not sure if this makes a difference to whatever you folk are arguing about but homeless figures include people living in caravans and RV (anything on wheels), as these are classed as vehicles.

                        House boats included in that too

                    • Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 22:41
                      +3

                      @Checkmate3023: 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…

      • Wasabi Ninja on 14/05/2025 - 17:29
        +3

        I have a house an hour away right on the beach. No way I’d let anyone live there. The whole point of buying it was so I could leave a full wardrobe there, my boat etc and just pop down there whenever I like.

        I’ve worked hard and paid taxes for this lifestyle. Two houses one being a holiday house is not up for debate in Australia. Lucky for me it never will be.

        • Wiser on 16/05/2025 - 09:51
          +3

          I am with you even when i can't afford that luxury.
          Are we going to be a communist regime?
          Next this will be untouched bank savings / mutual funds.

          • Protractor on 16/05/2025 - 09:57
            -1

            @Wiser: Already happens with unclaimed insurance / superannuation.The regime says thanks.

    • ColtNoir on 14/05/2025 - 13:26
      +1

      At most it should be 2 in order to get any policy through. Your main and a weekender.

  • JIMB0 on 13/05/2025 - 13:56
    +6

    Isn't this why land tax was introduced, to disincentive people from hoarding land and not using it for the good of society? One way people get around it is to buy a home far bigger than they need. I doubt they'll start taxing empty bedrooms.

    • Muppet Detector on 13/05/2025 - 21:22
      +2

      It's not like Australia has run out of land.

      • Protractor on 13/05/2025 - 22:09
        -1

        OK you go and live in BF.I'll crowd fund for the move.

        • Muppet Detector on 13/05/2025 - 22:10

          I lived in Bedourie for six months. I don't need to anymore.

          • Protractor on 13/05/2025 - 22:11

            @Muppet Detector: Too late, I've signed you up to Coober Pedy.I hope you like opal mining.

            • Muppet Detector on 13/05/2025 - 22:50
              +2

              @Protractor: Wouldn't it be better if you did some crowd funding for the homeless?

              I do appreciate the gesture, but I can sort myself out. Spend your energy helping those that could do with your help, eh?

              • tenpercent on 14/05/2025 - 18:17
                -1

                @Muppet Detector:

                Wouldn't it be better if you did some crowd funding for the homeless?

                Crowd funding to buy them more tents?

                It won't be to pay their rent or buy them houses. Because all the dwellings are already occupied due to years of excessive immigration and slowing rates of new dwelling completions. There's simply no room to spare… certainly not 1 million dwellings worth of rooms.

  • GordonD on 13/05/2025 - 14:05
    +10

    This statistic on how many homes are vacant is a myth created by people misreading or willfully misinterpreting the census statistics.

    The census can say it is a "vacant" dwelling in one of a number of circumstances. It is newly-built and hasn't been occupied yet. It really is long-term vacant. It is temporarily vacant, eg being sold. It is vacant because it is located somewhere remote where no-one wants to live. No-one answers the door when the census person visits, that happens repeatedly, and the collector gives up trying. Its a holiday home or the home of someone who is on holidays.

    Only one of those circumstances is really a dwelling that isn't occupied, and could be. There are far fewer real vacant dwellings where anyone wants to live than the census says.

    I saw it in Sydney in the street I lived in in Ultimo. From my 3rd floor balcony I saw the census collector working their way up the street knocking on doors on the last day of census collection. At about 30% of them the census collector would have been marking them as vacant. None of them were. And it got even worse when the collector got to the hi-rises with foyers that the collector could not even get into and knock on actual front doors unless someone let them in.

    Look at your area. The census says about 1 in 9 homes are vacant. Are that many of the homes in your street a dwelling that isn't really occupied, and could be?

    Its a nonsense statistic that is abused by the people who want us to believe that lots of hoarded vacant houses are the problem, not too many people for the number of houses we have because the level of immigration is too high for the rate this country can build new homes.

    It is an statistic generated by a census that is a lot less accurate in a lot of ways than the ABS is willing to admit because there is far more resistance to answering a lot of stupid pointless questions than it is willing to admit. People lie, or avoid taking part. So it just adjusts the numbers. I'll give you an example. It actually found 700 hundred and something thousand ticked the box saying they were Aboriginal. So it adjusted that actual count up to 800 and something because it said a lot of them had not participated in the census. Then it adjusted that up to 900 and something thousand because it said a lot of people don't admit to being Aboriginal when they are. And its that last number that is the published official number. In reality perhaps they should have been adjusting the number downwards because the impossible increase from one census to the next - Aboriginals don't have lots more kids than anyone else - showed that it had become fashionable to tick the I am Aboriginal box, even if you weren't.

    • ESEMCE on 13/05/2025 - 15:05
      -2

      I don't think your assumption that vacancy data is based solely on census collection addresses is correct.

      Census asks for your residential address if you are not at your place of residence on census night.
      Assuming people are correctly completing the census (as is legally required, so a reasonable assumption), then census data would be pretty spot on in identifying unoccupied houses by nature of the data set having no residents responding to census with that address.

      Location of the vacant homes is almost definitely a major factor though. We all know a town that is dominated by holiday homes that sit largely vacant outside of peak times.
      But I know that those areas are also struggling for housing for locals. Owners are getting tax breaks galore on these residences, so I'm not too upset if they have to take a hit on a bit of that middle/upper income welfare.

      • pjetson on 13/05/2025 - 16:19
        +5

        holiday homes that sit largely vacant outside of peak times

        and

        Owners are getting tax breaks galore on these residences

        In what way are holiday home owners getting tax breaks?

        • IamHere2 on 13/05/2025 - 17:31

          Holiday home owner can list their home on airbnb or similar site at a high rate. And, blocked the holiday season for themselves. So, there home will rent via airbnb only few times a year. And, it become investment property, and they can claim the tax break.

          https://michaelwest.com.au/airbnb-tax-rort-why-is-the-govern…

          • pjetson on 13/05/2025 - 21:45
            +10

            @IamHere2: A legitimate holiday home isn't rented out, so there is no tax break. If an owner decides to rent out their holiday home but still use it as a holiday home, any tax break is only available for the period that it is genuinely available for rental. If the owner uses the house themselves during holiday season, they run the risk of the ATO deciding that it is not a genuine rental and therefore no fax breaks are available.

            For the period that it is genuinely available for rental, it is an investment properly like any other investment property. Any tax breaks are reduced by the ratio of holiday home to rental.

            Owners are getting tax breaks galore on these residences

            Not legitimately.

            The owner of a rental property probably also has to pay land tax and other taxes. And if the house is left vacant, there are even more taxes to pay, at least in Victoria.

            • IamHere2 on 13/05/2025 - 22:06
              -2

              @pjetson: @pjetson, It's more like gaming the system. Yes, house is available for rent for most of the year. However, house rent is almost double as compare to similar houses. So, house is less likely to get rent out. And, owner can claim the tax deduction.

              • pjetson on 13/05/2025 - 22:11
                +3

                @IamHere2:

                However, house rent is almost double as compare to similar houses. So, house is less likely to get rent out

                That's specifically the kind of behaviour that the ATO does not allow.

              • Muppet Detector on 13/05/2025 - 22:13
                +3

                @IamHere2: If they're not renting their house out, they're not generating an income so there's no tax to pay so there's nothing for them to claim a deduction from.

                • IamHere2 on 13/05/2025 - 23:14
                  -5

                  @Muppet Detector: @pjetson, @Muppet Detector, Please watch the first few minutes of the below video, in which Michael explain about it.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lJFiuA2E6s

                  • pjetson on 14/05/2025 - 09:11
                    +2

                    @IamHere2: The ATO are quite clear on what you can and can't do.

                    https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/investments-…

                    If people are not complying with rules, then they should expect to be caught.

                  • gromit on 14/05/2025 - 14:55

                    @IamHere2: regardless of what he says there (and what he says is completely wrong), the rules are crystal clear on this. Setting rental conditions that prevent or disincentivize people from renting the property (like setting the rent at double the market rate) means it is not legitimately available for rent and claiming deductions for it as such is effectively tax fraud. Plenty of people do commit tax fraud all the time, that doesn't mean it is legal. Also using the property yourself means it was not available for rent during that period and therefore you CANNOT claim 365 days as an investment property.

                • trapper on 14/05/2025 - 15:11

                  @Muppet Detector: The rent is income not a deduction. Deductions are things like mortgage interest, land tax, maintenance, depreciation etc

                  If a property is genuinely available for rent then all that is deductible.

                  • Muppet Detector on 20/05/2025 - 13:56

                    @trapper: If the property is not rented out, even if it is available for rent, there is no income. If there is no income, you are not paying any tax. If you're not paying tax, from where are you claiming the deductions?

                    I understand rent is income but if the property is not rented out, there is no income.

            • ColtNoir on 14/05/2025 - 13:28
              -2

              @pjetson: ‘Legitimate’ holiday homes died with the invention of airbnb.

      • GordonD on 13/05/2025 - 16:21
        +4

        I don't think your assumption that vacancy data is based solely on census collection addresses is correct.

        Read the OP's posting again. He actually says, clearly, that the numbers he is quoting are from the census and the ABS.

        • ESEMCE on 13/05/2025 - 18:07
          -1

          I'm not disputing where the numbers came from.
          I'm disputing how the numbers are generated by the ABS.
          Read my comment again.

          • larndis on 14/05/2025 - 07:56

            @ESEMCE: Not sure what you're getting at. What data sources beyond the census do you think are used?

      • GordonD on 13/05/2025 - 18:43
        +1

        Assuming people are correctly completing the census (as is legally required, so a reasonable assumption)

        Same as drivers obeying the speed limit. They are legally required to so its a reasonable assumption everyone would, right?

        I think the reasonable assumption is that some number of people wouldn't, not what ABS tells us, to ensure its big budget, that the census is a highly accurate snapshot of the nation. If that was the case they wouldn't, after they've spent hundreds of millions on the census, then run a smaller scale (?50,000) intensive household survey to tell them how far out the census was and "correct" it accordingly. They wouldn't need to. But the fact is they know that the more questions in a census the less accurate it becomes, and Australia's has too many questions to not generate resentment and consequent lying and census participation avoidance.

      • derrida derider on 15/05/2025 - 20:19

        But the point is the Census does not ask WHY the home is unoccupied that night. Anybody who is on holiday, on a business trip, visiting someone else or just that the house is about to have someone moving in will be recorded as an unoccupied home. You really have no idea at all how many are vacant holiday homes and the like.

        And while I think it fine to tax holiday homes it makes only a small difference to the housing shortage because numerically the housing shortages are in places people want to WORK, not where they want to holiday. Sure there might be a frustrating amount of vacant holiday homes in Byron Bay but fixing that is no help at all for someone seeking affordable rent within commuting distance of Sydney University.

    • Protractor on 13/05/2025 - 22:09

      This statistic on how many homes are vacant is a myth created by people misreading or willfully misinterpreting the census statistics.

      Wrong

    • Grunntt on 14/05/2025 - 11:46
      +3

      2017 Article explains it pretty well

      After that date the reason for properties being empty was not asked on the Census forms so much easier to come up with your own rage-bait reasons.

      Another quite clear explanation

      Another quite easily explained example

      If you tend to use electricity usage as a measure then this one shows -

      Across Australia, MADIP and electricity data both assigned 1.3% of dwellings as inactive, showing no sign of recent use. Inactive dwellings using MADIP ranged from 1.2% in the Australian Capital Territory to 2.4% in the Northern Territory. Inactive dwellings using electricity data ranged from 0.5% in the Australian Capital Territory to 1.9% in South Australia.

      • tenpercent on 14/05/2025 - 15:08
        +1

        Good find.

        Using the electricity usage approach, which seems more reliable than hoping everyone fills in their questionnaire, and the number of dwellings, then there were only around 141 thousand unoccupied dwellings in 2021. So the ABS estimate of unoccupied dwellings in the OP is cooked; they're off by an order of magnitude.

        • gromit on 14/05/2025 - 15:19
          +3

          No the ABS numbers are perfectly fine. It is idiots and the press that infer extra meaning that unoccupied on census night means vacant.

  • freefall101 on 13/05/2025 - 14:16
    +4

    As a percentage of properties, the number of unoccupied homes dropped from 2016 to 2021. Considering the demand for housing since then and the measures implemented to tax empty property, I suspect it would have dropped further. I don't think there would be much more than could be done, but I'm a fan of the laws in Victoria (high taxes and dobbing in anyone keeping an empty property)

    We've always had about 10% of houses empty during the census though, going back to 1981 it's been between 9.2% and 11.2%.

    Holiday homes often aren't in locations where there's a lot of demand, except from other people wanting holiday homes. There's always a portion of the market that's empty between sale and renters - which is a good thing, the market needs liquidity. There's a portion of the population that are single and shacking up with someone else. There are condemned buildings and houses being renovated. There are people in hospital, there are people travelling for work, there are people on holiday, etc. There aren't really a million homes that could be ready for someone to move into tomorrow.

    IMO there should be a straight ban on land banking though, with mandatory acquisition. There are a few blocks near me that have been empty for a couple of years, in an existing residential area with perfectly fine infrastructure. The value of the land can go up by more than the 1% tax each year, as they get rarer to acquire.

    • tenpercent on 13/05/2025 - 14:48
      +2

      There are a few blocks near me that have been empty for a couple of years, in an existing residential area with perfectly fine infrastructure.

      Maybe the owners are currently renting or living with family and saving up to build? Maybe they couldn't afford to buy + build in one go, but buying the property when they did allows them to sometime soon get their own house to live in before prices get out of their reach.

      • freefall101 on 13/05/2025 - 17:45

        True, could well be. Although looking at the sale history on realestate.com.au suggests it hasn't changed hands in quite a while.

        I should have worded it better, the "couple of years" is how long I've lived around here. Looking at the records, it has been empty quite a long time.

        • tenpercent on 13/05/2025 - 17:46
          +1

          Maybe it's where the owner's will use their super money to build their dream retirement house.

  • Ozbar Gain on 13/05/2025 - 14:29
    +13

    They're already paying land tax and it's their property, wouldn't be fair taxing them extra. It's non of your business if the house is vacant

    • JIMB0 on 13/05/2025 - 14:54
      +3

      This post reeks of sour grapes. The have-nots want to tell the hard working have-lots what to do with their assets.

      • fantombloo on 13/05/2025 - 15:39
        +4

        The have-nots just want a system that allows them to be have-enoughs-for-a-decent-life-without-chronic-stress. It's not about telling others what to do with their assets, it's about not existing in a system which is geared to make it much harder to get a foot in the door than to just keep accumulating.

        • brendanm on 13/05/2025 - 17:01
          +4

          The have-nots need to advocate for a drop in demand then.

          • fantombloo on 13/05/2025 - 20:01
            -1

            @brendanm: There's still enough of everything for everyone if resources are spread and people don't hoard.

          • Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 07:31
            +1

            @brendanm: What do you think this tax would do? It's a demand-side control.

            • brendanm on 14/05/2025 - 16:34

              @Parentheses: It is the opposite. It's supply side, it's trying to release housing.

              • Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 18:17
                +1

                @brendanm: Releasing housing from prior demand is lowering demand, not increasing supply. It increases surplus (or in this case reduces deficit). Increasing supply is building more houses.

                • brendanm on 14/05/2025 - 20:14
                  +1

                  @Parentheses: No, it is not lowering demand. It is increasing supply.

                  • Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 22:42

                    @brendanm: How is it building more houses?

                    • brendanm on 15/05/2025 - 07:57

                      @Parentheses: Good lord. It is making houses available, that weren't previously available. Ergo increasing supply.

                      I have 500 people who want a house, and 400 houses.

                      If another 50 houses are now available, I now have 500 people wanting a house, and 450 houses available. This is a supply side change.

                      I have 500 people wanting houses, and 400 houses.

                      If we then cut immigration have 50 people who no longer want a house, we have 450 people wanting a house, and 400 houses. This is a demand side reduction.

                      Hopefully this has helped you with basic supply and demand.

                      • larndis on 19/05/2025 - 08:13

                        @brendanm: Reducing demand and increasing supply are different things, though they may have the same net effect.

                        Parentheses is correct, the proposed tax operates on the demand side of the market. The supply side is the building of homes, and would likely not be affected.

                        Assuming the extra 50 houses were previously vacant and are now on the market due to the introduction of the tax, that is due to reduced demand.

                        You're thinking of the supply of housing as being the number available/on the market, but in general usage (e.g. when politicians say "it's a supply issue!") they are referring to new builds/total housing stock.

                        • brendanm on 19/05/2025 - 20:24

                          @larndis: Nope.

                          • larndis on 20/05/2025 - 01:21

                            @brendanm: LOL, real strong argument mate. Just can't admit when you're wrong.

                            It's literally a tax to disincentivise people from OWNING multiple properties, it's 100% a demand side measure.

                            Go ahead and call it whatever you like though.

          • Nebargains on 16/05/2025 - 16:01

            @brendanm: Yep and instead they just voted for the party that has opened the immigration floodgates

        • JIMB0 on 13/05/2025 - 21:08

          You have to work hard and make sacrifices to become a have. It's always been the case. Those who aren't prepared to do will remain have-nots.

          Those who work extra hard and make a lot of sacrifices often find themselves as have-lots.

          • Protractor on 13/05/2025 - 22:14
            +2

            @JIMB0: That was in the past.If you can't see how fekkin difficult it is to get on the housing merry go round, and how poorly house hoarders and holders are viewed, you are probably a beneficiary of that situation, or in denial.

            • JIMB0 on 13/05/2025 - 22:55
              -3

              @Protractor: It's always been hard work. The only difference now is that complaining about it has become the national pastime of a generation raised to expect rewards without effort.

              I'm no beneficiary, I had to earn it all through hard work and sacrifice. I've only been on the property ladder for a few years now.

              • us3rnam3tak3n on 14/05/2025 - 14:32
                +3

                @JIMB0:

                I'm no beneficiary, I had to earn it all through hard work and sacrifice. I've only been on the property ladder for a few years now.

                Over the last 5 years median home values in Sydney, Canberra, Darwin and Hobart have increased around 30%. In Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane they have increased over 70%. Without a significant correction large swathes of the population are permanently locked out of the market.

                source:
                https://propertyupdate.com.au/the-latest-median-property-pri…

                • JIMB0 on 14/05/2025 - 14:47

                  @us3rnam3tak3n: Yep, prices are always going up. Wait too long to buy and you'll end up having to buy a smaller house further out.

                  I wanted a mansion on the clifftop overlooking the water, but I left it too late and had to settle for a somewhat smaller house with a long walk to the beach. The sea breeze takes a few minutes extra to arrive as well. Life's tough.

          • Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 18:03

            @JIMB0: Becoming a have has always been a combination of luck+hard work. It is possible to replace 100% of the hard work aspect through more luck (we call that inheritance). It is not, and has never been possible to replace 100% of the luck aspect with hard work. Where we run into trouble is when people who have through hard work and luck made it aren't intelligent or honest enough to recognise that they also benefited from luck, and start pointing at all the people who have put in hard work but not also had the luck and said 'if you had worked hard you would have what I have'.

            It's a really dumb position to take. I have watched my total level of required effort plummet through my career while my income has massively increased, and without the luck to provide the opportunities that my hard work made reality I would still be slogging it out for peanuts (as many do until they die).

            • JIMB0 on 18/05/2025 - 17:57
              +1

              @Parentheses: For the majority of people who have made it in Australia, the biggest stroke of luck was just being born in Australia. The rest of it is staying away from the wrong crowd and drugs. After that you're almost guaranteed to make it if you put in a reasonable effort. That's why all these people from overseas want to come here, there's so much opportunity in Australia.

              Australia - The country where everyone wins a prize. As long as you show up and are willing to claim it.

              • Parentheses on 18/05/2025 - 20:06
                -1

                @JIMB0: The people who say that and think the way you do are nothing but blind to all the other luck that exists.

                How wealthy or connected your parents are, what career(s) you try out first, where you are in the country, what school you went to, what skin colour you have, whether your boss likes you, whether the company you start out with is a good one and whether you have the support network to learn whether it is a bad one, what language you grew up speaking - there are a million and more influences on people, but the blind sit there and say 'all of this can be attributed to individual effort and agency'. It's pure ignorance.

                Yes - statistically, a LOT of people in Australia are going to do well. But this isn't about the majority when the minority can still equal millions of people. You flat out cannot point at one successful person and one unsuccessful person in Australia and claim the difference is that one put in a reasonable effort and the other didn't.

    • Protractor on 13/05/2025 - 17:40
      -1

      Higher rates for non full time occupancy. Rate discounts for everyone else that does live full time in their homes.Extra tax for non citizen or dual citizen owners spending more time OS than here.

      • Muppet Detector on 13/05/2025 - 23:00
        -1

        LOL. Even the govt provides social housing to people who don't live in those homes full time.

      • tenpercent on 14/05/2025 - 14:39

        Rate discounts for everyone else that does live full time in their homes.

        So renters get slugged with higher rent to cover non-discounted rates the landlord is paying?

    • Protractor on 13/05/2025 - 19:04
      +2

      Not sure you've made a case for AI.

      • bargaino on 13/05/2025 - 19:42

        Well, it seems people like stupid ill-conceived questions, so I should have used AS.

        • Protractor on 13/05/2025 - 20:30

          Well, it seems people like stupid ill-conceived questions

          This is really NOT one of the stupid ill conceived questions. If investor AHs are depriving our fellow citizens of a home, they can pay tax till their noses bleed AFAIC.
          There's a lot more pointless topics raised as posts here on a regular basis.This aint one.

          • bargaino on 13/05/2025 - 23:11

            @Protractor: My take is more that economic incentives are really, really difficult.
            Such simple fixes are unlikely to yield the results you want.
            We have had some thoughtful responses though.

    • pjetson on 14/05/2025 - 09:13

      what if we put a tax on homes that are just sitting empty?

      Like this one? https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/vacant-residential-land-tax

    • Jaspa7 on 14/05/2025 - 13:52

      "if you didn't even put in the effort to write it.. why should I bother to read it?"

      • bargaino on 14/05/2025 - 15:39

        "If you can't be bothered to read properly, why reply?"
        I did write it. There is a big difference between generated and filtered.

  • tenpercent on 13/05/2025 - 14:43
    +1

    How many of those vacant dwellings were awaiting demolition for new development, or were new builds that were not yet completed, or were old decrepit and unlivable?

    How do they know a dwelling is unoccupied? If someone is simply on holiday does that count as unoccipied? If a cabin in a caravan park was empty on census night was that classed as an unoccupied dwelling (how about hotel rooms)? If a household refused to fill in the census is it assumed the house is unoccupied?

    • Muppet Detector on 13/05/2025 - 19:53
      +3

      If the dwelling forms part of a deceased estate waiting on probate or disbursement, would there be an obligation for it to be occupied during the legal process?

      What happens if probate is delayed because the will is not valid, the nominated executor isn't available, the deceased died intestate or the will is being challenged?

  • elgrande on 13/05/2025 - 14:52
    +1

    Better for it to sit vacant, its impossible to evict a tenant these days unless you plan to demolish it. In addition, you cannot refuse pets, so look forward carpets that smell like dog pi$$.

    • tenpercent on 13/05/2025 - 15:01
      +1

      Better for it to sit vacant

      Maybe you want to speak to your accountant or financial planner and see what they think about your plan.

      • Some Guy on 13/05/2025 - 18:00
        +1

        Not everyone with a second dwelling needs rental income or tax breaks.

        • tenpercent on 13/05/2025 - 18:05

          If they don't need tax breaks why would they complain about a hypothetical new vacancy tax?

    • Protractor on 13/05/2025 - 19:07

      Really ? Impossible? I recall a recent huge wave of opportunistic landlords turfing out tenants for no reason other than hoiking up rent to record levels and exacerbating homelessness.And a heap of other greedy parasites kicking people out so they could turn the rental into short stay gig locations

      • Muppet Detector on 13/05/2025 - 21:43
        -1

        And then there's those opportunistic employees who demand increased wages and other perks for working less hours than any other time in history who think they're hard done by if their employer wants them to actually turn up to work occasionally.

        Then, when they're working those less hours, they have the audacity to whinge that they can't afford rent, save any money or to insure their car because all that spare time means they need to spend more money to entertain themselves and go shopping for coffee makers and $2000 phones and then fork out $6 (or more) for a freakin coffee and $25 for advocado on toast on the days they don't get Uber eats to deliver them a $15 hamburger while they watch pay tv on their Herman mills office chair and 50inch tv screen.

        • Protractor on 13/05/2025 - 22:03

          If you say so. But don't look now,but you're coming down on your Ozb peers. Me? I reckon WFH is a scam

          • Muppet Detector on 13/05/2025 - 22:18

            @Protractor: Just this week at least two of them have admitted to operating their side hustle whilst their supposed to be doing the work part of the WFH concept.

            Besides, what're they gonna do, neg me?

      • elgrande on 14/05/2025 - 06:13
        -1

        turfing out tenants for no reason other than hoiking up rent

        kicking people out so they could turn the rental into short stay gig locations

        You demonstrate my point perfectly. As the owner of the property they should be able to do those things, as they own the property.

        • Parentheses on 14/05/2025 - 07:34

          The right to secure living is far, far more important to society than investor property rights. Nobody ever rioted, stole, or murdered because their investment property slightly lowered in convenience as an investment.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join